Discussion in 'Currently Awaiting Trial' started by StillDiggin, Aug 1, 2021.
My bet is on abuse of drugs.
The court case in Newport Crown heard Logan was found with multiple injuries including a torn liver, an internal head injury, and a broken collarbone.
An inquest opening at Pontypridd Coroners' Court on Wednesday, September 1, heard Logan was "found deceased" in a river near his home address and the alarm was raised by his parents who reported him missing.
Teen appears in court charged with murder of five-year-old Logan Mwangi
Teen appears in court charged with murder of five-year-old Logan Mwangi
The teenager, of Bridgend, appeared before magistrates in Cardiff on Thursday and spoke only to confirm his name and address. He was previously charged with perverting the course of justice.
He was told that he would remanded in local authority care as the court heard the case could only be dealt with at crown court.
District Judge Stephen Harmes said: “You face serious charges and they have to be sent to crown court."
The judge said the teenager would next appear at Cardiff Crown Court.
A provisional trial date of January 31, 2022, was given with a time estimate of four weeks.
Well, that's wrong, isn't it.
Jeeez. I'm actually quite surprised by the mum getting a murder charge also. Poor little boy. He had not one person in that household he could turn to for help, love or comfort it would seem (IMO)
Wasn’t there another case in recent years where, when police were unable to discern who was the guilty party, they charged all involved with murder and PTCOJ, in order to allow the court to decide? Can anyone refresh my memory?
Just wondering if this could be similar - if all three are refusing to say who do it, all three may be equally guilty on paper, and murder charges can put pressure on them to speak out against one another.
it’s hard (and awful) to imagine a scenario where all three are actively and premeditatedly engaged in killing the poor child,
I wonder if there were any previous concerns raised concerning this family?
Injuries indicate rage (fuelled by substances?).
I've been following this case in the news - Arthur Labinjo-Hughes appeared 'skeletal' before death
And dad and dad's girlfriend charged with murder. I think by all accounts the girlfriend delivered the fatal blows, the dad was not present when he was murdered, but both charged with murder as they both abused him for months.
So maybe in this case one of them may have delivered a fatal blow, but all 3 may have been involved in abusing him leading up to his death.
What an interesting idea!
Could be that all 3 contributed to the injuries that killed him - and it’s hard to say who exactly killed him or delivered the final injury.. but they all played an equal roll in injuring him and contributing to his death jmo
I cannot even begin to picture this. Poor little boy.
In this case -- the injuries were so brutal. We know Lucas was kicked so hard that his organs ruptured.
We also know that mom most likely staged the open door and calls, as if searching out to him...
Prosecutors are very adept at questioning the suspects where they look to seize any opportunity for cooperation and it must have been clear after all this time (since August) and that each of the accused was culpable of harming this beautiful child
and ultimately causing his death.
I'm shattered for his grandmom and the community that adored him.
I think that maybe mum has been charged because she didn’t call an ambulance after she witnessed what happened. And in not doing so contributed towards his death intentionally?
Also, is it possible he was still alive when dumped in the river?
I really doubt we’d be seeing a murder charge against AW for something like failing to call an ambulance. Murder has to have intent.
Was it this case you were thinking of - Kaylee-Jayde Priest: Mother jailed for killing her three-year-old
Mum and boyfriend both guilty of manslaughter but it was never determined who actually killed the little girl.
I think its quite right to charge all those involved. If AW didn't phone an ambulance, which could of saved Logan, even if she didn't inflict the injuries, that is murder IMO.
Yes seems quite recently they're trying to get rid of the "causing or allowing the death of a child" charge as it carries a lesser sentence and was used when they didn't know who actually murdered the child. Seems only right now that everyone involved gets charged with murder as all were in the house at the time and knew what was going on and no one stopped it. I think the details of this trial are going to be shocking
Joint enterprise maybe?
I watched a programme about Sophie Lancaster last night (she and boyfriend Rob were attacked, Rob survived). The police detective explained that they were able to determine that all 5 boys attacked Rob. Because Sophie died everybody closed ranks in the face of a more serious murder charge and police could not determine who of the 5 attacked Sophie. So they were able to charge them all with murder under joint enterprise. (In the end they changed it due to a confession)
It would be useful to have the comments of a lawyer (practising in England and Wales, not the USA, where the law on murder is different) about this. I believe there have been cases where someone with a duty of care failed to call an ambulance and they have been convicted of manslaughter.
The issue of joint responsibility is complicated and I'm not a lawyer, but see
Secondary Liability: charging decisions on principals and accessories | The Crown Prosecution Service
which says that even someone involved in an attack which results in death may not be guilty of murder (D = defendant):
· D2 will not be guilty of murder but will be guilty of manslaughter where:
· D2 is a party to a violent attack on another without an intent to assist in causing death or really serious harm, but the violence escalates and results in death.
· D2 participates by encouragement or assistance in any other unlawful act which all sober and reasonable people would realise carried the risk of some harm (not necessarily serious) to another, and death results. The test is objective. '
This is not necessarily what one feels is morally right, but it's the law. Hence the Kaylee-Jayde Priest sentences linked to by RusselSprout, I suppose. So if the CPS thinks there is enough evidence for there to be a good chance of convicting someone of murder and agrees to that charge, it's going to involve some evidence of intent to kill, I would have thought. But as I said, a lawyer would be useful here!
Now I'm really getting out of my depth (a couple of Open University law courses don't really cut the mustard!) but I think the decision on Jogee in 2016 changed the approach to joint enterprise in England and Wales. The killing of Sophie Lancaster was in 2007, well before that.
"A person who joins in a crime, which any reasonable person would realise involves a risk of harm, and death then results, is guilty at least of manslaughter", the maximum sentence for which is life imprisonment
Good recap of Joint Enterprise law at link.
Joint enterprise law wrongly interpreted for 30 years, Supreme Court rules