Queen v Shaw (Pauline) and Shaw (Colin Francis)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey J |
| Judgment Date | 23 September 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] NICC 34 |
| Court | Crown Court (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 23 September 2010 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2010] NICC 34 Ref:
McCL7939
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
23/09/10
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE CROWN COURT IN NORTHERN IRELAND
______
THE QUEEN
–v-
PAULINE SHAW and COLIN FRANCIS SHAW
________
I INTRODUCTION
McCLOSKEY J
[1] The first Defendant, Pauline Shaw, is charged with murdering Stephen
Shaw (“the deceased”), her husband, on 8th March 2009. She initially maintained
a plea of not guilty. Shortly before the commencement of her trial, she changed
her plea to one of not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter on the
ground of diminished responsibility. This plea was acceptable to the Crown
and, having regard to the expert opinions available (infra), also seemed
appropriate to the court. The second Defendant, Colin Francis Shaw, is the
brother of the deceased. Both Defendants have pleaded guilty to the separate,
though inter-related, count of perverting the course of justice, the particulars
being –
“… that they indicated to both police officers and
paramedics that [the deceased] had been stabbed the
previous night by two male persons in the area of the
Woodstock Road”.
Both Defendants later admitted to police that this was a mendacious account.
[2] The Defendants are aged forty-seven and forty-five years respectively.
The outline of the prosecution case to the court, which was not contentious, was
to the following effect. The deceased died at some unspecified time during the
night of 9th/10th March 2009. The cause of death was a single stab wound to the
left mid thoracic area, inflicted by a kitchen knife, which penetrated two layers
of clothing. During her seventh interview, Mrs. Shaw admitted that she had
2
killed the deceased by stabbing. She claimed that she had not intended to kill
him and had acted in a rage, having been subjected to considerable physical
and verbal abuse by the deceased, both recent and historical. Prior to making
this admission, Mrs. Shaw had canvassed the untruthful story that the deceased
had returned home in a wounded condition the previous evening, having been
the victim of an attack elsewhere. The second Defendant, Colin Shaw, had no
involvement in the attack which precipitated the death. However, in tandem
with Mrs. Shaw, he offered the same dishonest story about how the death had
occurred, thereby concealing the true facts.
[3] According to the autopsy report:
“Death was due to a stab wound of the chest … [which]
had passed between two ribs into the chest cavity, cutting
the small blood vessels that run along the lower border of
one of the ribs. This had resulted in heavy bleeding into the
chest cavity, which caused death. The stab would have
penetrated to a depth of 5.5 centimetres (about 2 inches) …
It is likely that the rate of bleeding was relatively slow and
it is possible that death may have been delayed for an hour
or so …
Had medical and surgical attention been promptly been
sought it is likely that this injury could have been
survived”.
The report also describes a second stabbing injury:
“There was a second stab wound on the left side of the
chest. This extended for only a short distance into fat and
muscle under the skin and on its own is unlikely to have
been life threatening”.
The report contains the following further comment:
“If the weapon had a sharp tip it would have required no
more than a mild to moderate degree of force to inflict the
stab wounds”.
Based on toxicological analysis, Dr. Bentley also comments that the deceased
may have been mildly intoxicated due to alcohol consumption.
[4] As appears from the foregoing, neither Defendant summoned any
medical assistance for the deceased. This notwithstanding the indications in the
evidence, in particular the blood stained upper body clothing and what would
have been visible following its removal, that the main injury was of some
3
gravity. The Defendants claimed that they were unaware of the seriousness of
the injuries and suggested that the deceased had discouraged them from calling
an ambulance. According to the Autopsy Report, there was no evidence of any
defensive action by the deceased.
II REPORTS
Pauline Shaw
[5] Dr. Kennedy, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, examined this Defendant
on behalf of the prosecution. When thus interviewed, this Defendant
recounted, inter alia, her relationship with the deceased, asserting:
“Mrs. Shaw said that the relationship with Stephen Shaw
was characterised by violence and that they would ‘argue
and fight. He has blattered me many times. I would stand
up for myself and hit him back.’ She said that she had
used a knife on him before …she had ‘got a tiny knife
and went wee jabs in the head to make him let go of her’.
She said the police were involved on that occasion but he
dropped the charges”.
The significance of the emphasized excerpt will become apparent presently.
Mrs. Shaw also recounted her extensive consumption of alcohol and prescribed
antidepressant medication, spanning a period of many years.
Dr. Kennedy expresses the following opinion:
“At the time of the offence charged, I believe that Mrs.
Shaw was suffering from an abnormality of mind brought
about by her underlying long term personality disorder
(inherent cause) and dysthymia (disease). It is apparent
from her history that when under stress she becomes much
more irritable, with less tolerance to frustration and
reduced ability to control herself. Whether or not this
abnormality of mind substantially impaired her mental
responsibility is a matter for the jury. My own view is that
it would have impaired her substantially. The alcohol taken
by her on top of prescribed medication has been a
longstanding pattern of behaviour. She is likely to have
been further disinhibited by it, but alcohol is not the sole
driver of the behaviour”.
[6] Focussing specifically on Mrs. Shaw’s capacity to form a certain
intention, Dr. Kennedy continues:
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
Queen v Stockman (Paul)
...as required by art. 13(3)(b) of the 2008 Order. See also R v Kehoe [2009] 1 Cr. App. R(S). 9 cited by McCloskey J in R v Shaw and Shaw [2010] NICC 34. 7 [14] I therefore impose an indeterminate custodial sentence, and order the defendant to serve a minimum term of six years imprisonment bef......