Another entry in the Big Book of Guy Snaps, Kills Nearest Woman:
A man has been found not guilty of murdering his wife, just days into the first national Covid lockdown.
That is, the not-murder happened just days into the lockdown. The verdict was three days ago.
Anthony Williams, 70, said he “just flipped” and strangled his wife Ruth at their home in Cwmbran, Torfaen.
Williams, of Brynglas, Hollybush, denied murdering the 67-year-old in March 2020, but admitted manslaughter by diminished responsibility.
It was the merest chance that he was home at the time. He could have been miles away, in which case he might have “just flipped” at a burly young man, and been slapped instead of accidentally killing his wife.
Anyway, at least the police are doing a brilliant job of telling women not to talk about it.
A Plaid Cymru politician has been ordered to appear in court after she retweeted “highly inappropriate” comments about a murder trial.
Helen Mary Jones MS shared a tweet from a domestic abuse campaigner expressing “hope” that a man would be found guilty of murdering his wife. The tweet was posted on Saturday and shared by Ms Jones the same day.
It related to the trial of Anthony Williams, 70, who killed his wife during lockdown in March. The tweet was written by Rachel Williams, who was shot at her Newport hair salon by her estranged husband Darren Williams in 2011.
Rachel Williams is now an anti-domestic violence campaigner.
Her tweet included the comment: “As so many of us will know, there would have been history of domestic abuse. I hope this jury finds him guilty of murder.”
…
Both Ms Jones and Ms Williams have been ordered by Judge Paul Thomas to appear at Swansea Crown Court on Thursday. Ms Williams deleted the tweet on Monday, after being contacted by Gwent Police officers on the instruction of the judge.
No evidence was heard during the trial that the defendant had a history of domestic abuse.
That’s interesting, but here’s something else that’s interesting: domestic abuse doesn’t necessarily leave a huge and easy to find stash of evidence. Domestic abuse tends to be kept secret, with more abuse always ready to enforce the secrecy. It’s kind of special that way. The “domestic” part means the perp has ways of threatening and controlling the victim that other abusers don’t have. All this means that no evidence during the trial doesn’t necessarily mean much.
In England and Wales, jurors are meant to deliver verdicts solely based on evidence heard in court, and told to ignore any information or commentary from external sources, including on social media.
The Contempt of Court Act makes it an offence to publish anything which could prejudice or impede a trial.
Does Twitter count as “publishing”?
Comments
12 responses to “He just flipped”
But it was totally fine to mob a women’s event?
Maybe there’s some legal technicality I don’t understand, because that sure seems like a clear murder case. He even followed her and resumed murdering her after she briefly got away from him.
As you said, Ophelia, domestic abuse often doesn’t leave a nice clear trail of evidence, and as far as I’m aware any previous convictions the accused might have racked up cannot be referenced during a trial because it might sway the jury: after a guilty verdict is announced previous convictions can be used as part of the judges consideration on sentencing but they cannot form part of the evidence used to convict.
If the police had a record of reports of abuse that did not result in a prosecution, or if the victim had recorded her abuse in a diary or similar then that would – or at least should be part of the prosecution’s case, but all too often the knowledge of domestic abuse is kept between the abuser and the abused.
I remember a time when British police didn’t intervene in what they termed ‘domestic disputes’, which included physical violence (a spouse – almost always the husband – was legally entitled to physically ‘chastise’ his wife up to a point), so I suppose things have improved, but only barely, and nowhere nearly enough.
Yeah, wouldn’t want to sway the jury. That’s only for rape cases, where they bring up every boyfriend (real or imagined) the victim ever had, every time she ever had a drink or flirted or even ventured out of her house…
Skeletor, it’s here:
Emphasis mine.
His argument was that he wasn’t capable of murder because he was temporarily not in control of his actions because – like everyone else – he was a few days into a lockdown.
That a jury swallowed this seems to beggar belief and that the judge sentenced him to 20 minutes on the naughty step and immediate suspension of chocolate rations when women who kill their husbands after suffering decades of sustained violent abuse get life sentences is….. not in the least bit surprising, I’m afraid.
Yes, Twitter is publishing, and the jury could easily have seen the comments and been influenced by them. There are many disgraceful things about this case, but the swift intervention by the judge to admonish Ms Jones and Ms Williams is not one of them. We really do not want politicians and activists providing a running commentary on cases while juries are deliberating.
Is that the law? I don’t think it is here. Juries are told, with much emphasis, to focus on what they hear in court and ignore all outside commentary, but I don’t think there are laws that forbid people to talk or write about cases while juries are deliberating. Maybe the UK is different?
I’m not a lawyer so I can’t really say whether there are specific laws, or whether it falls under the umbrella that is contempt of court. These earlier cases suggest the latter:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13905765
Before social media, I recall cases where juries were sequestered in hotels without access to newspapers or other media. I don’t recall more recent cases where juries were expected to leave their phones at reception, as it were, and I suspect there might be an outcry if a judge tried to impose that. Or it could be standard practice that is taken for granted – I just don’t know. But Twitter &c undoubtedly make it much easier for an individual to say things that might influence the outcome of a trial, if the jurors are in a position to pick them up. So while it may look heavy-handed, I think the judge was right on this, even if he was wrong on much else.
Incidentally, to be clear, when I said “Twitter is publishing” it was shorthand for “putting something on Twitter” rather than suggesting that Twitter is a publisher rather than a platform, which is a grey area.
Jury sequestration is used sparingly though, because it’s a big deal in many ways. I think it’s reserved for cases that get so much publicity it just seems impossible for the jury to ignore it all. And the fact that it exists would seem to indicate that it’s not against the law for people to talk and write about current trials.
I think there’s a mistake here:
But judges don’t get to make up new laws on the bench, however necessary such laws may seem to the judge. I think you have the causation somewhat muddled. The fact that Twitter makes it easier for people to say things that might influence a jury doesn’t empower the judge to have people of Twitter arrested. There needs to be a law, independent of the view of any particular judge.
There are laws: a mix of case law and the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The GOV.UK website summarises their impact here: https://www.gov.uk/contempt-of-court
This is also helpful: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/dec/04/tweeters-warned-about-contempt-of-court
So I really don’t think I have the causation muddled, or that the judge was exceeding his powers, and as far as I can see no-one apart from you has suggested he was. Perhaps things are different in the US, with the First Amendment and so on.
Is this not similar to the Yaxley-Lennon case?
Ok, sorry, I misread your comment – I thought you meant something unofficial by “the umbrella of contempt of court.”