Grace Millane
-
Looking a bit stronger for the opposition when they outline their case in the summing up.
Basically they maintain (supported by their witnesses) a situation of 'reckless intent'
The Crown doesn't have to prove the defendant intended to kill Grace Millane," he begins.
"I want to make a few points clear at the outset in the hope they might carry through with you. There is more than one method by which a verdict of murder may be returned."
"You may form the view that he didn't intend to kill Grace - and i'll be asking you to consider that very seriously - but in the end, the Crown only has to prove [beyond a reasonable doubt] "reckless intent".
"That is that the defendant knew he was causing harm that might cause death, he was aware of that risk, and he took it, and as a result of taking that risk, death occurred.
"That is reckless intent, conscious risk taking. You can kill someone by conscious risk taking and in this country that is murder," he tells the jury.
"So when I speak of the recklessness of the defendant, if you are satisfied you knew he was doing something that may be likely to cause harm, he appreciated that risk and took it - then he is guilty of murder.
They have pointed to his 'manner' in lying that is inconsistent with someone panicking and trying to avoid blame and singled out the lack of difference between his proven lies and the story he gave about the death. Pointed out that he took photos of her while dead as inconsistent with someone worried about blame for something they didn't do.
Also have declared that he would have had to have continued strangulation long after she went limp or unconscious to kill her. (this is the scientific opinion that the defence has tried to counter.
So basically are saying that while she may have asked for asphyxiation as part of sex he took the opportunity to go further at the spur of the moment then tried to work out how to deal with the situation afterwards.
-
*"That is that the defendant knew he was causing harm that might cause death, he was aware of that risk, and he took it, and as a result of taking that risk, death occurred.
"That is reckless intent, conscious risk taking. You can kill someone by conscious risk taking and in this country that is murder," he tells the jury*
That's interesting given the context of the case - if anyone is participating in consenting BDSM, with all the checks/balances (safe words etc), then you are still subject to a possible murder charge if it goes wrong? Rather than a manslaughter/accidental death charge? Acknowledging that this is the edge case of things going as wrong as possible.
Edit - meant to ask about impaired decision making also - if they both were pissed then what? the above clarification implies conscious decision-making and actions. So his state of inebriation or whatever has no bearing?
-
@Paekakboyz said in Grace Millane:
*"That is that the defendant knew he was causing harm that might cause death, he was aware of that risk, and he took it, and as a result of taking that risk, death occurred.
"That is reckless intent, conscious risk taking. You can kill someone by conscious risk taking and in this country that is murder," he tells the jury*
That's interesting given the context of the case - if anyone is participating in consenting BDSM, with all the checks/balances (safe words etc), then you are still subject to a possible murder charge if it goes wrong? Rather than a manslaughter/accidental death charge? Acknowledging that this is the edge case of things going as wrong as possible.
Edit - meant to ask about impaired decision making also - if they both were pissed then what? the above clarification implies conscious decision-making and actions. So his state of inebriation or whatever has no bearing?
This is where the judge comes in. To clarify all of that (I hope)
-
@Crucial when I was on Jury service earlier this year, the Judge explained things well in his summary and they give you like a 'cheat sheet' where it spells things out clearly for the jury on the requirements under the law and for the charges.
My understanding was this had become standard practice in NZ Courts?
-
@Paekakboyz People can't consent to death (Crimes Act) and the common law around consenting to violence has the threshold at actual harm (injury or wounding). So, you can consent to acts which normally be assault in sports e.g. boxing, martial arts, rugby etc., but you would normally be unable to consent to anything more serious unless there is a public interest in allowing consent e.g. surgery which often involves wounding and administering dangerous substances, but the public interest is in allowing it rather than not.
In terms of BDSM, some is probably fine with safe words etc but if someone dies during it and the activity is one in which is death could reasonably be seen as possible, consent is no defence. Whether murder or manslaughter probably depends on the specifics of the incident - keep choking, hard to defend, hit them with something and they die from a punctured lung, maybe just manslaughter. In the case of injuries, the police may not bother if nobody makes a formal complaint, but if it's a serious beating that causes broken bones etc, and the hospital/doctor reports it, it could well result in criminal charges.
