By Harriet Wistrich, director of Centre for Women’s Justice and co-founder of the campaign group, Justice for Women
On 29th March 2021, following her retrial for murder, Emma-Jayne Magson was sentenced by Mr. Justice Jeremy Baker to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 17 years. She had three weeks earlier been convicted of the murder of her abusive boyfriend James Knight, by a majority jury verdict of 10-2, following an 8-week retrial.
Justice for Women were contacted by Emma’s mother following her first trial in 2016 when she was previously convicted of the murder. They assisted her to instruct a new legal team who presented fresh psychiatric evidence supporting the defence of diminished responsibility. The court of appeal quashed her murder conviction on 28th January 2020 and ordered a retrial.
The recent conviction and subsequent sentencing of Emma-Jayne Magson is shocking in light of the evidence put forward at the retrial and confirms the discrimination faced by women in the criminal justice system. Justice for Women have been monitoring, supporting, and campaigning around cases like Emma’s since 1990, and whilst a lot has changed for the better, there are still many huge barriers to justice for abused women who kill.
In February 2021, we released our research findings on the systemic failings of the justice system in the context of women who had killed their abuser. Our findings showed that 77% of women who killed their partners had been victims of violence and abuse by the deceased, yet only 7% were successful in the use of self-defence, and 43% were convicted of murder. Recommendations highlighted the need for further law reform and changes to practice at every stage of the criminal justice process – as well as change beyond the criminal justice system – in order to challenge common myths and stereotypes which remain prevalent around women who offend. We also highlighted the failure of the criminal justice system to prevent violence and abuse towards women, which are often the triggers to women’s lethal violence against their abusers. The Emma Jayne Magson case illustrates several of the issues highlighted in our report which were evident in her prosecution, conviction, and sentencing - both in the original trial and this recent retrial.
Speaking of her experience Emma said “It’s a horrible feeling to hurt someone. I wouldn’t fight back again”. It seems in law the only credible victim is a dead one. Is this really the 21st century approach to survivors of domestic abuse who are confronted by their abusers?
The evidence presented at retrial in support of Emma-Jayne’s defence to murder included:
Toxicology evidence showing that the deceased had taken cocaine, cannabis, anabolic steroids, and alcohol which had contributed to his aggressive demeanour
CCTV was shown at trial of him squaring up to strangers outside a club earlier that night and included footage of him violently pushing Emma into a parked car in a seemingly unprovoked attack – this can be viewed on the BBC website here
Witnesses provided evidence of the deceased shouting and kicking at her front door immediately after the offence
Medical evidence, including red marks and bruising around her neck and a pathologist report, supported the defendant’s account that she was strangled by the deceased
Five out of six psychiatric or psychologist reports evidencing a mental impairment that was likely to have diminished Emma’s responsibility for the stabbing
Evidence in the form of social media messages of the deceased’s past bad character; the fact that steroids and drugs had made him aggressive towards his previous partner
There were a significant number of text messages which had not been provided to Emma’s legal team at the original trial, which disclosed James Knight’s abusive behaviour to his previous partner and revealed threats to both her and her sister
Evidence of the deceased’s previous violence towards the defendant and his regular abusive language towards her, including typically describing her as a ‘slag’, calling her ‘fat’ when she was pregnant with their child, and telling her to lose weight
So why was Emma convicted a second time of murder?
