LawScape’s First Year

LawScape was first published precisely one year ago today. It set out with the shortly stated, but difficult to achieve, aim of digesting law and legal news in an accessible way.

The law is often complex and difficult. Legal reporting is frequently inaccurate or insufficiently precise. Moreover there are boundless misconceptions about what the law is and what it ought to be. LawScape set out quite simply to make the law understandable to those who have no legal background. In attempting to do so, it has covered the major criminal trials of the year, such as the Philpott trial; significant human rights decisions, such as the one on whole life sentences; and even philosophical issues related to the law, such as whether rape is always (equally) serious. It has also seen the start of a series of articles on the English Legal System generally, aimed at those with no experience of the law. I hope that LawScape has contributed in some small measure to your understanding of the law. If it has, it is succeeding in its aim. If it has not, then, as always, I welcome your comments and suggestions.

I confess myself surprised and humbled by the scale and diversity of readers this year. LawScape has had significant worldwide readership. This should not really be a surprise since the English legal system is the world’s leading legal system. Other countries rightly look to the example we set.

This coming year will see LawScape continue to digest law in an accessible way. Until then, I wish you all a happy and healthy new year.

Best wishes,

Daniel Setter 

Three Guilty over Philpott Children’s Deaths

The parents of six children who died following a house fire in Derby have been convicted of their manslaughter, along with their friend.

Mick and Mairead Philpott denied manslaughter but were found guilty at Nottingham Crown Court after less than eight hours of deliberation by the jury. Paul Mosley was also found guilty after denying manslaughter. Mick Philpot and Paul Mosley were found guilty unanimously, while Mairead Philpot was found guilty by a majority verdict.

Six children aged 13, 10, 9, 8, 6 and 5 died in a house fire on 11 May 2012.

The prosecution had alleged that Mr Philpott hatched a plan to start a fire with petrol to frame his former mistress, Lisa Willis, so as to gain an advantage in a custody battle over her five children. Ms Willis and her children had previously lived with Mr and Mrs Philpott and their six children and had recently left, taking her five children with her. Mr Philpott was concerned his previous convictions would harm his chances of securing custody and therefore intended to frame Ms Willis for the fire to improve his chances.

As part of the plan, Mr Mosley would break down the back door and rescue the children. However, as Mr Philpot lit the fire after pouring petrol through the letter box the downstairs exploded and the children, who were upstairs sleeping, could not be reached. They all died from smoke inhalation.

The Philpotts were arrested after their hotel room was bugged by police following the fire. Philpott was recorded as telling his wife to ‘stick to her story’. Forensics showed that all three individuals had the same petrol as used in the fire on their clothes.

Before leaving the dock, Mr Philpott was heard to say ‘it’s not over yet’. The judge, Mrs Justice Thirlwall, said the defendants would be sentenced on Wednesday.

The Law on Manslaughter and ‘Joint Enterprise’

The type of manslaughter that the defendants were charged with in this case is known as ‘unlawful act’ or ‘constructive’ manslaughter. To secure a conviction for this offence the prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the following elements:

• that there was a unlawful act (eg an arson type offence);
• which was dangerous (defined in law as an act which reasonable people would recognise may cause some harm to another); and
• that it caused another's death.

There is no need to prove any intention to kill or cause serious harm. It is enough that a dangerous and unlawful act causes death.

In this case it was not alleged that each of the defendants was responsible for each of the above elements. Instead it was argued that they acted as part of a ‘joint enterprise’. Under this law a number of individuals may be guilty of the same offence if they intentionally assist the main offender and ‘contemplate’ the carrying out of the relevant crime. So in this case it was alleged Mrs Philpott and Mr Mosley intentionally assisted Mr Philpott and contemplated an arson type offence would be committed. Because deaths resulted from this they were each guilty of manslaughter as well as Mr Philpott, who actually started the fire.