Southport Visiter

Why Gelling was not charged with murder

- BY JAMIE LOPEZ jamie.lopez@reachplc.com @jamie_lopez1

THE Crown Prosecutio­n Service (CPS) has explained its decision to charge violent Southport street thug James Gelling with manslaught­er rather than murder.

It follows Gelling’s sentence of six years’ jail after he pleaded guilty to manslaught­er following an attack on Ventislav Marginov on Lord Street in Southport after Liverpool FC’s win in the Champions League final in May.

In a statement sent to the Southport Visiter, Senior Crown Prosecutor Angela Rowan of Mersey Cheshire CPS said that a murder charge was not pursued as there was no evidence of “intention to cause really serious harm”.

Instead, Ms Rowan described the killing as a “one punch assault, albeit with tragic consequenc­es”.

Mr Marginov was walking home with his two sons after watching Liverpool’s Champions League Final victory over Tottenham when he was punched by Gelling in an unprovoked attack.

He was taken to hospital but three days later, on June 1, he died from the injuries inflicted.

Gelling, 31, was initially charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm but this was changed to manslaught­er when the Bulgarian national died. He pleaded guilty on July 9 and was sentenced to six years in jail on Friday.

The judge, Honorary Recorder of Liverpool Andrew Menary QC, also imposed a four year extended licence which means that, instead of serving half of his six-year sentence in prison, Gelling must serve two thirds and then remain on licence for a further four years until a full 10 years are up. He could be recalled to prison at any time during that 10 years.

The court heard that Gelling punched Mr Marginov in the face in front of his sons and witnesses said there had been no provocatio­n from Mr Marginov, who fell to the floor after he had been hit.

His son, Hristo Marginov, saw his father fall and noticed blood pouring from his nose and mouth.

Both of Mr Marginov’s sons and one of their friends were also assaulted by others from Gelling’s group.

Gelling ran off down a side street by the Scarisbric­k Hotel but witnesses told a passing police officer where he had gone. One went with the police and identified him in Maloney’s Bar, inside the Scarisbric­k Hotel.

Gelling was arrested and searched and he had a wrap of white powder with him which he said was “only lemo”.

After the sentencing, Ms Rowan said: “Mr Marginov did nothing to provoke this attack and yet lost his life as a result. His family have been devastated by the events of that night.

“Whether Gelling was under the influence of drink or drugs at the time is unclear but he has several previous conviction­s for similar offences so he is clearly a violent man.

“The Crown Prosecutio­n Service, working with Merseyside police, built a strong case and the defendant pleaded guilty at an early stage.

“We hope that the conclusion of this case is a relief to the victim’s family, who have been through so much.

“The Crown Prosecutio­n Service would like to thank them for their help in bringing this prosecutio­n and also the witnesses who did their bit on the night to bring James Gelling to justice.”

The prosecutor thanked the witnesses for their role in bringing the serial criminal to justice and explained the reasoning behind the decision to charge him with manslaught­er.

She said: “The Crown Prosecutio­n Service charged James Gelling with manslaught­er and not murder because there was no evidence of ‘intention to cause really serious harm’.

“For example, there was no evidence of a sustained and repeated attack or that the assault had continued while the victim was on the floor.

“This was a one punch assault, albeit with tragic consequenc­es.

“The intention of the defendant is key when making a decision about whether to charge murder or manslaught­er.

“With murder, the defendant needs to have intended to kill a person or cause Grievous Bodily Harm, but with Manslaught­er it is not as black and white. Manslaught­er is the ‘recklessne­ss’ of murder, it requires the defendant to have taken a risk, or at least known that death could have occurred but not necessaril­y that they intended to kill someone.

“The judge in this case agreed that this offending was Category C.

“CPS lawyers make their charging decisions based on The Code for Crown Prosecutor­s. There are two tests that must be met for a charge to be authorised.

“The prosecutio­n must be in the public interest and there must be enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect that the defendant will be found guilty on the charge laid.”

 ??  ??
 ??  ?? James Gelling, 32
James Gelling, 32

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom