Originally Posted by
TonyB
That's total shite. 3 Years is a complete joke.
3 Years for beating someone to death.
There is no way she didn't know the possible outcome of death after such a severe beating.
Again it's a question of facts and the available evidence. The jury was not convinced that she intended his death, and nor am I fully convinced that she intended his death. Foresight of death or serious bodily harm is not enough. The principle as set out in R v Woollin [refining the previous Nedrick test] is that:
“Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction is not enough, the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case.”
Obviously there are a number of issues surrounding intention and evidence which can reduce a case from murder to manslaughter, and it has been suggested that the offences should be merged and given different levels of murder. Why the present distinction is important is that manslaughter can attract anything from a suspended sentence to life imprisonment.
You also have to factor in her story about his demanding, being intoxicated, etc. which would have had an impact on the jury.