ANGLAIS JURIDIQUE

Both R v Lee Abbott 1919 and R v Claire Colebourne 1919 concern homicides involving children, and in
both cases it is a family member who has been found guilty for the deaths.

Compare and contrast the sentencing remarks handed down in each case.

Make sure that you cover the following elements in your answer.

 Point to the similarities and the differences

 Identify clearly the charges and the convictions
 State why the Crown brought different charges, why the sentences handed down are so
different, and what margin for manoeuvre the judge has in each case

I. Point to the similarities and the differences

 Similarities:

In both cases, a family member has been accused and found guilty of homicides involving young
children.

Claire Colebourn has been sentenced of the murder of Bethan Coleborn, her daughter which was only 3
years of age at the time of her death.

As for Lee Abbott, he had killed his 6 year old great-grandson Stanley Metcalfe by shooting him with his
air riffle .

Another similar point in both profiles, they have taken account of their previous good characters with no
previous convictions band their positive good character.

 Differences:

*It is very clear that there is a big marge of difference in the final sentence of both cases.

OR

*The main point of difference is clearly the final sentence.

Claire has been sentenced of life imprisonment, serving a minimum term of 18 years.

On the other hand, Lee abbott’s case fell down to category C leading her to the sentence of only 3 years
imprisonment.
This can be explained due to the strong and numerous factors taken in consideration to determine the
level of culpability.

II. Identify clearly the charges and the convictions

 Charges:

Claire has been charged for the death of Bethan which she had later on admitted that she had killed
Bethan in the final police interview without pleading guilty when she had the chance to do so.

Lee abbott had been charged of manslaughter as well as the possession of an uncertified firearm.

 Convictions:

Claire has been found guilty for the murder of her daughter, with a sentence of life imprisonment. In
which she will serve a minimum term of 18 years.

Lee Abott has been found guilty of manslaughter in addition to the offence of possessing a firearm
without a certificate.

III. State why the Crown brought different charges, why the sentences
handed down are so different, and what margin for manoeuvre the judge
has in each case

The major difference in the charges and sentences in both cases is clearly present and can be explained
due to several factors.

In Claire’s case, she had been sentenced to the murder of her daughter Bethan with the sentence of life
imprisonment.

It was considered as a grave offence as she eligibility intended and planned to kill her daughter by
drowning her and holding her head under the water.

The crime was well planned, her child was vulnerable unable to defend herself from her own mother
which should have been her guardian and not her killer.
Her point of view was coming from anger, pain and being affected by her husband who had abended
her, she was trying to save her child from growing up in such an emotionally abusive environment where
he was involved in.

Claire had spent a reasonable period of time in psychiatric hospitals.

Nevertheless, none of the psychiatrists found any evidence of a major affective disorder or psychotic
mental illness.

Few minor facts have been taken into consideration with regards to the sentence such as she was in a
transient psychotic state at the time of the killing along with her previous good character without any
previous conviction.

As for the sentence, Claire is to serve a minimum term of 18 years .

Later on, it is up to the parole board to decide when, if ever, she should be released.

If so, she will remain on license for the rest of her life.

In Lee Abbott‘s case, the factors are quite different

Stanley Metcalfe, his 6 year old great-grandson had asked to see his air rifle .

Acknowledging the fact that it is a dangerous weapon capable of inflicting fatal, he still showed Stanley
the gun.

Furthermore, not only was the gun not stored safely it was also uncertified meaning that he had no legal
right be in the possession of this weapon.

In the police’s interview, he said he was trying to make sure that the weapon was unloaded by firing into
the floor and was not deliberately pointing it at Stanley.

The case had fallen down to category C where the range is from 3 to 7 Years’ imprisonment and the
starting point is a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment.

Haven taken in consideration that Lee is a 78 year old man with no previous convictions being a loving
and caring individual

Lee’s has been sentenced for 4 months’ imprisonment for the offence of possessing a firearm without a
certificate along with 3 years’ imprisonment to the offence of manslaughter

The Total sentence is one of 3 years’ imprisonment, serving up to one half of the sentence in custody
and the remainder on license.