Manslaughter by Susan Mouat
Susan Mouat caused the death of her husband by pushing him and thereby causing him to fall and fatally hit his head. She then lied about the event for years to avoid responsibility. Our previous comment in September was as follows:
Yes, well spotted DJ Ward #15. The case is another example of one form of police favouritism towards women. Man fell down stairs, died, police investigated “on the basis that it may have been a homicide”, which may have involved them asking the man’s wife Susan Mouat if she did it then believing her immediately when she denied it. After all, it’s men who are violent. However, (for some reason we are not seen fit to be told) the police charged her six years later with manslaugther and she eventually pleaded guilty…
And you are correct also DJ Ward about Susan Mouat’s pending pussy pass with the judge asking for a report regarding home detention. So for a crime with a maximum tariff of life imprisonment this woman is considered for a sentence at home that can only be a maximum of one year. Manslaughter is this woman’s laughter.
Interestingly, this weekend’s article about the case shows Ms Mouat with a big smile. And, as predicted, she received a pussy pass of generous proportions: 11 months home detention for a crime that carries a maximum tariff of life imprisonment.
She was reported as stating to police:
“I’d just like, as I mentioned before, I would like…this to be over and to say that…the night Bruce died, previous to this I maintained that I had nothing to do with his death, but on the night that Bruce died… I had pushed him in a form of self defence because he was excessively drunk and I asked him to leave and that push resulted in his falling down the stairs and hitting his head which then resulted in his death”
“I have been very unwell as a result of trying to keep that lie. I just wish for it now to be over and I’m ready. Please God everything will just be as it’s meant to, so that’s all I’d like to say.”
So Ms Mouat claimed that it was ‘a form of self defence’ to push her husband out of his own home simply because he was drunk and she disapproved of this. There was no mention that he had been violent to her or there was any such risk when drunk. No, she just decided that he didn’t deserve to be allowed into his own house and she enforced this by pushing him out. Now that’s an interesting new feminist interpretation of ‘self defence’.
Ms Mouat’s language and focus highlighted her avoidance of responsibility for her crime. She referred to “the night that Bruce died” typical language to distance one’s self from the crime (instead of ‘the night I killed Bruce’). Her main concern appeared to be how bad it was for her to have to live with her lies since the event. The judge obviously felt for her.
If it had been the husband who pushed his drunk wife causing her death, his refusal to let her into her home would be seen as ‘patriarchal power and control’. The fact that she was very drunk would have been seen as an aggravating factor because she was vulnerable and needed her spouse to protect and care for her. The increased risk that she would fall awkwardly due to drunkenness would have been seen as another aggravating factor in that he could have predicted the serious fall and risk of severe injury.
But it wasn’t a husband being violent to his wife, it was the other way around so that’s ok. Only another dead male. The priority is to support the woman given her unfortunate predicament. Oh, she was violent? Didn’t notice.
There are a lot of bad things about this.
1. Making a false statement to Police.
Section 111 of the Crimes act says… Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who, on any occasion on which he is required or permitted by law to make any statement or declaration before any officer or person authorised by law to take or receive it, or before any notary public to be certified by him as such notary, makes a statement or declaration that would amount to perjury if made on oath in a judicial proceeding. – Why didn’t the Police charged her with this crime?
I note the act says “he” not “she” or “he and she”.
2. The Police are OK with the sentence. I would like them to explain why they thought it was just.
3. The victims family are unhappy with the sentence. There is no support for them. Their grief will remain for life.
Just imagine if was your dad, your brother or your son who was killed and the killer lied. And when killer confessed years later she didn’t have to go to jail.
I am quite certain if the killer was a man and the victim was a woman the sentence would be no less than 7 years including discounts.
On this occasion it is a no confidence vote for both the Judge and the Police.
Comment by Lukenz — Mon 16th October 2017 @ 8:18 pm
You guys have missed a lot out of this story.
I would also like to add that there was a protection order out against HER and of her many many many convictions (17 i think) most of them were for violence against her dead husband.
If this was a situation where a man had killed a woman with a protection order in place not only would he be sitting in prison but i suspect there would be a call for new laws to protect these vulnerable women that take out protection orders.
This is “pussy pass” at its most blatant and i can not for the life of me see why we continue to allow it.
Comment by Jack Williams — Sun 5th November 2017 @ 12:30 pm
Thanks Jack Williams #2. Increasingly incredible the more information we see. Why do we allow it? Maybe because so few people are prepared to do anything about it, such as attending men’s rights protests, writing letters to editors and making submissions to select committees etc. Judges maintain traditional chivalry to protect women including from the consequences of their own offending, but we only hear objections when judges show any mercy or understanding towards male offenders and those objections come from feminist groups.
You’re right though that this case was at the more blatant end of judicial sexism and it highlights the fundamental injustice of our protection order regime that was designed to dominate men.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sun 5th November 2017 @ 1:37 pm
It’s open season on men.
Comment by Vman — Mon 13th November 2017 @ 6:25 pm
So Ms Mouat thinks her incredible pussy pass was still far too harsh! Let’s see if the Appeal Court supports the idea that women should be allowed to kill men on the basis of any silly excuse. And that women should be allowed to decide whether men can get into their own homes.
Susan Mouat’s lawyer now thinks it’s ok for a woman to shut a man out of his own home for the purpose of ‘returning the house to peace and quietness’. Yeah, that reason will do, it’s only men’s rights being walked over so who cares?
The Family Court already ensures women can easily and conveniently kick men out of their own homes, with no risk that any lies told to achieve this will ever be punished. On to the street because there are almost no refuges for men.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Mon 27th November 2017 @ 6:34 pm
Appeal dismissed ….
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11960652
Comment by golfa — Fri 15th December 2017 @ 8:14 pm
Casualties of war are an unfortunate necessity but now even our enlisted soldiers are casualties of peace. Suicide was once a criminal investigation but the investigation now would find a different offender.
In the condemention of men, Feminism has hung us between the two thieves of life, commerce and the law.
Comment by Evan Myers — Sat 16th December 2017 @ 7:10 am
If girls get angry, it’s only by chance they remember not to murder you.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 7th January 2018 @ 3:58 pm