The police reported that Kyle #Clifford, 26, having medical treatment for injuries.
The man suspected of the #crossbow murders of the wife and two daghters of John #Hunt, the BBC racing commentator have been found by the Police.
A manhunt has come to a close as armed police have located and apprehended the suspect in the tragic crossbow murders of Carol Hunt, 61, and her two daughters, Hannah, 28, and Louise, 25, the wife and daughters of BBC racing commentator John Hunt. The suspect, identified as Kyle Clifford, 26, was found in the Enfield area of north London. It was reported that Clifford, who had a brief stint in the British Army before leaving in 2022, was located and apprehended without any shots being fired by Hertfordshire Police officers. He was found to have sustained injuries and received medical treatment.
The alarming incident unfolded when the three women were discovered with serious injuries at their residence in Bushey on Tuesday evening, prompting an extensive manhunt for Clifford. The authorities had issued warnings that Clifford might be armed with a crossbow, urging the public to avoid approaching him. Following the extensive search, Clifford was located and is now in custody.
Legal Issue
Murder Charges
Clifford is faced with several murders of three individuals. For a murder to be established in this case, the prosecutor will have to show that Clifford had the intention to kill or to cause GBH. Under the rule that was applied under the case of R v Vickers [1957], a person can be guilty of murder even if he did not have the intention to kill but to cause grievous bodily harm.
The prosecution has to prove direct intention (as per Cunningham [1981]) and that the killing was unlawful.
If the prosecution fails to prove the suspect intention or premeditation to kill, then the crime may be reduced to manslaughter – which is an unlawful killing that lacks the specific intent to kill or to cause GBH: this may apply if Clifford’s act was reckless but devoid of intent to kill.
If Clifford is found guilty of murder, the Court will give him a life sentence. A life sentence will last for the rest of his life. If the suspect is found guilty of manslaughter, the maximum sentence the Juge can impose is life imprisonment or the Juge will impose other sentences. However, sentencing for manslaughter depends on the intention of the crime. If Clifford intended to kill or cause really serious harm due to a provocation or mental incapacity and is not guilty of murder which is described as diminished responsibility. (voluntary manslaughter). Involuntary manslaughter is if Clifford did not intend to kill or cause really serious harm but where death results from unlawful action from gross negligence.
Application of the Law.
The first step in court is the examination of the evidence that the prosecutor will provide which may constitute of forensic evidence, witnesses’ statements, and an analysis of the crime scenes to establish the implication and intention of Clifford in the cases. This will also involve delving into any physical evidence that may prove Clifford’s involvement in the murders and whether or not the acts were premeditated.
In this stage, every piece of evidence that the prosecutor will provide in court must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the mental element required in the conviction of the crime – which in this case would be Clifford’s intention to kill or commit GBH. For instance, previous threats and planning activity, and the execution of the actual murders would, therefore, be vital in establishing the same.
In cases like Hyam, Moloney, and Nedrick highlight the difficulties the courts have faced in establishing the meaning of intention. This means that juries may make different decisions in cases with similar facts.
Possible Defence.
The first possible defense for Clifford may be self-defense, which is governed by common law. Section 3 of the Criminal Act 1967 provides that “a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders.” To use self-defense or prevention of crime as a defense, Clifford will need to prove that he acted to prevent a crime and that the force used was reasonable.Additionally, the Criminal Damage Act 1971 makes provision for a defence against a charge of criminal damage – that D acted in to protect property. S.5 CD Act 1971.
The Principle of Self-defence is set in the case of Palmer v R (1971).
Clifford also has the option to use pre-emptive strikes as a form of defense. This means that he can use pre-emptive force when an imminent attack is expected. According to Beckford (1987), a person who is about to be attacked does not have to wait for the attacker to strike first. However, Clifford will need to provide evidence that the attack was imminent or about to happen soon (Delvin v Armstrong, 1971).
In the case of Clegg (1994), A car was driven through the checkpoint without stopping by youths for fun. Clegg shot at the car after it had passed. He thought the passengers might be intending an attack One of the passengers was killed. The court held that there was no danger for Clegg or anyone else as the car had passed. Clegg was found guilty of murder.
Clifford may also use diminished capacity which implies that a person due to a mental incapacity could not meet the mental state required for a specific intent crime. S2(1) a person who kills is not to be convicted of murder if he is suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning. However, to claim diminished as difference Clifford will need to demonstrate his mental condition from a recognised or professional psychiatrist that at the time the crime was committed, Clifford could not have known that what he did was wrong. And it must also demonstrate that the abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation from Clifford’s conduct if it causes or is a significant contributory factor in causing D to carry out that conduct.
- This requires D to submit a psychiatric report to court.
- Article 6 European Convention of Human Rights guarantees that a defendant is presumed innocent until proved guilty, the burden of proof being on the prosecution.
In the triple murder case from Bushey, there are complicated issues of the law: homicide and weapons charges, including mental health defences. The court’s role will be to carefully examine the evidence, determine Clifford’s intentions and mental status, and ultimately uphold the law in the most public-friendly manner. It is a case that shows the fine balance which exists between individual rights and society’s protection, with a ruling bound to have far-reaching implications on some of the legal as well as public safety policies in the UK. The role of such defences as insanity, diminished capacity, and loss of control is likely to be very crucial in determining the final verdict, but that reflects the deep intricacies of criminal law in cases of serious violence and mental health considerations.
