All language subtitles for Law.and.Order.UK.S04E04_Legendas01.ENG

In the criminal justice system,

the people are represented
by two separate yet equally important groups.

The police,
who investigate crime,

and the Crown Prosecutors,
who prosecute the offenders.

These are their stories.

Look just ten minutes.

Babes I need to see you,
I'm going out of my mind here.

Yeah, I know
and I'm gonna tell her, I swear.

- Please!
- It's not easy for me.

- Your phone!
- What you doing?

- I need your phone! My son...
- Get off!

Emergency! Yeah, fire.

There's a bloody building
burning down.

- Is there anyone else?
- My son-- my son's inside.

Yeah, her boy.

It's above the newsagents.

I don't know how long
it's been going on.

Yeah, okay. It's alright,
they're on their way.

I hesitate to use
the word lucky,

but it could've been
a hell of a lot worse.

Right,
well I tell you what Mike, it looks bad enough to me.

Yeah.
The lad from the flat didn't make it.

- Right.
- CO asphyxiation.

- That's the lad there.
- Looks like he never woke up.

And we're talking
suspicious origins, are we?

Yeah, the guys reckon
some sort of accelerant was used.

But I can't tell you anymore
until we get in there.

- So, anyone else in the flat Mike?
- Just the mother.

There's a daughter
but she was at a sleepover.

And what about the Mum?
How's she doing?

About how you'd expect.

- Let me through.
- I'm sorry Sir,

you won't be able to park there.

- I'm not moving my car.
- What's going on?

- I am not gonna wait.
- It's a crime scene.

- Let me through.
- You can't park there.

Seriously, I got a right
to see my property.

- What's the problem?
- That's my shop.

Okay, just move your car.

But don't go anywhere,
we need to talk to you as well.

- Aw! Man, I don't believe this.
- Sir.

- Your car is obstructing the ambulance.
- I bet I've lost everything.

Well, there's a woman behind you

in that ambulance
who has just lost her son.

So, how about you shut up
and move your car?

- Seriously?
- Seriously.

Paint thinner.

They found the remains
of the container just in the entrance

to the flats there.

Looks like
that's your point of origin.

We'll run tests to confirm

but if it quacks like a duck...

Well, whoever did it
wasn't worried about covering their tracks, were they?

Nah, that's the great thing
about arson.

Equal opportunity crime.
Any moron can light a fire.

Poor Ian,

terrible
what happened in that fire.

I'm afraid I can't offer you
any tea.

I'm having one of my bad days.

- We're fine, really.
- You sure?

That's beautiful, sweetheart.

You and your Mum can stay here
as long as you need to.

She's pretty isn't she, Katie?

Um, Megan.

I understand Ian
had learning difficulties.

Right.

And do you mind telling us
what was the matter with him?

He had developmental problems.

He had trouble
with his breathing,

and...

and he was...

he was slow with stuff.

He didn't like noise.

I tried to get him out of there,
I did, I tried.

The handle was too hot.

I shouldn't have left him
in there.

How old was the boy
that died?

Just turned thirteen.

No chance of prints off
the bottle of paint thinner?

No, it was too badly burnt.
The DNA's a no-go as well.

And I'm guessing it's available
at all good retailers?

Well, you wouldn't want
to make it too easy.

- Any sign of forced entry?
- Doesn't look like it.

The mum made her escape
from a fire exit on the first floor,

but according to her statement
it was still locked when she got there.

- So, she wakes up, she smells smoke she--
- Tries to save her son,

then she goes for help.

Do we know who owns
the building?

Well, the flats are owned
by a management company,

if it's an insurance scam
it's a pretty bad one.

They should've at least tried
to fake some sort of forced entry

and as far as I can see,
they've got nothing to gain by it.

Yeah, and the shop downstairs
is another story, though.

Owned by one Sanjit Chatterjee,

currently under investigation
for unpaid VAT,

and selling alcohol
without a license.

