PDA

View Full Version : Happy Slapping, how is this manslaughter?


Anonymous
12-15-2005, 12:32 AM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1930912,00.html

December 15, 2005

The gang that killed a man for kicks guilty only of manslaughter
By David Rose and Nicola Woolcock
A GANG of youths who kicked a bar manager to death during one of their regular rampages of violence were convicted of manslaughter yesterday.

But the 14-year-old girl and three youths who kicked David Morley’s head like a football and filmed the attack on their mobile phones were cleared of murder. Mr Morley, a survivor of the Admiral Duncan pub bombing, was one of eight people savagely assaulted by the group in an hour-long rampage of indiscriminate “happy slapping” attacks last October.

The teenage girl had approached Mr Morley, 37, who was sitting with a friend Alastair Whiteside on London’s South Bank, pointed her mobile phone camera at him and said: “We’re doing a documentary on happy slapping. Pose for the camera.” After her friends had beaten him to the ground, she then kicked Mr Morley in the head two or three times, according to Mr Whiteside. A post-mortem examination likened his injuries to those suffered by a car crash victim or someone who had fallen from a great height.

The Old Bailey jurors heard that gang members regularly went on what they described as “all-nighters”, alcohol-fuelled rampages in which they hunted for vulnerable people to assault. Police said that they were motivated only by thrill-seeking and violence for its own sake. Police had treated the incidents as homophobic as Mr Morley was well known within the gay community.

Homosexual rights groups criticised the manslaughter verdicts and said that his attackers should have been convicted of murder. The judge, who has called for background reports on the defendants, may rule it was a homophobic attack when he sentences them next month.

Peter Tatchell, of OutRage!, said: “David’s killing resulted from a premeditated attack. They must have known that their violence was likely to cause serious and potentially fatal injuries. The manslaughter verdict for the killing of David Morley contrasts with the murder verdict for the killer of Liverpool teenager Anthony Walker.”

The killers, Darren Case, 18, Reece Sargeant, 21, and a 17-year-old boy and the 14-year-old girl, neither of whom can be named because of their age, showed no emotion as the verdicts were read at the Old Bailey. The four, all from Kennington, South London, were also convicted of conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm and remanded in custody until sentencing. The attacks, on October 30 last year, were described in court as “random, indiscriminate violence for what can only have been pleasure”. Some victims are still recovering from their injuries. The attacks were reminiscent of the murder of Timothy Baxter, a law student, in 1999. He was beaten unconscious and thrown into the Thames from a bridge. Mr Baxter and his friend Gabriel Cornish had been mugged by a gang on their way home from a party. Mr Baxter drowned; Mr Cornish survived but has been traumatised ever since.

After he had been assaulted at about 3am, Mr Morley was taken to St Thomas’ Hospital but died in intensive care. He had suffered injuries, including five fractured ribs, and died as a result of a haemorrhage from his ruptured spleen.

Sargeant, who worked by day as a volunteer in a charity shop, was the ringleader of what he called the Sargeant Crew. They roamed the streets of South London with their mobile phones, recording beatings, robbery and graffiti.

Afterwards they joked and boasted about the attacks. One member kept 26 stolen mobile phones in his bedroom as trophies of the attacks. While awaiting trial, Case was said to have boasted: “I’m a murderer. David Morley, that dickhead, that’s the one I killed.”

Mr Morley, from Chiswick, West London, was assistant manager of the Admiral Duncan in Soho, where three people died in the April 1999 bombing by neo-Nazi David Copeland. He had suffered burns, permanent hearing loss and mental trauma but gave away a lot of his compensation money to others whom he thought deserved it. Mr Morley’s elderly parents, Jeff and Doreen Morley, paid tribute outside court to their adopted son. They said: “He was a wonderful son. He had a talent for making people happy.”

Numerous pemeditated attacks, for fun and they call it manslaughter, surely they should be never let out as an example to stamp out this moronic craze. Yet another example of the Legal system failing it would seem :bah:

blinkmeat
12-15-2005, 12:37 AM
Politcal forum material?

and Agreed - thats messed up and should be punished

SFDMALEX
12-15-2005, 12:37 AM
Idiots! Next time Ill kick someones ass Ill make sure to film it too!

djv
12-15-2005, 12:49 AM
Yet another example of the Legal system failing it would seem :bah:

totally failing .. fuckwads like that should be put down.

ZfrkS62
12-15-2005, 01:16 AM
pre-meditated here would be murder 1, plus conspiracy and once you add the hate crime multiplier, those kids are going to be rotting in jail.

the parents of the minors should also be held accountable on this one. Where the fuck were they to let the kids stay out all night drinking and doing this shit???