The police and prosecution team seemed determined to re-convict Emma of murder. It was open to them to have offered a plea to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility after two experts they instructed agreed with the three experts instructed by the defence. However, they went searching for a further expert who did not support the diagnosis, so they could improve the prospects of a re-conviction for murder at the retrial
The police undertook extensive searches for witnesses who might be able to provide evidence of Emma’s previous violence and bad character
A number of witnesses did provide such evidence, including a former boyfriend who alleged she had hit him with a vacuum cleaner pipe. All these witnesses were cross-examined to show their accounts were dishonest or unreliable. However, it seems the majority on the jury still believed these accounts
During the course of the retrial, the Crown Prosecutor made reference to Emma as a typical council estate girl who had experienced ‘50 one night stands.’ This comment reveals appalling class prejudice and misogyny and should have no place in a modern day criminal trial. The focus of the trial was on Emma’s character and the lies that she told immediately after the offence
The most damning evidence that is likely to have persuaded judge and jury that her account of being attacked and acting in self-defence lacked credibility, was the fact that Emma, on her own admission at trial, lied afterwards to a 999 call handler, paramedics, police officers and bystanders after the stabbing
A recording of the 999 call made by Emma following the attack was played at trial in which she appeared calm, lying, and unbothered by the condition of the deceased. Without an understanding of her underlying personality disorder, this made her appear callous
Evidence was adduced of Emma’s previous bad character, including previous convictions for violence. She had a caution for hitting a bouncer, had hit a woman in a pub and attacked a woman with a glass for which she incurred convictions for battery. However, these incidents occurred when she was in a relationship with someone who had physically assaulted her and set fire to her clothing and personal possessions
5 out of 6 experts agreed that Emma had a personality disorder and that this was due to neglect and trauma during her childhood
The sentencing of Emma-Jayne by Judge Jeremy Baker
Emma-Jayne Magson
To assist with mitigation upon sentencing, evidence was provided by prison officers commending Emma for her work during the time she has been in prison. Reports highlighted her dedication to self-improvement, her helping others, and her willingness to discuss her offending behaviour, including demonstrating remorse for causing James Knight’s death
However, Mr Justice Jeremy Baker told Magson that he would have passed an even stiffer sentence had it not been for legal limitations on the court’s powers. “I regret I am unconvinced you have, as yet, any real remorse for having caused James Knight’s death”
He stated that “I am sure that the account which you provided to the police in your prepared statement of being strangled by James Knight is untrue.” And explained that the red marks on Emma’s neck “could equally have been caused when James Knight had pushed you [Magson] into the car on Pool Road at an earlier point in the night”.
Contrast her case to the sentencing the next day of Thomas McCann, who strangled his estranged wife Yvonne, after a row, then chopped up her body and hid her. He pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to a minimum tariff of 13 years. Or to the case of Anthony Williams who strangled his wife to death and was sentenced to five years for manslaughter, or the 18-year sentence that was handed to George Leather after killing his wife by inflicting 300 stab wounds to her face and body.
In none of these cases did the defendant face violence, coercive control or anything more than feeling irritated by their wife’s conduct.
Minimum tariff for murder
When someone is convicted of murder, a mandatory life sentence will be imposed. The judge must set a minimum tariff, which means the number of years a convicted murder must serve in prison before she can be considered by the parole board for release on licence. The length of tariff set by the judge should depend on the presence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances surrounding the killing. The statutory guidance on sentencing indicates that the starting point for a murder tariff will be 15 years, this can be reduced if there is evidence of provocation, lack of pre-meditation, the presence of a psychiatric vulnerability and the lack of an intention to kill. All these factors were present in Emma’s case but it seems the judge wanted to impose a sentence well over the starting point tariff of 15 years and discounted the evidence of prison officers who had worked with her relying instead on his own impression of her at trial.
Trial under conditions of lockdown
The retrial took place at Birmingham Crown Court, following a number of delays due to Covid lockdown. The presenting of evidence may have been hampered by lockdown conditions, when her defence counsel had to isolate for part of the trial, when junior counsel was diagnosed with covid and the defence had to cross examine prosecution witnesses remotely (whilst the prosecution team remained at court). Several defence experts gave evidence by video link which may have weakened the impact of their evidence. However, the jury verdict was shocking and unexpected given the weight of evidence that favoured her defence.
Emma’s mother, Jo stated
“Emma has been convicted because of the lies she told when she was terrified rather than the actual incident which even the prosecution agreed was not done with an intent to kill. I just don’t understand how his aggression and violence as caught on CCTV was disregarded. Her last words overheard to him were ‘I’m not letting you in after last time’. It was obvious she was frightened of him.
She has nothing but remorse for killing James. Even the prison officers have said that. I can’t believe she has been failed by the system again.”
Emma’s lawyers are considering grounds of appeal against conviction and sentence.