Graham Coutts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jane Longhurst died at the hands of Graham Coutts on 14 March 2003. At the time, he was a guitarist and part-time salesman living in Brighton, UK. Coutts claimed that Longhurst had died accidentally during consensual asphyxial intercourse, although the prosecution maintained that there was nothing to suggest that Coutts and Jane had ever been lovers. Coutts was convicted of murder on 3 February 2004, and sentenced to a life term serving a minimum of 30 years (reduced to 26 years on appeal on 26 January 2005). The conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal on 19 July 2006, and a new trial started on 12th June 2007.^[1] He was again found guilty on 4th July 2007.

Jane Longhurst (born November 6, 1971, died March 14, 2003) had been a special needs teacher and musician living in Brighton, England. Her partly decomposed body was found burning in woodland in West Sussex on 19 April. When arrested, Coutts, who was her best friend's partner, admitted causing her death. He had first hidden the body in a shed, then in an empty flat, and finally in a storage centre, where he had visited it nine times in a three-week period.

1 Murder trial
- 1.1 Pathologists' expert testimony
2 The nature of their relationship
3 The possible role of violent pornography
4 Behaviour after the death
5 Murder, manslaughter or accident?
6 Appeals
7 Criminalisation of possession of "extreme pornography"
8 References
9 External links

[edit] Murder trial

At his murder trial, Coutts confessed to a long-standing neck fetish and obsession with strangulation. His testimony, confirmed by other witnesses, stated that he had engaged in breath control play with several consenting partners on over 9000 occasions without incident over several years. He had spoken with his GP about his fixation and sought the help of a psychiatrist three years before the killing. Eventually, he started to access violent pornography on the Internet (especially simulated strangulation, rape and necrophilia). He had downloaded a concentration of strangulation images the day before Jane's death. This, according to the prosecution, had caused his dangerous sexual behaviour and murderous intent. Critics of the prosecution's argument doubt this explanation, since the behaviour preceded the exposure to such pornography by about five years. No evidence of premeditation was presented to the jury.

Mr. Coutts testified that he wrapped a pair of nylon tights around Ms. Longhurst's neck as part of a consensual sexual practice known as erotic asphyxia, which he had undertaken on numerous previous occasions with several different partners. The prosecution claimed that he had invited her to his flat under false pretenses, then attacked her.

Evidence was given by a defence witness that several years ago, Longhurst had whispered to a work colleague that a sexual encounter the previous night had "involved some kind of stopping breathing".^[2]^[3] The defense claimed that this was evidence that the deceased had engaged in activity with another partner, similar to that claimed by Coutts. Ms. Longhurst's partner and a previous boyfriend stated that they had not indulged in erotic asphyxia during their relations. According to Coutts' account in the witness box, he was masturbating whilst pulling the ligature around her neck, and when he reached orgasm he found that Ms. Longhurst was lying dead across him, with a quantity of blood produced.

The prosecution case that a murder took place rested on three 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? Thirdly, could he be trusted to produce a reliable account of what had happened?

[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 defense 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 recognize 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 claim that the epidemiology of death from erotic asphyxia is completely different from that of murder, since the participants try 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 or 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.^{[citation needed]} 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, 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 were murder, according to Djurovic. If the death were accidental, it may have been very sudden (1-2 seconds), according to 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 expert's 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 nature of their relationship

During the trial, Coutts claimed that the death was an accident that occurred during consensual sex. Prosecution witnesses tesified that Ms. Longhurst was in a stable relationship with her long term partner and that she and her partner were happy together. No evidence was put forward to suggest a previous sexual relationship between Ms. Longhurst and Coutts, and Coutts' account stated that the claimed sexual act was the first sexual act between them.

[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.

Much of the same violent pornography, however, is possessed by many other persons interested and active in violent sexual practice, including erotic asphyxia. His possession of such material, in this case, becomes uninformative as to the intent of Mr. Coutts on the night of the death.