He's already got
one failed business, under his belt.

Declared bankrupt in 2006
at the tender age of 25.

So, not exactly
young entrepreneur of the year.

- And he's got a stupid beard.
- That's enough for me.

I see here,
you had a flood six months ago.

Yeah, burst pipe.

Careful, man, huh!

Sorry boss.

You claimed ten grand's worth
of damages?

Yeah,
a lot of stock got damaged.

And then the year before that
there's an electrical fire.

Another five-grand claim
on the insurance.

So, fire, flood,
all you need now is an act of God.

- So, what? You think I did this?
- We know you've got cash flow problems.

Especially as far as
the VAT man's concerned.

Then, it wouldn't
be the first time you cut your losses.

Oh, here we go.

Look, I was young...

decided to try my hand at the music business.
It didn't work out.

As for the VAT,
my accountant stuffed up, that was all.

I'm getting it sorted.

But nice big insurance claim
should help a lot.

Yeah, it would.

Trouble is I couldn't afford
the premiums.

You claim once
and it's bad enough.

But claim twice,
forget about it.

You're saying
you're not insured?

I had to take a payment break.

Talk about timing.

Devlin.
Hey, Ange, what you got?

Seriously, man.

My grandparents
put their savings into this place.

My-- my whole family help out.

There is no way I'd torch it.

Really? Okay.

Yeah sure, we'll head over now.

Megan Parnell, the woman
from the flat. Apparently, she made several complaints

to her Safer Neighborhood Team.
Some of the local lads

were giving her a hard time
on account of her son and his special needs.

Right, and how bad did it get?

Bad enough to get
one of them an ASBO.

We're closed,
yeah!

Yeah, what?

Simone Lewis?
DS Brooks, DS Devlin.

We need to talk
to you about your sons, please.

- Which ones?
- Aaron and Lee.

Oh, not this again.

Leave them alone, can't you?
They're just kids.

We're investigating a fire
at the home of Megan Parnell.

- Oh, yeah?
- Yeah.

And we understand that your boys
have been giving Megan

and her kids
a bit of a hard time.

Yeah.

So, what?

So, perhaps you wouldn't mind
telling us where they're at one o'clock this morning.

Just answer the question
please, Aaron.

- Sorry, did you say something?
- You know what I reckon, Lee?

I just think you're playing
with us here, I really do.

I mean how old are ya?
Nine? Ten?

Eleven.

Wanker.

Wanker? That's a bit harsh.

Where were you
at one o'clock this morning?

Nah, sorry. I don't speak gay.

Actually, I'm quite a nice bloke
when you get to know me.

Or so I'm told.

It's not just your hair that looks gay.
You've even got a gay face.

I mean, how old's Aaron?

He's thirteen.

I think he reckons he's too cool

to be hanging around
with his little brother any more.

No, you don't.

Did you always know you was
a bender?

Is that why you became a copper?

Doesn't he think
that you're cramping his style?

Especially as he's acting
the big 'I am' out and about

with all his mates
trying to impress them.

Meanwhile you're stuck at home

because he wants to be out
with kids his own age.

He thinks you're a baby.

He couldn't even get
in there without me.

The window's too small.

Right, I see it now.

So he's the brains

and you're the brawn.

So,
how small is this window then?

They were at school?
In the middle of the night?

Won't set foot in the place
in daylight but apparently spend their nights

- trashing school property.
- We believe them?

Well, camera footage has them
near the school gates at 12:10

and then again
at 3:30 this morning.

What were they doing in there
for three hours?

According to the head teacher,

defecating in the Home Ec. Lab.
Amongst other things.

For three hours?

I suppose we can charge them
with criminal damage

and
then we've gotta let them go.

Why bother?
They'll only be back again next week.

I dunno.
Might be a little bit longer. I think we put the frighteners

- on the little one.
- Impart some fatherly wisdom, did you Ron?

