Social Media Outrage: Misreporting Crimes Could Destroy Anonymity, Trigger Lawsuits, and End Lives Online!

Hi and welcome to this Video Production News Legal Editorial.

In a recent high-profile criminal case, a defendant was convicted of rape and manslaughter, receiving a life sentence with a minimum term of 10 years and 8 months.

However, several posts on social media platform X have incorrectly claimed the defendant was convicted of rape and murder, misrepresenting the facts established in court. This article seeks to clarify the legal distinctions between murder and manslaughter, explain the potential consequences of misreporting such details, and examine why this practice harms journalism and public discourse.

The Legal Distinction: Murder vs. Manslaughter

At the heart of the distinction between murder and manslaughter lies the legal concepts of actus reus (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind). Both offences involve the unlawful killing of another person, but they differ significantly in the required mental state of the accused.

1. Murder:

To secure a conviction for murder, the prosecution must prove that the accused committed an unlawful act (actus reus) that resulted in the death of another and did so with the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (mens rea). This intent must be deliberate and proven beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Manslaughter:

Manslaughter, by contrast, covers unlawful killings where the necessary intent for murder is absent. It can arise in several ways, including:

• Gross negligence manslaughter:

  Where the accused's reckless disregard for life caused a death.

  
  

• Unlawful act manslaughter:

  Where an unlawful and dangerous act, not necessarily intended to kill, results in death.

  
  

• Loss of control or diminished responsibility:

  Where specific mitigating circumstances, such as a mental health condition, reduce culpability from murder to manslaughter.

  
  

In the case referenced, the defendant was found guilty of manslaughter, not murder, indicating that the jury, after considering the evidence and legal instructions provided by the judge, determined there was no intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

A Further Example

Consider a case involving grievous bodily harm (GBH). GBH can be charged in two distinct ways: either as Section 18 wounding with intent, which requires the prosecution to prove mens rea (that the accused intended to cause serious harm), or as Section 20 inflicting grievous bodily harm, which does not require proof of intent but rather recklessness as to causing harm.

The distinction lies in the mental state of the accused at the time of the offence. If a defendant punches someone during an altercation, causing life-changing injuries, but there is no evidence they intended such harm, a Section 20 charge may be appropriate. However, if the same act was premeditated or carried out with intent to cause grievous injury, the charge would escalate to Section 18.

If social media users falsely claimed a defendant convicted of Section 20 GBH was instead convicted under Section 18, they would misrepresent the severity of the crime and the intent behind it. This could unjustly tarnish the individual’s reputation and lead to defamation claims. Furthermore, such misrepresentation undermines the nuanced approach of the legal system, which carefully assesses evidence to determine the accused's intent and culpability. This highlights the importance of precision in reporting legal cases to avoid legal and ethical consequences.

Misrepresentation Online and Its Dangers

Erroneously claiming that an individual was convicted of murder rather than manslaughter demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of legal principles. This misreporting not only undermines the credibility of those sharing such claims but also risks legal repercussions. Under UK law:

Defamation: Incorrectly stating that someone was convicted of a crime they were not (e.g., murder instead of manslaughter) can constitute slander or libel, depending on the medium used. Victims of defamation can pursue legal action, seeking damages for harm caused to their reputation.

Anonymity and Accountability: Many of these claims are made by anonymous accounts. However, if legal action were initiated, a claimant could obtain a court order compelling the platform (in this case, X) to disclose the personal details of anonymous users. Once proceedings are filed, these details would become part of the public record, potentially exposing these individuals’ identities and histories.

This exposure could have severe consequences for anonymous accounts that rely on perceived impartiality or personal privacy. If they have misrepresented themselves or engaged in contentious behavior, their unmasking could lead to reputational harm or even threats to personal safety.

The Broader Impact on Journalism

Social media users who present themselves as citizen journalists must adhere to factual reporting standards. The proliferation of inaccurate claims erodes public trust in journalism, particularly when these individuals knowingly or negligently distort facts. Fact-based journalism relies on accuracy, diligence, and the responsible dissemination of information. When pseudo-journalists misrepresent legal cases, they contribute to a culture of misinformation that undermines professional reporting and public understanding of the law.

ACCESS TO THE LAW: Understanding the Crime and Sentencing.

As part of our campaign to improve citizens’ access and understanding of UK Criminal law, we will be explaining the relevant UK legislation surrounding any case law relevant to our articles:

To understand sentencing in cases such as the one referenced, it is crucial to revisit the concept of actus reus—the guilty act. In layman’s terms, actus reus refers to the physical act of committing a crime, such as causing harm, injury, or death. This element is distinct from mens rea—the guilty mind, which addresses the intention behind the act. The absence or presence of mens rea significantly impacts both the charges brought and the sentencing handed down. For example, if a defendant’s actions result in someone’s death but the evidence does not prove intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, a charge of manslaughter—not murder—may apply.

This distinction is vital for the public to consider when evaluating sentencing. A jury’s decision reflects a thorough examination of the evidence, applying the law as it stands. Misunderstanding or disregarding the role of mens rea risks misrepresenting the nature of the crime and undermines the public’s understanding of the legal system. In sentencing, judges are bound by specific guidelines designed to ensure consistency, proportionality, and fairness.

In this case, where the defendant was convicted of rape and manslaughter, the presiding judge’s decision to impose a life sentence with a minimum term of 10 years and 8 months would have followed the UK Sentencing Council guidelines for both offences.

For manslaughter, sentencing depends on factors such as culpability and harm. The absence of intent to kill (a defining factor in murder) does not diminish the gravity of the act. The guidelines for unlawful act manslaughter, which likely applied here, recommend a starting point of 12 years for high culpability cases. Aggravating factors—such as the use of violence, previous criminal history, or vulnerability of the victim—can push the sentence higher, while mitigating factors—such as a lack of premeditation, remorse, or cooperation with authorities—can reduce it. The judge, in balancing these considerations, would have had to justify the sentence within this framework.

For rape, the guidelines consider harm caused to the victim, including psychological trauma, physical injury, and the circumstances of the offence. Sentencing for rape involving significant aggravating factors, such as violence or fatal consequences, can overlap with offences resulting in death. The judge would have incorporated these aspects to determine the overall severity of the sentence.

By sentencing the defendant to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 10 years and 8 months, the judge applied the maximum severity permissible under the guidelines for manslaughter in combination with rape. Despite the appalling nature of the crime, sentencing must remain within the legal bounds established to ensure justice is both measured and proportionate.

It is vital for the public to recognize that judges do not sentence based on emotions or public opinion; they are bound by the evidence presented, the jury’s verdict, and the structured sentencing guidelines. In this case, the sentence reflects both the seriousness of the crimes and the limits of the law as it stands.

Sentencing and Legal Context

The sentencing in the referenced case followed the UK Sentencing Council’s guidelines for rape and manslaughter. Life imprisonment with a minimum term of 10 years and 8 months reflects the gravity of the offences and the mitigating and aggravating factors considered by the presiding judge. Manslaughter, though distinct from murder, remains a profoundly serious crime, carrying a wide sentencing range depending on culpability and circumstances.

Well, that’s all for now. But until our next article, please stay tuned, stay informed, but most of all, stay safe, and I’ll see you then.

Bénédict Tarot Freeman

Editor-at-Large

VPN City-Desk

citydesk@vpnldn.co.uk