Hammersmith ghost murder case
The 1804 Hammersmith Geist murder set a precedent in the UK regarding the right to self-defense : is someone responsible for his or her actions, even if they are the result of an erroneous belief?
End of 1803 claimed more than one person, they would in London district of Hammersmith a spirit seen or were even attacked by him. Local residents believed it was a suicidal ghost .
On January 3, 1804, a member of one of the armed vigilantes established as a result of the reporting shot and killed the mason Thomas Millwood, whom he believed to be a ghost because of his white work clothes. The shooter, a 29-year-old tax officer named Francis Smith, was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death , then pardoned to one year of forced labor .
The legal issues raised by the case were not finally clarified until 1984, 180 years later, by the Court of Appeal .
The death of Thomas Millwood
In late 1803 a number of people claimed to have seen a ghost in the Hammersmith area; some even claimed to have been attacked by him. Local residents said it was the ghost of a man who committed suicide last year and was buried in Hammersmith churchyard. According to popular belief at the time, suicides were not allowed to be buried in consecrated ground, as their souls would then find no rest. On January 3, 1804, 29-year-old tax officer Francis Smith, a member of an armed vigilante group, shot and killed a white figure in Black Lion Lane. It was the bricklayer Thomas Millwood who wore the usual work clothes of his trade: "linen trowsers [sic] entirely white, washed very clean, a waistcoat of flannel, apparently new, very white, and an apron, which he wore round him" ( "Linen pants all white, very cleanly washed, a flannel vest, obviously new, very white, and an apron that he had tied on").
The trial of Francis Smith
Smith was charged with murder . One witness, Mrs. Fulbrooke, said she had warned the later killed and advised him to cover his white clothes with a coat, since he had been mistaken for a ghost before.
“On Saturday evening, he and I were at home, for he lived with me; he said he had frightened two ladies and a gentleman who were coming along the terrace in a carriage, for that the man said, he dared to say there goes the ghost; that he said he was no more a ghost than he was, and asked him, using a bad word, did he want a punch of the head; I begged of him to change his dress; Thomas, says I, as there is a piece of work about the ghost, and your cloaths [sic] look white, pray do put on your great coat, that you may not run any danger. "
“He and I were at home on Saturday evening because he lived with me; he told me that he had frightened two ladies and one gentleman who were walking down the street in a carriage, for the man had said he dared to say that the ghost was going there; he said to him that he was no more a ghost than he was, and asked him if he wanted a slap on the head, using a bad word. I asked him to dress differently; Thomas, I said, since there is so much excitement about the ghost and your clothes look white, please put on your overcoat so you don't get in danger. "
Millwood's sister testified that although Smith called her brother to stop or he was going to shoot, he shot immediately afterwards. Notwithstanding a number of positive references to Smith, the judge, Lord Chief Baron Macdonald, advised the jury that the murder did not require malice, only an intention to kill:
“I should betray my duty, and injure the public security, if I did not persist in asserting that this is a clear case of murder, if the facts were proved to your satisfaction. All killing whatever amounts to murder, unless justified by the law, or in self-defense. In cases of some involuntary acts, or some sufficiently violent provocation, it becomes manslaughter. Not one of these circumstances occur here. "
"I would be forgetting my duty and harming public safety if I did not insist that this is a definite case of murder, provided the facts are proven to your satisfaction. Any killing is murder if it is not justified by the law or in self-defense. In cases of certain involuntary acts or sufficiently strong provocation it becomes manslaughter. Not one of these circumstances is present here. "
The accused was neither provoked nor attempted to seize the supposed ghost; therefore Macdonald directed the jury to find the accused guilty of murder if they found the facts presented by the witnesses to be credible. After an hour of deliberation, the jury announced their verdict, which was manslaughter . Macdonald informed the jury that "the court could not accept such a verdict" and that they should either find Smith guilty of murder or acquit Smith. That he thought Millwood was a ghost is irrelevant. After that, the jury returned with the guilty verdict. Macdonald pronounced the conventional death sentence, but stated that he had the case of King George III. who had the right to pardon .
