Seven judges refuse to appeal verdicts of two of three accused in Glasgow murder

Maria Gardiner and Michael Anderson, each sentenced to life in prison with 18 years to serve, argued the judge misdirected jurors by telling them they could not convict one of them of murder and the others of premeditated murder. A third co-defendant, James Houston, did not participate in the appeal. Ms Gardiner also challenged the length of the sentence, which she believed was excessive.

The appeal was heard by the Lord Justice-General, the Lord Secretary of Justice, Lady Paton, Lord Malcolm, Lord Pentland, Lord Matthews and Lord Armstrong. Jackson K.S. and Graham K.S. led the groups representing the appellants, and Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain K.S. spoke on behalf of the Crown.

Anticipated risks

On February 6, 2022, Mr. Anderson texted Mr. Houston and discussed the suspicion that the deceased stole drugs and/or money from Mr. Anderson. Late on the evening of 7 February 2022, they hatched a plan to go to the deceased’s flat in Springburn and “give him a case”. Miss Gardiner, Mr Houston’s partner, traveled with the men to Springburn on February 8, carrying a toolbox containing a hammer, blowtorch and other tools, including a chisel.

The evidence of the deceased’s partner who died before the trial diet was that the deceased was assaulted by Mr Houston when she was assaulted by the appellants. This was inconsistent with her first 999 call, in which she said three people had run into the flat and injured her partner. The attack lasted about 17 minutes and involved at least five different weapons, with the fatal wound being determined to be a penetrating stab wound.

At trial, the issue was whether all three defendants were responsible for the death by conspiracy. The trial judge instructed the jury that they could convict the main character of either murder or manslaughter. He subsequently added that if the jury were satisfied that a particular defendant was actively associating himself with a common purpose with another defendant, they could be guilty of the same crime as the defendant who inflicted the fatal wound, but could not be guilty of either them murder or intentional homicide, if they were not related to this purpose.

As to Mr. Anderson, it was argued that the consent statute competently permits different verdicts, for manslaughter and manslaughter, for individual co-defendants. There was no rule that juries must convict co-defendants of the same crime as the principal. The jury could have concluded that the accessory participants could not have foreseen certain risks.

Ms Gardiner’s lawyer added that she could face a charge of culpable homicide if the jury was not satisfied that she knew the lead actor was carrying the weapon that was used to kill the deceased. This was open to the jury as there was no evidence that she assaulted the deceased.

Previous concert

Lord Carloway, delivering the court’s opinion, said of the principles of consistency: “There is no requirement to look for the intentions of accessory actors in the murder. The task is to objectively analyze what they should have expected to probably happen during the attack in which they participated. Thus, if they had no reason to expect the use of serious violence, they would not be art and would not participate in the murder.”

He continued: “If the principal actor, that is, he or she whose blows killed the deceased, is guilty of murder, the accessory actors are either guilty of the art of murder, and in part because of their participation in a plan which involved the use of serious violence. , or they are guilty of assault or nothing at all. They cannot be guilty of premeditated murder unless they were part of a plan to cause grievous bodily harm.”

Applying these principles to the facts of the case, Lord Carloway said: “This was a case of prior consent. This involved pre-planning in the form of a decision to find the deceased in his own home and “give him a chance to act”, involving the use of a variety of tools that could cause serious injury. In this state of the evidence, where the final blow, considered in the context of a total of 86 wounds, must be regarded as fatal, the appellants participated in an overall criminal plan in which serious injuries were objectively foreseeable.”

He concluded: “The consequence is that they too are inevitably guilty of murder. This was not because of what they might have intended in the fatal blow, but because of the operation of the principles of consent.’

Addressing the appeal against Ms Gardiner’s conviction, Lord Carloway added: “The main feature relied upon is the lack of evidence that Ms Gardiner assaulted the deceased. In this case, this is relatively weak confirmation, given that her purpose, which she appears to have accomplished, was to remove the deceased’s partner from the picture, presumably so that she could not come to the deceased’s aid in his apparent need. . It is equally weak in the context of Ms Gardiner’s participation in the conspiracy the day before the attack and her voluntary participation in the attack with items from the toolbox she helped carry.’

The appeals against the conviction and sentence were therefore dismissed.