UK UK - Sarah Wellgreen, 46, Kent, 9 Oct 2018

[Tortoise]

They haven't said anything about a bail application but looking at those timings, the prosecutor's submission and the judge's remarks it might be that they adjourned for 15-20 minutes to consider one and it hasn't been reported.

 

[jessie]

Could anyone clarify what the Judge means here please? From this article:
Missing mum's ex denies murder

Judge David Griffith-Jones QC told Lacomba it was important that he set out by March 8 the case he intended to advance.

 

[Tortoise]

Could anyone clarify what the Judge means here please? From this article:
Missing mum's ex denies murder

Judge David Griffith-Jones QC told Lacomba it was important that he set out by March 8 the case he intended to advance.

He has to say what his defence is - for instance, didn't do it, did it in self-defence, killed her by accident etc.

 

[jessie]

He has to say what his defence is - for instance, didn't do it, did it in self-defence, killed her by accident etc.

Thank you.

 

[deugirtni]

He has to say what his defence is - for instance, didn't do it, did it in self-defence, killed her by accident etc.

That seems odd, because it reports that he has claimed he didn't do it:
"The former partner of a woman missing for more than three months has today denied murdering her."
So from that, I'm assuming that in court, he pleaded 'not guilty'... and then once his trial begins, the prosecution will present their case... and...
Well...... maybe it is different there... but here, the defendant doesn't have to state in advance whether or not he will present a defence. And the jury/judge has to wait until the entire prosecution's case has been presented, in order to find out, both whether he will present a defence, and if so, what the defence will consist of.
Maybe it is different in UK?
I too am also curious about the true meaning of that comment from the judge.
If he is saying it was accidental, one would think he would've already told police about HOW.. and if it had any merit, the prosecution might have changed the charge to manslaughter or something? (Or whatever your lesser charges are over there)
If he is saying he was insane at the time, one would think he would've already told his lawyer, and his lawyer would've made arrangements for him to have psych testing, and results sent to prosecution, and perhaps charges changed to something different??
Otherwise.... why would he have to say anything at all?? He can wait until he sees how all the evidence plays out in court in front of a jury, and decide from there, whether it is important for him to say anything at all, can't he??

 

[Legally Bland]

That seems odd, because it reports that he has claimed he didn't do it:
"The former partner of a woman missing for more than three months has today denied murdering her."
So from that, I'm assuming that in court, he pleaded 'not guilty'... and then once his trial begins, the prosecution will present their case... and...
Well...... maybe it is different there... but here, the defendant doesn't have to state in advance whether or not he will present a defence. And the jury/judge has to wait until the entire prosecution's case has been presented, in order to find out, both whether he will present a defence, and if so, what the defence will consist of.
Maybe it is different in UK?
I too am also curious about the true meaning of that comment from the judge.
If he is saying it was accidental, one would think he would've already told police about HOW.. and if it had any merit, the prosecution might have changed the charge to manslaughter or something? (Or whatever your lesser charges are over there)
If he is saying he was insane at the time, one would think he would've already told his lawyer, and his lawyer would've made arrangements for him to have psych testing, and results sent to prosecution, and perhaps charges changed to something different??
Otherwise.... why would he have to say anything at all?? He can wait until he sees how all the evidence plays out in court in front of a jury, and decide from there, whether it is important for him to say anything at all, can't he??

I'm not sure to what extent he has to disclose his defence, but he has to disclose things which can be investigated.

If he wants to blame it on Dave, the prosecution has the chance to check out Dave's alibi etc before trial.

That's how I understand it, but I don't know the exact rules.

 

[deugirtni]

I'm not sure to what extent he has to disclose his defence, but he has to disclose things which can be investigated.

If he wants to blame it on Dave, the prosecution has the chance to check out Dave's alibi etc before trial.

That's how I understand it, but I don't know the exact rules.

