Get Legally Speaking With Hatti Suvari

One Punch Killers

Duration:: 24m
Broadcast on:: 01 Jul 2024
Audio Format:: mp3

In a split second a person can become a killer or be killed. A One Punch Killer is when someone throws a single punch that results in a death, and often when the perpetrator does not intend to kill, but nevertheless, a single punch that has a devastating effect. But how is this dealt by our laws, when an unfortunate and unexpected criminal act is carried out, when the intention was not to kill and possibly the only intention was to have a good old-fashioned street brawl? Would the perpetrator be given any leniency in law? Controversy surrounds this topic; with questions being asked on ‘what is a fair price for someone to pay for causing a death, even though it was unintended?’. In some cases, it has been argued that long prison sentences should not be handed out due to an unfortunate event of death not being the intention by the accused, whilst campaigners demand tougher sentences. In this episode senior Barrister Simon Spence KC and Hatti Suvari will bring you interesting, insightful and jargon free conversation that you will hear nowhere else! As always in plain and simple English.

Americans love using their credit cards, the most secure and hassle-free way to pay. But DC politicians want to change that with the Durban Marshall Credit Card Bill. This bill lets corporate megastores pick how your credit card is processed, allowing them to use untested payment networks that jeopardize your data security and rewards. Corporate megastores will make more money, and you pay the price. Tell Congress to guard your card, because Americans lose when politicians choose. Learn more at guardyourcard.com. Empower yourself today with legal knowledge and follow us on Instagram, Twitter or Facebook to get access to jargon-free legal information in plain and simple English. Today's episode is supported by Red Bar Law, the go-to law firm for expert, efficient and fast legal assistance. All at a fixed cost, go to our website at redbarlaw.com. Hello, and to welcome back to our podcast at Get Legally Speaking, we are proud to be the UK's number one and multi-award-winning legal consumer podcast. Our legal conversation today will be on one punch killers. I am joined by senior barrister Simon Spence Casey from Red Line Chambers in London. Simon has successfully prosecuted and defended numerous very high-profile and fatal violent offenses for many years. His cases have included a number of highly complex matters which have attracted national and international media attention. Simon is also ranked in the legal 500 and in Chambers and Partners. Simon, it's so good to have you. Thank you so much for joining me again today. Not at all. Good to see you. Thank you for having me. One punch killers, a single blow resulting in a death often when the perpetrator does not intend to kill, but nevertheless, a single punch that has a devastating effect. So, how do our laws view an unfortunate and unexpected criminal act when the intention was not to kill? And possibly, the only intention was to have a good old fashioned street brawl. Would the perpetrator be given an leniency in law? Controversy surrounds this topic with questions being asked on what is a fair price for someone to pay for causing a death even though it could be unintended. And in some cases, it has been argued that long prison sentences should not be handed out. In this episode, Simon and I will be bringing you interesting, insightful and jargon-free conversation on this topic. As always, in plain and simple English. Simon, a one-punch death is reported to be the most commonly prosecuted offence. And today, we're talking about the circumstances in which there was no intention to kill. What would it be prosecuted as and what does the law for this, which act does it fall under? And I have to say, I was really surprised when I was researching this and I came across the fact that it's one of the most commonly prosecuted offences. It is because the problem with one-punch manslaughter is there's clearly an intention to hurt somebody, but not to cause the merely serious harm, so it's not murder. But a one-punch to somebody who's drunk, for example, and unsteady on their feet, if it's winter and there's ice on the ground, they could fall over backwards, hit their head and die. And one-punch manslaughter are very common indeed. And the question is, could they be seen in a separate category for the purposes of sentence from other offences of manslaughter, or should they be sentenced in just the same way under the sentencing guidelines for unlawful act manslaughter generally? And the answer to that now is that they are dealt with by applying the sentencing guidelines to a one-punch manslaughter. And so they've been brought in to the same category as other offences of manslaughter. When I started at the bar, one-punch manslaughter was seen very much as a separate form of killing, and you did see back in the 80s and 90s, some really very lenient sentences where somebody lost their lives. And I think that's what caused the process which ultimately led to the introduction of the sentencing guidelines. Yes, indeed. It is extraordinary because I mentioned to you before we press record on this podcast, I actually knew somebody that died from a one-punch blow to their head. And it was two teenagers, I can always say, I believe the intention wasn't to kill, but he died. And it's one of those where you kind of think, well, you've got to look at what actually your act resulted in. It resulted in the death, but unlawful act manslaughter, as it's defined in law to my understanding. It says it's recognised where a sober and reasonable person has been dangerous and likely to subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm, which in turn causes their death. And then I thought, well, what does unlawful act actually mean? And it says, for the purpose of constructive manslaughter, the act must constitute a criminal offence. I mean, it's incredibly tragic for everybody involved, everybody involved, let alone the families of... No, absolutely. And of course, with one-punch manslaughter, it does give rise to the possibility of reasonable self-defence, which is an outright defence to manslaughter. One of the cases sticks in my mind when I was a very junior barrister. I was defending a young man being led by a cell. He was a man of good character, a youngster learning to drive, but he was also quite a keen amateur boxer. And he was going down a one-way street. And his crowd of hooligans were strung across the street, had all been drinking. And he couldn't get past. And he got out of his car and went to reminestry with them. And the ringleader of this gang came up to him in a fairly aggressive way. And my client delivered one-punch, but because he was an amateur boxer, it was a good one. And this chap, because he was drunk, went over, banged the back of his head and died. So that's a case where, until trial, he was wanting to run self-affent. The difficulty is, he had lied in interview and said he wasn't there, he panicked. But we had got an independent witness from a flat above a shop who'd seen the whole thing. And so we thought he had a very good chance of being acquitted on the basis of reasonable self-defense, because having delivered the one-punch, he then got back in his car and left. He didn't maintain his assault. And it was one of those cases, back in those days, judges could informally indicate sentence. And we were in front of a high court judge who basically pulled us into his room and said, "Look, I feel very sorry for this land. And this is what I'm going to give him." And he was going to give him a sentence of three years. The problem was, he'd been in custody, he'd then come out on bail. And it would have meant going back inside. And so we tried to argue that he'd served enough time. The judge didn't accept that. But I still to this day feel that he was put under improper pressure to plead guilty to unlawful act manslaughter, because I think he had a good chance with self-defense as an outright defense. But of course the trouble is he was actually charged with murder. And it was only on the day of the trial that the judge intervened and said to the prosecution, "Are you taking manslaughter here?" And they said for the first time, "Yes." So it completely changed the landscape. But I still can't help worrying that this young man ended up serving three years when he may have been acquitted outright. Look, this is it, isn't it? Because, I mean, I've had this conversation in terms of it depends on your judge on the day. Yeah. And yes, we have the law defined and enshrined in statute, but then the judge, you know, if you have a sympathetic judge, that's one thing. And there will be some, there'll be one side, obviously not happy that there is a sympathetic judge. And then if you don't have a sympathetic judge, that's another thing. Your outcome, you know, could be different. And in that case, I'd say, well, how, you know, no one could have known, no one could have known whether he would have been acquitted if he didn't plead guilty or not. And it just play on your mind, I would imagine, you know, absolutely. And, you know, when you're involved in the case itself as to what could the outcome have been? Yes, absolutely. And it took him all day to make his mind up. I mean, the poor lad was sitting there hamming and harry, and there's only so much advice we can give as to what the outcome would be. But going back to what you're saying about the judge, of course, that's one of the things that led to the setting up of the sentencing council and the issuing of guidelines because one punch manslaughter was one of those offenses. Where there was a very inconsistent approach, passing sentence. Some judges were very lenient, others took the view, well, no, a life has been lost. And somebody has to pay. And so now, compared to what one punch manslaughter sentence is used to be, if you apply the sentencing council guidelines, which I've got in front of me. You know, if it's in category V, where there was an unlawful act with an intention to cause harm falling just short of GBH, it's a starting point of 12 years with a range mate to 16. So, you know, a judge could say, well, one hard pun falls just short of GBH. And so you're looking at a sentence in double figures. But then there's a minimum sentence of 12 months. Maximum 24 years. Yeah. I mean, technically, the maximum is life, but it's very rare to get life for an unlawful act manslaughter. But when the sentencing guidelines first came in, there are a number of judges continued to ignore them. And there have been a couple of Attorney General's references, dealing specifically with one punch manslaughter. And the Attorney General can refer what he considers an undue lenient sentence to the Court of Appeal for it to be increased. And the Court of Appeal have made it very clear that one punch manslaughter's are like any other man's and the judge has to assess the degree of harm. And they have said it would almost always fall into category B or C. But even looking at those, the bottom of the category for category C is three years, which historically would be a typical one punch manslaughter