Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

We beat him to death, accidentally, your Honour

17:14 / 14.12.05

A 14-year-old girl and three men were today convicted of killing bar manager David Morley during a "random, indiscriminate and terrifying" spree of violence.

A jury sitting at the Old Bailey in London found the four guilty of manslaughter, not guilty of murder. The 14-year-old girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, Darren Case, 18, Reece Sargeant, 21, and a 17-year-old man were also convicted of conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm.

Mr Morley, 37, had survived the Soho nail bomb in 1999, but fell victim to the gang who beat him to death in a "Clockwork Orange" style attack on the South Bank of the Thames in the early hours of October 30 last year.

The teenage girl, who is now 15 years old, allegedly filmed part of the attack on her mobile phone.

I cannot, for the life of me, see how these murderous thugs are only guilty of manslaughter.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

18:56 / 14.12.05

The pathologist's report said Mr Morley's injuries would be more commonly seen in the aftermath of a road traffic accident or a fall from a great height.

I can only suppose that gay people somehow can't be murdered, just like sex workers can't be raped.

I can't for the life of me see how they were able to roam around kicking people's heads in and filming it for a fucking hour without anyone stopping them.

19:31 / 14.12.05

I cannot, for the life of me, see how these murderous thugs are only guilty of manslaughter.

I imagine (somewhat incredulously, but) that the manslaughter conviction hinged on an argument by the defense that when the gang attacked Morley there was no actual intent to kill, as such - they only intended to "beat him up," as they had their earlier victims. That he happened to die as a result of their actions was regrettable (in the eyes of the court, etc.), but not grounds for a murder conviction. Cue speech to jury about the importance of meting out punishment according to the strict letter of The Law, without allowing emotion to lead one astray.

Vile little loophole, if so.

21:02 / 14.12.05

With any luck, prison security guards will beat the hell out of them.

22:36 / 14.12.05

Yes, that would explain a manslaughter conviction, Lepidopteran. I cannot see how anyone with an IQ in double figures could have deliberated on a jury and come to that conclusion. If they had taken any care whatsoever to prevent the injuries from being fatal, I might have seen it, but they beat the man so savagely that he died a few hours later. There is no suspicion of mitigation. I hope the sentencing is stiff and they don't see Freedom again till they're middle aged.

pointless & uncalled for

09:58 / 15.12.05

There is the possibility that they were directed by the judge specifically not to consider a charge of murder, which could be to do with limitations of evidence.

If a judge feels that a jury is engaging in conjecture to reach their decisions then they may be forced to vacate the decision of the jury in the interests of justice. This is justice by judicial definition rather than by ours.

Had this been a conviction of murder there is a real danger that an appeal could have seen the conviction overturned and drawn the case into a legal quagmire that resulted in an even worse result.

14:38 / 15.12.05

I was under the impression that a murder conviction could be bought as long as there was evidence someone wanted to do serious harm to a person, even if they hadn't considered beforehand that they'd kill them?

Either way, that these people are off the streets has to be a good thing. From the article in the paper this morning, some of the kids involved were from a fairly horrific background themselves, and hopefully they'll be able to get some help as well, not that this in any way excuses what they've done.

Does anyone get the impression that it really was violence for violence's sake, or is that just a cover for something that would have certainly earned a murder conviciton for the perpetrators? It's kind of terrifying that a large group could act in such a random, psychotic way and get away with it for as long as they apparently did.

15:22 / 15.12.05

Quite right Nameinuse - Intention to cause at least 'Serious Harm' (GBH normally encompasses this - and others were charged with conspiracy to cause GBH...) = muder.

'Some harm' = Manslaughter.

I can't see how a jury could find that either, but then I haven't seen the trial. Unfortunately, I think alot of juries see the alternative manslaughter count as a 'fudge'.

15:33 / 15.12.05

If a judge feels that a jury is engaging in conjecture to reach their decisions then they may be forced to vacate the decision of the jury in the interests of justice. This is justice by judicial definition rather than by ours.

Don't quite know what you're getting at here, Seldom. The judge can, after hearing the prosecution case, decide that the evidence is too weak for any jury to reach a guilty decision. A 'half-time' submission like this is done before any defence evidence is heard. If this was done in this trial, it failed, because it was left to a jury.

And if they had received a murder conviction, shouldn't they be allowed a right to appeal? They may still have grounds to appeal a manslaughter conviction. And if the conviction is quashed, that means they're innocent, not really a legal quagmire.

15:40 / 20.12.05

I suppose this is the sort of case that the first degree/second degree distinction is being suggested for.

Its interesting that a lot of the coverage today has assumed that it will be people who are currently convicted of plain murder that will now be accused under the 'second degree murder' charge, rather than people who are found guilty of manslaughter like the people in this case.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

04:44 / 21.12.05

Had the guy been a copper, who reckons the verdict would have still been manslaughter?

12:25 / 21.12.05

If the victim had been a copper, they'd have caught them all within a week, like they did in that Leeds shooting.

Its interesting that a lot of the coverage today has assumed that it will be people who are currently convicted of plain murder that will now be accused under the 'second degree murder' charge, rather than people who are found guilty of manslaughter like the people in this case.

Yeah, I think its about time we recognised degrees of murder in the UK.

I suppose you could argue that the recognition of different echelons of a murder offence are taken into account within the life sentence tariffs that you can get if found guilty.

These you have to serve before you're considered for parole, and the terms (used as a base term that is then adjusted by mitigation) 15 years at the least, 30 years and a full life term.

The problem comes when you compare the sentences with manslaughterers, who can get sentences right down to suspended sentences, or just a few years.

It looks like there's a lacuna that needs to be adressed for murders where 15 years is too harsh - 'mercy killings' for example.

Can't help feeling, however, you would get more verdicts of guilty for murder where the jury had an option of murder conviction types to choose from - it would mean a defendant has to jump each murder 'hurdle'.