January 25
AUSTRALIA:
The story of the only woman hanged in Queensland ---- Ellen Thompson lived in
the Douglas Shire region and became the only woman hanged in the state of
Queensland.
In Australia’s early settler days, capital punishment may have been common
practice but in Queensland, there was only ever one woman sentenced to hang and
she was from here in Douglas Shire.
Ellen Thomson’s life begins similarly to many earlier settlers but it ends in a
rather ghastly way as she met her death in the gallows. According to some, for
a crime, she may not have committed.
Born in Ireland in 1846, Ellen Thompson migrated to New South Wales in 1858 and
at the age of 19, married William Wood.
Together the couple had 5 children before Wood passed away 9 years later.
The widowed Ellen moved to Cooktown where the Palmer River gold rush was in
full swing, however, conditions were tough and she struggled to support her
children.
In 1878 Ellen moved to the Douglas Shire region where she took up work as a
housekeeper to William Thomson who had a farm on the Mossman River.
A year later, Ellen gave birth to William’s daughter and in 1880 she married
him to legitimise the baby.
William was 24 years her senior and by all reports was a difficult man to live
with.
The marriage was strained and there are suggestions that William was jealous,
violent and a drunk. On one occasion he hurled a kerosene lamp at his
stepdaughter and a knife at Ellen.
The 2 eventually took up separate dwellings on the property and Ellen began a
friendship with John Harrison, a young marine deserter working on the adjoining
"Bonnie Doon" property.
The 2 were rumoured to be lovers, which caused further tension in her marriage
that would eventually lead to all their deaths.
On 22 October 1886, William was found dead, lying next to his gun with a bullet
wound to his head.
Ellen told police that her husband must have taken his own life after she had
heard a gunshot and moans coming from his house.
However, a more sinister outcome was discovered when the body was examined
revealing 2 holes in the skull, indicating that William had been shot twice.
Police concluded that William Thompson was murdered.
Suspicion and gossip quickly arose that Ellen and her lover were at fault and
they were soon arrested and charged with murder at a committal hearing in the
old Port Douglas courthouse.
They were taken to Townsville to be tried where the odds were stacked against
them from the start.
They were not allowed to take the stand during the trial to defend themselves
and their lawyer was inadequate, even apologising to the jury for his lack of
experience in such cases.
The judge, Justice Cooper, was also known for his harshness in criminal cases.
The notes he made throughout the trial show his clear bias and disapproval of
the pair, describing Ellen as a "loose woman" and John as "her latest fancy
man,” while the victim was portrayed as vulnerable and helpless.
Ellen was not a demure woman, as was the norm in those days, but was rather
outspoken with a sense of justice it was easy for the press to portray her as a
harlot.
Media of the day made references to the number of children she had, never once
mentioning that she was a widow when she arrived in Port Douglas, rather
implying they were all illegitimate.
Ellen was deemed a monster and the community quickly ignored William's faults
and condemned his long-suffering widow.
While the evidence was not enough to prove the pair’s guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt by today’s standards, it was enough to convince the jury of the day.
Ellen claimed her innocence until the end but Harrison reportedly confessed to
one of his gaolers the night before his execution.
He claimed he had been the one to shoot William at Ellen’s encouragement,
adding he didn’t care about her; he just wanted her sugar cane farm.
Some historians and descendants of Ellen believe she was innocent and that a
huge miscarriage of justice was served.
Whatever the truth, the pair were hanged on 13 June 1887 and Ellen went down in
history as the 1st and only woman to be hanged in the state of Queensland.
(source: newsport.com.au)
TAIWAN:
Murderer’s death sentence commuted by High Court----OUTRAGE:The decision to
sentence Sun Kuo-huang to life in prison was condemned by the father of Chang
Chih-tien, who Sun killed in November 2010 to steal his identity
Sun Kuo-huang was spared the death sentence yesterday in favor of life
imprisonment in the 4th retrial for 2010 murder of a graduate student in
Kaohsiung.
The Kaohsiung Branch of Taiwan High Court found the 42-year-old Sun guilty of
the murder of Chang Chih-tien, a doctoral student at National Kaohsiung First
University of Science and Technology, but overturned the previous convictions
that had sentenced him to death.
The judges’ ruling said that while Sun had admitted to the murder in the
earlier trials, he had been segregated from society since his earlier
convictions, during which time he received educational training, indicting
there was a possibility of rehabilitation.
Prosecutors had long argued that Sun, who was 30 at the time of Chang’s death,
had murdered him in a bid to steal his identity and avoid serving an 8-year and
6-month prison sentence he had received in October 2010 for the repeated rapes
of a high-school student in 2006.
He had recorded the 1st rape and used it to blackmail the teenager into have
sex over a 6-month period.
Prosecutors said he arranged to meet Chang at a hotel in November 2010 to go
out and meet girls, but instead attacked Chang, choking him into
unconsciousness before driving him in a car to a remote mountain road, where he
doused Chang and the car with gasoline and set them on fire.
Sun planted items around the burned car, including a suicide note, in an effort
to mislead police into thinking Sun had committed suicide, prosecutors said.
Sun later took Chang’s personal documents to a local government office to get a
new national identification card in Chang’s name, which he used for about 2
weeks before police were able to track him down and arrest him for Chang’s
murder.
Police had been suspicious of Chang’s death, as his body was found with his
hands tied behind his back.
Yesterday’s verdict was condemned by Chang’s father and members of the public,
who criticized the judges for showing leniency to a calculating killer who had
kept appealing through his lawyers to avoid capital punishment.
“Our nation’s justice system is protecting a convicted killer from the death
penalty. The judges have no empathy for victims and their families,” Chang’s
father said in a statement.
“We have seen the justice system always speak up on behalf of the criminals and
help protect them. The trials and appeals keep going for many years, but for
families of the victims, these cause us suffering and pain and trample on our
rights again and again,” he wrote.
He appealed to prosecutors to appeal yesterday’s verdict.
(source: Taipei Times)
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES:
UAE court rejects death penalty for man who murdered wife----The attorney
general said the death penalty ruling was violating Islamic law.
A husband, who was convicted of stabbing his wife to death over family
misunderstandings, has had his death sentence cancelled on appeal.
The Federal Supreme Court in Abu Dhabi has ordered the appeal court to have
fresh hearing in the man's case stressing that under the Islamic law, children
cannot demand for the death penalty for their father after their mother's
death.
The couple's children had earlier rejected blood money in exchange for the
pardon and demanded that their father be sentenced to death for intentionally
murdering their mother.
Court documents stated that the Arab man had attacked his wife at their home
located in a northern emirate after a heated argument that resulted from
marital misunderstandings. He stabbed her several times in the chest and other
body parts which caused her death. Prosecutors charged the husband with
premeditated murder of his wife.
The man had admitted to killing his wife because of anger that resulted from
the long misunderstandings in their marriage.
Eyewitnesses, the couple's neighbours said they opened the door after hearing
screams only to find the woman lying in cold blood after being attacked by her
husband.
The witnesses said they found when the husband was holding a knife in his hand
which had blood on it.
The public prosecution had demanded that the accused be punished in accordance
with the provisions of the Islamic Shariah law and articles 332/1-2, 121/1 of
the Penal Code.
Both the Criminal Court of First Instance and the Appeal Court had sentenced
the Arab man to death after he was found guilty of premeditated murder.
The attorney-general however challenged the death sentence at the UAE's top
court and demanded the case be returned to the appeal court to review the
punishment because it was violating the Islamic law.
The Islamic jurisprudence stipulates that if a husband has become an heir to
the deceased and an heir to the blood after the death of his wife, a son or
daughter cannot demand for retribution or revenge for their father.
The Supreme Court, therefore, ruled that the death penalty should be annulled
because it contravenes the provisions of the Islamic Shariah law and that the
case should be referred back to appeal court issuing to review the sentence.
(source: Khaleej Times)
BARBADOS:
Murderer loses his appeal
Convicted murderer Carlton Junior Hall has had his appeal against his
conviction dismissed.
The Appeal Court comprised of Justices Kay Goodridge, Margaret Reifer and
William Chandler, upheld the decision of a 12-member jury, who had found a then
25-year old Hall guilty of murdering Adrian Wilkinson on March 2, 2016.
Wilkson died on the spot at Speightstown, St Peter on Sunday, August 14, 2011,
after being gunned down.
Hall was sentenced to hang by trial judge Justice Jacqueline Cornelius.
But Hall, whose last address was given as 2nd Avenue, Chapman Lane, St Michael,
through his attorney Queen’s Counsel Andrew Pilgrim had appealed the
conviction.
The appeal was in relation to identification, as per section 102 of Evidence
Act in what amounts to special circumstances, due to the fact that the Crown’s
case relied on identification evidence.