sentence. But going up to the top of category B of 16 years. So where are you supposed to pitch it when you've got a 13 year difference between three years at the bottom and 16 years at the top? And this is one of the problems with manslaughter, the scope and the range of possibilities for the commission of the offense is so wide that you do need a very wide bracket of sentencing to give the judge sufficient discretion to do what he perceives as justice. Well, this is it. And, and, and it is very controversial because you've got the family on the other side who have lost somebody to a single blow and there's been so many reported cases and even recent of last year, the No Jam Cathy, Cathy case that I read. And then you've got the actual perpetrator, if you like, who did the deed and, and if it is self-defense, I mean, do you often see is it possible to be for not to be processed. For not to be prosecuted under under, you know, defense for one punch murder. It would have to be a very clear case for the CPS not prosecuted. But, you know, going back to what we're saying at the start, it only needs a fight outside of pub on a Friday or Saturday night. And for somebody to be punched, and because they're drunk, they lose their balance and hit their head and they're dead. And that's why it's so common. And of course, in that situation where it's a two sided fight, it always gives rise to the possibility of self-defense. And certainly if it was charged as murder, which the case I was just referring to a few minutes ago was there's no incentive at all to do anything other than have a trial. If the prosecution are willing to consider manslaughter, then of course that's a different consideration. And you then have to weigh up the risk on the one hand being convicted of murder if there's a trial and taking the offer of manslaughter by way of a guilty plea. But then that does put pressure on a defendant to abandon his claim of self-defense. Yes. Knowing that he's going to get anything between three and 16 years, depending on the judge. This is it. I mean, it must be such a hard call, particularly if, you know, you're minding your own business, something happens, you react your reflexes reaction, your defense mechanism or to protect yourself. But you, you know, you swing a single punch and it has that devastating effect. I just, I think to, to, if you're going about your normal way of life and if you're not a troublemaker, if you're not somebody who frequently gets into rules and, you know, has been arrested before. And if you're just a normal, you know, citizen, so to speak, and that happens to you and you're the perpetrator. Goodness. I mean, do we, do you often see people? Have, has there been many people have not been prosecuted even after trial? Um, I know experience. Generally speaking, I think whenever there's a death, the pressure on the CPS to prosecute, even if they think they're going to lose the case. Um, I think the pressure is considerable. And I know for my own experience of prosecuting that the CPS take view, we would rather run the case and lose. Then make a decision that there hasn't been a crime committed. And if we can, if we can offload the responsibility for the acquittal onto the jury. Then at least they, the CPS can say, well, we, we did our duty and the jury decided they couldn't be sure. And that, of course, is the system operating properly. The way I've just described it, rather makes it sound as if the CPS are, uh, aducking their responsibility. Oh, yes, no, no, they don't. And it's very rare. In fact, I can only think of two cases in my entire career where somebody's being charged. And we've had to review it and come to the decision that there isn't sufficient evidence. Um, either of an unlawful act. Or in another case, we couldn't necessarily prove it was the defendant. Um, but beyond that. I think the prosecution position is they will prosecute and let the jury make the decision. And that's how our system should work. You know, that's why we have juries to try cases like this. And particularly perhaps one punch manslaughter is where nobody is suggesting the outcome was in any way. And so the jury will have some sympathy with that. And, you know, they may have experienced similar sort of. Events themselves, if they've been out for a night and they may have seen it across the other side of the street or whatever it may be. Um, but I think the jury are best placed and they have this sort of innate sense of whether a defendant is the aggressor. Or was merely seeking to defend themselves or somewhere between the two in which case they can't be sure. Yes. Um, and so it would be a very rare case where I think I would advise not prosecute. I mean, as a lay person, I'd sit there and say, look, whether it's intended or not, we could argue that somebody died as a result. So, regardless of the intention, there should be responsibility taken for that and there should be a sentence given for that. But then if I sit on the other side of the fence and I'm the person thinking, well, I was the one that made, you know, through that punch. And it was, it happened very quickly because often these things happen very, very quickly. I don't think, yeah, I don't think somebody, the example you gave of the case that you were involved many years ago, somebody's driving, they're minding their own business. You know, they come under threat. They try to defend themselves. They throw a punch and then they carry out, you know, they move on. They don't sit there and continue their, you know, aggression against the person that they've just punched. So I can see both sides of the, both sides of the