I noted a headline the other day, with a name which rang a loud bell for me. Sally Challen had just been informed of a High Court decision which would allow her to claim the estate of her dead husband. Now this statement may appear strange to some, but if you read the story linked below, you would find that she had previously been precluded from the inheritance because she had murdered her husband; and as is well known, criminals are forbidden from profiting by their crime. But the Judge was persuaded that ‘this was different’ because she had been ‘coerced’ into her crime, and therefore should be able to benefit from her dead husband’s estate.
All because a bunch of do-gooders had got a Parliament Law altered which allows for ‘coercive or controlling behaviour’ to be taken into account when a crime is committed.
Nearly a year ago, I wrote about this murderess who bluffed her way to a reprieve and release from a fully-justified sentence. As I wrote-
The majority of thinking Brits will have now read of the decision by the Courts not to charge Sally Challen after she was released from prison after a long campaign by her family, which claimed she was ‘controlled’ by her husband, and which was the reason she hit him twenty times over the head with a hammer.
As is ‘explained’ by the linked article in the Daily Mail, she was only considered for release after coercive and controlling behaviour was criminalised in 2015, and her solicitor could begin claiming that she was forced into this killing after many years of this ‘controlling and coercive behaviour’ by her husband.
Now I have a small sum of knowledge of women who have been in abusive relationships, for either long or short periods; having visited ‘Refuges’ on a couple of occasions, and the one thing which always comes to the fore is that the women made a conscious decision to seek help; to leave the premises where that abuse was happening, and to seek ‘Refuge’.
We are supposed to believe that this woman took the alleged beatings, emotional and physical abuse ‘because she loved him’!
She is supposed to have finally snapped, and killed this man whilst in a violent rage. Well, she did kill him, but she planned this death. She killed him because she was fed up with his constant cheating. She brought a hammer in whilst her husband was eating his breakfast, buried the hammer head into his skull over twenty times. When the jury heard of the systematic plans, of the manner in which she killed her husband, and then attempted to commit suicide at Beachy Head, they found her guilty of murder, and she was sentenced to a minimum 18 years in prison.
She was released, but I believe the Jury called it correct the first time, and she might have served eight years, but she should have served the full eighteen years minimum term; because she murdered her husband.
All she had to do was leave. All she had to do was get out, with the kids, and then sue for divorce: as she had previously sued. But then we are supposed to understand that she changed her mind, and went back to her husband! All she had to do was seek refuge: but instead she chose violence, she chose murder! She didn’t just hit him with a hammer, she hit him more than twenty times, and then attempted suicide.
Release her early because she was suffering from two previously undiscovered mental illnesses? All you need is a good brief, an accommodating psychiatrist, a judge amenable to a really good story, an overly-permissive Law; and you can not only get away with murder, you get the lolly as well!