Well, it wouldn't be the first
young tear away I've had to sort out, would it?

Ay, Mattie?

OK,
so one of the neighbors thinks

she saw a white,
middle-aged man, medium height, medium build.

Knock on the door
late afternoon and then walk away.

Other than that,
we've got nothing.

According to social services,
CSA have been after Megan's ex

for the past year
for non-payment of maintenance.

And well, apparently
Parnell's got a bit of a temper.

There's a note on here
and it says,

"He is extremely abusive
and uncooperative."

- Hardly a first.
- Yeah, but what are the odds?

He's white, middle-aged,
medium height and medium build?

- Ian's what, thirteen?
- Yeah.

So, that gives Craig another
five years of payments.

For a son, he wanted nothing to do with.
Or so we're told.

So, he kills his son
to save money?

I've known people kill for less.

- When did you last see your son?
- Ah!

I don't know. A month ago.
Maybe two.

Really?

Yeah. Me and his mum...

we don't get on.

I understand there's
been a few problems regarding maintenance payments.

Megan been bending your ear,
has she?

It must be
an expensive business, supporting a family

and trying to start
a new life for yourself?

Look, Ian belonged in a home.

Megan wouldn't have it.
Wanted to keep him with her.

He was her son.

And I was the one forking out.

He'd have been better off
somewhere where they could look after him properly.

Seems a bit extreme, doesn't it?

Residential care for a kid
with learning difficulties.

Learning difficulties?

He was full on retarded.

He's thirteen years old
and still wearing nappies.

So, is that why you
and Megan split up?

I guess I wasn't cut out
to be a dad.

Not for a kid like that.

So, sue me.

So, you weren't
outside Megan's flat Monday afternoon?

No.

Why has someone said I was like?

Would it change your story
if they had?

Okay. Fine. Yeah.
I went round there.

I'm just fed up with the hassle
I'm getting from the CSA.

I wanted to talk
to Megan face to face.

- So, what happened?
- Nothing. She wasn't there.

- Why lie about it?
- I don't need more hassle.

Or maybe you went round there later?
Say 1 am?

Just forget it.

I was with my girlfriend
we went out for dinner.

Afterwards we went back
to her place.

Parnell's girlfriend
has confirmed his alibi.

She also said that his son...

Ian had a thing
about playing with matches.

And if anyone was gonna
be starting a fire it would have probably been him.

But neither Mum nor Dad
mentioned this obsession with fire?

Nah, funny that.

So, what?

This girlfriend's going
the extra mile to stand by her man?

I reckon,
which probably makes her man even more of a likely suspect.

Still, it wouldn't hurt
to rule the boy out altogether.

Is there any way
he could've got hold of paint thinner?

Well, we can check,
but whether he knew what it was is another matter.

Nah, not possible.
I keep everything locked up in a cupboard.

Well,
where do you keep the keys?

On the ledge, above the door.

Well, that's not
the most original place to hide it, is it?

Who's gonna be looking?

Did Ian know you kept it
up there?

Maybe.

I come here what,
two, three times a month?

I do all the maintenance
for the building.

Ian...

he didn't like noise,

but if it was a quiet job,
you know, like changing light bulbs or something,

sometimes he'd sit and watch.

- Gave his mum a break, you know?
- Mmhm!

And where do you normally
keep the paint thinner?

In there with the paint.

Well, I can't see any.

Well, it was there.

Ian had a rare condition
known as

childhood
disintegrative disorder.

It's sometimes known
as Heller's syndrome.

Sometimes
the condition plateaus,

but, sadly with Ian,
he continued to deteriorate.

And when you say deteriorate,

I mean to what extent
are we talking about?

He required constant monitoring

for his respiratory
and digestive functions.

He also became
increasingly aggressive and violent,

and there was
a marked deterioration in his motor skills.

Would he have been
able to unlock a door?

What about climbing up
on to something, getting a key off a ledge?

No. Not Ian.

By the time he left here...

he couldn't get a spoon
to his mouth.

Right, well thanks very much
for your time.

You know,
Ian used to be a sweet, happy boy.

His mother wanted
so badly to believe he would get better.

When she finally understood
he was only going to get worse.

I watched it sink in,
to be honest...

I thought it would kill her.

- She wouldn't be the first.
- I know.

I mean she was at the scene,
she had access to the accelerant.

I know.

Why do people
ever decide to have kids...

when you've got no idea
what you're letting yourself in for?

Well, you've just gotta love 'em
and hope for the best.

What if there is no hope?

Okay, this is Megan's bedroom.

Yeah, what am I looking at?

According to her statement,
Megan said she woke up, smelt smoke

and then ran out of the room.

Does that bed
look slept in to you?

Plus, the bedroom door was shut,

that's why there's so little
fire damage in there.

And then there's this.

She told us she tried
to get Ian out

but she couldn't
because the door handle was too hot to touch.

Hello Brooks.

Except that Ian's door
was already open. She wouldn't have had to touch the handle.

Look, it was dark, she
was surrounded by flames and smoke.

- She was disorientated.
- Guv, it's not--

Matt, I'm serious.

Before I start accusing a mother
of killing her child--

Guv, I'm sorry.

That's the lab.

They've finished testing items
from the scene.

Megan Parnell's sweatshirt...

Has got paint thinner on it.

Bring her in.

I don't understand.

Well, Megan you told us
that you woke up,

and then you went to save Ian.

That's right.

I tried to get him out.

Well, we think
that you never went to bed in the first place.

What?

Your bed was still made.

And the door to your bedroom
was shut tight.

That's what slowed
the fire down.

I don't know
what you're talking about.

Well, you see Megan...

we think you waited...

till Ian fell asleep.

Then you went down
and got the paint thinner.

You poured it on the stairs,

you lit it,

and then you made your escape
through the fire exit.

No, that's not what happened.

Well, you see Megan we know

that things got
really desperate for you.

Maybe...

Maybe you didn't mean
for Ian to die.

Maybe you were just trying
to let someone know

that you really needed help.

No, it wasn't like that.
I swear.

You see, all--
all this evidence.

It leads
to one conclusion Megan.

that you started that fire,

and you left your son to die.

My lady,

my client has already had
to endure the untimely death of one child.

I would ask
that she not be separated from her remaining child

pending
the resolution of this matter.

Miss Phillips?

We believe the defendant
to be responsible for the "untimely death" of her child.

Given the nature of the crime,
we maintain that bail should be refused.

My Lady,

this will only compound
a grieving mother's suffering,

and based on what?

The defendant
is charged with murder.

The Crown
would not have undertaken this prosecution

without sufficient evidence.

I believe
that has yet to be demonstrated.

That is why
we have trials, Mr. Peck.

Hey.
Hope you didn't take that personally.

Sorry?

Thought I should bring out
the big guns.

Seeing as
the poor woman's innocent.

You sure about that?

Absolutely, so long as she
doesn't tell me any different.

It's Alesha, right?
Dominic.

I'm glad to have an excuse
to get to know you at last.

Your average female barrister
looks like a pig in a wig.

- Excuse me?
- Come on, you know it's true.

I think we're going
to have a lot of fun, you and I.

I mean, I'm not saying
it won't be a challenge

selling the lovely Mrs. Parnell
to a jury.

But, hey
it's all in the presentation.

And as far as I can remember
being fat and stupid isn't a crime.

More's the pity.

Now, Mrs. Parnell,
where were we?

I thought the evidence was conclusive.

Yeah, it is.

So, why plead not guilty?

Does her lawyer
know something that we don't?

I doubt it. The guy's an idiot.

He's just hoping that the jury
will find her too sympathetic to convict.

- And is she?
- Hardly.

