![]() For these characters – men and women who have suffered at the hands of a bully, a tormentor, an unrelenting enemy – revenge is about self-preservation and re-establishing self-worth. He arrived at the house shortly before midnight and saw a light on.Revenge is a dish best served cold. During the evening he drank about six bottles of beer. In evidence the appellant said that he had arranged to go to the deceased's house at about midnight on 4 September. One of the Crown pathologists said that the facial injuries were the worst she had ever seen. The fatal blow was to the left side of the neck and it had damaged the internal and external carotid arteries, resulting in an interruption to the blood supply to the brain which had caused death. The expert evidence was to the effect that there had been at least seven blows with the hammer. In the attack the deceased sustained severe and extensive blunt-force injuries to the head and neck, including extensive lacerations to the face and mouth, with multiple comminuted fractures of the underlying facial bones and tooth sockets. He returned shortly afterwards but then went away again. The appellant walked away, leaving the deceased lying badly injured on the pavement. The other man (the appellant) then assaulted the woman (the deceased) with a claw hammer. There was an argument and one of the men left. Witnesses to the events in the early hours of 5 September saw two men and a woman in Abbeyhill Street, Glasgow. At the trial the Crown did not dispute that, if the relationship did continue, it was of such a character as to entitle the appellant to expect sexual fidelity on the part of the deceased. The trial judge considered that there was evidence from the appellant, his father and another witness on the basis of which the jury could hold that some form of relationship had continued between the parties during that period. The defence position was that, even though they did not live together after that time, the appellant and the deceased had continued to see one another and to enjoy a sexual relationship over the months before the appellant's attack on her in September 1998. The Crown position was that the relationship came to an end at that point and that the deceased then wanted nothing more to do with the appellant. Despite a period of separation after that, it was common ground at the trial that the relationship continued until March 1998. The appellant and the deceased had lived together from August 1995 until December 1996. ![]() This contention lies at the heart of the appeal: it is said that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the approach which they should adopt in deciding whether to return a verdict of culpable homicide on the ground of provocation. Alternatively, the defence contended that the appellant had killed the deceased when acting under provocation. No issue in the appeal turns on this aspect of the case. ![]() The jury's verdict shows that they must, at least, have found that the attack displayed the wicked recklessness needed for murder. First, it was said that he had not intended to kill the deceased and had not displayed the degree of wicked recklessness required for murder. The defence contention that he should be convicted of culpable homicide only was put on two bases. The issue for the jury was whether the appellant was guilty of murder or culpable homicide. At his trial the appellant did not dispute that he had assaulted the deceased with a hammer and had so caused her death. The offence occurred in the early hours of 5 September 1998 and the victim, Marilyn McKenna, died the following day. On 15 February 1999 at the High Court at Glasgow the appellant, Stuart Drury, was unanimously convicted of murder. Dealing With a Deceased's Estate Guidance NotesĪppellant: Prais, Q.C., Hamilton Anderson Strathern W.S.Simplified Divorce and Dissolution of Civil Partnership Guidance Notes. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |