Hello CaseSnappy readers! This week’s Decoding Judgements blog post is the 50th in the series, and we navigate a trio of manslaughter cases arising from sexual infidelity and its relevance as a ‘qualifying trigger’. Keep reading to find out how certain domestic cases can lead to some heinous crimes.
This trilogy, like any other, has three protagonists: Jon-Jacques Clinton, Steven Parker and Dewi Evans, all charged with the murder of their respective wives. This case is a combined appeal for all three on the defence of loss of control.
Our story begins with Jon-Jacques Clinton and his wife of 16 years deciding to separate. One evening, Mrs Clinton’s Land Rover was stolen and found the next morning in a burnt condition. Mrs Clinton on the same day visited her marital home, only to never return. The prosecution accused Mr Clinton of burning the car and intent to kill after finding out that she had been unfaithful in their marriage.
Steven Parker and his wife, Jane who had been together for almost two decades have a similar fate. Jane, unhappy with her marriage and having an affair, confided to her close ones about her intention to leave. One night after an argument Mr Parker inflicted a minor injury on his wife consequently leading her to declare her intention to separate. The same afternoon Jane entered her home with her brother waiting outside but never returned. Mr Parker was sentenced to life after his conviction of murder.
Dewi Evans, a 61-year-old who was diagnosed with depression, is our last antagonist. One evening, Dewi’s son along with his grandchildren walked into the house to discover his mother on the floor alongside a knife and a distressed Evans saying “I couldn’t control myself, I lost my temper.” It was alleged that the bloodshed occurred after Mrs Evans had stabbed her husband.
The court was left with an impending problem on the application and interpretation of the partial defence of loss of control with sexual infidelity as a qualifying trigger under The Coroners and Justice Act 2009. This defence was critical in determining whether the charges in this gruesome trio of cases could be reduced from murder to manslaughter.
The jury held both Parker and Evans guilty of murder and rejected their loss of control defence, sentencing them to prison for 17 and 11 years respectively. It was only in the case of Clinton that an appeal was allowed as the jury was found to have been misdirected, quashing his previous murder conviction. The court concluded that sexual infidelity alone is not a qualifying trigger but can be a part of the broader context of when a valid qualifying trigger arises.
Explaining the reasoning behind the legislation, the Lord Chief Justice stated: "We have examined the legislative structure as a whole. The legislation was designed to prohibit the misuse of sexual infidelity as a potential trigger for loss of control in circumstances in which it was thought to have been misused in the former defence of provocation. Where there is no other potential trigger, the prohibition must ... be applied."
Three tales which began with tumultuous marriages took a quick and sharp turn, becoming spine-chilling stories of marital murders. This case establishes key guidelines for courts on how to treat cases of loss of control which are riddled with elements of sexual infidelity and emphasises that infidelity is not a qualifying trigger for a defence of loss of control to be applied when appealing for a reduction of a murder sentence to manslaughter.
Remember to revisit next week for more simplified cases in our Decoding Judgements series. Join CaseSnappy for free today!