The original sentence, death by hanging and surrender of the body to anatomy, was converted into one year of forced labor. Meanwhile, the widespread publicity the case attracted had resulted in the real culprit being revealed. It was John Graham, an elderly shoemaker who disguised himself as a ghost with a white cloth to scare his apprentice because he had scared Graham's children with ghost stories.
Legal aftermath
The question of whether an offender found himself in a factual misconduct is a ground for exclusion from guilt has been debated in the UK legal system for over a century until it was resolved by the Court of Appeal in the R v Williams (Gladstone) case . The appeal was brought by Gladstone Williams, convicted of assault after seeing a man forcibly dragging another younger man across the street while the younger man was calling for help. Believing it to be a robbery, he intervened and injured the alleged attacker who had in fact tried to detain a suspect of theft. In the revision, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Geoffrey Lane, Baron Lane referred to the earlier debate:
"[The case] raised issues of law which have been the subject of debate for more years than one likes to think about and the subject of more learned academic articles than one would care to read in an evening."
"[The case] raises legal issues that have been debated longer than one might think, and covered by more learned scholarly articles than one could read in an evening."
Lane continued:
“In a case of self-defense, where self-defense or the prevention of crime is concerned, if the jury came to the conclusion that the defendant believed, or may have believed, that he was being attacked or that a crime was being committed , and that force was necessary to protect himself or to prevent the crime, then the prosecution have not proved their case. If however the defendant's alleged belief was mistaken and if the mistake was an unreasonable one, that may be a peaceful reason for coming to the conclusion that the belief was not honestly held and should be rejected. Even if the jury come to the conclusion that the mistake was an unreasonable one, if the defendant may genuinely have been laboring under it, he is entitled to rely upon it. "
"If, in a self-defense or emergency aid case, the jury comes to the conclusion that the accused believed or could have believed that he was or could be assaulted or witnessed a crime and that the use of force is necessary, In order to protect themselves or to prevent the crime, the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to support their charges. If the defendant was mistaken in his or her belief and that mistake cannot reasonably be substantiated, that is sufficient reason to conclude that the belief was incorrect and cannot be recognized. But even if the jury came to the conclusion that the belief could not be reasonably justified, the accused still has the right to invoke it if he was seriously convinced of it. "
The appeal was admitted and the judgment overturned. The decision was upheld by the Privy Council in the Beckford v R (1988) case and was finally given legal form in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 , Section 76.
See also
Web links
- The Strange Case of Hammersmith Spirit (english)
- Hammersmith Spirit (english)
Individual evidence
- ↑ a b c The case of the murdered ghost . BBC News. January 3, 2004. Retrieved October 31, 2011.
- ^ Courtney Stanhope Kenny: Outlines of Criminal Law. Cambridge University Press, 1911, p. 103.
- ^ William Hough: The practice of courts-martial, and other military courts. Ulan Press, 1834, pp. 340-341.
- ↑ Lucy Bregman: Religion, death, and dying, Volume 3. Verlag, Ort 2009, p. 110.
- ↑ Mike Dash: Ghosts, witches, vampires, fairies and the law of murder. In: blogs.forteana.org. March 24, 2009, archived from the original on March 30, 2009 ; accessed on January 22, 2019 (English).
- ^ The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, Francis Smith, Murder January 11, 1804
- ↑ Medland, Weobly (Ed.): A collection of remarkable and interesting criminal trials, actions at law, and other legal decisions John Badcock, London 1804, p. 213
- ↑ Jennifer Westwood, Jacqueline Simpson: The Penguin Book of Ghosts . 2008, Chapter: Hammersmith
- ↑ Steve Roud: London. 2010, Chapter: Hammersmith
- ↑ a b R v Williams (Gladstone). In: British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII). Retrieved January 22, 2019 .
- ↑ Eric Baskind: Law Relating to Self Defense. British Self Defense Governing Body, accessed April 2, 2013 .