Father who murdered daughter in play-fight could have sentence increased
Simon Vickers was jailed for life with a minimum term of 15 years in February after being found guilty of the murder of his daughter, Scarlett, with sentencing judge Mr Justice Cotter claiming the killing happened in a 'momentary but devastating act of anger'.
During his trial at Teesside Crown Court, Vickers, 50, had given different accounts of what happened in the seconds before he stabbed a kitchen knife 11cm into Scarlett's lung and heart at their home in Darlington on July 5 last year.
The Solicitor General has referred his sentence to the Court of Appeal under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme, with the case set to be heard by three senior judges in London on Thursday.
Vickers' trial heard how Scarlett's mother, Sarah Hall, was making spaghetti bolognese on the evening of July 5 2024, and she and her daughter threw grapes at each other for fun.
Ms Hall grabbed some tongs and snipped at her partner of 27 years, and when he complained he had been hurt, Scarlett implied her father was being 'wimpy'.
Ms Hall told jurors that during the play-fighting, she turned away to serve the family's evening meal and then heard Scarlett say 'ow'.
She said she immediately saw that their only child was pouring with blood, with Scarlett bleeding to death at the scene.
Ms Hall made a 999 call and told the operator they had been 'messing about' and that her partner had thrown something at their daughter, and he 'didn't realise'.
Vickers told a paramedic that his daughter had lunged towards him during a bout of play-fighting, the court heard, but a jury convicted him of murder by a majority of 10-2 in January.
Sentencing him, Mr Justice Cotter said the version of events that the defendant told the jury – that he had accidentally swiped the knife across the work surface and into his daughter's chest without realising – was 'unconvincing and wholly implausible'.
Vickers had drunk wine and smoked cannabis that night, but the judge was not sure that alcohol had contributed to the offence, which he was convinced was caused by 'a flash of anger'.
Mr Justice Cotter said: 'It stole one young, precious life, ruined your life, your wife's life and Scarlett's relatives and friends.'
He continued: 'You have never accepted exactly what happened, although you have accepted it was your actions that caused her death.
'Your beloved daughter deserved that you told the truth. You have not done so.'
The hearing before Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, Mr Justice Goose and Mrs Justice Eady is set to begin at 10.30am on Thursday at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Teenage killer of Bhim Kohli keeps seven-year sentence at Court of Appeal
A teenage boy who killed elderly dog walker Bhim Kohli in a Leicestershire park will not have his sentence for manslaughter changed, the Court of Appeal has ruled. Mr Kohli, 80, was punched and kicked, slapped in the face with a shoe and racially abused in an attack in Franklin Park, Braunstone Town, near Leicester, on September 1 last year, and died the next day. The 15-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to seven years' custody in June. The Solicitor General (SG), Lucy Rigby, referred the sentence to the Court of Appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. At a hearing on Wednesday, Lady Justice Macur, sitting alongside Mrs Justice Cutts and Mr Justice Murray, ruled that the boy's sentence was neither unduly lenient nor manifestly excessive. She said: 'We consider that the judge conscientiously executed the necessary sentencing exercise and conveyed his remarks to offender and co-defendant with great skill. 'We do not find that the sentence was unduly lenient.' Of the attempt to reduce the sentence, she said: 'The sentence was a very significant sentence and necessarily so. 'It is entirely warranted by the seriousness of the offence. It is unarguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive.' Paul Jarvis KC, for the SG, said that although the sentencing judge did not identify a high risk of death, he did say there was a high risk of very serious harm. He added: 'We say, if not unduly lenient, most certainly not manifestly excessive.' Balraj Bhatia KC, for the boy, told the court that Mr Kohli's frailty meant 'little or no force was required' to kill him. He said: 'Sadly, the vulnerability of the deceased's neck was such that had he spent a day on his beloved allotment and fallen accidentally, the result would have been the same.' The boy was convicted after a six-week trial in June at Leicester Crown Court, alongside a 13-year-old girl who also cannot be named. She encouraged the attack by filming parts of it while laughing, with video clips showing the balaclava-clad boy hitting Mr Kohli with a shoe. Another clip showed Mr Kohli lying on the ground motionless. The girl took a photograph of Mr Kohli on her phone the week before the alleged incident, but denied she used this to 'target' him, the trial heard. Police also recovered a video from her phone of a group of children 'confronting' an unknown man on a separate occasion, who was hit to the back of the head and called a 'Paki bastard' while she was heard laughing. The girl was sentenced to a three-year youth rehabilitation order by Mr Justice Turner, and her sentence was not referred to the Court of Appeal. Mr Kohli's children found him lying on the ground in agony, and he told his daughter he had been called a 'Paki' during the attack, the court heard during the trial. Jurors also heard the boy say in his evidence that he had a 'tussle' with Mr Kohli over his slider shoe before he slapped the elderly man with it out of 'instinct', which caused the pensioner to fall to his knees, but he denied kicking or punching him. In a letter written by the boy to a woman who had worked with him at the residential unit where he was being looked after, he wrote: 'I f****** hate what I did. I regret it so much. 'I have flashbacks of that day and it just upsets me. I kinda just needed anger etc releasing.'
CNN
31-07-2025
- CNN
Irish court rejects Conor McGregor appeal in sexual assault case
Mixed martial arts fighter Conor McGregor on Thursday lost his attempt to overturn a jury's order that he compensate a woman who accused him of raping her, with Ireland's Court of Appeal rejecting the appeal in its entirety. The plaintiff, Nikita Hand, alleged that McGregor sexually assaulted her on December 9, 2018. A jury last year ordered McGregor to pay her nearly 250,000 euros ($285,250) in damages. McGregor, 36, denied the allegation and said he had 'fully consensual sex' with Hand. He also denied causing bruising to the plaintiff. In the appeal heard earlier this month, lawyers for McGregor said the judge erred in directing the jury to decide whether he 'assaulted' rather than 'sexually assaulted' the victim. Judge Brian O'Moore said on Thursday that the appeal court had no doubt the overall effect of the trial judge's charge was to tell them the central allegation by Hand against McGregor was that he had raped her. McGregor's legal team had also argued that the judge should not have allowed a line of questioning during cross-examination regarding McGregor's 'no comment' responses in a police interview. That ground was also rejected. Hand embraced a number of people beside her after the appeal court ruling. 'To every survivor out there, I know how hard it is, but please don't be silenced. … You deserve to be heard, you also deserve justice. Today, I can finally move on and try to heal,' Hand said in a statement outside the court. Hand told the high court in November that she and a friend made contact with McGregor, whom she knew, after a work Christmas party. She said they were driven by McGregor to a party in a penthouse room of a Dublin hotel where drugs and alcohol were consumed. She said McGregor, who was not in court on Thursday, took her to a bedroom in the penthouse and sexually assaulted her. Hand's lawyer told the jury that when she was referred to a sexual assault treatment unit the day after the alleged assault, a doctor was so concerned that he directed that photographs be taken of her injuries.
Yahoo
31-07-2025
- Yahoo
Hamilton judge reprimanded, ordered to apologize to Peter Khill after giving wrong manslaughter sentence
Ontario Superior Court Justice Andrew Goodman has been publicly reprimanded and ordered to apologize to a man found guilty of manslaughter after he imposed a prison sentence two years longer than intended at the end of the high-profile case. Goodman waited over a year before admitting he'd meant to sentence Peter Khill to six years in prison for manslaughter, not eight. Khill had been found guilty in the 2016 shooting death of Jonathan Styres, a 29-year-old Cayuga father of two from Six Nations of the Grand River. The Canadian Judicial Council's three-person review panel condemned Goodman's "inaction," calling it "a serious ethical lapse and a failure" in a decision released Wednesday. While Goodman apologized through the review process, the panel remained concerned he "still fails to fully appreciate how the delay in correcting his error affects public confidence in the judiciary." Goodman will keep his position in Superior Court, the review panel decided, as his conduct wasn't "so profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality, integrity and independence" to justify removing him. Goodman handed down the wrong sentence in June 2023 after Khill's three trials, multiple appeals and a Supreme Court of Canada ruling. In August 2024, as Khill was in the process of appealing his sentence and conviction, Goodman sent a letter to the Court of Appeal about his mistake. He said he'd grabbed the wrong printed copy of his decision on the way to the courtroom and realized the error as he read it aloud. He didn't immediately correct himself, Goodman said, "perhaps due to a variety of factors, including having just read out a lengthy 53-page ruling before a crowded and divergent audience, with substantial media presence, for this high-profile case." Supreme Court won't hear Khill's appeal After the hearing, Goodman consulted several "experienced, judicial colleagues" about rectifying his error, but was "dissuaded" from doing so because the eight-year prison term was still an acceptable sentence for manslaughter, Goodman said. It wasn't until Khill's appeal was underway that Goodman felt compelled to come forward. The review panel said his mistake of reading the wrong sentence was a human one and understandable. But his decision to not say anything for over a year was unreasonable. While Khill's sentence ended up being reduced to six years by the Court of Appeal, and he didn't serve any extra time due to Goodman's mistake, it still impacted him, the review panel said. "Mr. Khill, for a significant time, remained under the belief that he was sentenced to a substantially lengthier sentence," the decision said. "It may very well have been that if Justice Goodman's error as to the length of sentence had been immediately corrected, there would not have been any appeal." While the Appeal Court had reduced Khill's sentence, it did not overturn his conviction. Khill argued he fired a gun in self-defence after finding Styres breaking into his truck early into Feb. 4, 2016. Khill attempted to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, but this week, the top court declined to hear the case, marking its end. As is standard practice, the high court did not give reasons for its decision to disallow hearing the case.
