Quote:
Originally Posted by BBKing
Hmm. It was always a faintly dodgy case for manslaughter.
|
Now I'm not really up to speed on the English legal system but Manslaughter seems to be defined as:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CPS
1. Involuntary manslaughter is killing without the intent to kill or cause GBH. Apart from the absence of the requisite intent, all other elements of the offence are the same as for murder.
2. There are two types of involuntary manslaughter, namely:
* that caused by the defendant's gross negligence and
* that caused by his unlawful act.
*snip*
# This is where the killing is the result of:
* the defendant's unlawful act (not omission),
* where the unlawful act is one which all sober and reasonable people would realise would subject the victim to,
* the risk of some physical harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm – R v Williams & Davis (1992) 2 All ER 183,
* whether or not the defendant realised this.
|
So based on that I'd say killing someone as a result of throwing stones at them and hitting them (covers the 'some physical harm' section) covers all the bases for manslaughter.
I think the jury came to the same conclusion.
Still I'm not surprised considering under Scottish law people can get stabbed several times and their head jumped up and down on and the courts still accept their death wasn't intentional.