Overmind
12-15-2005, 02:56 AM
Politcal forum material?

Do you mean that there's a space for discussion whether these retards should have been conviceted of murder?

ZfrkS62
12-15-2005, 03:02 AM
what is the diff between murder and manslaughter? I always figured it was the same thing :?

Anonymous
12-15-2005, 03:08 AM
what is the diff between murder and manslaughter? I always figured it was the same thing :?

manslaughter is usually not premeditated and if it is there has to be a reason to bring it down to this less serious offence. As far as I know if it was premeditated they should have grounds for diminished responsibilty, such as a parent killing a child who is terminaly ill and in pain or they have to be provoked i think. Pretty sure thats how it works in the UK atleast, someone else probably knows/ can explain it better

ZfrkS62
12-15-2005, 03:14 AM
either way this case is going to set a dangerous precedent. Especially when they have eveidence that one of those involved in the killing knew the victim's name.

Vansquish
12-15-2005, 03:30 AM
This is one of the failings of legal systems the world over, and it is part of why I've taken up the arduous process of applying to law schools.

jon_s
12-15-2005, 07:24 AM
Think I will stick to corporate law. :?

As for the definitions, in an accurate legal sense....

Manslaughter:

The unlawful killing of another without malice, express or implied: which may be either voluntarily or involuntarily, but in the commission of some unlawful or negligent act.

Murder:

Unlawful homicide committed with malice aforethought, express or implied. Express malice exists where the person killing does so with the intention of causing death or grevious bodily harm, yet intentionally does the act which to his knowledge is likely to cause such death.

as an aside, Grevious Bodily Harm:

The Offences Against the Persons Act 1847 contains two offences of wounding or causing GBH under Section 18 and 20. Section 18 is by far the most serious as it carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, whereas the maximum for Section 20 is 5 years. The difference is that the prosecution must prove that you intended to cause serious bodily harm under Section 18, whereas they need only show that you acted recklessly under Section 20.

Under both sections, an assault causing grievous bodily harm or wounding is defined as follows.
To constitute a wound the whole skin must be broken. It must be more than a scratch, but one drop of blood would be sufficient.

Grievous bodily harm must be “really serious harm”, an obvious example of which would be a broken bone. There is no legal definition however, and it is a question of fact for the jury to decide.



p.s just for the record, I think that technically the correct decision was made. Whether or not the given situation should have been murder or not is down to the legislators. If they had convicted on a murder any lawyer worth his salt would have appealed and won. Then they would be back on our streets.

jakaracman
12-15-2005, 09:18 AM
What a great judicial sytem. They should all be hanged ... Istead they give the a pat on the back. "Oh, you just had a bit of an accident while kicking the guy in the head. Go on, bu next time kick a little less hard ..."

Overmind
12-15-2005, 09:25 AM
"Oh, you just had a bit of an accident while kicking the guy in the head. Go on, bu next time kick a little less hard ..."

fuck :(

abbor
12-15-2005, 08:53 PM
ahhhh, dont get me started on this one. i think everyone knows where i stand!! :x :x :bad-words: :bad-words: :snipersmile: :snipersmile: :2gunfire: :2gunfire:


Fuck the police?

Mattk
12-16-2005, 05:10 AM
Um, they didn't know they were going to kill the bloke when they started bashing him. Yes, they were idiots; they certainly deserve to rot in jail, but they did not know they were going to kill the bloke. Hence, the attack, although premeditated, was not a premeditated killing.

pharzo
12-16-2005, 07:00 AM
Guys...murder has nothing to do with pre-meditation

Murder is the legal finding that homicide was commited with intent to kill (malice aforethought in UK terms)

Manslaughter is pretty much everything else. If there was no intent to kill but homicide was commited due to negligence or diminished capacity (ie being a minor and drunk)

This is not a failing of the legal system, it's working just as it should. Law should be general, and not decided on a case by case basis.

Also, I don't really see hate crime as a motivator being added to the charges

Mr Morley, a survivor of the Admiral Duncan pub bombing, was one of eight people savagely assaulted by the group in an hour-long rampage of indiscriminate “happy slapping” attacks last October.

Key word, indiscriminate. Just because Mr. Morley happened to be gay, does not mean that this was why he was attacked.

jakaracman
12-16-2005, 05:45 PM
I'm sorry, but a kick (and especially more of them) in the head can and very probably will kill. So this one was premeditated, they should not be allowed to use "we just kicked him, did not want to kill" as excuse ...
And being drunk should not be mitigating circumstance ... Nobody forced the to get drunk ... And being a minor? So what? If they can kill, they can be executed ...

Anonymous
12-16-2005, 05:59 PM
Guys...murder has nothing to do with pre-meditation

Murder is the legal finding that homicide was commited with intent to kill (malice aforethought in UK terms)

Manslaughter is pretty much everything else. If there was no intent to kill but homicide was commited due to negligence or diminished capacity (ie being a minor and drunk)

This is not a failing of the legal system, it's working just as it should. Law should be general, and not decided on a case by case basis.

Also, I don't really see hate crime as a motivator being added to the charges

Mr Morley, a survivor of the Admiral Duncan pub bombing, was one of eight people savagely assaulted by the group in an hour-long rampage of indiscriminate “happy slapping” attacks last October.

Key word, indiscriminate. Just because Mr. Morley happened to be gay, does not mean that this was why he was attacked.

I'm sorry no intent to kill, that is total rubbish, anyone who kicks someone in the head knows there is a good chance they will be seriously injured. The no intent thing can be argued if someone is hit once, some friends of mine witnessed someone get hit last year, ended up a vegetable for the rest of his life because he hit the ground hard :bah: there wasn't intent to kill however. Setting about someone in this manner should be classed as murder IMO, although this may well be within the bounds of the law it doesn't mean that the law should not be changed. Cases should be considered on an individual basis, with circumstances taken into account. Going by Jon's legal definition I'd certainly say there was malice, but then i'm not the one who decides :bah:

pharzo
12-17-2005, 03:24 AM
I'm sorry no intent to kill, that is total rubbish, anyone who kicks someone in the head knows there is a good chance they will be seriously injured.

Just because they know there was a chance, doesn't mean there was intent to kill. They didn't intend to kill him, so there was no intent to kill. They're just some stupid kids who thought it would be funny. They should be charged with manslaughter, and being severe dumbasses

Mattk
12-17-2005, 06:13 AM
Agreed. Pretty much what I said in my last (ignored) post.

It wasn't murder, plain and simple.

graywolf624
12-17-2005, 11:38 AM
One could argue they had malice and intended bodily harm. It could go either way imho. Regardless they should go to jail for a long time.

pharzo
12-17-2005, 11:40 AM
One could argue they had malice and intended bodily harm. It could go either way imho. Regardless they should go to jail for a long time.

So you would charge them with assault? Manslaughter is actually more severe :wink:

graywolf624
12-17-2005, 12:08 PM
The definition of murder as you read from john S (the lawyer among us) was:
Unlawful homicide committed with malice aforethought, express or implied. Express malice exists where the person killing does so with the intention of causing death or grevious bodily harm, yet intentionally does the act which to his knowledge is likely to cause such death.
Was the intent GBH, Id say that is debatable as I mentioned above. Ultimately as John stated it might fly once, but ultimately it would get shot down sometime in an appeal (cause it is debatable as I said)

Though actually they should be charged with assualt in addition to manslaughter and host of other charges. Jack that shit up so its the maximum number of years humanly possible.
I mean theres no way they should get the same penalty as someone who kills someone else in a car accident.

jakaracman
12-17-2005, 04:27 PM
I'm sorry no intent to kill, that is total rubbish, anyone who kicks someone in the head knows there is a good chance they will be seriously injured.

Just because they know there was a chance, doesn't mean there was intent to kill. They didn't intend to kill him, so there was no intent to kill. They're just some stupid kids who thought it would be funny. They should be charged with manslaughter, and being severe dumbasses
If there is a big probability that something will happen (and several hard kicks in the head mean at least 75% chance that the kicked one will die) and you do it anyway, it's premeditated in my book. If I shoot you intentionaly, by your reckoning it's a manslaughter ... I just wanted to wound you, I killed you by accident.
Kicking someone in the head equals intent to kill ... Plain and simple. If legal sytem (or judga or whooever) seys differently, it or he is supporting the criminals ... Which is wrong.

pharzo
12-17-2005, 04:42 PM
If I shoot you intentionaly, by your reckoning it's a manslaughter ... I just wanted to wound you, I killed you by accident.

[lawyer mode]
I guess it would depend on where you shot me. If you shot me in the leg because I slept with your wife, and then the ambulance broke down on the way and I bled out and died, would you be charged with murder? Or if you punched me in the chest (the wife thing again) and this led to commotio cordis (i think this happens if you hit the chest in the upstroke of the t-wave), you would also not be charged with murder. The point is, if you do not intend to kill someone, and you do, it's not murder

[/lawyer mode]

jakaracman
12-20-2005, 05:28 PM
[annoying mode]
I guess there is a diffrence between something you described (hitting someone once and so on ...) and kicking someone repeatedly in the head, dont you think???
[/annoying mode]
:mrgreen: