Graham Coutts has been found guilty for a second time of murdering Jane Longhurst in 2003. He was originally convicted at Lewes Crown Court in 2004, but his successful appeal to the House of Lords last summer led to a retrial.
In essence, the Lords decided the conviction was unsafe because the possible alternative verdict of manslaughter had not been put to the jury; Coutts had argued that he killed Jane Longhurst by accident during consensual BDSM sex. The Lords’ judgment of course gave Coutts the chance to argue his case again, and perhaps be acquitted, or convicted merely of manslaughter. In fact, as it turns out, his story was http://www.magliettedacalcioit.com once again disbelieved: the jury has clearly founf that Jane Longhurst consented to nothing, and Coutts has been found as guilty as murdering her as he was the first time.
Arguably, as a result of this case the law is now less friendly than it was before to genuinely consensual BDSM sex. I say that because the prosecution’s original approach was to argue firmly that this was murder; it rejected the idea that Jane Longhurst consented to being asphyxiated, and rejected the idea her death was accidental. It did not seek a conviction on that basis, and the option of a manslaughter verdict was not put to the jury.
That seems to me a very liberal approach to BDSM. Arguably too liberal, because although I agree with a liberal approach to any kinky sex that doesn’t result in death or serious harm, people who unlike Jane Longhurst actually consent to being tied up deserve protection from reckless behaviour from their partners. But the approach the CPS took in Lewes has the merit of inviting no fudge from juries, and no verdict on a false basis. They straightforwardly asked the jury to disbelieve Coutts, and accepted the risk he would be acquitted if they did not succeed. Now, I’m afraid that kind of brave but fair approach may not be open to those prosecuting a similar case in future; and anyone who kills their partner in a genuine accident is more likely to be convicted as a sort of compromise verdict, even if believed.
The other issue arising from this case is the proposed ban on extreme Cheap NFL Jerseys pornography in Part 6 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. That ban is something Jane Longhurst’s mother has campaigned for since her death, because it’s known Graham Coutts visited websites showing images of women being strangled, and of necrophilia. She thinks that normalised his fantasies, and encouraged him to act on them.
I must admit I’ve never known I think about this issue – all I can do is suggest you look at this interview with Liz Longhurst, at the website of “Backlash”, the main organisation opposing the ban, and at this selection of views in the Guardian. And make up your own minds.
If viewing extreme pornography is a trigger factor, how come more people are not convicted of rape and murder as a result of it?
I remain of the view that this is just more kneejerk legislation.