Mother who was jailed for 20 years for murdering her newborn baby with a pair scissors has conviction QUASHED on appeal after top judges rule she should have faced infanticide charge

A mother who was jailed for murdering her newborn baby with a pair of scissors has had her conviction quashed by top judges today. Rachel Tunstill, 27, killed tiny Mia Kelly shortly after giving birth in the bathroom of her flat in Burnley, in January last year. After child's body was put into a plastic carrier bag and then dumped into a kitchen bin, before Tunstill watched TV with her partner.

Tunstill denied murder on the basis of diminished responsibility, but was found guilty at Preston Crown Court in June last year and jailed for life. But the conviction was today overturned after appeal judges said the jury should have been given the option of convicting her of infanticide. The offence, which is rarely invoked by prosecutors, is defined as the killing of a child under 12 months by his or her mother, while the parent's mind is 'disturbed' due to giving birth.

Tunstill denied murder on the basis of diminished responsibility, but was found guilty at Preston Crown Court in June last year and jailed for life. But the conviction was today overturned after appeal judges said the jury should have been given the option of convicting her of infanticide. The offence, which is rarely invoked by prosecutors, is defined as the killing of a child under 12 months by his or her mother, while the parent's mind is 'disturbed' due to giving birth.

Quashing the murder conviction today, Lord Justice Treacy said it was wrong that the jury had been deprived of the option of an infanticide conviction.

'It seems to us that there was evidence capable of showing that the balance of this appellant's mind was, at the time of the killing, disturbed,' he said.

'There was evidence fit for the jury’s consideration. It is not for this court to assess the likelihood of its success.'

The appeal judge concluded: 'In our judgment, the interests of justice require a retrial and we so order.'

A retrial has now been ordered although a date has not been set.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5970441/Mother-killed-newborn-baby-scissors-murder-conviction-quashed.html

Hopefully, they might give her 30 years, next time 'round...

You surely must have something wrong with you to do such a thing. It just doesn't bear thinking about, although, it is it possible that that someone is born bad or born metally in that way.

Vintage wrote:You surely must have something wrong with you to do such a thing. It just doesn't bear thinking about, although, it is it possible that that someone is born bad or born metally in that way.

Interesting point and whether there was any signs before she was possible of such harm to others?

What I do not grasp, is the fact on the reality she murdered the child. To then agure over some legal definition to then call for a retrial?

She murdered the baby and no legal term will change that. Only a view on to how much time she will serve in prison

This is why at times I cannot stand criminal defense lawyers with an open and shut case. Its like they are trying to make out the murderer is some how wronged, when they have commited a vile and henious crime

They are blood sucking money grabbers these types of lawyers

I know Quill will say they have to defend, but come on mate????

Rachel Tunstill, 27, killed tiny Mia Kelly shortly after giving birth in the bathroom of her flat in Burnley, in January last year.

After child's body was put into a plastic carrier bag and then dumped into a kitchen bin, before Tunstill watched TV with her partner.



well, that's weird.  What did her partner do?  It gives no info on that

nor does it give any detail whatsoever about her upbringing, or her mental health so hard to say why.  It will be interesting to see what is revealed in the retrial.

terrible thing though

Surely, we are hard wired to care for our infants. Isn't there something about females in particular, of all species, responding favourably to infant faces? Big eyes etc.

Vintage wrote:Surely, we are hard wired to care for our infants. Isn't there something about females in particular, of all species, responding favourably to infant faces? Big eyes etc.

I think the majority do have the protective maternal spirit, vin but there will always be the oddities

The oddities though, where the hell do they originate from - bad genes, mental abhorration?
I'm not keen on the gene manipulation thing, even though its largely only an idea at the moment but can this kind of person be prevented from existing, are they born or made? Then we get to the problem of making all human kind nice and gentle - what happens if the need arises for warriors?

along the same lines, i just watched ''the real charlie bronson'' born michael peterson. it seems he had a happy and stable upbringing. a strict father, loving mother, wonderful grandparents. folks used to talk to his mum and comment on how well turned out and polite her 3 kids were etc etc but at some point something went very wrong and wasn't picked up on in the right way.

there are also those who are abused as children by shitty parents and go on to continue that cycle of abuse with their own.

but there are also those who have either a shitty upbringing, or perhaps a horrific experience in some way but dont let it affect them in a negative way.

it chills my blood to think that anyone is actually ''born'' bad. how can that be?

Strange isn't it. I know a family with three children, two did well, one has spent his entire life in and out of jail and was disruptive in school, is it a mental health problem? His parents tried punishing him and they tried, well, bribing him to good behaviour nothing worked, yet you speak to him and he's a nice enough person - at least on the surface, the two other siblings had to sort of get on with it as thae attention for good or bad was on their brother.