In a 31-page judgment handed down and delivered by Reifer yesterday, the court
ruled that the evidence produced by the Crown was of such a standard as to
constitute special circumstances, within the meaning of Section 102 2A of the
Evidence Act and was properly placed before the jury who was adequately warned.
The court also ruled that the trial judge had correctly overruled a no-case
submission.
However, because of a ruling made by Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) that the
imposition of a mandatory death penalty is unconstitutional, the court ordered
that Hall be returned to the trial judge to be resentenced at the earliest
opportunity.
Acting Deputy Director of Prosecution Anthony Blackman and Crown Counsel Oliver
Thomas appeared on behalf of the Crown.
(source: Barbados Today)
INDIA:
Last Year, Courts Handed out Most Death Penalties Since 2000----One reason for
the higher number is an amendment extending capital punishment in cases of
sexual assault on girls below 12 years of age.
A legislative intervention to extend capital punishment to non-homicide crimes
may be the reason for a higher number of death penalties handed out in the last
year. A report by the National Law University, Delhi, trial courts pronounced
162 death sentences in 2018, the highest in a calendar year since 2000.
In August, the Indian Penal Code was amended by parliament to extend death
sentence in cases of rape and gangrape of girls below the age of 12.
Madhya Pradesh evoked the highest number of cases under this IPC amendment,
awarding death sentences to 7 people in cases concerning sexual assault of
girls below 12 years not involving murder. In total, the state awarded 22 death
penalties, considerably higher than the 6 awarded by sessions courts in 2017,
the Death Penalty in India: Annual Statistics Report 2018 says.
According to the Indian Express, the MP government’s rewards scheme for public
prosecutors who seek the death penalty could be another reason for the spike in
death penalties. Under the scheme, prosecutors are awarded 100 to 200 points
for maximum punishment at lower courts, 500 for a life sentence and 1,000 for
obtaining a death sentence. Prosecutors who earn more than 2,00 points are
given awards such as “Best Prosecutor of the Month” and “Pride of Prosecution”.
Those who do not earn more than 500 points are issued a warning, said the NLU
report.
As The Wire reported in November 2018, this scheme may be endangering justice.
The scheme poses a serious challenge to the autonomy of prosecutors as they are
under pressure to show “results”, irrespective of the process of justice.
Renowned criminal lawyer Rebecca John said, “This scheme is a serious
abnegation of all constitutional principles settled over decades by courts of
law, and poses a direct threat to the fundamental right to life and liberty.
The accused persons would now be subjected to prosecutorial malevolence, and it
would be too late before the injustice caused can be remedied.”
Last year, eight states – Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Jammu and Kashmir, Meghalaya,
Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Tripura – did not pronounce any death sentences.
In Karnataka too, the number of death penalties awarded rose significantly. In
2017, the state pronounced 2 death penalties, but awarded 15 in the last year.
Maharashtra (16 death penalites), UP (15) and Rajasthan (13) also awarded a
high number of penalties.
The Supreme Court’s stance on death penalty
Though the trial courts have pronounced more death sentences, the Supreme Court
may overturn a majority of them. In 2018, the Supreme Court commuted death
sentences to life imprisonment in 11 of the 12 cases it heard. The only case
where the death penalty was upheld was in the December 16 Delhi gangrape case.
Late last year, retiring Supreme Court judge Kurian Joseph sparked a debate on
the death penalty with his last judgment. In Chhannu Lal Verma vs the State of
Chattisgarh, a three-judge bench commuted the death sentence of the appellant
to life imprisonment. Justice Jospeh also said the time had come to review
death penalty as a punishment, especially its purpose and practice.
The two other judges observed that since the Supreme Court had upheld the
constitutional validity of capital punishment in Bachan Singh vs State of
Punjab (1980), there was no need for a review. In an analytical piece, The Wire
questioned,
If the passage of almost 40 years is not reason enough to review the judgment,
what would be the appropriate stage for such an exercise?
The Wire also argued that contrary to popular perception, in the Bachan Singh
case, the constitution bench upheld the constitutionality of the death sentence
but fact made it “nearly impossible for future judges to impose it through a
strict construction of the rarest of rare doctrine”.
(source: thewire.in)
************************
Shakti Mills rape: HC pulls up Maha over delay in death penalty confirmation
The Bombay High Court on Friday pulled up the Maharashtra government for its
"insensitivity" in failing to secure an expedited hearing on the confirmation
of death sentence awarded to the convicts in the Shakti Mills gangrape case in
April 2014.
