Joe Stone QC, defending, told the jury Mr Eley had been acting in self-defence as he believed Mr Moore had threatened to attack or rape him and his son.
Mr Stone said: "He thought he was going to be raped. He thought his son was going to be raped.
"Even someone with the reserves of a Zen Buddhist monk, if they were threatened with rape or their child were threatened with rape, they would have difficulty remaining calm.
"If you believed that was going to happen, wouldn't it be reasonable to take that action?"Errr, no. Not really. Boy, the prosecution will have a field day with such....
Oh!
Ryan Richter, prosecuting, told the jury in his closing argument at Guildford Crown Court: "This is an undoubtedly sad case.
"Sad for Mr Eley, because it is clear he was significantly mentally unwell at the time. Sad too for Mr Moore and Mr Mortimer, who had done nothing wrong and yet left that shop badly injured."That's a pretty strange priority list there, isn't it? Most people would think the poor bloody innocent victims attacked by a madman should be your first consideration!
It took the jury three more hours than it should do to render the inevitable verdict.
H/T: jack ketch in comments
2 comments:
As I said in an email, i have some personal connection to this case but I am surprised it ever came to court. The guy was known to be genuinely mentally ill and it turns out he'd been off his meds. Was the expense of a trial really necessary, a trial that could only ever have had one outcome...the Secure Unit until such time as the HomeSec deems him healed and no longer a danger to himself and others? I'm guessing (WOAR may say different) that it was that whole antiquated British legal thing about 'knowing right from wrong'?
"I am surprised it ever came to court. The guy was known to be genuinely mentally ill and it turns out he'd been off his meds. Was the expense of a trial really necessary..."
It's possible to be mad as a box of frogs yet still - legally - responsible for a crime.
Post a Comment