I'm not sure on the exact rules either, but over here (and I believe our court system is based on your court system??) if the accused, during his defence, can create 'reasonable doubt', then a jury convicts, or not. I suppose the accused can't just grab at random straws to say certain things happened, out of the blue, without proof though.
Just wondering..... is it possible that this man could possibly have tried to plea bargain, ie by trying to make some kind of deal with the prosecution that for example, he would plead guilty to manslaughter (or your equivalent?), in exchange for.. whatever reduced sentence?... but it was denied, and so a trial will go ahead... but in that trial, it would have to be disclosed that the accused had admitted that something had happened, which would bode badly for the accused.. unless during his 'defence', he stated what transpired and let the jury decide whether to convict on murder one, murder two, or manslaughter?
What are the murder/killing categories over there?

Added: I'm wondering if the accused *did* try to plea bargain, that portion of this court appearance could have been media-suppressed, so as not to give bias against the accused in advance of the jury being chosen, etc?

 

[Tortoise]

That seems odd, because it reports that he has claimed he didn't do it:
"The former partner of a woman missing for more than three months has today denied murdering her."
So from that, I'm assuming that in court, he pleaded 'not guilty'... and then once his trial begins, the prosecution will present their case... and...
Well...... maybe it is different there... but here, the defendant doesn't have to state in advance whether or not he will present a defence. And the jury/judge has to wait until the entire prosecution's case has been presented, in order to find out, both whether he will present a defence, and if so, what the defence will consist of.
Maybe it is different in UK?
I too am also curious about the true meaning of that comment from the judge.
If he is saying it was accidental, one would think he would've already told police about HOW.. and if it had any merit, the prosecution might have changed the charge to manslaughter or something? (Or whatever your lesser charges are over there)
If he is saying he was insane at the time, one would think he would've already told his lawyer, and his lawyer would've made arrangements for him to have psych testing, and results sent to prosecution, and perhaps charges changed to something different??
Otherwise.... why would he have to say anything at all?? He can wait until he sees how all the evidence plays out in court in front of a jury, and decide from there, whether it is important for him to say anything at all, can't he??

I agree deurgirtni, he has pleaded not guilty today, so it is an unexpected comment at this stage. All I can think is there may be parts of the proceedings that aren't being fully reported to put it into context. It suggests to me that the prosecution is going to need advance notification of something to prepare for trial.

 

[Tortoise]

I'm not sure on the exact rules either, but over here (and I believe our court system is based on your court system??) if the accused, during his defence, can create 'reasonable doubt', then a jury convicts, or not. I suppose the accused can't just grab at random straws to say certain things happened, out of the blue, without proof though.
Just wondering..... is it possible that this man could possibly have tried to plea bargain, ie by trying to make some kind of deal with the prosecution that for example, he would plead guilty to manslaughter (or your equivalent?), in exchange for.. whatever reduced sentence?... but it was denied, and so a trial will go ahead... but in that trial, it would have to be disclosed that the accused had admitted that something had happened, which would bode badly for the accused.. unless during his 'defence', he stated what transpired and let the jury decide whether to convict on murder one, murder two, or manslaughter?
What are the murder/killing categories over there?

Added: I'm wondering if the accused *did* try to plea bargain, that portion of this court appearance could have been media-suppressed, so as not to give bias against the accused in advance of the jury being chosen, etc?

I think if he'd admitted something he'd have to tell them what he did with her body. I wish I lived near the court to be able to go to these hearings.

 

[Tortoise]

I'm even wondering if it is a reporting error and he told the CPS that they have to tell the court what their case is, without a body. I know that seems unlikely but it does seem to be more of an appropriate comment for them rather than a defendant who has pleaded not guilty.

 

[deugirtni]

I think if he'd admitted something he'd have to tell them what he did with her body. I wish I lived near the court to be able to go to these hearings.

That would be fantastic if you could attend! Does anyone on the thread live anywhere near?

ETA: I had also been expecting to read something about who from the victim's side, showed up at this court appearance that was held.

 

[Alyce]

That would be fantastic if you could attend! Does anyone on the thread live anywhere near?

ETA: I had also been expecting to read something about who from the victim's side, showed up at this court appearance that was held.

