Graham Coutts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article or section is missing citations and/or footnotes.
This article or section contains insufficiently sourced phrases. Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. You may improve the article or discuss this issue on the talk page. Help on using footnotes is available. This article has been tagged since January 2007. |
Graham Coutts was convicted of killing Jane Longhurst on 14 March 2003. At the time, he was a guitarist and part-time salesman living in Brighton, UK. Although he always maintained that the death was a tragic accident, he was convicted of murder, and sentenced to a life term serving a minimum of 30 years (later reduced to 26 on appeal). The conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal on 19 October 2006, and a new trial is expected.
Contents |
[edit] Political significance
The case of Graham Coutts has become highly significant since the UK government announced on 30 August 2006 that it intends to introduce new laws governing the possession of "extreme pornography". This was following public outcry at the murder conviction of Graham Coutts, a man obsessed by pornography featuring hanging and asphyxia, and who had accessed websites such as necrobabes.
Some have dubbed the proposals "Jane's Law", seeing them as a way of protecting women from similar tragedies. Others are concerned that the reverse may be true, citing evidence from Japan, the United States, Denmark and elsewhere that sexually motivated crime negatively correlates with the availability of pornography.
In any case, while the appeals and possible retrials are in progress, it may be premature to introduce new laws. If Mr Coutts is exonerated, new laws will be seen to have been unnecessary or even totally misguided. The introduction of a new law would breach the Home Office's stated intent only to use evidence based policy making. This was acknowledged by the Home Office during their public consultation, which found 63% of responses did not consider the "challenge of the Internet" grounds for a new law.
[edit] Murder trial
The basic facts of the murder case were not in dispute. Mr Coutts testified that he wrapped a pair of nylon tights around Ms Longhurst's neck as part of a practice known as erotic asphyxia, which he had undertaken on numerous previous occasions with several different partners. Evidence was also given that the deceased had engaged in similar activity with another partner, although this was denied. There was no indication of a struggle, and Mr Coutts claimed that full consent was given. At some point during the sexual act, Ms Longhurst became completely unconscious and a quantity blood was produced. According to Coutts' account, she never regained consciousness.
The prosecution case that a murder took place rested on two key issues. Firstly, was it certain that Mr Coutts would have known that a serious injury was being incurred in sufficient time to be able to stop and prevent the death? Secondly, did Mr Coutts have a motive for causing injury or death?
[edit] Pathologists' expert testimony
If the death became inevitable before abnormal signs became apparent to Mr Coutts, the necessary intent could not be established to secure a murder conviction. To establish this point, Home Office pathologist Dr Vesna Djurovic testified that Mr Coutts must have been aware of the medical emergency for 2-3 minutes before death became inevitable. Had Coutts acted on this emergency as soon as he became aware of it, Ms Longhurst would definitely have survived. By continuing to constrict Ms Longhurst's neck long after becoming aware of the emergency, Coutts showed the necessary mens rea for murder. This view was contested by defence pathologist, Dr Richard Shepherd, whose expert opinion was that death could have occurred very quickly by a mechanism known as vagal inhibition, taking as little as 1-2 seconds. This view is also supported by those familiar with breath control play, who recognise that death may become inevitable without signs of medical emergency. Sometimes this will be through vagal inhibition, sometimes through interference with the baroreceptors which sense blood pressure, and sometimes through brain or other haemmorhage. Such deaths may occur suddenly and without warning. Other mechanisms may result in death minutes or even hours later. In spite of being at the core of the trial, no expert in the field of erotic asphyxia presented testimony.
Dr Djurovic's expert testimony was based on experience analysing strangulation victims, combined with an understanding of the physiology behind death by strangulation. The epidemiological claim that two to three minutes was almost always required to commit a murder by strangulation was drawn from her knowledge of murders.
Critics of Dr Djurovic's testimony however claim that the epidemiology of deaths from erotic asphyxia is completely different from that of murder, since the participants aim to prevent medical emergency or death, not to cause it. The statistical distribution of exact mechanism of death becomes heavily skewed towards those rarer causes which do not manifest themselves by obvious symptoms of emergency before the point of irrevocability, such as severe induced heart arrhythmia, massive haemmorhage. It becomes apparent that Dr Djurovic's argument is circular, relying on the epidemiology and physiology of murder to prove it was murder. An alternative approach, seeking to disprove the accident epidemiology was not attempted by expert witness. Indeed, Dr Djurovic testified that the death could have been from heart attack or vagus inhibition, but in her experience (of murder), these would be unlikely mechanisms.
In spite of substantial apparent differences, the pathologists' testimonies are fully compatible. Death would have taken 2-3 minutes if it was murder (Djurovic). If the death were accidental, it may have been very sudden (1-2 seconds)(Sheppard). Unfortunately, neither sheds any light on which situation actually occurred.
The use by the pathologists of terms linked to probability and statistics such as "very unlikely", "very rare" and "most likely" raises the issue of the statistical basis underlying such analyses. Only by a rigorous analysis and exposition of the implicit prior assumptions can such terms be justified in court on a crucial point. In this case, neither experts' prior assumptions were challenged. This aspect is shared with the case of Sally Clark whose murder convictions were quashed because of unsound statistical evidence from a medical expert witness.
[edit] The possible role of violent pornography
The prosecution placed great weight on the presence of "extreme pornography" in Mr Coutt's possession at the time of the death. This, it was argued, was the triggering factor for Mr Coutts' murderous intent, establishing a clear motive for murder. Although this aspect is pivotal, no evidence was presented documenting this controversial effect in comparable cases. A total of 699 violent pornographic images were found on Mr Coutt's computer.
Critics of the argument that violent pornography was a causal factor point out that such pornography is likely to be possessed by many, even most men engaging in erotic asphyxia and other extreme sexual behaviour. The presence in this case therefore becomes uninformative as to the intent of Mr coutts on the night of the death. Simple application of Bayes' theorem confirms that the pornography is a non sequitur.
Critics further point out that Mr Coutts' pattern of erotic asphyxia had already begun by the early nineties, five years before he encountered extreme pornography depicting such activity (1996). The argument that the pornography caused such practices in this case becomes untenable. It must also be considered that the six or seven years (1996-2003) that elapsed between encountering the material and causing the death of Ms Longhurst weakens the claim that the material is a potent cause of murderous intent.
[edit] Behaviour after the death
The prosecution used Coutts' behaviour (hiding the body) in the weeks after the death to strengthen the case that Coutts had the intent to commit murder. Coutts himself claimed that he thought his accidental death explanation would not be believed, and he would be convicted of murder regardless. This has turned out to be true, but in any case, the post-death behaviour appears to strengthen the claim that the death was unplanned. The prosecution case was that Coutts, who visited the stored body on a number of occasions showed necrophiliac tendencies. If he had such tendencies before the death, they may have been the necessary motive for murder.
[edit] Murder, manslaughter or accident?
The most plausible causes of death of Ms Longhurst are
- Murder - Mr Coutts intended to kill or cause serious injury
- Manslaughter - Mr Coutts was negligent or acting illegally causing unintended death
- Accident - the death from from some unpredictable or natural cause
The fact that Mr Coutts practised breath control play on many prior occasions supports the accident hypothesis; although the risk of death on each occasion is very low, repeated exposure to such a risk increases the likelihood of a problem substantially. Since breath control play is, according to the trial testimony, practised so widely, the frequency of this cause of death in the UK is surprisingly low. In the US autoerotic asphyxia kills an estimated 500-1000 people per annum - more than tornado, flash flooding and lightning combined. Accidental asphyxia of a partner is rarer, since one partner always remains alert to signs of problems. Pre-existing medical condition, unusual position or tension in the ligature, or some other trigger may have caused the death on this particular occasion.
If the death was murder, an explanation must be found for the change from sadomasochistic lover to murderer. The pornography alone could not have been the immediate cause, since that had been present for several years prior to the death. Many others are exposed to it without becoming murderers. Whatever the motive, it must have been more powerful than the loss of a lover, the challenge of disposal of the corpse and the likelihood of conviction and incarceration.
If the death was manslaughter through negligence, the question of acceptable levels of care and risk-taking arises. The trial testimony did not show that Mr Coutts had studied the risks, techniques and physiology of breath control play. Failure to do so could easily be seen as negligent when undertaking such a dangerous practice. Although experts advise that there is no safe technique, clearly some methods are more dangerous than others. UK law does not explicitly ban such practices, but the same focus on risk minimisation should be taken as for similarly dangerous activities such as sky diving and mountaineering.
If Ms Longhurst's death was a tragic accident, it may have caused by negligence by Mr Coutts. In this case, there would have been a case for bringing manslaughter charges. Failure to monitor vital signs, inappropriate technique or other error could have played a part in an accidental death. The jury in the trial however was not offered the possibility of manslaughter, a lesser offence. If they believed a serious offence had been proved, but it was not murder, the only correct possibility would have been to acquit the guilty man - a controversial outcome indeed. The jury at Lewes Crown Court found Mr Coutts guilty on 3 February 2004.
[edit] Appeals
The issue of manslaughter charges was brought to the appeals court, and on 19 July 2006, the case was referred back to the lower court. On 19 October 2006 this decision was confirmed by the Court of Appeal and the original conviction was formally quashed. Coutts is now on remand awaiting the presentation of a fresh indictment, and a new trial is likely to take place in 2007.
