Partial Defences to Murder (Report) [2004] EWLC 290(appendix e) (06 August 2004)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just Â£1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

The Law Commission

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Law Commission >> Partial Defences to Murder (Report) [2004] EWLC 290(appendix e) (06 August 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/other/EWLC/2004/290(appendix_e).html
Cite as: [2004] EWLC 290(appendix e)

[New search] [Help]

APPENDIX E

SYNOPSIS OF SAMPLE OF CASES OF FEMALE DEFENDANTS CONVICTED OF MURDER 1974 - 2003^[1]

Killings by mothers of their young children

D, aged 25, asphyxiated her two children, aged 1 year and 4 months respectively. She did not plead diminished responsibility, although the trial judge described her as "clearly mentally ill or psychologically damaged or both", because her defence was that she had not perpetrated the killings. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 10 years while the LCJ recommended 8 years. The trial was in 1998.

D, aged 27, asphyxiated her two children, aged 1 year and 5 months respectively. Another child, by a previous marriage, had previously died of "cot death" in 1989. Her defence was that the children had died from natural causes. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 12 years. The trial was in 1995.

D, aged 37, asphyxiated her 4 months old son. She denied killing the child. The trial judge referred to an "act of madness" committed to gain relief from a life of strain living with a husband who was regularly drunk and abusive. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 12 years. The trial was in 2002.

D, aged 33, asphyxiated her daughter, aged 2 years. She pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that the death was an accident. The judge in the absence of the jury asked defence counsel if D intended to plead diminished responsibility. In the event it was not pleaded. The judge, referring to the psychiatric report which had been prepared and also to a previous conviction for arson following a domestic dispute in 1987, thought that D was unbalanced.

Killings of female relatives

D, aged 47, and her brother strangled her sister-in-law. The motive is described as "obscure". It may have been as a result of a belief that V's dowry had been inadequate. There was general bad feeling between D's family and V. D's defence was that she was not a party to the killing. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 20 years while the LCJ recommended 14. The trial was in 1987.

D, aged 38, together with her husband, killed V her 85-year-old mother-in-law. The motive was possibly financial gain as V had £13000 in a suitcase. There may also have been annoyance that V had soiled a carpet. D and her husband ran "cut throat" defences and D also pleaded lack of intent. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 16 years while the LCJ recommended 15 years. The trial was in 1997.

D, aged 44, together with her male lover, killed a 7-year-old girl following prolonged and terrible abuse, deprivation and torture. D was the great aunt of V who had been sent by her parents to this country from Africa in the hope that she might have a better future. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she was not a party to the killing and, alternatively, lack of intent. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 25 years while the LCJ recommended 20/22 years. The trial was in 2000/2001.

D, aged 48, asphyxiated V, her 89-year-old aunt, because she stood to inherit on V's death. D denied that she had killed V. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 11/12 years while the LCJ recommended 12 years – it was noted that D had cared for V for a number of years. The trial was in 1993.

D, aged 45, together with her two sons, strangled V, her 19-year-old daughter. It appears to have been an "honour" killing in that V was pregnant but not by her husband. V was killed because of the shame that she had brought upon the family. D denied being a party to the killing. D did not plead provocation but one of her sons did – unsuccessfully. The other son was acquitted. The trial judge recommended tariffs of 17 years while the LCJ recommended tariffs of 14 years. The trial was in 1999.

D, aged 27, fatally stabbed V, her mother. The motive is unclear – possibly "a sudden flare up" or possibly a dispute over money. What defence was run is not recorded. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 18 years while the LCJ recommended 15/16 years. The trail was in 1997.

D, aged 63, fatally stabbed V, her 69-year-old sister. She pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of provocation. The nature of the provocation is unclear – possibly some form of argument. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 12 years. The trial was in 2003.

D, aged 46, asphyxiated V, her 89-year-old grandmother. She said that she did so in response to V saying that she wanted "to end it all". At trial she denied the confessions which she had made to the police in interview. The motive was unclear but the trial judge was in no doubt that it was not a case of "mercy killing". From the Report, it is impossible to discern what defences were run. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 12 years. The trial was in 2003.

D, aged 43, killed V, her 70-year-old mother, by hitting her with a heavy object inflicting 69 injuries. There was a heated quarrel between V and D at V's home. Pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of both diminished responsibility and provocation. With regard to the latter, D claimed that V had brought up D's unhappy past, in particular her suffering sexual abuse as a child, and had slapped D in the face. In relation to diminished responsibility, a psychiatrist for the defence testified that D had psychotic symptoms amounting to abnormality of mind. D believed that she had, with V's complicity, been sexually abused as a child. In addition, on the night before the killing, D had behaved strangely towards the neighbours. The psychiatrist for the Crown was of the view that the behaviour towards the neighbours was due to alcohol and he could find no evidence of mental disorder or abnormality of mind. The trial judge, after referring to D's long history of mental health problems and the fact that she was suffering from mild depression at the time of the murder, recommended a minimum term of 14 years. He also said that she was particularly vulnerable to stress and liable to overreact in a quarrel. He also felt that the quarrel had nothing to do with any abuse, real or imagined, of D as a child. The trial was in 2003.

D was aged 34 and V was her 68-year-old mother. V was incontinent and immobile. She could be very demanding of attention. The burden of looking after V fell on D. D was a heavy drinker but not alcoholic. On the evening in question, D was the worse for drink and in the course of the evening strangled V. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of lack of intent and diminished responsibility. In addition, the trial judge left provocation to the jury at the request of the Crown. D had claimed that V had been abusive to her during the course of the evening. Both the trial judge and the LCJ recommended a minimum term of 3 years. The trial judge said that it was the lowest tariff he had ever recommended saying that the jury might easily have convicted of manslaughter out of sympathy. He referred to provocation in the non-legal sense of the strain of living with a very demanding invalid. The trial was in 1992.

D, aged 17, and her boyfriend and co-D were, unknown to their respective parents, having sexual intercourse. V was D's 13-year-old sister and she threatened to disclose the nature of the relationship. As a result V was strangled. D denied being a party to the killing. The trial judge recommended tariffs of 9 years while the LCJ recommended 10 years. The trial was in 1987.

D was aged 19 and V was her 75-year-old great aunt. D was married to her co-D. They were experiencing financial problems. V kept a considerable sum of money in her house and she was killed so that D and her husband could steal the money. D pleaded guilty to murder. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 10 years while the LCJ recommended 12 years, observing that it would have been higher but for her youth. D's husband was convicted of murder and the recommended tariff for him was 9 years. The trial was in 1986.

Killings of female neighbours

D, aged 40, was trying to steal property from V's house. V, aged 76, surprised D who responded by fatally stabbing V. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of lack of intent. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 15 years while the LCJ recommended 14/15. The trial was in 1996.

D1 and D2 were both aged 18. They fatally stabbed V, the 70-year-old neighbour of D1. They were both "high on drink and drugs". It seems that they attacked V because she had complained about the behaviour of the younger sister of D1. Both pleaded guilty to murder. The trial judge recommended tariffs of 16 years while the LCJ, in the light of their youth, recommended tariffs of 14 years.

D, aged 21, lived with her male partner and co-D in a hostel. Also living in the hostel was V and her male partner. D had been drinking in a pub with V and V's partner. There was a row between D and V's partner. This was followed by an incident outside the pub. When D got home she told her partner what had happened. They both then left their room to confront V's partner. Instead they encountered V. V was fatally stabbed. Although it is not absolutely clear from the Report, it seems that D pleaded that she was not a party to the killing but that if she did it was in self-defence. She may also have raised provocation. Both D and her partner were convicted of murder. The trial judge and the LCJ both recommended a minimum term of 10 years for D and 11 years for her partner. The trial was in 2002.

D, aged 31, and her male co-D committed a robbery in which they asphyxiated V, aged 78. Each pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of lack of intent. Both the trial judge and the LCJ recommended a minimum term of 14 years. The trial was in 1985.

Killings of female partners/lovers/ex-partners/ex-lovers

D, aged 26, and V, a 23-year-old woman, were in a long-term lesbian relationship that was characterised by violent arguments. The fatal stabbing occurred on a day when both had had a lot to drink. Another row took place that led to the stabbing. D pleaded self-defence claiming that V had attacked her with a knife. The trial judge left provocation to the jury although it had not been expressly raised by D. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 12 years while the LCJ recommended 8/9. The trial was in 1998.

D, aged 31, had previously been in a lesbian relationship with V. There was probably an unsatisfactory attempt to revive the relationship shortly before V's murder. The killing may have occurred in the course of a row – the trial judge thought that if there was a row it was verbal rather than physical, at least on the part of V. It ended with D fatally stabbing V. D pleaded not guilty to murder and ran defences of accident, self-defence, lack of intent and provocation. From the report it is not clear what the provocation was alleged to consist of. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 12 years. The trial was in 1996.

D, aged 19, was in a lesbian relationship with V, aged 30. The relationship broke down and D killed V. D denied killing V stating that it must have been someone else. The trial was in 2003.

Killings of female friends and acquaintances

D1 was aged 15 and D2 aged 17. D1 knew V, aged 71. They encountered V in the street and returned with her to V's home. There they perpetrated a motiveless attack, fatally punching and kicking V. They ran "cut throat" defences. The trial judge recommended tariffs of 7 years while the LCJ recommended tariffs of 8 years. The recommended tariffs reflected the youth of D1 and D2. The trial was in 1999.

D, aged 39, and her male partner killed V, aged 24, by punching and kicking her. V had told D that she wanted to have sex with D's partner. D and her partner had an argument and they then both attacked V. D pleaded lack of intent as a result of intoxication as did her partner. In addition, D pleaded provocation and diminished responsibility. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 14/15 years while the LCJ recommended 14 years. The trial was in 2000.

D1 was aged 17, D2 aged 18 and D3 aged 20. In addition, there were two male co-Ds. V was aged 18 and was both epileptic and schizophrenic. The defendants decided to rob her of her jewellery and to have "some fun" at her expense. Effectively, they tortured V over several days. Each of the defendants denied being a party to the killing. The trial judge recommended tariffs of 20 years for each of the defendants, the LCJ recommended tariffs of 18/20 years. The trial was in 1999.

D, aged 29, fatally stabbed V, aged 18. The motive is unclear. There is a suggestion that D's boyfriend "influenced" D to kill V because he was jealous of their friendship. There is a hint that D and V might have been lovers. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of diminished responsibility. All the experts agreed that she was suffering from an abnormality of mind and the issue was whether it had substantially impaired her mental responsibility for the killing. Both the trial judge and the LCJ recommended a minimum term of 14 years. The trial was in 1996.

D, aged 28, and her male co-D were both alcoholics. So too was V, aged 60. They all lived in a squat. The motive for the killing seems to have been a desire to obtain the use of V's benefit book. V was strangled. Each defendant denied being a party to the killing. Both the trial judge and the LCJ recommended a minimum term of 10 years for D and 12 years for her co-D. The trial was in 1993.

D1 was aged 24 and D2 was aged 26. In addition, there were two male co-Ds. D2 was formerly married to one of the male co-Ds. The other male co-D had had sexual relations with both D1 and D2 and also with V, aged 16. V was tricked into going to the house of one of the defendants where she was falsely imprisoned and tortured. She was then driven to a remote location, doused in petrol and set alight. The motive is not clear. All the defendants denied being a party to the killing. Both the trial judge and the LCJ recommended tariffs of 25 years for D1 and D2, and tariffs of 18 years for each of the male co-Ds. The trial was in 1993.

D, aged 23, and her partner and male co-D had been drinking. D was jealous of V, aged 19, because V had become involved in sexual relations with D's partner. V, who was disabled and had some mental impairment, craved for the friendship of D and her partner. Quite what precipitated the fatal punching and kicking of V is not clear. D and her partner had argued about his association with V and both had been drinking. D pleaded not guilty on the basis that she was not a party to the killing. She alternatively pleaded lack of intent and provocation. The trial judge recommended tariffs of 15 years for each of the defendants, while the LCJ recommended tariffs of 18 years. The trial was in 1997.

D, aged 30, thought that V had stolen an allowance book. As a result she fatally punched and kicked V. D pleaded guilty to murder. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 13/16 years. The trial was in 2003.

D was aged 45. A "menage a trois" was formed involving D, D's husband and V, aged 21. D found the arrangement disagreeable. She left her husband and then planned that V should be killed. She involved others in the plan – two male co-Ds and a female co-D, the latter having a long-standing grudge against V. V was strangled. D denied being a party to the killing. She and the two male co-Ds were convicted of murder. The female co-D was convicted of manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility. Both the trial judge and the LCJ recommended tariffs of 20 years for D and one male co-D. For the other male co-D, they each recommended a minimum term of 10 years. The trial was in 1998.

D, aged 43, fatally shot V who was having an affair with D's husband. She did so after having twice attempted suicide. She was suffering from depression. She pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of diminished responsibility. Four eminent psychiatrists testified on behalf of the defence. A fifth "equally eminent" psychiatrist testified for the Crown. In addition, at the request of the provocation, the trial judge left provocation to the jury. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 14 years. The trial was in 2003.

According to the trial judge, the context was a lesbian relationship, which D had initiated. It appears that D, aged 38, advertised for a female companion. This was not for the purpose of a sexual relationship – D was happily married with children. V, aged 28. Responded to the advertisement and did want a sexual relationship. On the evening in question, D, D's husband and V were all staying together on a caravan site. Earlier in the evening when D and V had gone to use the site toilet, V had kissed D against D's will. The fatal stabbing of V was preceded by a row in which D made it clear that she did not want a sexual relationship with V. D pleaded self-defence and provocation but did not testify. D had agreed in interview that although V had produced a knife she had given it to D before D stabbed V. V was stabbed 60 times. The plea of provocation seems to have been based on the fact that V had produced a knife and had questioned aggressively D's feelings towards her. Both the trial judge and the LCJ recommended a minimum term of 12 years. The trial was in 1989.

D, aged 19, had previously been the neighbour of V, aged 84. After returning to live with her family, D still occasionally visited V. The motive for the murder is unclear but at the time D was under the influence of solvents/drink. In addition, £200 stolen from V was found on D. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of lack of intent due to solvent abuse. In addition, the trial judge left provocation to the jury. D did not testify but in interview she said that V had suggested that D might have been responsible for the death of D's mother. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 12 years saying that he was left with an uneasy feeling that it was D herself who harboured a guilt complex about her mother's death. The LCJ recommended a minimum term of 12 years saying that it would have been 14/15 had she been older. The trial was in 1991.

In this case there were two Vs, one female, aged 27, and one male and, aged 21. D was aged 24 and was a friend of her 22-year-old male co-D. The latter had been in a relationship with the female V and she was the mother of his child. She had recently left him to live with the male V. The male co-D, out of anger and jealousy, set fire to a manufacturing unit, which was immediately above the property which the Vs lived in. The male V burned to death and the female victim died when she jumped from the burning building (her children were thrown to safety). It was the Crown's case that D had deliberately inflamed her co-D's feelings and had actively encouraged him to set fire to the building. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of lack of intent. It is difficult to tell whether diminished responsibility was raised. The trial judge referred to D as being intellectually subnormal, her intelligence being that of a nine-year-old. He said that her moral culpability was low. He also stated that he directed the jury to disregard any alternative verdict by reason of diminished responsibility and to concentrate upon manslaughter in the "ordinary sense of the word". From the Report one cannot ascertain what tariffs were recommended. The trial was in 1977.

Killings of female strangers

D, aged 21, fatally stabbed V, aged 23. D believed that a third party, T, had put it about that D's brother had committed a burglary. Having consumed a considerable amount of alcohol, D armed herself with a knife and went to the house where T lived in order to confront her. V lived with T and intervened. D punched V in the face whereupon V pushed D away. D then took out the knife and stabbed V. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of lack of intent but the judge left the issues of self-defence and provocation to the jury. Both the trial judge and the LCJ recommended a minimum term of 9 years. The trial was in 1995.

D, aged 23, killed V, aged 75. Over 50 stab wounds were inflicted culminating in a "terrible gash to the neck, which severed the jugular vein". D had a previous conviction for the manslaughter of her stepfather. D pleaded not guilty claiming that she had not perpetrated the killing. Alternatively, she pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of diminished responsibility. It was agreed that she got sexual satisfaction from masturbating to her fantasises of violence. All the expert witnesses agreed that she suffered from an abnormality of mind – the judge described it as "extreme psychopathic disorder". D was convicted of murder. Both the trial judge and the LCJ recommended a minimum term of 10 years. The trial was in 1994.

Killings of "other" females

D, aged 50, killed the wife and baby daughter of a work colleague. The motive is unclear. She pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she had not perpetrated the killings. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 14 years while the LCJ recommended 12/14 years. The trial was in 1987.

D1, aged 43, and D2, aged 40, ran a brothel. V was a young prostitute who worked for them. There was no obvious motive for the killing. The defendants ran "cut throat" defences and in addition D2 pleaded not guilty to murder by virtue of diminished responsibility. The trial judge and the LCJ recommended tariffs of 15 years. The trial was in 1995.

D, aged 27, was a prostitute who was trying to escape from the tentacles of her "pimp". She met V, who was in her seventies, in a pub. V befriended D and invited her temporarily to her home. Later, however, V asked D to leave and D resented this. D fatally stabbed V and seriously wounded another lady. D pleaded guilty to murder and wounding with intent. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 15 years while the LCJ recommended 13/14 years. The trail was in 1999.

D, aged 24, was having an affair. V was the wife of D's lover. D was consumed with jealousy of V and fatally stabbed V. D pleaded guilty to murder. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 14 years. The trial judge commented that D had a history of depression and had been manipulated and used by V's husband. The trial was in 1999.

D, aged 26, fatally stabbed V, aged 31, who was the wife of D's lover. The motive was jealousy. D pleaded not guilty to murder but it is not possible to discern what defences were run. The LCJ recommended a minimum term of 10 years. The trial was in 1983.

D, aged 33, together with her male partner and co-D was charged with murdering V, a drug courier. V was suspected by D's partner of having cheated him over a drug transaction. D denied being a party to the killing. The trial judge recommended a minimum term for D of 12 years while the LCJ recommended 10 years. The trial was in 2001.

D, aged 36, together with two male co-Ds murdered V. V was the girlfriend of one of the two male co-Ds and she was due to testify against him in relation to a charge that he had assaulted her. V was killed in order to silence her. D pleaded not guilty on the basis that she was not a party to the killing. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 10 years. The trial was in 1999.

D, aged 31, fatally stabbed V, aged 22, who was the lover of D's husband. D pleaded not guilty on the basis that she had not perpetrated the murder, rather it had been committed by D's husband. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 10 years while the LCJ recommended 11 years.

D, aged 31, worked in a care home for the elderly. V, aged 66, was one of the residents. D had previously stolen money from V and the judge said that the motive for D killing V was theft. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she had not killed V. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 15 years. The trial was in 1992.

D, aged 36, was infatuated with the husband of V. She had made efforts to divide V from her husband by writing anonymous letters to the husband suggesting that V was having an affair. When D realised this strategy was having no effect, she decided to eliminate V. D involved her 19 year old son by falsely telling him that V had hired a man to rape D. V was fatally stabbed. D and her son ran "cut throat" defences. Both were convicted of murder. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 18 years for D and 9 years for her son.

D, aged 35. targeted V, aged 84, who regularly left her flat unsecured. V surprised D in the course of burgling V's premises whereupon D fatally stabbed V. D denied that she had perpetrated the killing. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 16 years. The trial was in 2003.

D, aged 36, worked a nurse in a care home. V was an elderly resident. There was no evidence that V was unhappy or uncomfortable. D killed V by administering a strong sedative. At trial D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of lack of intent and diminished responsibility. The psychiatrists agreed that she suffered from an abnormality of mind but the personality disorder came close to meaning no more than that she acted inappropriately. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 15 years. The trial was in 2001.

D, aged 17, became infatuated with one of her teachers. V was his wife, aged 33. He had become tired of his wife and the result was that V was strangled. D was charged as an accessory to V's murder. She denied that she was a party to the killing. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 5 years for D and 12 years for V's husband. The trial was in 1988.

D, aged 16, was the girlfriend of her male co-D, aged 17, who in turn was the uncle of V, an 18 month old baby girl. For some inexplicable reason, while at V's home, they punched, kicked and shook V thereby killing her. Each denied being a party to the killing. The trial was in 1982.

D, aged 19, strangled V, aged 90. There was no clear motive although a small amount of money was stolen following the murder. D pleaded guilty to murder. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 12 years. The trial was in 1979.

D, aged 21, together with her male co-D, who pleaded guilty at an earlier trial, target V, aged 79 and living on her own. Their motive was burglary/robbery. D was killed by being hit repeatedly with a brick. D pleaded guilty to murder after being found fit to plead. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 13 years for D and 15 years for her co-D. The trial was in 1975.

D, aged, 57, was infatuated with a married man. He was having an extra marital affair with another woman, V aged 46. D thought that she would get her man if she eliminated V. She hired T who fatally stabbed V. T pleaded guilty to murder at an earlier trial and subsequently gave evidence for the Crown at D's trial. D's defence was that she had hired T in order to merely frighten V. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 15 years. The trial was in 1984.

D, aged 34, was a compulsive shoplifter. V, aged 37, worked as a shop assistant at a jewellery shop. When interviewed by police D said that she had a compulsive hatred for everyone connected with the jewellery trade. She said that she had become desperate because the fact that she had been shoplifting for 8 years was about to be revealed (but not by V). Her career as a teacher would be in ruins, she could not face the situation at home (she lived with her parents) and so had decided to commit murder. At trial, she said that all of what she had said in interview was an invention. Rather she had gone to the shop intending to steal. V discovered her, she panicked and then left the shop. From the Report, although it is not absolutely clear, it appears that the defence was that V was alive when D left the shop and was in fact killed by someone else. The LCJ recommended a minimum term of 14 years. The trial was in 1978.

D, aged 33, was besotted with her 29-year-old male co-D. V had previously given evidence against him in a trial. He took his revenge on V and D was a willing and enthusiastic partner in the killing. There is some suggestion that there was sexual jealousy on the part of D. At trial D and her co-D ran "cut throat" defences. D also pleaded duress -–the trial took place before the House of Lords decision in Howe. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 15 years for D and 25 years for her co-D. The trial was in 1985.

D, aged 38, had been engaged to T. T broke off the engagement and married V, aged 29. D brooded over this and eight months later shot V. D denied that she was a party to the killing of V. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 10 years and the LCJ recommended 10/11 years. The trial was in 1991.

Killings of male relatives

D, aged 28, and her husband suspected V, who was her 16-year-old brother-in-law, of sexually abusing their children. They decapitated V. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she was not a party to the killing. Her husband changed his plea to guilty in the course of the trial. The trial judge and the LCJ recommended tariffs of 18 years. The trial was in 1997.

In this case there was also a male charged with the murder. He pleaded guilty at an earlier trial and was a Crown witness in D's trial. D, aged 24, killed V, her father aged 47, by dousing him in petrol and setting him alight. V was a drug user and D was angry because her brother had recently suffered a brain haemorrhage brought on by the excessive use of alcohol and drugs. D perceived V as promoting this by encouraging and supporting his son in the abuse. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she was not a party to the killing. Alternatively, she pleaded lack of intent. The defence called expert evidence that, at the time of the killing, D was suffering from acute stress disorder and, although present at the scene, was not participating. In the light of this evidence, the trial judge thought that it was necessary to leave diminished responsibility to the jury. In addition, although the defence had not raised it, the trial judge, with the agreement of counsel, left provocation to the jury. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 15 years. The trial was in 1995.

D, aged 31, together with two male co-Ds killed V, her father aged 55. V was an alcoholic. He was frequently violent towards D but did not sexually abuse her. One night D, who had nowhere to live, went to V's house in the company of the two male co-Ds. V wanted them to leave and was abusive. Something started the violence (the trial judge said that it was unclear whether V had struck D) and it culminated in a ferocious attack on V. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she was not a party to the killing. She did not expressly raise provocation but the trial judge left it to the jury (as he did in the case of one of the co-Ds – the other pleaded guilty to murder). The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 15 years for D, 17 years for the male co-D who was found guilty and 13 years for the male co-D who pleaded guilty. The trial was in 1999.

D, aged 61, was the mother of V, aged 41. V was a criminal and drug addict. Over the years he had made D's life a misery. In the two years before his death V had disappeared but shortly before his death he suddenly arrived at D's home. D took him in. V then started to drink heavily and take his drugs. His drug-dealing friends started to come to D's home. D now resented V's presence and was angry. In interview, D claimed that she killed V after he had said, "I can't live in the junkies world any more". In his Report the trial judge did say that he thought that V probably did ask D to kill him, that D was almost as drunk as V and that D was angry with V and wanted to be rid of him. D pleaded not guilty on the basis of diminished responsibility. She had a long history of psychiatric treatment for depression and had been an in-patient on many occasions. Two experts called by the defence testified that V's return had caused a depressive illness which amounted to an abnormality of mind so as to substantially impair her mental responsibility for the killing. The experts called by the Crown were of the view that it was too mild to amount to an abnormality of mind while one found that she was distressed rather than depressed. The trial judge, having referred to "many" mitigating factors, recommended a minimum term of 5 years. So did the LCJ. The trial was in 1999.

D was aged 28 and V was her stepfather, aged 44. Her co-Ds were her mother (see case 117 below) and two male co-Ds who were not related to D or V. D and her mother hated V. They ensnared the two male co-Ds into the plot by disguising the fact that V was married to D's mother. Instead, they said that V was a police informer who had informed on D's stepfather. D (and her mother) denied being a party to V's killing. The trial was in 1975.

This was a carefully planned murder in a family context. The motive was not absolutely clear but there appears to have been marital disharmony and an incident in India involving V which D and her family found particularly shaming. V, aged 37, was the brother-in-law of D and he was killed by D, her brother and her sister, who was V's wife (see case 1119). D, and V's wife, pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of not being a party to the killing. Alternatively, they pleaded lack of intent. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended tariffs of 10 years for D and her sister and 12 years for D's brother. The trial was in 1989.

D, aged 36, attended a family celebration at a pub of which V, her brother aged 37, was the manager. The function was to celebrate the sixtieth birthday of their father. Both D and V had previous convictions for offences of violence. They all started drinking. An argument ensued in the course of which there was a fight between D and V. D was punched, headbutted, knocked to the ground and kicked by V. V went into the pub's private quarters to clean himself up. A few minutes later, D picked up a knife, went to V's quarters and inflicted three fatal stab wounds. The Crown was unwilling to accept a plea to manslaughter. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of self-defence and provocation. She did not testify. The trial judge, having said that he would not have been surprised had the jury returned a manslaughter verdict, recommended a minimum term of 10/12 years. The LCJ recommended 8 years. The trial was in 1990.

Killings of male neighbours

D, aged 19, was charged together with three male co-Ds, with the murder of V, aged 48. There was a background of ill feeling between all the defendants and V – in part this revolved around the alleged behaviour of V's teenage daughter. By chance, on the day of the killing the defendants and V were all in attendance at the local hospital. Because of delays at the hospital, their paths crossed and the tensions surfaced and escalated. It ended up with V being chased, falling over and suffering a fatal injury. Non-fatal blows were inflicted on V after he had fallen to the ground. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she was not a party to the killing. Alternatively, she pleaded lack of intent. She did not raise provocation, although two of her co-Ds did, albeit unsuccessfully. All were convicted of murder and the Court of Appeal upheld their convictions. The trial judge recommended tariffs for all four defendants of 7/9 years, while the LCJ recommended 9 years. The trial was in 2001.

D, aged 35, together with her male co-D, killed V, aged 35. Her co-D harboured several grievances against V, the main one being that V was responsible for the break up of his relationship with his girlfriend (who was not D). Both of the defendants had been drinking when they attacked V. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she was not a party to the killing. Her co-D unsuccessfully raised provocation. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 7 years for D and 12 years for the co-D. The trial was in 1992.

D, aged 26, committed a robbery together with her two male co-Ds. V, aged 65, was killed in the course of the robbery. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of lack of intent. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 10 years. The trial was in 1995.

D, aged 33, had been the victim in several violent and abusive relationships. V, aged 39, had in the past threatened her because of an incident which he suspected she had been involved in. Apparently, V was known to regularly beat his wife. On the day in question, V came to D's house. He was unarmed but, according to D, abusive and threatening towards her. She responded by fatally stabbing him. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of accident, self-defence, lack of intent and provocation. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 12 years. The trial was in 2002.

D, aged 26, and her two male co-Ds committed a robbery on V, aged 65, in the course of which V was killed. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of lack of intent due to intoxication through drink and drugs. The trial judge and LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 10 years. The trial was in 1995.

Killings of spouses, male partners, ex-spouses and male ex-partners

D, aged 28, killed her partner. Their relationship was volatile and, at times, violent. Each had been violent to the other. V was stabbed to death. D pleaded not guilty to murder and maintained that a stranger in the course of a "road rage" incident had killed V. She repeated this version of events in a TV appeal. Although she had not raised the issue of provocation, the trial judge left it to the jury. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 14 years. The trial was in 1997.

D, aged 33, together with her lover killed V who was her husband and aged 34. The motives were that D wanted to live with her lover and also to claim insurance monies payable on V's death. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of lack of intent. The trial judge and LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 16 years. The trial was in 1995.

This was a re-trial as the Court of Appeal had quashed D's original conviction. D, aged 39, together with her lover murdered V, her husband. V had discovered that D was having an affair. V had a previous conviction for manslaughter of his first wife when he discovered that she was having an affair. It was because of this that the trial judge refers to divorce never having been an option for D. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of lack of intent. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 12 years. The trial was in 1999.

D, aged 43, had been the long time lover of V who was a serving prisoner. V was on weekend leave when he was murdered. The motive for the killing is not clear but it was suggested that D wanted to start a new relationship with her male co-D. The fatal shooting was perpetrated by her male co-D. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she was not a party to the killing. The trial was in 1991.

D, aged 32, was having an affair with her male co-D. V, her husband, was killed because D wanted to continue the affair and she stood to gain £25000 from V's death. D pleaded not guilty on the basis that she was not a party to the killing. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 17 years for D and 16 years for her co-D. The trial was in 1999.

D, aged 36, set fire to and killed V, her husband. The motive for the killing is unclear. D admitted setting fire to V but she pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of lack of intent. D did not give evidence but witness statements from others (which were not ultimately adduced in evidence) suggested previous mutual violence on the part of D and V. D did not raise provocation but the trial judge left the issue to the jury. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 15 years. The trial was in 1994.

D, aged 43, together with three male co-Ds murdered V her 56-year-old husband. The marriage had become loveless and D had started an affair with one of her co-Ds. She also stood to gain financially from V's death. From the Report it is difficult to ascertain what defences were run – there is no reference to self-defence, diminished responsibility or provocation. All the defendants were convicted of murder. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 18/20 years while the LCJ recommended 20 years. The trial was in 1991.

D, aged 37, and V, aged 42, were both alcoholics. On the day of the murder there was an argument about the amount of money which V was spending on alcohol. The police were called to the premises but, having arrived, were told by D to leave. Shortly after V was fatally stabbed. At her trial D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that V's death had been an accident and alternatively lack of intent. D did not testify but she had told police that V impaled himself on a knife which she was holding when he came forward as if to strangle her. In his Report the trial judge said that he was in no doubt that V was seated when he was killed. D did not seek to raise provocation and the trial judge, with the agreement of counsel, did not leave it to the jury. D did not plead diminished responsibility. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 15 years while the LCJ recommended 14 years. The trial was in 2001.

D, aged 23, and her two brothers killed V, her ex-husband and his current girl friend. D hated V and believed that he was responsible for the death through a drug overdose, of a close friend of her and her brothers. The girl friend of V was killed simply because she had witnessed V's murder. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she was not a party to the killings. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 20 years. The trial was in 1994.

D, aged 33, and V were in a quarrelsome and mutually violent relationship. V's murder, by stabbing, was the culmination of a final row. It is unclear what sparked that row – possibly drink/drugs. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of self-defence. She also raised provocation. In his Report, the trial judge referred to D's "violent temperament" and said that she was no battered wife. She was excitable and impulsive and gave "as good as she got, maybe better". He added that the picture she sought to present of being a patient, unresisting victim of repeated violence was false. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 13 years. The trial was in 1996.

D, aged 22, fatally stabbed V, her ex-partner aged 52. On the day of the murder V had been drinking heavily. D, who had also been drinking heavily, arrived at V's home. There was a row over a dog that culminated in a frenzied knife attack by D on V. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of lack of intent due to intoxication. The LCJ recommended a minimum term of 10 years. The trial was in 1986.

D, aged 22, fatally stabbed V, her husband. V had lost his job and told D. A row ensued and she became angry when V said that it was not his fault. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that V's death was an accident and alternatively lack of intent. D did not raise provocation but the trial judge left it to the jury. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 8 years. The trial was in 1998.

D, aged 31, was in a relationship with her male co-D. They wanted V, aged 29 and the estranged husband of D, "out of the way". Each defendant pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of not being a party to the killing. The trial judge and LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 14 years.

V, aged 23, and a violent criminal and police informer, had been and was D's lover. D had also been the lover of one of her male co-Ds and was the mother of his child. That co-D wanted V to stay away from D. Another male co-D hated V because he thought that V had attacked his property and had also physically abused his daughter. V was shot fatally. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that the most that she had envisaged was some action being taken by the co-Ds to frighten V. The trial judge and LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 10 years for D. In respect of each of the two male co-Ds, the trial judge recommended tariffs of 25 years while the LCJ recommended 22 years. The trial was in 1996.

D, aged 44, and V, aged 60, had started an affair in 1992 and set up home together in 1999. It was a stormy relationship with frequent rows, mainly because of V's drinking. There was, however, little in the way of physical violence and D was the dominant partner. In September 1999 D moved out. On the night of the murder she returned to fetch some of her belongings. She then went to her sister's flat and subsequently returned to V's house. V was very drunk. There was along noisy argument. D went to the kitchen and fetched a 12" knife. She stabbed V twice, in the heart and abdomen, using extreme force. She pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of diminished responsibility and/or provocation. In his Report the trial Judge commented that the medical evidence on the issue of abnormality of mind was "not compelling". He did also observe, however, that D had been sexually abused as a child, that she was damaged, vulnerable and lonely. The provocation was said to have been that V had told D that he had had sex with another woman in the bed which D had bought and that he had called D "a whore" - something she found very painful because when she was aged 16 she had been forced to work as a prostitute. D also said that V had grabbed her by the hair to compel her to indulge in oral sex. D said that she found that repellent as she had previously been forced to do that by her mother's employee who had been sexually abusing her. The trial judge noted that there was a period of minutes after the last provoking act and that she had chosen the largest knife available in the kitchen. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 9/10 years. The trial was in 2000.

D, aged 37, fatally stabbed her partner. The Report describes the relationship between D and V as involving "extreme violence". D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that V's death was an accident. She said that she had a knife in her hand for the purpose of chipping potatoes and that she accidentally stabbed V when she swung her arm in his direction. The defence did not expressly raise provocation but the trial judge left the issue to the jury. It is not clear what the provocation might have been. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 10/12 years while the LCJ recommended 9 years. The trial was in 1998.

D, aged 41, was convicted of soliciting the death of V, her husband. They were going through divorce proceedings. V had sworn an affidavit in which he stated that D, in order to obtain employment, had claimed falsely to have academic qualifications. In addition, he was contesting custody of their daughter. The Crown's case was that D wanted V "out of the way". She denied that she had solicited the murder. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 15 years. The trial was in 1993.

D, aged 49, was estranged from V, her husband. She was obliged to pay him £14000 for his share of the house in which they had been living but which she now wanted for herself. She wanted to avoid paying that sum. She recruited her brother to the plot to murder V. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she was not a party to the killing. Her brother unsuccessfully relied on provocation on the basis that he believed that V had been mistreating D. Trial judge recommended a minimum term of 13 years for D while the LCJ recommended 14/15 years. Each recommended a minimum term of 12 years for D's brother. The trial was in 1996.

D, aged 48, was bigamous and engaged in other relationships. V was her husband, aged 60. A possible motive for V's murder was financial as D stood to gain from his will. V died from an insulin overdose and D's plea of not guilty to murder was based on the claim that V had self-administered the insulin. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 16 years. The trial was in 1993.

D, aged 48, together with her two male co-Ds – one of whom was D's lover – murdered D's husband, V. The motive was partly financial but also so that D could continue the affair with her lover. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she was not a party to the killing. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 15 years. The trial was in 1993.

D was aged 35. Her husband, V, was paralysed from the waist down following a road accident. He had been awarded £75000 damages. D's motive for killing V, which was by injecting insulin, is not clear. It could have been financial and/or a desire to be rid of a severely physically disabled husband. D pleaded not guilty to murder submitting that the cause of death was not insulin poisoning but septicaemia. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 15 years. The trial was in 2000.

D, aged 24, and her male co-D were lovers. V was D's husband and he was killed so that they could continue their affair. Both pleaded guilty to murder. The trial judge recommended tariffs of 12 years while the LCJ recommended tariffs of 10/11 years. The trial was in 1995.

D, aged 42, strangled V, her 60-year-old male partner after she had been drinking. She pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of provocation, namely his incessant talking which prevented her from sleeping and also her jealousy (unjustified) concerning his infidelity with a 19-year-old female neighbour. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 12 years. The trial was 1995.

D, aged 20, together with a male co-D killed V, her ex-partner. D was jealous because V had begun to live with another woman. At trial D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she was not a party to the killing. Alternatively, she pleaded lack of intent. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 14 years. The trial was in 1997.

D, aged 55, killed V, her 56-year-old husband because she was angry on account of his infidelity. She pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of diminished responsibility and provocation. The jury rejected the defences and the trial judge referred to the fact that the killing was premeditated and that D had used her daughter to lure V to the location where D stabbed him. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 8 years. He thought the mitigating facts – V's conduct towards D and the effect on her – justified a substantially reduced tariff. The trial was in 2003.

D, aged 39, became infatuated with a man (her co-D) and wanted V, her 38-year-old husband, eliminated so that she could continue her affair. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of lack of intent. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 16/17 years while the LCJ recommended 15 years. The trial was in 1989.

D, aged 44, had been the partner of V, aged 47. When they had lived together, which was as long ago as 1982, V was violent towards D. V had continually blamed D for the fact that their children were heroin users. In the weeks before his murder, V had sent D abusive and threatening letters. One read "watch the roads". D carried this letter on her person in case anything should befall her. On the day in question, V went to D's house as he had concerns about the well being of his grandchild. A male friend accompanied him. There was a confrontation. V was persuaded by his friend to leave. D, having armed herself with a knife, followed them. A heated argument broke out, each abusing the other. D stabbed V thirteen times, although only one blow was fatal. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of self-defence, She alternatively raised lack of intent and also provocation. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of nine years commenting that, although the jury had rejected provocation, it was likely that at the time of the offence D had been under stress for several weeks because of the threatening letters, she had the frightening experience of V invading her home with another powerful man and her fear turned to anger fuelled by V's abusive comments. The trial was in 2003.

D, aged 30, went to a restaurant with V, her 22-year-old male partner. At some point she told V that she wanted to leave the restaurant. V told her to eat her meal. She tried to leave on three occasions but V pushed her down. There was some sort of row. She tried to get up again. V grabbed her and she stabbed him once. Witnesses described D as "furious on edge" and "seething". D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of self-defence. Alternatively, she pleaded lack of intent and also provocation. The trial judge in his report said that the only provocation was that V had told D to eat her meal. He said that, contrary to D's claim, no witness had testified to hearing V threaten to batter D. The trial judge was unimpressed with D's claim that V had regularly assaulted her and he commented unfavourably on her sustained and unjustified attacks on V's character. He recommended a minimum term of 9 years. The trial was in 2002.

D, aged 41, and V, aged 78, were lovers. They had been drinking. They then returned to D's home. V drank some more and became very drunk. A row developed and D said that V had poked her in the eye with his finger. She said that she retaliated by hitting him two or three times with her sandal. She could not remember any more. V sustained 82 injuries from which he died. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of diminished responsibility and also raised provocation. The expert witnesses agreed that D suffered from an abnormality of mind but according to the Crown it was a mild disorder. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 11 years, the trial judge noting that V was frail in comparison to D and there was evidence that D had struck V a number of times in the past. The trial was in 2002.

D, aged 43, had been married to V for nine months. It was an unhappy marriage punctuated by bitter arguments. D came to hate V and she stood to gain £400000 from his death. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she was not a party to the killing of V. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 20 years. The trial was in 1996.

D, aged 47, had been married to V for 25 years. D fatally stabbed V. The motive for the killing is unclear. There was evidence from D and neighbours that there had previously been acts of threats or violence by V towards D. According to neighbours, such acts were infrequent and at worst involved V raising his walking stick and hitting D on the legs or shoulders. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she had not killed V but rather that he had been accidentally killed by their dog. D did not raise provocation. After discussion with counsel, the trial judge left provocation to the jury. This was presumably on the basis that D had testified that V was occasionally violent towards her. The trial judge asked V if she wished to expand on the violence, which she had been subjected to, but she declined the invitation. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 11 years. The trial was in 2003.

D, aged 41, was married to V. The marriage was unhappy and D was hoping to emigrate with their children in order to start afresh. In the two years prior to V's death, D had called the police to the family home on more than one occasion. D pleaded not guilty to murdering V on the basis that she was not the assailant. She relied unsuccessfully on an alibi. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 15/16 years while the LCJ recommended 15 years. The trial judge noted that it was possible, although by no means certain, that previously D had been either physically or mentally abused by V. The trial was in 2001.

D, aged 44, had been in a long standing relationship with V. She had, however, started an affair with one of her male co-Ds. V was killed so that D could continue that affair. It is not clear from the Report what defences were run. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 16 years for D and 17 years for each of her two male co-Ds. The trial was in 2003.

D, aged 31, was married to V, aged 44. D was having a passionate affair with her male co-D. V was killed so that D could continue the affair. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she was not a party to the killing. Her lover pleaded guilty to murder. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 16 years while the LCJ recommended 15 years. The trial was in 2001.

D, aged 36 and addicted to heroin, had been in a brief sexual relationship with V, aged 25. She blamed V for the death of her unborn baby when they had been in the relationship. She pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of self-defence and alternatively provocation. D manufactured injuries to her face to make it look as though she had killed V in self-defence. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 16 years. The trial was in 2003.

V was the ex-partner of D, aged 42. V, who was a small man, called at D's flat, acted boorishly and refused to leave when asked to. V, however, had not acted violently. It ended with D flourishing two knives and fatally stabbing V. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that V's death was an accident. The trial judge left self-defence and provocation to the jury. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 11 years. The trial was in 2003.

D, aged 26, was the estranged wife of V. It had been a stormy marriage. D had become the lover of her male co-D. V was killed because D hated him. The co-D pleaded guilty in the course of the trial. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she was not a party to the killing. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 14 years for D while the LCJ recommended 14/16 years. In respect of the co-D, the trial judge recommended 12/14 years while the LCJ recommended 14 years.

D, aged 38, was the long-term partner of V. The suggestion is that V had sado-masochistic tendencies, which he indulged in. D had formed a relationship with one of her two male co-Ds. V was shot so that that relationship could continue. All three defendants pleaded guilty to murder. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 14 years for D and 12 years for each of the co-Ds. The LCJ recommended a minimum term of 12 years for each of the defendants. The trial was in 2002.

D, aged 36, was the common law wife of V. The motive for the killing is not entirely clear but the killing had been preceded by D's three children being taken into care on account of V's paedophile tendencies, something D had not been aware of. She had also lost her father shortly before the murder of V. The murder may have been an act of revenge. D pleaded not guilty by reason of diminished responsibility. The expert witnesses agreed that D had mild retardation. One psychiatrist diagnosed clinical depression at the time of the killing. Another said that it was a possibility but that it was more likely that D was simply very angry with V. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 8 years while the LCJ recommended 8/10 years. The trial was in 2002.

D, aged 20, was the ex-partner of V, aged 34. She fatally stabbed him. She pleaded not guilty to murder on then basis of self-defence. Alternatively, she pleaded lack of intent and provocation. D, who had recently given birth, claimed that V had raped her at knifepoint. The trial judge and LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 6 years. The trial judge in recommending the tariff referred to D's very difficult background and the way that V had exploited her – the latter he thought was a very strong mitigating factor. The trial was in 2001.

D, aged 20, had for a period of 9 months been in a relationship with V, aged 38. They did not share a bed but had sexual intercourse on four occasions. Occasional violence seems to have erupted as a result of V's wish to have sexual intercourse with V more regularly but she "seems to have given as good as she got" despite the disparity in size. There was a final row in which V tormented D about her lesbian relationships and in the course of which D was struck in the face by V. D fatally stabbed V. She pleaded not guilty to murder on the grounds of lack of intent, diminished responsibility and provocation. The basis of the provocation plea was that V had taunted her about her lesbian relationships and had struck her. There is no detail regarding the basis of the provocation plea. Having described the verdict of the jury as "tough" the trial judge recommended a minimum term of 10 years while the LCJ recommended 9/10 years. The trial was in 1997.

D, aged 32, was the partner of V. The motive for the killing appears to have been jealousy on D's part because another woman visited V. D fatally stabbed V. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of self-defence. Alternatively, she pleaded lack of intent and provocation. Her case was that V had commented that the sore on her mouth looked like it was from a man with syphilis and that V had picked up a knife. It was her case that she had seized the knife from him and struck out in self-defence. From the judge's remarks it appears that this was a case where excessive force was used in self-defence. The trial judge and the LCJ recommended a minimum term of 9 years. The trial was in 2001.

D, aged 45, was married to V, aged 47. One of her two male co-Ds was her lover, then latter in turn recruiting the other male co-D. D's lover wanted her to leave V but she would not do so for reasons that were never explained. Her lover then suggested killing V. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of lack of intent. The trial judge and LCJ recommended tariffs of 14 years. The trial was in 1992.

D, aged 50, and V were business partners and lived together. It was a turbulent relationship with D being subject to verbal, but not physical, abuse on the part of V. The Crown's case was that D hired contract killers to shoot V. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she was not a party to the killing. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 14 years while the LCJ recommended 16 years. The trial was in 2001.

D, aged 34, was the long-term partner of V. The Crown's case was that D fatally attacked V out of bitter resentment and anger that V would not marry her. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of self-defence. She claimed that in the morning V had raped her anally and was threatening to do so in the evening. She said that this was particularly obnoxious to her as she had been sexually assaulted as a child. The judge left the issue of provocation to the jury. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 12 years. The trial was in 2001.

D, aged 48, was the ex-spouse of V, aged 68. She was dissatisfied with the financial arrangements following their divorce. Initially she tried unsuccessfully to solicit others to murder V. D pleaded not guilty to murder claiming that V had died from a heart attack. The trial judge, having described the case as "unusual" declined to recommend a minimum term. He added, "the jury may have decided that even to render unconscious is to cause serious injury". The trial was in 1986.

See case 63 above.

D, aged 33 and described as of "impeccable character", had for some months been in a relationship with V, aged 28. It was probably a tempestuous one. D wanted V to leave for good. V, who had an appalling criminal record, called at D's flat to collect his clothes. D had left them on the communal landing, some of them slashed. There was an altercation which culminated in D stabbing V. D pleaded not guilty on the basis that she had been panic stricken and had stabbed V in self-defence. The trial judge, having referred to D's agoraphobia and depression and that the offence was committed out of sheer misery, recommended a minimum term of 8 years as did the LCJ. The trial was in 1989.

See case 64 above.

D, aged 51, fatally stabbed V, her 51-year-old husband. He was her third husband and they were both alcoholics. There was a history of rows with neighbours calling the police. On occasions D had use violence towards V, who was a mild man, and the police had attended the home. Latterly D had told neighbours that she would kill V using a knife. It appears that she did not want V to die before August 1987, as he then became entitled to a pension. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of self-defence, alternatively lack of intent and also provocation. D pleaded provocation on the basis that V had been violent when he had tried to get back a small bottle of vodka that D said she had confiscated. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 10 years while the LCJ recommended 11 years. The trial was in 1988.

D, aged 42, was married to V, aged 40. She was physically disabled from birth and was simple, naïve and weak. V was a demanding and difficult husband. While V was in hospital, D met T one of her male co-defendants. She became infatuated with him. His feelings were restricted to removing V from the matrimonial home and settling comfortably in himself. V was not prepared to go. V threatened divorce and his solicitor sent letters demanding that T vacate the premises. The trial judge doubted that D or T had the nerve or intellect to kill V. However, In addition to T, W was also staying in the matrimonial home. He lacked neither nerve nor intellect. He took a dislike to V because V reminded him of his own father. W took the lead in planning and executing the killing, by asphyxiation, of V. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she was not a party to the killing. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended tariffs of 11 years for D and T. In respect of W, they each recommended a minimum term of 12 years. The trial was in 1988.

D, aged 39, was estranged from V, her husband aged 30. D was simultaneously having affairs with her two male co-defendants. Together they planned the killing of V. The two male-defendants were convicted of murder at an earlier trial. D pleaded not guilty to murder and although the Report is not absolutely clear on what basis she pleaded not guilty it was most probably that she was not a party to the killing. The LCJ recommended a minimum term of 12 years. The trial was in 1978.

D, aged 39, had been cohabiting for 6 months with V, aged 30.They were both heavy drinkers. On the day of the murder they were living temporarily in a bed-sit. They went out drinking. On returning home, they had a quarrel in the course of which D struck V. V fell asleep and 40 minutes later D took a knife and fatally stabbed V. In interview, she said that she had only wanted to injure V sufficiently badly to put him in hospital. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of provocation. From the Report it is not clear what precisely the provocation was alleged be. She did claim that V regularly beat her and took her money. The trial was in 1977.

D, aged 18, strangled V, aged 15, with whom she was in a relationship. The motive for the killing is not clear. There is a suggestion that it may have been because V had accused D of sexually interfering with little boys. D denied that she had killed V – she claimed that a 15-year-old boy perpetrated it. The trial was in 1983.

D, aged 31, was charged with the murder of V, aged 40, together with one male and two female co-defendants. V was the husband of one of D's female co-defendants. D started an affair with V. She, however, grew disenchanted with V and wanted to be free to pursue an affair with her two male co-defendant. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that V's death from narcotic poisoning was an accident. She had given him 15 sleeping pills to calm him down as he was sexually pestering her. All three co-defendants were acquitted. The motive for the murder is not entirely clear – the trial judge was thought that D had found it necessary to kill V in order to pursue her affair. Equally, he thought it unlikely that V was killed for financial reasons. The trial was in 1982.

In the Report there is no suggestion that D pleaded provocation. In 1982, however, D applied for an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against conviction. Her ground was that the trial judge failed to satisfactorily put to the jury the defence case based on provocation. Her application was refused both by the single judge and the Court of Appeal.

D, aged 41, was estranged from V, her 50-year-old husband. She had started a relationship with her male co-defendant. V was eliminated so that they could continue their affair. Both defendants pleaded guilty to murder. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended tariffs of 13 years. The trial was in 1987.

D, aged 28, was married to V, aged 26. The marriage was not harmonious due, it seems, to D's spendthrift and slovenly habits. To ease their financial problems D and V took in lodgers. Two of these lodgers were D's male co-defendants, aged 18 and 20. D persuaded them to kill V. Her motive was to obtain the insurance money payable on V's death. D pleaded not guilty on the basis that she was not a party to the killing. The trial judge and LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 12 years for D. In respect of the co-defendants they each recommended tariffs of 10 years. The trial was in 1988.

D, aged 42, was married to V aged 56. D had started an affair with one of her two male co-defendants and, according to the Crown, V was killed so that the affair could continue. D pleaded not guilty on the basis that she was not a party to the killing. From the Report it appears that D did not plead provocation although there is a suggestion that she was disenchanted with V's sexual infidelity. The trial judge and LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 8 years for D. The tariffs which they each recommended for the male co-defendants were considerably higher – 14 and 12 years respectively.

D, aged 20, was married to V, aged 19. It appears that on the day in question both D and V had drunk a considerable amount. V was fatally stabbed. D denied that she had been a party to his killing. She did not give evidence but from what said in interview it appears that her case was that somebody had stabbed V in the street outside their home. The trial judge though that there had been a row, she had stabbed V and then instantly regretted what she had done, as witnessed by the fact that she immediately called the emergency services. At the time she was five months pregnant. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 7 years while the LCJ recommended 8/9 years. The trial was in 1994.

D, aged 31, was married to V, aged 63. V was killed the day after they had married and the motive seems to have been financial. D and her brother were charged with V's murder. They ran "cut throat" defences and both were convicted of murder. The trial judge recommended tariffs of 20 years while the LCJ recommended tariffs of 18 years. The trial was in 1983.

D, aged 35, was the partner of V, aged 43. D was charged with the murder, by stabbing, of V and the attempted murder of F, a female. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of provocation. She said that she had walked into her bedroom and had found V and F having sexual intercourse. The prosecution case was that D, V and F had all been sharing the same bed but that, in any event, V and F were not having sexual intercourse. Although convicted of V's murder, D was acquitted of the attempted murder of F. She was, however, convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The trial judge thought the jury had arrived at the correct verdict although he had fully expected the jury to convict of manslaughter. The trial was in 1974.

Killings of male friends and male acquaintances

D, aged 29, together with two male co-defendants, murdered V, aged 27 (punching and kicking). One of the male co-defendants was her partner and V was baby-sitting for them. They suspected V of interfering with their children. V denied this although he may have admitted masturbating in front of the children. At the time of the murder D had been drinking. She pleaded not guilty and relied on lack of intent. The trial judge left provocation to the jury although it had not been raised by D. The trial judge and the LCJ recommended a minimum term of 10 years for D, while for her male co-defendants the trial judge recommended 18 years and the LCJ 10 years. The trial was in 1991.

D, aged 32, and V were both alcoholics and were acquaintances. On the day of the murder V visited D. As he had been on previous occasions, V was abusive and unpleasant to D and there was an argument. It ended with D fatally stabbing V. D pleaded self-defence, lack of intent and provocation. The trial judge said that, although of low intelligence, D was manipulative and had at one stage sought to cover up the crime by a suggestion that an entirely innocent woman had committed it. Both he and the LCJ recommended a minimum term of 13 years. The trial was in 1997.

D, aged 28, fatally stabbed V. D pleaded guilty to murder. The trial judge said that D genuinely believed that V had sexually assaulted her when she was a child. In recommending a minimum term of 14 years, he described it as an act of revenge with intent to kill. The LCJ recommended a minimum term of 11/12 years. The trial was in 1998.

D was aged 30. V, aged 34, was a heavy drug user who demanded from and was given drugs by those who feared him. He had previously threatened with a knife D, her male partner and their child. D and her partner decided to kill V after he had forced D's partner to make cash withdrawals from the post office and also had taken his methadone. D's partner pleaded guilty to murder. D denied that she was a party to the killing. The trial judge recommended tariffs of 11 years, while the LCJ recommended tariffs of 9/10 years because of the presence of "non-legal provocation". The trial was in 1999.

D1 and D2 were aged 28 and 39. There was also a male co-defendant. V was an acquaintance. The three defendants had all been drinking heavily. They went to V's flat in a hostile mood seemingly because of a conviction that V had previously sexually assaulted D2 and also had stabbed her sister. At the flat V was hit with a heavy object and died. D1 and D2 pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that they were not parties to the killing, alternatively on the basis of lack of intent and finally on the basis of diminished responsibility. The basis of the diminished responsibility plea was alcohol dependence syndrome. The trial judge and the LCJ both recommended a minimum term of 13 years for D1 and 16 years for the male co-defendant. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 12 years for D2 while the LCJ recommended 10/11 years. The trial was in 1997.

D, aged 17, together with her male partner, were befriended by V, aged 67. They had been living in V's home. They had stolen his Visa card and wished to be able to use V's home in order to deal in drugs. They killed V (strangulation) and then went on a spending spree with the Visa card. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she was not a party to the killing. Alternatively, she relied on diminished responsibility. It was accepted that she had psychiatric problems. Both the trial judge and the LCJ recommended a minimum term of 10 years. The trial was in 2000.

D, aged 33, and who denied that she was a prostitute, had struck up a casual relationship with V, aged 69. V's relationships with women were generally very promiscuous and he was into both hard and soft pornography. V was killed by D attacking him with a hammer. She pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of provocation. She said that she had been given some alcohol by V and had fallen asleep. She woke up in V's house to find herself being filmed with a camcorder. She thought V had been abusing her. She was physically sick and on returning to the room V commanded that she make herself available for further abuse. D claimed that V had "taken advantage" of her. The defence, having called expert evidence, abandoned a defence of diminished responsibility following contrary evidence from two witnesses for the Crown and a ruling by the trial judge that, if she sought to rely on diminished responsibility, he would rule that D's previous convictions for robbery were admissible. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 16 years while the LCJ recommended 14/15 years. The trial was in 1999.

D, aged 34, together with her male co-defendant, decided to rob V, a 52-year-old acquaintance of D. In the course of the robbery V was punched and kicked and died from his injuries. "Cut throat" defences were run. The trial judge and the LCJ both recommended tariffs of 14 years. The trial was in 2000.

D, aged 25, had just left prison after serving two years for robbery. She spent the first night of her release at the home of V, who was aged 31. V was reluctant to let her stay any longer. D left but returned two days later and fatally stabbed V. Her defence was that she had not perpetrated the stabbing. The trial judge and the LCJ both recommended a minimum term of 12 years. The trial was in 1994.

D, aged 19, was accustomed to visiting V, aged 76. V used to give her money. D and her male co-defendant decided to burgle V's premises. V was killed in order that he could not identify them as the perpetrators. D's defence was that her co-defendant had gone further in attacking V than she had anticipated. The trial judge recommended a minimum term for D of 15 years while the LCJ, on account of her age, recommended 13. Both recommended a minimum term of 17 years for the co-defendant. The trial was in 1997.

D was aged 25 and V was the ex-partner of her mother. D, who had drunk ten pints of cider and was of large build, fatally punched and kicked V because she thought he had called her four year old son a "nonce". She told police that V had done so before and that earlier that day he had referred to her family as "nonce cases". Her plea of not guilty to murder was on the basis that she had not killed V, alternatively lack of intent. She also raised provocation claiming that she was more susceptible to what had been said by V because of the death of her daughter two years previously and also because two men (one the brother of her son's father) had sexually abused her sister. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 10 years. The trial was in 1997.

D, aged 35, had known V a long time. He was both a father figure but also a person who, according to D (and the trial judge said that there was some supporting evidence), had in the past raped D and sexually abused her daughter. D had no settled accommodation and was staying with V. She had taken her normal cocktail of drugs and consumed a large amount of alcohol. A verbal altercation developed and V mentioned D's mother in a way, which D described as the "last straw". Over a period of thirty minutes to one hour she injected V with insulin and he died. She pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she had not injected V – the trial judge referred to her suggesting that her son had injected V. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 12 years while the LCJ recommended 11/12 years. The trial was in 1997.

D, aged 26, killed V, aged 78, by hitting him with a heavy object. It appeared that they knew each other and V was in the habit of making sexual demands. The motive for the killing is described as "unexplained". D denied that she had inflicted the injuries resulting in V's death. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 15 years, while the LCJ recommended 14 years. The trial was in 1994.

D, aged 21, had been living with V for a short term. It appears that an altercation started because she wanted V to leave. Both were regular users of drugs and both were intoxicated when D fatally stabbed V. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of self-defence, lack of intent, provocation and diminished responsibility. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 9 years, noting that the medical evidence presented a strong case in support of diminished responsibility, albeit that it was not successful. The trial was in April 2003.

D, aged 42, and her male co-defendant had been drinking in a pub with V, aged 25. They all ended up in D's house where form some inexplicable reason V was fatally stabbed. The defendants ran "cut throat" defences but also provocation. It is not possible to gauge what the provocation was supposed to consist of. The trial judge and the LCJ both recommended tariffs of 15 years.

D was aged 39 and V was aged 51. V had previously been a lodger in D's house. D's male co-defendant had succeeded to the tenancy of V's room. V had, however, kept in contact with D. In 1996 V, while very drunk, had violently assaulted D. he was reported to the police and was cautioned. At a hearing in November 1996 D relating to contact with her children, D was granted less contact than she had been hoping for. She attributed this in part to the physical injuries, which she had sustained two weeks earlier at the hands of V. Accordingly, she harboured a deep sense of resentment against him. Three weeks later D and her male co-defendant fatally kicked and stamped on V. Both defendants pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of lack of participation in the killing and alternatively lack of intent. The trial judge and the LCJ thought there was a lot of mitigation. The trial judge described D as "warm hearted" whose life had been ruined through addiction to alcohol and poor control over her temper. He recommended a minimum term of 9 years while the LCJ recommended 8/9 years.

D, aged 36, and V, aged 59, were among a group of alcoholics known to each other. They all congregated in a flat and started drinking. Initially, the atmosphere was good but it changed when D accused V of being responsible for a serious assault for which D had been charged. V was then violently and fatally kicked and stamped on. D and a male co-defendant were charged with V's murder. Another man had been involved and most probably inflicted most of the fatal injuries but he died before the date of trial. D denied that she was a party to the killing. The trial judge and the LCJ both recommended a minimum term of 12 years. The trial was in 2002.

D, aged 42, murdered V, her flat mate. Her defence to murder was diminished responsibility. There was disagreement amongst the expert witnesses as to whether her depression amounted to clinical depression and whether the depression and her alcoholism – "the whole package" – was sufficient to substantially impair her mental responsibility. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 12 years while the LCJ recommended 10 years. The trial was in 2002.

D was aged 41. The Crown's case was that D desperately wanted to secure from V, aged 47, the title deeds to the house in which D lived but which V owned. While V was serving a prison sentence, D made a further attempt to secure the property. The Crown alleged that, fearful of V finding out, D in 1990 hired T to kill V. Instead, T informed V of the plot. V then taunted D that he was still alive. Although the dispute over the house continued, the relationship between D and V seemed to improve. At one point V teased D by saying, "you could have poisoned me". Nevertheless, in 1992 they were frequently in each other's company, although still continuing to litigate over the house. The Crown's case was that D then resorted to arsenic and in April 1992 laced V's food with fatal results. Two months earlier (February) V had been violently sick after eating a meal that D had prepared. The post mortem revealed that arsenic in the hair of V at locations consistent with arsenic ingestion not only in April but also in February. D denied that she had killed V. Both the trial judge and the LCJ recommended a minimum term of 20 years. The trial was in 1993

Subsequently the Court of Appeal was invited to receive fresh evidence from a consultant psychiatrist who had examined D in 1997. He concluded that V was suffering from mental disorder and a severe depressive illness at the time of the murder. The Court of Appeal declined to receive the evidence.

D, aged 30, and her male co-defendant mistakenly believed that V, aged 49, was a paedophile who had sexually abused his own daughter. As a result they tortured V to death. D denied that she was a party to the killing. The trial judge and the LCJ both recommended that D's tariff should be 15 years. For the male co-defendant, the trial judge recommended 17 years and the LCJ recommended 16 years. The trial was in 2002.

D, aged 31, and who had previous convictions for offences of violence, suspected V of stealing her handbag. As a result she fatally stabbed him. She pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she had not perpetrated the killing and alternatively on the basis of diminished responsibility. Two psychiatrists testified on behalf of the defence. One stated that there was an abnormality of mind – clinical depression. The other spoke of an explosive personality disorder. He also referred to a disordered personality and intoxication. Each was of the view that there was an abnormality of mind that substantially impaired her mental responsibility for the killing. The psychiatrist for the Crown agreed that there was an abnormality of mind but declined to express an opinion on the "ultimate question". Both the trial judge and the LCJ recommended a minimum term of 12 years. The trial was in 1992.

D, aged 19, and her male co-defendant murdered V, aged 46. The trial judge said that D had not the slightest reason for doing him any harm. Alcohol may have been a factor. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of diminished responsibility. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 15 years. It is not known what the LCJ recommended. The trial was in 1985.

D was aged 16. There were two male co-defendants aged 17. V, aged 53, was a homosexual. The male co-defendants thought that V was a molester of young boys and also that he had sexually abused D. They doused him in paraffin and set him alight. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she was not a party to the killing. Alternatively, she pleaded both lack of intent and diminished responsibility. In respect of D, both the trial judge and the LCJ recommended a minimum term of 5 years. The recommended tariffs for the male co-defendants were 15 and 13 years. The trial was in 1992.