This wasn't some kind of
compassionate mercy killing.

She set fire to a building
with her disabled son trapped inside

and she didn't care
how many other lives she put in danger.

Still,
it's a highly emotive situation.

She'd been caring
for a severely disabled child

for years with little
or no support.

They're bound to try
and use the boy's condition

to cultivate sympathy
for the defendant.

Yeah, which is fair enough.

We're not saying
she wasn't struggling,

but that's hardly justification
for murder.

They could go down the route
of diminished responsibility.

You said that she was
on antidepressants for the last couple of years?

No, they don't have grounds
for diminished responsibility.

She had a full psych assessment

when she was in custody
and nothing was flagged up.

But it would be good
to establish state of mind before the event.

You said that Megan visited
the emergency department

- with Ian two days prior to the fire?
- Mmhm.

Okay so,

we talk to
the doctor who saw them.

- Get a professional opinion.
- Very good. Good.

Go forth and prosecute.

No, there was no abuse involved.

The skull fracture came
from autistic-type head banging.

The broken wrist was sustained
during an epileptic seizure

and the broken ribs came
from a fall.

We also treated his mother
on several occasions.

What for?

The last time was when she tried
to hold him down to protect him during a seizure.

He threw her off
and she chipped a bone in her elbow.

- Was it deliberate?
- No.

No, he wouldn't have known
what he was doing.

But the situation was obviously
becoming impossible.

The last time we spoke,

I suggested she rethink
the idea of residential care.

And what did she say?

She said if it came to that,
he'd be better off dead.

It is also the contention
of the defense that the evidence given by Dr Schreiber

should be excluded
under section seventy-eight of PACE.

Eleven.

Not to mention the fact
that it falls squarely

under the heading
of patient doctor privilege.

Ah.

My Lady, it was in fact
Mrs. Parnell's son

who was the patient at the time
she made the statement.

Then privilege is irrelevant,

as are your other objections,
Mr. Peck.

In that case,
I also wish to apply

to exclude the sweatshirt
worn by Mrs. Parnell

on the night of the fire
under section seventy-eight of PACE.

- Twelve.
- How can the prosecution claim that

it is the exact
same paint thinner

that was used to start the fire?

I believe that's a question
for our expert witness, My Lady.

But there's also the manner
in which the sweatshirt was obtained--

Mr. Peck, please stop.

The sweatshirt stays in.

I suggest you quit
while you're--

Well, I suggest you quit anyway.

Trial is listed
for 10 am tomorrow.

I see no reason
to delay any further.

Do you think he's read anything
other than section seventy-eight of PACE?

I doubt he's even read that.

Dominic Peck, okay.

No, I won't be able to do it
within the hour. But I'll try.

- We can have it done quick...
- Excuse me.

...or we can have it done right

Do you know what time
we're meant to go back in?

We'll be starting again at two.

It's just they said I could see
my little girl today.

- Really? Who told you that?
- Now, now, Mrs. Parnell.

No fraternizing with the enemy.
Come on.

And have you ever come
across someone waking up with their home on fire,

taking the time to make the bed
before leaving the building?

Not in my experience.

Thank you. No further questions.

Mr. Harris,

in warm weather,
I'm sure most of us tend to sleep on top of the covers.

The night of the fire
it was below freezing.

But still,
if someone were reading a book or a magazine

they might still fall asleep
on top of the covers

regardless of the temperature,
mightn't they?

They might.

Thank you.

But no books or magazines
were found by the defendant's bed.

I told her she should consider
placing him in residential care.

And what was her response?

She was worried
that other people wouldn't look after him properly.

I know
there had been some difficulties when they tried respite care,

but I told her
it would be different

if he was found
a permanent place in a suitable institution.

But she was still unconvinced?

She became very upset.

She said if it came
to putting him in a home...

he'd be better off dead.

Thank you, doctor.

