DPP to drop Laide manslaughter case

Snickers Man

maidhc wrote:

I find it disturbing that so many people want Laide to be tried whether there is ample evidence or not. This is exactly the sort of attitude that got us the Gilford 4 and Bermingham 6.

I couldn't disagree more. Nobody denies that bombs killed all those people in Guildford and Birmingham. The point of contention was WHO planted them.

The situation Brian Murhpy's parents find themselves is that legal opinion now says that nobody killed their son. He effectively killed himself from over indulgence in alcohol. This despite the fact that he was set upon and beaten to and on the ground by a gang. And that he had only drunk at the most four pints that night.

If you want to compare it to Guildford/Birmingham it would be like declaring that the explosions were not caused by deliberately planted bombs. There was some other cause, eg a gas explosion.

As far as I can ascertain, Laide admits to being in the crowd that attacked Murphy and admits to landing blows on him. Nobody suggests he intended to kill Murphy, but Murphy still died. That, as I understand it, is the distinction between murder and manslaughter, which is what Laide should have been tried with.

And probably a few others as well.

Thirdfox

Having read some of the facts (which could be dangerous as I do not know the full picture) - it seems like the alcohol problem was only a problem due to the trauma received to the head... surely the eggshell skull rule and "but for" test would apply? e.g. if Mr X was not kicked in the head then the alcohol he drank would not have resulted in his death?