V, aged 25, had for a number of years pestered D, aged 20. He had also issued the odd threat. D was not interested in him. On the night in question, D went to a club where she expected to meet her boy friend. V was there. There was an altercation on the stairway between D and V and D said that V struck her twice in the face. As a result D fetched a knife from the kitchen and returned to confront V. At her trial D said that she fetched the knife to protect herself but denied that she had stabbed V. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she had not stabbed V. Alternatively she pleaded lack of intent and also provocation. Both the trial judge and the LCJ recommended a minimum term of 5 years. The LCJ described it as a "very unusual case". He spoke of a background of "posturing behaviour" by V and he referred to D's youth.

There was a postscript. There was an appeal against conviction to the Court of appeal that was dismissed. The House of Lords refused the petition for leave to appeal. The basis of the appeal was that the trial judge had failed to direct that the "reasonable person" shares such of the accused's characteristics that would affect the gravity of the provocation – in this case it was submitted that it was particularly necessary because of D's exceptionally religious background and the previous sexual approaches by V. The trial was in 1986.

D1 was aged 16 and D2 was aged 17. There were a number of co-defendants (male and female) who were all acquitted. V was aged 16. There had been a history of some trouble, not particularly serious, between two rival groups of young people. The group of which D1 and D2 were a part encountered V in the street. V was fatally stabbed. Both D1 and D2 pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of lack of intent. D1 also pleaded provocation, although from the Report it is difficult to ascertain what the provocation consisted of. Both the trial judge and the LCJ recommended tariffs of 8 years. The trial was in 1993.

D, aged 42, shared a flat with V, aged 44. It was not a sexual relationship. The flat became a mecca for local cider drinkers. V was an alcoholic but was placid when in drink. There were frequent rows and often violence. V had to make frequent visits to the hospital because of the violence that he suffered. On the night of the murder there was drinking, sounds of violence and neighbours heard V crying and pleading. He was fatally stabbed. D, and a male co-D, were charged with V's murder. Each pleaded not guilty on the basis of not being a party to the killing. Alternatively, each pleaded lack of intent. Both the trial judge and the LCJ recommended a minimum term of 10 years for D and 8 years for the male co-D. The trial was in 1988.

D, aged 29, lived with her male partner and co-D. There had been friction between the latter and V, aged 51. D and her partner went to a pub where V was. D entered the pub and accused V of having previously hit her partner. The latter appeared and challenged V to a fight. While the two men were fighting (without weapons), D fatally stabbed V. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of lack of intent and diminished responsibility (her partner pleaded not guilty on the basis that he had no knowledge that D had a knife). He was acquitted. Evidence was called by both the Crown and the defence to the effect that D suffered from a chronic depressive anxiety which sometimes caused panic attacks. D said that she had used the knife unwittingly in the course of a panic attack. While all the doctors agreed that if this was true it was a proper case of diminished responsibility, the prosecution psychiatrist and the jury rejected the "panic attack" explanation – the judge was of the view that they were right to do so in the light of the evidence. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 10/12 years and the LCJ recommended 10 years. The trial was in 1990.

D, aged 22, lived with her male lover. V, aged 23, lived in the flat above them. Earlier in the day all three, along with others, had been drinking. There had been some altercation between D's lover and V. They all returned home. D's lover was in bed in a drunken stupor when V knocked on the door saying that he wanted to speak to him. D refused V entry and this led to a quarrel and exchange of abuse. According to D, V hit her in the face. V then fetched a knife from the kitchen and stabbed V five or six times. D pleaded self-defence, lack of intent and provocation. The trial was in 1982. The recommended tariff could not be discerned from the Report.

The two defendants, D1 aged 46, and D2, age unknown, were casual friends of V, aged 37. One of them had previously had sexual intercourse with V. There was some resentment that V had made slanderous remarks relating to the defendant with whom he had had sexual intercourse. On the day in question they had all been drinking together in the pub. V went home. Later D1 and D2 arrived at his home and killed him with a hammer. D1 pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of provocation – the basis of the plea is not clear. She was convicted of murder. D2 pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of lack of intent and diminished responsibility. She was convicted of manslaughter. Before sentencing D2 the trial judge established that the basis of the jury verdict was lack of intent rather than diminished responsibility. In respect of D1 the trial judge recommended a minimum term of 10 years while the LCJ recommended 12 years. The trial was in 1990

Killings of male strangers

D, aged 16, together with five male co-Ds killed V, a young man, by throwing him off a bridge into the Thames. V drowned. The killing took place in the context of a street robbery. At trial the defendants ran "cut throat" defences. The trial judge set a minimum term of 10 years. The trial was in 2000.

D, aged 16, along with three male co-Ds killed V, aged 26. They led V away from a town centre intending to beat him up in a quiet place. The motive was not clear and it is difficult to discern what defences were run. It is possible that D denied being a party to the killing. The trial was in 2001.

D, aged 29, fatally shot V, aged 38. It was a "contract" killing. D pleaded guilty. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 12 years. The trial was in 1994.

D, aged 31, and her male co-D met V in a pub. They decided that they would commit a burglary/robbery against V. They all took a mini cab to V's home. There, in the course of a burglary, they murdered V. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of lack of intent. The LCJ recommended tariffs of 12/13 years. The trial was in 1985.

Killings of "other" males

D, aged 37, hired two contract killers to murder V, aged 16, because V had previously committed a robbery against her lover. V was strangled. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she was not a party to the killing. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 16/18 years while the LCJ recommended 17 years. The trial was in 2000.

D, aged 20, was a prostitute and V was one of her clients. At one stage she had stayed at V's flat for several months. The motive for the fatal stabbing of V appears to have been that V was threatening to report D to the police for having stolen a ring that belonged to V's mother. D was charged with a male co-D and they ran "cut throat" defences – the male co-D was acquitted. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 16 years while the LCJ recommended 14/15 years. The trial was in 1997.

D, aged 43, along with five male co-Ds killed V, aged 16. The background was that D's son – who was one of the co-Ds – had been beaten up by a gang which included V. D drove the co-Ds around looking for V. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she was not a party to the killing. The trial judge and LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 14 years. The trial was in 2000.

D, aged 27, and her male co-D had previously stolen property from V, aged 79. It appears V realised that he was being "scammed" by them, became angry and ordered them out of his house. The male co-D fled but D fatally stabbed V. D denied that she had killed V. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 15 years while the LCJ recommended 14/15 years. The trial was in 1994.

D, aged 27, and her male co-D hired a mini cab intending to rob the driver, V. V was fatally stabbed. At trial the defendants ran "cut throat" defences – the male co-D was convicted of manslaughter. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 13 years while the LCJ recommended a minimum term of 14 years. The trial was in 1995.

D, aged 18, together with a male co-D fatally stabbed V, aged 64. The motive appears to have been robbery. The defendants ran "cut throat" defences. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 15 years. The trial was in 2002.

D, aged 20, was a prostitute and V, aged 75, was a client. He had considerable savings and she asphyxiated him in order to obtain those savings. She pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis of lack of intent. The trial judge and the LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 15 years. The trial was in 2002.

D, aged 27, met V, aged 55, on the day before the killing. Sexual intercourse took place. The next day was spent drinking in pubs. D strangled V in the evening. D pleaded guilty but there was a Newton trial because she claimed that V had made unwarranted sexual advances – the trial judge rejected D's version of events. He recommended a minimum term of 13 years. The trial was in 2003.

D, aged 38, and her male co-D sought to blackmail V, aged 68, by exposing his homosexuality. The attempt was unsuccessful and in order to prevent him identifying them, they asphyxiated V. D pleaded guilty to murder and her male co-D was convicted of manslaughter on the basis of lack of intent. The trial judge and LCJ each recommended a minimum term of 14 years. The trial was in 2001.

D, aged 22, and her husband selected V, aged 30, as a murder victim because he bore a striking resemblance to the husband. The plan was to kill V and then for D to claim that her husband had been killed with a view to obtaining £76000 under a life insurance policy. At an earlier trial, D's husband pleaded guilty to murder. D pleaded not guilty to murder. From the Report it is difficult to establish what defences were run – on the facts outlined it is difficult to envisage that either self-defence or provocation was relied upon. There is nothing in the Report to suggest that D pleaded diminished responsibility. It is also not possible to discern what tariff was recommended – in the case of the husband the trial judge recommended a minimum term of 20 years. The trial was in 1984.

D, aged 33, was a prostitute. Her sister-in-law, another prostitute, had picked up V, aged 51. The intention was that V would have sex with at least one of them. There was an argument about payment and V, who was drunk, made racist remarks about D's sister-in-law. This incensed D who was married to a black man. D fetched a knife and fatally stabbed V. D pleaded not guilty to murder on the basis that she had not stabbed V. The judge left self-defence and provocation to the jury. The Crown would have accepted a plea to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility. The trial judge commented that had she done so, he would have imposed a discretionary life sentence. It is not possible to discern what tariff was recommended. The trial was in 1984.

D, aged 26, killed V, aged 73. Neither the relationship between the parties nor the motive for the killing is discernible. It is also not possible to identify what defences were run. The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 12 years.

Note 1 Cases where there have subsequently been successful appeals against conviction have been deleted. [Back]

Ý
Ü Þ

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/other/EWLC/2004/290(appendix_e).html