At Least Hazell Had The Decency To Plead Guilty

[ChillDoubt]

..but how much longer must this charade continue, the poor mite's parents having to hear every detail about how in all probability he has defiled, battered then dismembered this child's body?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22596503

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22572665

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22522856

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22510575

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22483804

Seriously, where are his defence that they haven't better advised him, in view of the mountain of evidence building against him? Surely the judge would have pulled his Counsel to one side by now and asked what exactly do they intend to mount by way of a defence?

[jackthehat]

I cannot recall ever reading of a case with such a bizarre 'defence' and I agree that without any real defence it seems to be been allowed to drag on for far too long......

[jim360]

Sad consequence of the fact that, unless and until he is found guilty, we have to assume that he is innocent. Unfortunately that is never going to be anything but horrible for the victim. We have to be sure that we have the right man. And if he pleased innocent and wants to fight that to the last day, we have no choice but to let him. Just in case it turns out that he is innocent.

[RATTER15]

A very sad case indeed, we were in Machynlleth a short while ago, it was so sad to see all the pink ribbons on all the trees and lamp posts and door knockers all over the town. Tragic.

[ChillDoubt]

I understand that jim360 but in light of the amount of forensic evidence against him, as jth says I seriously cannot recall a case so ridiculously defended.

[Octavius]

We don't know that they didn't advise him to plead guilty early on and he disregarded the advice. A defence lawyer is expected to zealously represent his client, including protecting the client's constitutional and other legal rights, which in this case was probably an aim to lessen the sentence through mitigating circumstances (even if there are none).

[FredPuli43]

That the child victim died through accident is the common defence. The best defence in any trial is always " confess and avoid"; admit that everything in the prosecution case is true but say the necessary mental element, in this case the intent to kill or cause gbh ,is not proved.

Here it's not a problem that no trace of the girl was found on the tyres or in the vehicle; forensic examination is never perfect and it's manifestly unlikely that anything would be found on the tyres.. Everything else can be admitted but the problem is that there is some evidence suggestive of the body being dismembered; suggestive, but not conclusive. But, in the end , circumstantial evidence including evidence of any abnormal sexual interest , when taken in totality does tend to swing the case against the defence. If only they didn't have to call the defendant, the case would be better than it is

[FredPuli43]

Advising a client to plead [guilty] is always tricky. You can't push him into it. Anyone with experience knows that the evidence may look overwhelming and/or the defence utterly implausible but, come the evidence being given, both appearances are false. The easy plea is the one to a lesser offence; getting the Crown to take a plea to abh or s20 gbh rather than s18 gbh with intent. Clients are often motivated by fear of the sentence on the major charge but happy and honest in pleading to the lesser. I've known attempted murder reduced to abh, albeit an a court martial (court martials are a law unto themselves)

[mikey4444]

This is dreadful. It is beginning to make sense now why no body was found last summer, despite the huge search involved. What her parents must be going through can only be imagined.