Killed their kids????
30 May 2012, 10:33 PM
#62
I'm suprised it's murder, i thought i'd be manslaughter
I don't think they planned to kill the kids, i think they wanted a bigger council house (as others have suggested aswell) so torched their current house.
Absolutely disgusting, hope they both go down for life.
I don't think they planned to kill the kids, i think they wanted a bigger council house (as others have suggested aswell) so torched their current house.
Absolutely disgusting, hope they both go down for life.
30 May 2012, 11:09 PM
#64
Actually, stupidity will probably be their best defence, as the prosecution will have to prove that they understood death/serious injury was almost certain. Unless they really did intend to kill or maim one or more of the kids, I suspect it will get downgraded to manslaughter.
Last edited by scud8; 30 May 2012 at 11:17 PM.
31 May 2012, 12:19 AM
#66
The very same day as the fire Philpott was due to visit a civil court in a battle for custody rights against a number of his kids due to a messy split with his mistress - the mother of a number of those kids, she had moved out of the house during the split.
So if that was fact. Typically custody goes towards the mother in most cases, so he would have had his bigger council house denied anyway so setting fire to teh current one would have been pointless, unless he originally intended for the hallway to be redecorated.
(info: http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/Fa...ail/story.html )
Last edited by ALi-B; 31 May 2012 at 12:20 AM.
31 May 2012, 07:30 AM
#68
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Setting fire to a property knowing someone was inside is premeditated, therefore not manslaughter - if that is in fact what has happened.
31 May 2012, 08:23 AM
#70
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall from studying law (only A level before I get any requests for free legal advice)
that in one case a disgruntled partner set fire to their other half's house, killing a relative inside. The defence argued for manslaughter on the basis of the absence of mens rea for murder. However, the individual was charged with murder as it was argued that the act of setting fire to a property was so reckless and dangerous that any "reasonable person" would have known that it was likely to cause death.
31 May 2012, 09:22 AM
#73
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe there is precedent for it being murder even if the arsonist was not aware that there were people inside the building being torched.
I recall from studying law (only A level before I get any requests for free legal advice) that in one case a disgruntled partner set fire to their other half's house, killing a relative inside. The defence argued for manslaughter on the basis of the absence of mens rea for murder. However, the individual was charged with murder as it was argued that the act of setting fire to a property was so reckless and dangerous that any "reasonable person" would have known that it was likely to cause death.
I recall from studying law (only A level before I get any requests for free legal advice)
that in one case a disgruntled partner set fire to their other half's house, killing a relative inside. The defence argued for manslaughter on the basis of the absence of mens rea for murder. However, the individual was charged with murder as it was argued that the act of setting fire to a property was so reckless and dangerous that any "reasonable person" would have known that it was likely to cause death.
31 May 2012, 09:27 AM
#74
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm waiting for the lawyer to trot out "They won't get a fair trial" due to the amount of (negative) press interest which has surrounded the family for years, even though they were not forced to appear on shows such as Jeremy Kyle,
I do hope that the CPS do all they can to prevent any leaks before trial so that they do receive a fair trial - only so that the truth can be discovered and justice can be served on behalf of those who lost their lives, not allowing anyone on trial to get off on a technicality.
I do hope that the CPS do all they can to prevent any leaks before trial so that they do receive a fair trial - only so that the truth can be discovered and justice can be served on behalf of those who lost their lives, not allowing anyone on trial to get off on a technicality.
31 May 2012, 09:35 AM
#75
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This link will take you to murder/manslaughter, plus there is a Familial Deaths section which is worth considering.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/h..._manslaughter/
Originally Posted by Familial Deaths
Section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 ('DVCV Act') creates an offence of causing or allowing the death of a child under the age of 16 or of a vulnerable adult. This stand-alone offence imposes a duty upon members of a household to take reasonable steps to protect children or vulnerable adults within that household from the foreseeable risk of serious physical harm from other household members. It is an offence triable only on indictment and carries a maximum sentence of 14 years' imprisonment or a fine, or both.
31 May 2012, 09:36 AM
#76
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That makes sense. I suppose it would be like getting a machine gun, wearing a blind-fold and going to a shopping centre and hosing the place down. It couldn't possibly be construed that any deaths are manslaughter so reckless is the act
31 May 2012, 09:44 AM
#77
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 46,493
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
Kind of a shame not all of the kids were inside , not very Christian I grant you
Pure scum , the guy was playing up for the cameras the interview - what man would be wiping , 'tears'
With specially prepared square hankie same as the thick as **** concubine
Pure scum , the guy was playing up for the cameras the interview - what man would be wiping , 'tears'
With specially prepared square hankie same as the thick as **** concubine
31 May 2012, 10:03 AM
#78
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit harsh perhaps?
There may even be a small chance that some of the remaining kids may succeed in life. Must be pretty traumatic for them.
dl
31 May 2012, 11:43 AM
#80
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until the matter has been dealt with in court, nothing has been proved yet and even if they have been charged it is wrong to assume that they actually murdered the children.
Les
Les
02 April 2013, 06:14 PM
#81
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02 April 2013, 07:43 PM
#85
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Grantham
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pity we don't have hard labour here but then the liberals will be out no doubt complaining about his human rights. Hang him in public, what an absolute b8stard, if he had any decency he'd hang himself at the first opportunity and save us a load of money.
