law related shenanigans

[tris-]

im currently writing up a report of a court case i went to watch.

the facts are as follows -

22 month old child died, mother thought it was because of one incident of being in contact with methadone.

forensic scientists analyse the hair and discover the child was subjected to it orally multiple times through out its life.

ive been asked to state the point of law being discussed and the acts its comes under. as the case is adjourned untill april 07, i dont have time to hear what the judge says.

now for point of law i assume they are discussing the death of the child from methadone use (?). and for the acts, i have no idea. afaik there is no act for manslaughter or murder. i thought it may come under some form of child abuse or acts related to that, but im unsure. the whole thing is quite complex :\

 

[Gamah]

Tilda Inc!

 

[Tilda]

Gonna need more facts than that to pick out a point of law.
What did you see, what submissions did counsel make, what were they debating, what evidence was given, what did experts say, etc etc etc.

 

[tris-]

Gonna need more facts than that to pick out a point of law.
What did you see, what submissions did counsel make, what were they debating, what evidence was given, what did experts say, etc etc etc.

this is all the notes from the case untill it was adjourned. i may of missed a day or two before this, im not exactly sure/

"A 22 month old child was found dead by his Mother. Earlier in the day, the child had some how came into possession of the Mothers Methadone. The Mother was adamant her child had not ingested any but there was a pool of it found on the floor as the child had the bottle tipped upside down. The Mother did not think to contact Accident & Emergency just incase and said her child had been acting normal through out the day. After the Forensic Scientists examined hair samples from the child, they had found the child had orally consumed Methadone multiple times over the period of its life. They also found the child had traces of Heroin and Cocaine even though the Mother claims neither of the two substances had been in the house. The Mother claims to have kept all her medicine in a lockbox that was produced as evidence in court. She also claims there was no way the child could have opened the box. There was a second Defendant, the Mothers Boyfriend, but he was not questioned in court nor where any interviews heard. The case was adjourned and will be heard again in April 2007. "

 

[Cadiva]

Sounds to me like it is a possible case of manslaughter, which would come under the Offences Against The Person Act (if I remember from my law lectures a very long time ago).
Either that, or it's grievious bodily harm (through the administration of a noxious substance - depends if they're arguing whether or not the child got it by itself or was given the methadone).

There's a section that covers willfully administering noxious substances. If the boyfriend is there as a defendant then it's possible he's the one being charged and she's just charged with being an accessory to the crime.

http://cps.gov.uk/legal/section5/chapter_c.html

The Crown Prosecution Service website is very handy anyways, go take a look through that.

It's also possible she's being done for willful neglect, although not sure how they'd be able to prove that one without witnesses to say she didn't look after the child properly etc. In this case, she's be charged under the Children and Young Person's Act.

Not sure which Act the crime of infanticide comes under - that's the offence of deliberately killing your child. Only ever covered one case of it in all my time as a journalist. It's also possible, though doubtful cos it's rare that a mother is charged with it, that she's being done for that.

Whatever the offence, I suspect if they think there's any type of intent in the child's death, they're both looking at a stiff sentence.

 

[Cadiva]

Sounds to me like it is a case of manslaughter, which would come under the Offences Against The Person Act (if I remember from my law lectures a very long time ago).

http://cps.gov.uk/legal/section5/chapter_c.html

There's a section that covers willfully administering noxious substances. If the boyfriend is there as a defendant then it's possible he's the one being charged and she's just charged with being an accessory to the crime.

It's also possible she's being done for willful neglect, although not sure how they'd be able to prove that one without witnesses to say she didn't look after the child properly etc. In this case, she's be charged under the Children and Young Person's Act.

Either way, I suspect if they think there's any type of intent in the child's death, they're looking at a stiff sentence.

Just found this via the Police Federation's website

Baby methadone death trial halted

The trial of two heroin addicts accused of killing their baby son with an overdose of methadone has been halted. Mark Bate, 33, and 23-year-old partner Gemma Fennelly are charged with the manslaughter of 22-month-old Mitchell Bate in Hartlepool in September 2005.

On Tuesday, Judge Peter Fox told the jury at Teesside Crown Court that there had been some complications with expert evidence due to be heard. A new trial is now due to be held in April 2007. The court was due to hear from toxicology experts, but Judge Fox said there had been problems with the evidence and they would require further investigation.

He said it was regrettable but stressed that the facts needed to be right before a trial could proceed. The defendants both deny the manslaughter of their son.

So, from what I can tell here, they are arguing over the admission or otherwise of the forensic evidence. That would be the point of law being debated. They've ordered a retrial, so that means the jury which was hearing the case has possibly heard something which they're now arguing the toss over and so cannot continue to hear the case and give the defendants a fair trial.

 

[Hawkwind]

Burn them! Especially if they are left handed Will need to check if this violiates their basic human rights first ofc.

Some sick people in this world, to intentionally hurt a defenseless baby is quite unbelieveable.

 

[tris-]

J


So, from what I can tell here, they are arguing over the admission or otherwise of the forensic evidence. That would be the point of law being debated. They've ordered a retrial, so that means the jury which was hearing the case has possibly heard something which they're now arguing the toss over and so cannot continue to hear the case and give the defendants a fair trial.

aye thats the trial, that judge fox is a cool mofo.


thanks for the help.

 

[tris-]

btw, am i right in thinking that if found guilty, judge fox would decided the sentance by the use of precedent?

 

[Tilda]

They would be sentanced using government guidelines mainly. Factoring in guilty plees, circumstances etc

Its still hard to pick out a specific legal point. As hawkwind says, they could be arguing over any number of bits and bobs. I dont know in what context your report is, but you could just stick with say manslaughter, research it well, look into acts, precedent etc etc and have that in your report. A more "pick a legal point" rather than pick the legal point.

 

[Cadiva]

Going from what is reported on the Police Fed's site, it would look, to me anyways with my experience of court reporting rather than legal training, that they're arguing over the admissability of this forensic evidence they want to put before the court to show the baby had a long and continual exposure.

I would guess the defence is arguing the forensic evidence and its reliability and whether or not the jury should be told that the hairs showed traces of other drugs.

As for sentencing, well years of court reporting have told me that I never try and guess what the hell a judge is going to do! But, on a sensible note, yes, the judge will sentence following Government guidelines on tariffs for various types of crime based on the severity of what happened and previous precedent usually.

I don't think there actually is anything online that has the guidelines for sentencing available to the public.

 

[tris-]

I would guess the defence is arguing the forensic evidence and its reliability and whether or not the jury should be told that the hairs showed traces of other drugs.

the jury was told other drugs were present.