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. In addition, the six or seven years (1996-2003) that elapsed between encountering the material and causing the death of Ms. Longhurst creates doubt to the claim that the material is a potent cause of murderous intent.

It is important however, to remember that possession of such material also shows an interest in such activities, and that by Coutts' possession of this material the prosecution has shown that he enjoyed erotic thoughts of killing women through violent strangulation. Additionally, although Ms. Longhurst may well have been interested in such topics without having confessed such to her partner, the lack of such material supports the prosecution's claim that she may have not in fact been interested in the topic. This would lead to speculation over whether Mr. Coutts had informed Ms. Longhurst of his intentions, which would support their argument to premeditation.

Coutts said he had had murderous thoughts about women since he was 15. He was seen by psychiatrists in 1991, 12 years before the murder, whom he told he feared his thoughts may lead to criminal actions. ^[4]

[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. The prosecution case was that Coutts, who visited the stored body on a number of occasions, showed necrophiliac tendencies, and that if he had such tendencies before the death, they may have been the necessary motive for murder. When interviewed informally by police investigating Ms. Longhurst's disappearance, Coutts also repeatedly lied to police about his movements, before going on holiday with his partner, who was expecting twins.^{[citation needed]}

[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 - Death from some unpredictable or natural cause

Mr. Coutts claimed to have practised breath control play on many prior occasions, which 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.^{[citation needed]} Accidental asphyxia of a partner is rarer, since one partner always remains alert to signs of problems. A pre-existing medical condition, unusual position or tension in the ligature, or some other trigger may have caused the death on this particular occasion.

The jury in the trial was not offered the possibility of manslaughter, a lesser offence, since the prosecution case was that it could not have been manslaughter. 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 potentially controversial outcome indeed. The jury at Lewes Crown Court found Mr. Coutts guilty on 3 February 2004.

[edit] Appeals

Graham Coutts was convicted of Jane's murder and began serving a 26-year minimum prison term. He has maintained his innocence, and pursued appeals on a variety of grounds. On 19 July 2006, the Law Lords overturned the murder conviction, ruling that the jury should have been presented with a possible manslaughter verdict. This verdict would have been appropriate had the jury believed that the death was an accident caused by Mr Coutts' negligence. On 19 October 2006 his conviction was quashed and a re-trial ordered; this began on 11 June 2007.^[1]

The issue of manslaughter charges was brought to the appeals court in December 2004, and was upheld in January 2005. Coutts then took his case to the House of Lords and on 19 July 2006, the case was referred back to the lower court who were invited to quash it. On 19 October 2006 this decision was confirmed by the Court of Appeal and the original conviction was formally quashed. A new trial took place in June 2007, and Coutts was convicted on July 4th 2007 by an 11 to 1 majority verdict. The following day, July 5th, Coutts was sentenced once again to a life term (serving a minimum of 26 years).

[edit] Criminalisation of possession of "extreme pornography"

Main article: extreme pornography

The possible link with what the Government has termed "extreme pornography" led to a campaign spearheaded by Longhurst's mother Liz and her sister Sue Barnett, and supported by Martin Salter MP, to criminalise the possession of "extreme pornographic material", whether or not the participants consented, and would include "realistic depictions" of such acts. The campaign by the Jane Longhurst Trust collected a petition of over 50,000 signatures calling for a ban on "extreme internet sites promoting violence against women in the name of sexual gratification" after the original the murder conviction of Graham Coutts. This motivated the Home Office to consult on possible changes to the law. Although the consultation found 63% of responses opposed strengthening the law to address the "challenges of the Internet", the UK government announced on 30 August 2006 that it intends to introduce new laws governing the possession of "extreme pornography". The possession of such material would be punishable by up to three years' imprisonment. The SM group Unfettered has created a campaign, Backlash, in opposition to such changes.

Proponents of the new laws call them a way of protecting women from similar tragedies. Critics say 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, or that the laws will criminalise those who are not violent.^[5]