12 questions to guide Soham jury to verdicts
The judge in the Soham murder trial gave the jury a series of questions today they may wish to consider when coming to their verdicts.
Described only as an aid to their considerations, Mr Justice Moses provided 12 questions which would act like a flowchart, depending on what the answer was to the preceding question.
He provided the questions as he began his summing up of the case for and against Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr.
Huntley denies murdering Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman but admits being responsible for their deaths.
Carr denies two counts of assisting an offender and one of conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
Here are the questions and the guidelines, depending on the answers, the judge gave the jurors, who are expected to retire tomorrow.
Count one: alleging that Ian Huntley murdered Jessica Chapman.
1. Are we sure that Ian Huntley caused the death of Jessica Chapman?
(If the answer to the first question is no, the defendant is not guilty of count one).
2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, are we sure that he did not accidentally cause her death?
(If the answer to question 2 is no, the defendant is not guilty of count one).
3. If the answers to questions one and two are yes, are we sure that at the time he killed Jessica Chapman, he intended to kill her or to cause her really serious bodily harm?
(If the answers to questions one, two and three, are yes, the defendant is guilty of murder, and your verdict should be guilty. If the answers to questions one and two are yes, but to question three is no, he is guilty of manslaughter and your verdict should be not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.)
Count two: alleges that Ian Huntley murdered Holly Wells.
4. Are we sure that Ian Huntley caused the death of Holly Wells?
(If the answer to question four is no the defendant is not guilty of count two).
5. If the answer to question five is yes, are we sure that he did not accidentally cause her death?
(If the answer to question five is no, go on to consider the questions relating to gross negligence manslaughter).
6. If the answers to questions four and five are yes, are we sure that at the time he killed Holly Wells, he intended to kill her or to cause her really serious bodily harm?
(If the answers to questions four, five and six are yes, the defendant is guilty of murder on count two, and your verdict should be guilty. If the answer to questions four and five are yes, but to question six no, he is guilty of manslaughter and your verdict should be not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter).
The judge then said: consider gross negligence manslaughter under count two, if you conclude that the account given by Huntley as to how Holly Wells came to die may be true.
If you are sure that it is not there, there is no need to consider gross negligence manslaughter.
Gross negligence manslaughter.
A. Are we sure that the defendant owed a duty of care (as explained by the judge) to Holly Wells?
(If the answer to A is no, the defendant is not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter.)
B. If the answer to question A is yes, are we sure that his failure to act was a breach of that duty?
(If the answer to question B is no, the defendant is not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter.)
C. If the answer to question B is yes, are we sure that his failure to act was a more than trivial cause of her death?
(If the answer to question C is no, the defendant is not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter.)
D. If the answers to questions A, B and C are yes, are we sure that, having regard to the risk of death involved, his failure to act was so bad adding all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal omission?
(If the answers to questions A, B and C are yes, the defendant is guilty of gross negligence manslaughter under count two, and your verdict should be not guilty of murder but guilty of gross negligence manslaughter.)
The judge said: consider count three against Carr only if you have found the defendant Huntley guilty of murder or manslaughter on count one.
Count Three: alleges Maxine Carr assisted an offender, namely Huntley, knowing or believing he had murdered or unlawfully killed Jessica Chapman.
7. Are we sure that Maxine Carr provided false accounts of her whereabouts on August 4 and 5 2002? (The judge said there is no dispute about this).
8. If the answer to question 7 is yes, are we sure that at the time or times she did so, she intended to impede the apprehension or prosecution of Ian Huntley?
(If the answer to question 7 is no, then she is not guilty of count three).
9. If the answer to question 8 is yes, are we sure that at the time or times she did so she knew or believed he had murdered or unlawfully killed Jessica Chapman?
(If the answers to questions 7, 8 and 9 are yes, she is guilty of count three. If the answer to any of the questions 7,8 or 9 is no, she is not guilty of count three).
The judge said: consider count four against Carr only if you are sure Huntley is guilty of murder or manslaughter on count two.
Count Four: alleges that Carr assisted an offender, namely Huntley, knowing or believing that he had murdered or unlawfully killed Holly Wells.
The judge said: if you are sure Huntley murdered or unlawfully killed Holly Wells, you should ask the same questions in relation to Count Four, concerning Holly Wells, as under Count Three.
If you are sure he murdered or unlawfully killed both Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, there is no basis for distinguishing Counts Three and Four, and you should either acquit Maxine Carr of both or convict of both.
The jury was told to consider Count Five only if they acquit Carr on Counts Three and Four. If they convict on either Count Three or Four, they should not concern themselves with Count Five.
Count Five: Alleges that Maxine Carr conspired to pervert the course of justice.
10. Are we sure that Maxine Carr agreed with Ian Huntley that she should falsely tell the police or others that she was in Soham on August 4 and 5 2002?
(If the answer to question 10 is no, she is not guilty of Count Five).
11. If the answer to question 10 is yes, are we sure that such a false account had a tendancy to pervert the course of justice (in the sense explained by the judge)?
12. If the answers to questions 10 and 11 are yes, are we sure that at the time she made the agreement she intended to pervert the course of justice?
(If the answers to questions 10, 11 and 12 are yes, she is guilty of Count 5, if the answer is no to any of those questions, she is not guilty).
