A teenager is due to appear in court over the murder of a mother of three who died when a glass bottle was thrown into a crowded pub.It's difficult to see how his actions justify a charge of murder:
Neil McNulty, 19, is accused of killing Emma O'Kane, 27, who died in a "million-to-one tragedy" while celebrating the birthday of her fiance, Michael Shepherd.
McNulty, of Peel Lane, Heywood, is due to appear before Rochdale Magistrates' Court.Manslaughter, certainly. But murder....?
He is suspected of hurling the bottle after being refused entry to the Queen Anne Hotel in Heywood, Greater Manchester, shortly before 2am on Saturday.
The bottle shattered against a pillar and a shard of glass stuck in Ms O'Kane's neck, cutting her throat, according to a witness.
Even the police admit it can’t possibly have been his intent to kill:
"This was a million to one tragedy", a spokesman for Greater Manchester Police said.So what are the CPS playing at....?
"For a bottle to be thrown into the pub, to shatter against a pillar and for a shard of glass to fall from a height capable of causing a fatal injury is extremely rare, you couldn't recreate it."
4 comments:
Personally, I'm all for it. These days it seems like anything short of breaking into someone's house and slicing them up with a chainsaw after taking out an advert in the local press to announce it in advance gets plead down to manslaughter. At least someone's still trying to turn the tide.
In this case the little scrote undoubtedly committed an act of violence which resulted in a loss of innocent life. There's no lawful reason for him to do what he did. Equally, serious injury is a perfectly predictable result of throwing a weapon into a crowd of people. The fact that he didn't specifically want to kill the victim is - or should be - irrelevant. Throw the key away.
My reaction was exactly the same as yours, Julia. I can't see a chance of him being convicted on a murder charge. I can only assume that they're going to argue that he intentionally threw the bottle knowing it was likely to cause serious injury to someone (and maybe hope he'll get intimidated and plead guilty to manslaughter).
"At least someone's still trying to turn the tide. "
It'd be nice to think so, but this is the CPS here. It's easier to assume utter incompetence, mainly because it's much more likely to be true...
"The fact that he didn't specifically want to kill the victim is - or should be - irrelevant."
But that's not the law of the land. Of any land, for that matter.
"..hope he'll get intimidated and plead guilty to manslaughter.."
Could be, could be... But wouldn't his brief be wise to that trick?
"But wouldn't his brief be wise to that trick?"
You'd think so, but I'm struggling to think of another explanation.
Post a Comment