Friday 8 October 1971
‘Members of the jury,’ Ben began, ‘my learned friend Mr Pilkington gave you four reasons for returning a verdict of guilty of murder. I want to give you four reasons for returning a verdict of guilty of manslaughter by reason of provocation. And unlike Mr Pilkington, I don’t have to prove my side of the case. The prosecution has the burden of proof, and unless you are sure they have proved that Henry Lang is guilty of murder, you must return a verdict of manslaughter. The learned judge will explain that to you when he sums up.
‘My four reasons are these. First, Henry Lang had no reason to kill his wife. Second, Henry Lang certainly had no reason to kill his wife outside Mrs Cameron’s house on 28 April. Third, Henry Lang’s explanation for taking the knife with him to Mrs Cameron’s house is not only credible, but is supported by independent evidence. Fourth and last, Henry Lang’s account of what happened at Harpur Mews on 28 April is also credible, and is supported by independent evidence.
‘First, he had no reason to kill Susan Lang. The very fact that he was the one who began divorce proceedings and made an application for custody of the children speaks for itself. If he intended to kill her, why would he do that? Why not just get on with it and kill her? Yes, Mr Justice Wesley had given interim custody to Susan, but it was interim custody, and the judge had made it clear that things could change at the final hearing. They would have changed, wouldn’t they, almost certainly, you may think? Since the first hearing, Henry had built up a convincing case that Susan was drinking too much, taking drugs, and associating with criminals like Daniel Cleary. Her own friend, Louise, told Henry as much, didn’t she? Henry had every reason to think that he would be awarded custody once word of that reached Mr Justice Wesley, or even Mrs Cameron. And if he did try to kill her, what if something went wrong? What if he was arrested for it? Members of the jury, trying to kill Susan might have been the only way he could actually lose custody of his children.
‘Second, he certainly had no reason to kill Susan Lang at Harpur Mews on 28 April. Let’s assume for a moment that Henry had decided to kill Susan. Would he do it on a public street, outside the house of the court welfare officer, just after a meeting with her, just around the corner from a police station? If anything went wrong, if she screamed, or escaped, or survived the attempt, it would have been over for him, wouldn’t it? Surely, members of the jury, a man who, according to the prosecution, was so intent on killing his wife would choose a better time and place. He knew where she lived, didn’t he? He knew she came home late at night. You may think she would have been easy prey for anyone really determined to kill her.
‘Third, his explanation for taking the knife with him. Let me make this clear, members of the jury: I don’t condone his decision to carry a knife for one moment, and neither should you. It was a stupid thing to do. He knows that now, and he should have known at the time. He should have gone to the police, and reported it to Mrs Cameron immediately. Of course, he should. But that doesn’t mean that he intended to kill his wife. The prosecution ridicule the idea that Henry was afraid of Daniel Cleary, but there is independent evidence that Cleary was a threat to him. First, you know about Cleary’s criminal record, which includes convictions for violence and blackmail – making unwarranted demands with menaces – which is exactly what Henry says he did. It’s not a huge leap, is it, to accept that when one of his drug clients asked him for a favour – leaning on Henry to drop his case – he would have been only too pleased to keep his client happy? Not only that, but you heard from Harriet Fisk, Susan’s barrister, and you remember what she told you, I’m sure. Susan actually told her, in the presence of her solicitor, Miss Turner, that “Danny Ice” was going to put pressure on Henry to drop the case, to threaten him with violence. Mr Pilkington didn’t dispute Miss Fisk’s evidence at all; he accepted that evidence on behalf of the prosecution.
‘Yes, it was a foolish thing to do, but Henry is not charged with illegally carrying an offensive weapon. If he were, he would have to plead guilty, but he’s not. He is charged with murder, and if you’re not sure that he took the knife with him with the premeditated intention of killing Susan that day at Harpur Mews, then there must be a reasonable doubt, mustn’t there? I would suggest that, not only is there a reasonable doubt, but the evidence is very much in favour of Henry being afraid of “Danny Ice”, and ill-advisedly taking the knife with him for self-defence in case Cleary decided to carry out his threat.
‘Lastly, members of the jury, the prosecution pour scorn on the idea that six words could have caused Henry Lang to lose all self-control. But is that so unreasonable? Remind yourselves, please, when you are in your jury room, of those words. “What makes you think they’re yours?” I will repeat them. “What makes you think they’re yours?” Members of the jury, there’s no doubt, is there, that Henry Lang is a man who cares on the deepest level about his children? Mrs Cameron thought he was a bit obsessive, and she was worried about that tendency in him, and you may well be inclined to agree with her. But surely that supports what Henry told you. This is a man who always talked about “my” children, never “our” children. The prosecution described Susan’s words as stupid. But they weren’t stupid; they were deliberately vicious words, the most cruel she could have spoken to him, carefully calculated to cause Henry as much pain as she could. Could there be anything more hurtful, anything more calculated to send this man into an uncontrollable rage, than to question the paternity of his children? If he wasn’t their father, who was? One of the men she consorted with? Daniel Cleary? Is it so hard to believe that for a few moments – tragically, for long enough for him to take Susan’s life – he lost all self-control?
‘His loss of self-control is also shown, I suggest, by what happened after he stabbed her. Did he run away, try to hide, try to dispose of the weapon? No. He did none of those things, none of the things a man in possession of his reason, a man who had just successfully completed a premeditated plan to kill, would have done. Instead, he sat on the floor just a foot or two away from where she lay dying, knife in hand, until the police arrived, and when the police arrived, he did not resist them in any way.
‘Henry tells you that he later had no memory of what had happened. Again, the prosecution pour scorn on the idea that he couldn’t remember, and on the fact that his memory returned before the trial began. But, members of the jury, there is no dispute that when the police found Henry Lang, he was in trauma-induced clinical shock, and he remained in trauma-induced clinical shock for two days, during which period he was taken to Barts hospital for treatment. There’s no dispute about that, is there? You heard about it from the police officers. You heard that the police surgeon, Dr Moynihan, diagnosed trauma-induced clinical shock, as did the doctors at Barts.
‘The prosecution’s own expert, Dr Harvey, told you that this man suffered trauma-induced clinical shock, and he told you that retrograde amnesia is a known symptom of that condition. Is it so surprising that this man of hitherto good character was traumatised by what he had done? Is it so surprising that the memory of what he had done was so painful that his mind took pity on him and spared him the agony of reliving it for as long as it could?
‘Members of the jury, on any view, this is a tragic case. There is nothing you can do about the tragedy of Susan Lang’s death. But there is one thing you can do. By your verdict, you can prevent a second tragedy – the tragedy of convicting Henry Lang of an offence he didn’t commit, and taking him away from his children for ever.’