story. I can totally get it. And I think it's so difficult because, you know, as I mentioned, I had a friend who died of a one punch. And I can't even bother what it must be like to be his family losing a teenage son of a brother. But then I look at the person that didn't think, well, they've lost a child as well. Yes, absolutely. And this is why that they are some of the most difficult cases on a human level to deal with. And, but equally, there's this sort of mindset. If someone's died, somebody has to be held responsible for it. But actually, if the person who died is the aggressor, they have to be responsible for their own actions. At that time, I'm not suggesting for a moment they deserve to die. But if the reaction to their aggression is a single punch, in my mind, applying the law of self-defense that we have in this country, that would give you a good defense in law. And this idea that, you know, somebody has to pay, somebody has to be held responsible no matter what circumstances is a rather odd attitude. I have to agree with that. I have to agree because you have to look at the circumstances. If the innocent party, if the person that threw the punch was the innocent party to why that punch was being thrown, you know, you could have somebody on top of you trying to, you know, kill you or cause really, you know, a lot of harm to you. I think every circumstance is very individual. Yeah. Absolutely. And that why, and say the case of my learner driver, so it still lives with me because I really thought he had a very good chance of being acquitted. And, you know, he was 17, I think, 18 by the time the trial came on. Goodness. There we are. And I mean, I'm sure he'll have served his sentence. And I don't know what he's doing now, but I assume he's led a perfectly law-abiding life. But it's not a great start. No, when you get a criminal record. It's the manslaughter. No, especially under the circumstances. You think, you know, it's not fair that he was put into that position. And it's very unfortunate that it ended up in that way. But yes, I mean, I think what we're saying is that the strongest defense to a one punch death is self-defense and trying to prove that it was purely self-defense. Absolutely. And of course, we do have the safeguard in this country. And it's a proper safeguard. The once you raise self-defense, it's not for you to prove you're acting in self-defense. It's for the prosecution to prove that you weren't. That's interesting. So the presumption is you were defending yourself. And less than until the prosecution can prove either it wasn't necessary. Or even if it was necessary, it wasn't reasonable in all of the circumstances. Yes. And that's the difference, I think, between a one punch manslaughter and other forms of homicide. Yes. Because if you deliver one punch and have the self-control to say, "Well, I've done what I need to do, I will now retreat." Then that's a very good basis for the prosecution being unable to disprove self-defense. Oh, very interesting. And I don't know what the statistics are for the conviction rate for one punch manslaughter which are contested. But I suspect. It would. I suspect it would be higher than the national average. Because from a defense perspective, well, members of the jury, he didn't carry on. He didn't punch a second, third or fourth time. Yes. The minute the danger had gone, he desisted and left. And I think that would be a very attractive argument. For a jury trying a one punch manslaughter. Yes. No, indeed. It's very, very interesting stuff. And as I said, I can sit on both sides of the fence and understand the position. I can also sit here as a completely person and say, "Well, you're right. Why should there have to be a price to pay if the circumstances were not that that the perpetrator created the scene, caused the irritation, created the fear that was brought onto him and was merely reacting to try to keep them safe, God themselves and defend themselves. And even if it is two people coming together, one person would have paid for it with their life and the other person would have paid for it. No doubt with their life because your life would utterly change with a criminal record and having to serve a prison sentence. No, absolutely. You know, it could never have been normal on that basis. But Simon, that's all we've got time for. Good. Thank you, Hattie. It always flies by. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for your wise words and your expertise. What I say to our listeners is, don't forget to click and subscribe to our podcasts. We have over 160 to choose from. You can find us on TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn and YouTube by searching "get legally speaking". Also visit our website at www.get legally speaking.com. Thank you for listening. Empower yourself today with legal knowledge and follow us on Instagram, Twitter or Facebook to get access to jargon-free legal information in plain and simple English. Today's episode is supported by Red Bar Law, the go-to law firm for expert efficient and fast legal assistance, all at a fixed cost. Go to our website at redbarlaw.com. Americans love using their credit cards, the most secure and hassle-free way to pay. But DC politicians want to change that with a Durban Marshall credit card bill. This bill lets corporate megastores pick how your credit card is processed, allowing them to use untested payment networks that jeopardize your data security and rewards. Corporate megastores will make more money and you pay the price. Tell Congress to guard your card because Americans lose when politicians choose. Learn more at guardyourcard.com.