-
@canefan said in Grace Millane:
@Godder the consent issue reminds me of the Peter Plumley Walker case. Chisnell got convicted but i can't recall if it was murder
Chignell (there was a bloke Chisnall who did something recently). I think she was convicted of murder of Plumley Walker, then it was appealed - jury undecided, then acquitted of murder. 3 trials. I remember it because it kept going backwards.
-
@Snowy said in Grace Millane:
@canefan said in Grace Millane:
@Godder the consent issue reminds me of the Peter Plumley Walker case. Chisnell got convicted but i can't recall if it was murder
Chignell (there was a bloke Chisnall who did something recently). I think she was convicted of murder of Plumley Walker, then it was appealed - jury undecided, then acquitted of murder. 3 trials. I remember it because it kept going backwards.
So did she end up convicted of anything?
-
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
After only one day of the defence I am wondering how this case even came to being tested on a murder charge.
The big key, which the prosecution quite obviously ignored is that Grace was very much into BDSM, had sign ons to a number of BDSM boards/sites and had told friends how she liked playing like that.
Now it could still be that he got carried away, or that the pissed state they were in meant that they didn't have the control over a dangerous act, but the argument that this was instigated by him is rapidly vanishing. He may well have lied about everything else and we still will never know exactly what happened but the story that she asked him to get rough and use asphyxiation is not only supported but likely.
Surely the investigators/prosecutors must have known all of this?
I can see now why name suppression was successfully argued. If this does turn out to be misadventure then casting him as a murderer would be unfair. Most certainly though, he should be exposed afterwards for despicably trying to cover things up and causing even more pain to her family.A similar high profile example in the UK (of death not cover up) was the guy convicted of manslaughter by gross negligence when he took his date out on a speedboat on the Thames late at night after they had both got hammered. He crashed the boat and she died. At the time I actually thought that there was a lack of acknowledgement in that case for her part in proceedings. She was a willing (if drunk) party to getting on the boat. She wasn't forced into the situation or so drunk that she couldn't have assessed the risk herself. He did act recklessly though once on the boat by going too fast and capsizing.
The reason I make the comparison is that both parties were willing, both parties were drunk, they took a risk and he then increased that risk. There was no thought of a murder charge.Maybe the prosecution here are deliberately aiming high to test and show that a higher charge was tested in fairness?
I know some here will come up with a conspiracy theory of govt pressure but to be fair when a young women goes missing and her body is stuffed in a suitcase and buried you are probably obliged to test that her death was deliberate or through the accused knowing he was at fault.Prosecution have a strong case. Yes, Grace was into BDSM but the accused has had past sexual encounters who say that he took it too far.
The biggest point for me is that even if Grace instigated asphyxiation, the accused likely would have had to choke her for a long time while she had already lost consciousness. The accused can't use being drunk as an excuse although Grace being drunk could explain how she died so quickly. The only thing which saves the defence on this point is that the science is not 100% clear. Simon Stables couldn't say exactly how long he would have had to choke her for.
The defence's best point is that the forensic evidence seems to back up his chain of events.
Overall, it is a toss-up for me whether it meets the reasonable doubt threshold. I would probably go not-guilty of murder but it is very close.
-
@hydro11 said in Grace Millane:
@Crucial said in Grace Millane:
After only one day of the defence I am wondering how this case even came to being tested on a murder charge.
The big key, which the prosecution quite obviously ignored is that Grace was very much into BDSM, had sign ons to a number of BDSM boards/sites and had told friends how she liked playing like that.
Now it could still be that he got carried away, or that the pissed state they were in meant that they didn't have the control over a dangerous act, but the argument that this was instigated by him is rapidly vanishing. He may well have lied about everything else and we still will never know exactly what happened but the story that she asked him to get rough and use asphyxiation is not only supported but likely.
Surely the investigators/prosecutors must have known all of this?
