Lucy Letby: the judge’s direction: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|crime|}}{{drop|I|n his summing}} up to the jury, Mr Justice Goss instructed the jury: | {{a|crime|}}{{drop|I|n his summing}} up to the jury, Mr Justice Goss instructed the jury: | ||
{{Quote| | {{Quote| | ||
“If you are sure that someone on the unit was deliberately harming a baby or babies | “If you are sure that someone on the unit was deliberately harming a baby or babies you do not have to be sure of the precise harmful act or acts; in some instances there may have been more than one. To find the defendant guilty, however, you must be sure that she deliberately did some harmful act to the baby the subject of the count on the indictment and the act or acts were accompanied by the intent and, in the case of murder, was causative of death [...].”<ref>{{pl|https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf|''R v Letby'' <nowiki>[</nowiki>2024<nowiki>]</nowiki> EWCA Crim 748}}.</ref>}} | ||
As a principle of law, this is undoubtedly correct, and serves to resolve a probabilistic paradox which might otherwise arise. | |||
As a principle of law, this is undoubtedly correct, and serves to resolve a probabilistic paradox which might otherwise | |||
Say a defendant is charged with murder. There is unimpeachable evidence that the victim died as a result of violent blunt trauma to the head within a time window in which the defendant was the only person to be in contact with the victim, and there is eyewitness evidence of a heated argument after which the defendant announced he was going to murder the victim. Immediately afterward, the defendant is arrested in possession of a hammer, a club and a lead pipe, all of which are covered in the victim’s blood. There no doubt that the defendant was responsible for the murder: there is evidence that the defendant used each weapon, but it is not clear with which she administered the deadly blow. | Say a defendant is charged with murder. There is unimpeachable evidence that the victim died as a result of violent blunt trauma to the head within a time window in which the defendant was the only person to be in contact with the victim, and there is eyewitness evidence of a heated argument after which the defendant announced he was going to murder the victim. Immediately afterward, the defendant is arrested in possession of a hammer, a club and a lead pipe, all of which are covered in the victim’s blood. There no doubt that the defendant was responsible for the murder: there is evidence that the defendant used each weapon, but it is not clear with which she administered the deadly blow. | ||
| Line 17: | Line 15: | ||
Only then can the jury be sure that Ms. Letby was responsible, regardless of what she actually did. | Only then can the jury be sure that Ms. Letby was responsible, regardless of what she actually did. | ||
Now these findings are not determinative of Ms. Letby’s innocence, but | Now these findings are not determinative of Ms. Letby’s innocence, but they do indicate there are plausible alternative explanations such that the jury cannot be sure, without better evidence, that Ms Letby was responsible. | ||
The judge later directed the jury: | |||
{{quote| | |||
“In the case of each child, without necessarily having to determine the precise cause or causes of their death, and for which no natural or known cause was said to be apparent at the time, you must be sure that the act of acts of the defendant, whatever they were, caused the child’s death, in that it was more than a minimal cause. The defendant says that she did nothing inappropriate, let alone harmful to any child. Her case is that the sudden collapses and deaths were or may have been from natural causes or from some unascertained reason or from some failure to provide appropriate care and were not attributable to any deliberate harmful act by her.” | |||
}} | |||