Murder; Manslaughter: Alternative Verdicts
| Date | 01 December 2007 |
| Author | Annabelle James |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2007.71.6.489 |
| Published date | 01 December 2007 |
| Subject Matter | House of Lords |
House of Lords
Murder; Manslaughter: Alternative Verdicts
R vCoutts [2006] UKHL 39
This was an appeal to the House of Lords following the decision of the
Court of Appeal not to quash the appellant’s conviction for murder.
The 31-year-old victim had been strangled with a pair of tights. Her body
had then been kept in a storage unit for several weeks before it was
found, badly burned, in woodland. The appellant had been convicted of
murder. His contention was that the victim had died during consensual
asphyxial sexual intercourse during a sex game. The prosecution argued
the case on the basis of intentional killing. At the time, both defence and
prosecution counsel were of the view that it would not be in the
interests of justice to leave the offence of manslaughter to the jury,
the appellant preferring to take his chances with a ‘murder or nothing’
verdict rather than accepting the strong possibility of a manslaughter
conviction.
Following his conviction, the appellant appealed to the Court of
Appeal on the grounds that an alternative verdict of manslaughter
should have been left to the jury. This argument was rejected on the
grounds that the suggested alternative verdict was incompatible with
the arguments being put forward at trial and to allow the jury to
consider the alternative verdict would complicate matters unduly and
would not enhance the interests of justice.
On appeal to the House of Lords the appellant argued that the
alternative count should have been left to the jury even though it had
not been raised by counsel for either side as there was credible evidence
to support a manslaughter verdict.
H
ELD
,
ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND REMITTING THE CASE TO THE
C
OURT
OF
A
PPEAL
,
INVITING IT TO QUASH THE CONVICTION
,failure to leave an
alternative manslaughter verdict to the jury amounted to a material
irregularity and accordingly the conviction was unsafe. Whilst the evid-
ence against the appellant with regards to the possibility of a murder
conviction was strong, it could not be said with certainty by an appellate
court that a fully directed jury would not have convicted the appellant of
manslaughter. A judge is under a duty, in the interests of justice and
notwithstanding any views and wishes of trial counsel, to leave any
obvious alternative verdicts for which there is evidence in support.
C
OMMENTARY
The Court of Appeal followed the advice of the House of Lords and
quashed the appellant’s conviction in October 2006, ordering a retrial.
The appellant was convicted of murder at that retrial (see ‘Teacher's
Killer Jailed for Life’, 5 July 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex
/6272330.stm).
489
To continue reading
Request your trial