-
From my limited, but fairly relevant, experience (jury foreman on a South London knife crime trial for murder - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41814124)
The judge was very specific with the requirements to reach a verdict of murder in our case
The requirements are
- That it was a deliberate act
- That it was unlawful (i.e. not in reasonable self defense)
- That they intended to kill or cause serious harm
All three must be met
There is nothing about it being planned or premeditated - unless you want to infer that the 'intention' in 3 implies some sort of planning, which I wouldn't agree with.
It's why often you'll find the car park argument, punch thrown, someone falls and hits their head hard, aka 'one punch kills' are manslaughter rather than murder. Because while they are deliberate and unlawful, it is rare that the intention is to kill or cause 'serious' harm.
In the trial I referenced, there was no question about who had killed the boy, the question was around the circumstances
There were 2 charges
Murder
Possession of a weaponManslaughter was also a verdict available to us
I dredged up a Whatsapp chat after the trial was complete and have posted below - I know it's essentially an anecdote, but maybe illustrates that there's often some nuance
It doesn't mention any deliberations that were behind closed doors, just my interpretation at the time. Any names or details included were publicly available to anyone that was in the courtroom. 'Mali' was the victim, 'Lee' was on trial.
As @itsbruce says, it is brutally pragmatic at times and I genuinely believe that we made the only reasonable decision given the circumstances we were presented with.
1 Attachment
- That it was a deliberate act
duncs
-
That's a fascinating (to me, anyway!) account of the way the story and the situation is far more complicated and nuanced than ever appears in the reporting - and your logic behind the verdict seems clear.
(Way more serious than the couple of times I've been on a jury too, where both times it really felt that not even the CPS could be arsed)
jsabine
No. You have to prove intent to kill.
Intent to injure is not murder.
Also the intent to kill must be formed with a clear mind, not in the heat of a confrontation.
Intent to kill is extremely hard to prove, so prosecutors rarely use it unless they have definitive evidence that will convince a judge or jury.