A bench of justices AS Oka and AS Gadkari noted that the conviction was secured
through a fast-track hearing before the trial court. But after the state
government filed a plea in June 2014 seeking that the high court ratify the
death sentence awarded to the convicts, the matter had come up for hearing once
in December 2014 and thereafter only in January this year after a delay of over
4 years, it said.
"These are important matters and we don't know what to say if the state shows
such insensitivity in such crucial matters. Isn't it your duty to seek early
and timely hearings in matters like these?" the bench said.
The hearing on the confirmation was initially listed for January 3 this year,
but got delayed on account of 3 writ petitions filed by the convicts
challenging the constitutional validity of the provision under which death
sentence awarded to them.
On January 3, the bench led by Justice Oka directed the state to clarify with
the chief justice if the writ petitions and the confirmation pleas should be
heard together.
Chief Justice Naresh Patil ruled that the writ petitions should be heard and
decided upon first, thus, further delaying the hearing on the confirmation
plea.
However, the bench led by Justice Oka said Friday that it was the state's duty
to point out before the Chief Justice that such order would delay the
confirmation hearing which needed to be expedited.
"This confirmation case has remained pending for a long time of more than 4
years. In fact, after 5th December 2014, it was listed for the 1st time on 3rd
January 2019 and that also in view of the direction issued by this bench. The
state did not do anything in this period to secure an expedited hearing," the
bench said.
It has now directed the state to go back to the Chief Justice's court and seek
that the writ petitions and the confirmation pleas be placed together to be
heard by a common bench to prevent any further delay.
A sessions court had in April 2014 convicted Vijay Jadhav (19), Mohammad Kasim
Bengali (21), Mohammad Salim Ansari (28)and Siraj Khan for raping a
photojournalist in Shakti Mills on August 22, 2013.
Jadhav, Bengali and Ansari were sentenced to death as they were earlier also
convicted for the gang rape of another girl in July 2013. Siraj was sentenced
to life imprisonment.
Under the newly enacted section 376 (e) of the Indian Penal Code, a repeat
offence of rape is punishable with death.
The death sentence of the 3 is yet to be ratified by HC.
Vijay Jadhav, Kasim Bengali and Salim Ansari, however, moved the High Court
soon after their conviction, challenging the constitutional validity of the
provision under which they were sentenced to death for a repeat offence.
The petitioners challenged the sessions court order allowing the prosecution to
invoke section 376 (e) of the IPC when the trial was already underway.
They also challenged the constitutional validity of this section, brought in by
the Union government after the 2012 Delhi gang-rape case.
(source: outlookindia.com)
********************
Supreme Court acquits 3 Death Penalty Convicts, commutes sentence of 1
The Supreme Court yesterday acquitted 3 persons who had been awarded death
penalty in a murder case. The death sentence awarded to a 4th accused was
commuted to life imprisonment.
The judgment was rendered by a Bench of Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi
and Justices L Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna in an appeal against a judgment
of Karnataka High Court.
The four appellants were sentenced to death by trial court for a murder which
happened in 2009. The High Court had upheld the same leading to the appeal in
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court considered the material on record and the submissions of the
parties. It noted that the conviction of the appellants was based heavily on
the eye witness accounts of 2 persons – Srinivas @ Seenu (PW 6) and
Suryakanthamma (PW 7).
The court noted that they had given a vivid description of the manner in which
the offence was committed by the accused persons. However, the Court said that
even if it accepted the said part of the evidence given by the two prosecution
witnesses, further proof of identification of the accused persons would be
required to sustain the case of the prosecution.
It, therefore, proceeded to examine the material relating to the identification
of the four accused persons in detail. Based on the material available, the
Court came to the conclusion that the identification of three of the accused by
the two witnesses was not sufficient to convict them.
“In the absence of adequate evidence on the part of the prosecution with regard
to identification of the accused persons and recovery of articles/items we are
of the view that the conviction of Basavaraj @ Basya (Accused No.1), Yankappa @
Yankya (Accused No.3) and Ramesh @ Ramya (Accused No.4) as recorded/made by the
learned trial Court and affirmed by the High Court and the sentence of death
imposed would require to be interfered with.”
Accordingly, it set aside the conviction of three of the appellants.
As regards the 4th appellant, the Court held that his involvement in the crime
stood proved from the evidence on record. However, considering the
circumstances in which the crime was committed and the fact that charges
against 3 of the co-accused have failed, the Court proceeded to commute his
death penalty to imprisonment for life.
(source: barandbench.com)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
