Tobias-UK

The is no doubt the crew were assaulted, the jury decided that on the evidence presented the defendant was not ‘criminally’ liable for that assault and found him not guilty of the charges he faced. There may have been alternative charges the CPS could have brought (and chose not to) and that same jury might have found the defendant criminally responsible for the assault under other charges.

The “Just Because You Did It Doesn't Mean You’re Guilty” billboard ad posted above is correct, it all depends on the charge the CPS brings. For example: two men have an argument out side a pub, one man throws a single punch at the other when that man tried to take a swing at him. That single punch results in the other man’s death. A murder charge ensues. Is the first man guilty of murder? No. The single punch was an attempt at self defence, a permitted defence to a charge involving violence.

Let’s use the same circumstances, but this time the medical evidence shows the dead man had an unusually thin skull and died not because of the punch but as a result of tripping after being punched and banging his head on the ground? Is that still murder? No. The charge should have been manslaughter because there was no intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm. So yes, the first man ‘did it’ but he is not guilty of the offence brought.

There are also other defences available, it appears (I don’t know because I wasn’t there) that this current case pursued a defence of incapacity, if incapacity can be demonstrated in evidence then whilst it does not provide a technical defence to a crime in itself it does negate the mens rea. The mens rea is the criminal intent, the mental element of an individual’s intention to commit a crime, or the knowledge that one's action action would cause a crime to be committed. The means rea is an essential element that must (with very limited exceptions) be present for a criminal offence to be committed.