Dr Schreiber,

I'm sure you're aware
that people exaggerate sometimes for effect?

Of course.

- Did you think she wanted him dead?
- My lady--

- Let's avoid speculation, Mr. Peck.
- My Lady.

- Did she say she wanted him dead?
- No.

In fact, did she not ask you
about alternative treatments for her son?

Yes, she did.

She told you
that she'd try anything, anything at all,

if it meant
getting her little boy back.

Yes, she did.
She desperately wanted

to improve his quality of life.

Which is quite
the opposite to wanting to end his life, wouldn't you say?

Thank you, Doctor.
I have nothing further.

Did you see the looks
on the jury's faces?

He has them seeing it
as an act of mercy.

It's a risk of a not guilty here

even with an idiot like Peck.

Simply because they're feeling
that poor woman's pain.

I think George could be right.

I know that given the facts,

the charge had to be murder.
But it just doesn't feel right.

I just don't understand
why Peck didn't go for manslaughter from the start,

using the doctor's statement
as evidence of severe emotional distress.

It's what any other
defense lawyer would've done.

Yeah,
well sadly, we can't guarantee the quality of opposing counsel.

Maybe...

we can force
this particular counsel to do the right thing.

What do you have in mind?

I'll talk to him,

tell him we'll accept
a plea to manslaughter.

And hope he's got sense enough
to agree.

Interesting.

I think you'll agree.
It's in the best interests of your client.

- Well, I think that's for me to decide.
- No, it's for Megan to decide.

You know,
the woman you're representing.

Manslaughter...

That'd mean a definite
prison sentence though, wouldn't it?

Yep. Usually does.

Thing is, all Megan wants to do
is to stay with little Kayleigh.

- It's Katie.
- Exactly.

And I promised her
I'd do my damnedest to make it happen.

You shouldn't
have promised her anything.

Hey, it's always good
to give the ladies hope.

As predicted, my client wishes
to proceed with the not guilty plea.

You have explained
that a murder conviction carries a mandatory life sentence?

That's not really
the issue here.

I disagree.

Mrs. Parnell, I must stress
that if you are found guilty,

you could be sentenced
to twenty-five years in prison--

- Yes, thank you, Mr. Steel.
- And given the evidence against you...

you should know that
that is a very real possibility.

But I thought you said
if I pleaded not guilty--

That's enough.
Okay, I think we're done here.

Megan is there anything you want
to say?

I don't appreciate
the scare tactics, Mr. Steel.

It's okay.
He's just trying to confuse you.

Your client has a right to know
what she's risking.

I assure you,
my client is fully informed.

Well, at least she is now.

Makes you wonder
what he's gonna do next.

I know but I bet Megan Parnell
is as in the dark as we are.

...why wouldn't you? Well he's--

James!
Peck's entered a new plea.

- Diminished responsibility?
- Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.

- Based on what?
- He's found an expert

who'll say Megan Parnell
was legally insane, when she set the fire.

So, first she didn't do it.

Now she did it,
but she didn't know what she was doing.

He's lost the plot.

I mean he must realize
what this could mean?

If it works, Megan could
end up institutionalized for the rest of her life

She wouldn't
just lose her daughter, she'd lose everything.

You know the jury will see this
for the cynical ploy

that it is
and all you'll have done is discredit your client.

Perhaps.

Or perhaps,
they'll be too busy crying

into their hankies
over poor misunderstood Megan.

You shouldn't overestimate
your average parole, James.

It's all about emotion.
Not the truth.

They told us
about 'win-at-any cost' barristers at law school.

First time I've seen one
in action though.

Yeah, Peck's a prime example,
raging ego, limited ability and absolutely no ethics.

He really doesn't care
what happens to Megan.

It's like she's just a pawn
in his game.

Maybe. Maybe not.

She's still the one
who chose to plead not guilty.

If Peck's playing a game,
she's going along with it.

Don't think of her
as the innocent victim here.