Quite often the Press will protect the victim's family by not mentioning or photographing them at this stage - although this will not be the same for the trial, when I am sure they will be photographed and listed.

 

[Alyce]

Found this - perhaps the Judge is just trying to ensure that the Defence will not seek to delay the trial - so he is giving BL a reminder to be fully prepared by March - as Legally said above, if he plans to implicate someone else then he has to have that evidence ready pre trial.

If not that, then am not sure what it means - other than an error in reporting - because, as you said Deug - he doesn't have to prove he is innocent, the onus is on the Prosecution to prove guilt.



You should always be in a position at the PTPH to provide the court with the witnesses’ dates to avoid. You must also be prepared to raise any difficulties you have in complying with the prosecution’s disclosure obligations under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and be ready to put forward a reasonable timetable for resolving those difficulties.

At the Crown Court - Court Stage - Enforcement Guide (England & Wales)

 

[jessie]

Well I rang Kentonline to ask if it was a mistake but was told no; that it would refer to Ben making out a case for his defence to the case the prosecution are putting forward. I suppose one has to defend oneself, can't after all just say 'not guilty' prove it !! All sounds odd to me.
Wish there had been more journalists in court though.

Just to add this was from KentLive :
The judge said: “Well Mr Lacomba, the next hearing subject to anything that arises, is on May 17, when steps will be taken to ensure everything in in order for trial commencing on June 18.

 

[Tortoise]

Thanks jessie!

 

[jessie]

Ha ! They asked what was my interest... was I Ben's mum

 

[jessie]

Maybe it is to do with Duty of Disclosure as in this link? Disclosure in Criminal Cases | Defence-Barrister.co.uk — Defence-Barrister.co.ukThe-Defence-Statement.
I can understand that the prosecution may present evidence that may need the defence to reciprocate.

 

[Legally Bland]

Maybe it is to do with Duty of Disclosure as in this link? Disclosure in Criminal Cases | Defence-Barrister.co.uk — Defence-Barrister.co.ukThe-Defence-Statement.
I can understand that the prosecution may present evidence that may need the defence to reciprocate.

I think that must be it. Good find.
_______________

The Defence Statement – the Defence Duty of Disclosure in Criminal Cases

A Defence Statement is mandatory in Crown Court cases and optional (but sometimes valuable) in Magistrates’ Court cases. If you are unsure if your case is one which will remain in the Magistrates’ Court or one which can go to the Crown Court have a look at Which Court Will I Go To?

Section 6A of the CPIA provides the requirements of a Defence Statement which must be a written statement setting out:

(a) the nature of the accused’s defence, including any particular defences on which he intends to rely,

(b) the matters of fact on which he takes issue with the prosecution,

(c) in the case of each such matter, why he takes issue with the prosecution,

(d) particulars of the matters of fact on which he intends to rely for the purposes of his defence,

(e) any points of law (including any point as to the admissibility of evidence or an abuse of process) which he wishes to take, and any authority on which he intends to rely for that purpose.

(2) A defence statement that discloses an alibi must give particulars of it, including—

(a) the name, address and date of birth of any witness the accused believes is able to give evidence in support of the alibi, or as many of those details as are known to the accused when the statement is given;

(b) any information in the accused’s possession which might be of material assistance in identifying or finding any such witness in whose case any of the details mentioned in paragraph (a) are not known to the accused when the statement is given.

A Defence Statement must be served within 28 days of the prosecution providing initial disclosure (or purporting to do so) and in the Magistrates’ Court, if a decision is taken to serve a Defence Statement, this must be done within 14 days of the date when the prosecution complies with its duty of initial disclosure (or purports to do so). Within these time limits an application may be made to extend time for service.

(More at link.)

 

[Nikynoo]

I would imagine, that unless the prosection can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Sarah is dead, his defence will be she's not dead? As far as I can tell from the information released in the media, the evidence against B is circumstantial. I will be interested to see how the prosection approaches this.

 

[HayLouise]

Search for Sarah Wellgreen goes on four months after mum vanished in Kent as police scour woodland