I can see now why name suppression was successfully argued. If this does turn out to be misadventure then casting him as a murderer would be unfair. Most certainly though, he should be exposed afterwards for despicably trying to cover things up and causing even more pain to her family.A similar high profile example in the UK (of death not cover up) was the guy convicted of manslaughter by gross negligence when he took his date out on a speedboat on the Thames late at night after they had both got hammered. He crashed the boat and she died. At the time I actually thought that there was a lack of acknowledgement in that case for her part in proceedings. She was a willing (if drunk) party to getting on the boat. She wasn't forced into the situation or so drunk that she couldn't have assessed the risk herself. He did act recklessly though once on the boat by going too fast and capsizing.
The reason I make the comparison is that both parties were willing, both parties were drunk, they took a risk and he then increased that risk. There was no thought of a murder charge.Maybe the prosecution here are deliberately aiming high to test and show that a higher charge was tested in fairness?
I know some here will come up with a conspiracy theory of govt pressure but to be fair when a young women goes missing and her body is stuffed in a suitcase and buried you are probably obliged to test that her death was deliberate or through the accused knowing he was at fault.Prosecution have a strong case. Yes, Grace was into BDSM but the accused has had past sexual encounters who say that he took it too far.
The biggest point for me is that even if Grace instigated asphyxiation, the accused likely would have had to choke her for a long time while she had already lost consciousness. The accused can't use being drunk as an excuse although Grace being drunk could explain how she died so quickly. The only thing which saves the defence on this point is that the science is not 100% clear. Simon Stables couldn't say exactly how long he would have had to choke her for.
The defence's best point is that the forensic evidence seems to back up his chain of events.
Overall, it is a toss-up for me whether it meets the reasonable doubt threshold. I would probably go not-guilty of murder but it is very close.
I agree that once the prosecution’s case was laid out as a whole it made much more sense.
I am also very close, which in itself makes you wonder about reasonable doubt.
His story just doesn’t ring true but that could also be for other reasons not argued out. Does lying make him a murderer? -
The jury is now being talked through the difference between murder and manslaughter, as a part of Justice Simon Moore's address.
“Only if you do not find the accused guilty of murder, do you go on to consider manslaughter,” Moore says to the jury.
"It is only at that point does the issue of consent comes in. Consent is not a defence to murder,”
The defence does not dispute the accused applied pressure to Grace's neck, which resulted in her death, the court is told.
But there is more than one way to commit culpable homicide, or a blame-worthy killing of one person by another, he says.
One definition of murder is the intention to kill.
However, "reckless intent" can also result in murder, the jury is told.
If the accused applied pressure to Grace's neck with the intention of causing injury, knowing his actions could cause death, and carried on regardless - that is also murder, Justice Moore tells the jury.
-
@taniwharugby said in Grace Millane:
and carried on regardless - that is also murder, Justice Moore tells the jury.
Key point possibly and carried on regardless - that is also murder, Justice Moore tells the jury.
-
-
Gee the herald is really flogging this all they can’t aren’t they. If updated daily reports wasn’t enough now we have this special ‘final days’ article. I assume 75% of the feralds ‘journalists’ are working day and night on this story.
What are they going to do when it’s over? -
@Virgil said in Grace Millane:
Gee the herald is really flogging this all they can’t aren’t they. If updated daily reports wasn’t enough now we have this special ‘final days’ article. I assume 75% of the feralds ‘journalists’ are working day and night on this story.
What are they going to do when it’s over?Go back to trawling twitter for trending clickbait that they can cut and paste?
-
I'm really none the wiser at the moment.
There is one piece of presented evidence though that bugs me. The internet searches in the early hours.
The prosecution says he was searching how to dispose of the body (very likely) the defence says they were random (very unlikely).
If searching how to dispose then either she was dead already or (the sinister option) he could see an opportunity to kill someone and blame it on BDSM so was planning.
I am going to discard the second option as it defies logic. Why not kill her and then phone police with concocted story?
That leaves the more likely scenario which is that he knew she was dead.
He says that he didn't know until he woke later. Why, even after admitting killing her, is he holding onto this likely lie? What is the relevance of the timing? What does he know that makes it relevant (but we don't)?
He says he was too drunk to even know she was dead and crashed out in the shower. But then sober enough to randomly type 'hottest fire' and 'Waitakere' into his phone? Just doesn't ring true.That unanswered question has me casting more doubt on the defence than the prosecution but the defence doesn't have to prove itself only the prosecution does.