PDA

View Full Version : Man found guilty of Jermain Defoe half-brother's manslaughter


mawspurs
04-02-2010, 07:40 PM
Source: BBC

A man has been found guilty by a jury at the Old Bailey of killing the half-brother of Tottenham and England striker Jermain Defoe.

Father-of-three Jade Defoe, a 26-year-old rapper, was punched to the ground in Newham, east London, last April, the jury was told.

Mr Defoe, known by his middle name Gavin, died four days later.

Christopher Farley, 34, of Kingswood Road, Leytonstone, east London, was convicted of manslaughter.

Hospital 'failings'

Mr Defoe fractured his skull and sustained fatal brain damage when he fell to the pavement from a punch thrown by Farley.

Farley later admitted to police he had a "bad temper".

He was overheard by a prison officer during a telephone conversation saying: "I did it - just one of those things."

Jermain Defoe, who was five months younger, rushed to his bedside from training with Tottenham Hotspur after learning he was unlikely to survive.

Farley will be sentenced on Friday.

The court heard he had a criminal record dating back to 1988, with offences including burglary, assaulting a police officer, possessing class B drugs and having a CS gas canister.

A note was handed to Judge Stephen Kramer in which the jurors said they believed the "horror and regret" at what he had done as expressed by Farley in a police interview was "sincere".

It also said: "The verdict on Christopher Farley should not mask the culpability of Whipps Cross intensive care unit."

Survival rate

During the trial, Farley's lawyer Imran Khan said that while he admitted throwing the punch which landed Mr Defoe in hospital, it had been failings in his hospital treatment that had caused his death.

Mr Khan told jurors the injuries caused by Farley would normally have a 96.5% to 99% survival rate.

He said a "second significant injury" was caused by his hospital treatment which "dwarfed" what had happened to him before.

But Brian Altman QC, prosecuting, said while there may have been "shortcomings", such as a delay in transferring Mr Defoe to a specialist unit, these were not so bad as to render what Farley did to put him in hospital "irrelevant".

nferno
04-02-2010, 11:04 PM
shud b tried for murder not manslaughter, the intent was there... the law fails yet again.

C0YS
05-02-2010, 02:17 AM
shud b tried for murder not manslaughter, the intent was there... the law fails yet again.

no its man slaughter, no intention of killing jade defoe, which is what murder is constituted as by the law. Man slaughter still gives you 10-20 years in prison. But it will probably be on the lower side of that because the defendent has admited to his crime.

ricardo_archibald
05-02-2010, 09:47 AM
Tragic story created from a few seconds of mindless violence which will stay in the minds of the Defoe family forever.

Locotoro
05-02-2010, 01:31 PM
no its man slaughter, no intention of killing jade defoe, which is what murder is constituted as by the law. Man slaughter still gives you 10-20 years in prison. But it will probably be on the lower side of that because the defendent has admited to his crime.

I think you'll find the required Intention for murder is
(a) an intention to kill; or
(b) an intention to cause grievous bodily harm.

But then again we dont know all the facts of the case

StanSpur
05-02-2010, 01:54 PM
We don't know the facts and it may have just been a punch thrown in anger with no thought as to the outcome therefore cannot be murder. By the looks of the comments about the hospital and Farley being "sorry" i would be suprised if he got more than 4 years and would be out in 2. Hardly a fitting punishment for the grief he's caused the Defoe family but that is the law in this country - people aren't made to pay fully for their crimes.

C0YS
05-02-2010, 08:12 PM
I think you'll find the required Intention for murder is
(a) an intention to kill; or
(b) an intention to cause grievous bodily harm.

But then adont we dont know all the facts of the case

I would be surprised if he had intention of causing "grievous bodily harm". It was a punch, like any other punch. A punch with maybe a whole lot of reasons behind it but to suggest it was a punch to cause "grievous bodily harm" is laughable, he would of needed a knife to do that. A single punch doesn't suggest that.

Yes it has caused a lot of griefDefoese Defoes family and friends, but so does every other man slaughter case, be it thanks to a drunken driver or a pub brawl. He doesn't deserve to serve a sentence for murder. After all its clear that he is under serious distress and feels a lot of guilt.

I wouldn't find a 4 yr sentence being given that odd, but he will only be released if he suggests that he either has changed for his actions or has been on some very good behaviour thought the jail term. You are also failing to comprehend that once he comes out of jail hes gonna struggle. He most likely will not find a job, and his life would most likely have reached a standstill. because of the lack of opportunities after jail terms is what causes a criminal to re-offend. With this person having a rather long criminal record I would be surprised if he was to re offend...but he would never kilthatsin thats for certain...

davidmatzdorf
06-02-2010, 12:04 AM
It would be hard to come up with a more "textbook" case to demonstrate the difference between murder and manslaughter. This is the latter, all the way from the time Farley cocked his fist.