Quote Originally Posted by xsnaggle View Post
there may have been alleged criminal intent but it was clearly not proven.
Also a charge and conviction for manslaughter means it was found that he had no intent to kill the victim and that the death was unforeseen.
If there was , in the eyes of the jury, intent to seriously injure he would have been charged with GBH with intent which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and is actually a more serious charge than manslaughter.
This what happened to a neighbour of mine in the N East of England. He deliberately beat his partner and she died. But the autopsy found that she may have died at any moment because of another unassociated condition, but he was not charged or found guilty of manslaughter because that implies the death was as a result of his actions but he did not intend to kill, and there was no intent to seriously injure, and no malice, just stupidity or neglect. He was charged with GBH with intent, which implied he intended to at least seriously injure her, because that is the more serious charge and reflects his criminal intent to seriously injure. He was found guilty and got 10 years.
Part of the definition of manslaughter from the Cambridge dictionary:-
"Manslaughter involves the killing of another person, but it's distinct from the crime of murder. ... Manslaughter is an unlawful killing that doesn't involve malice aforethought—intent to seriously harm or kill, or extreme, reckless disregard for life."
Thanks for that , I stand corrected

I find it bizarre that booting someone twice in the head is not intended to seriously harm someone or doesn't show a reckless regard for life ?

If the case is as it is then the police and cps would have been better off charging the officer with GBH with intent if the conviction is a more serious one and the sentence is harsher

But the family have got justice with a manslaughter conviction and he's looking at 5 plus years I would think