Megan...

by pleading insanity...

you understand
that you're saying that when you started the fire

you didn't know it was wrong.

Yeah,

I didn't know what I was doing.

You were upset about Ian?

Yeah but I wasn't thinking properly.

I-- I was upset and confused.

Can you tell me
what it was like...

when your son first got ill?

I mean it--
it must have been very difficult.

Yeah, it was really hard.

I understand Ian changed
quite quickly.

It was around the time
of his fourth birthday.

His favorite song
was Old MacDonald,

he was always singing it.

Then,
he forgot that pigs go oink.

He started saying
there was a-- a bad mouse in his head.

A few months later
he-- he stopped talking...

and using the toilet.

He wouldn't even
let me hold him.

He--he-- he couldn't bear
to be touched.

Short version.
She's not insane.

Not now and not the night
she started the fire.

But there's a long version?

She certainly
has significant mental health problems. Depression.

Acute anxiety.
Chronic sleep deprivation.

Her son rarely let her sleep
more than two hours at a time.

And that's every night
for thirteen years.

You could argue
that was her choice.

She repeatedly refused
to have him placed in a home.

Has anyone bothered
to ask her why?

Probably not the defense.

Megan's mother
had recurring health problems,

her father was an alcoholic.

Her only other relative
was an aunt in a wheelchair.

So, Megan spent
several long periods in children's homes.

Not happy times?

The standard of care
in the early 80s were "variable" to say the least.

Megan was an awkward,
unattractive child, with zero confidence.

We all know how cruel children
can be.

But she wasn't insane?

No. She wasn't.

So, who's he found to say
that she was?

In your opinion Doctor,

was the defendant
severely stressed at the time of the fire?

Based on my interviews
with Megan,

I believe that her stress level
had risen to the clinical designation ACSS.

And what is that?

Acute Caretaker Stress Syndrome.

ACSS is characterized
by irrational behavior,

radical emotional dissonance
and cognitive malfunction.

Would she have been able to tell
the difference between right and wrong?

In my opinion, no.

Thank you, Doctor.

Which medical school
did you attend, Dr Arlberg?

My doctorate is in psychoanalytic studies.
I didn't go to medical school.

- So you're not a qualified psychiatrist?
- No, I'm not.

Then, are you affiliated
with any particular hospital or clinic?

Not currently.

For the past few years,
I have been lecturing extensively.

Mainly in the States,
where I also have a syndicated radio program.

In other words,
you're not a psychologist but you play one on the radio.

My lady,
he's mocking the witness.

My Lady.

This disorder,

you've been
talking about Doctor Arlberg.

Um...

Ah yes, "ACSS."

I am, uh, really confused.

I have been looking
through a large number of reference books

and I can't find
a single mention of it.

It's a relatively new diagnosis.

That explains it.
Invented by whom?

- It was first identified by myself.
- Oh, I see.

And has it been recognized
by the Royal College of Psychiatrists?

Not yet.

My, my we really are out there
on the cutting edge, aren't we?

- My lady--
- My Lady, the evidence of this witness

could be instrumental in placing
the defendant in a mental institution,

possibly for the rest
of her life.

I think the jury
need to understand the extent of her expertise.

Or the lack of it.

No further questions.

Okay, here's the thing.

My client has dropped
a bit of a bombshell.

And well, to be honest.
I'm not entirely sure how to proceed.

Well,
discussing defense strategy with the prosecution

- probably isn't the best way to go.
- Fair point.

Well, we're not really talking
defense anymore

because Mrs. Parnell has
confessed.

She admits to starting the fire
that killed her son?

Yes and no.

She admits to starting the fire,

and she certainly feels
responsibility for her son's death.

But he didn't actually die
in the fire.

He didn't?

Apparently not.

- Um, as I understand it, my client--
- I'm sorry.

Megan, perhaps if you
just tell us what happened?

Ian was having a seizure...

and
he started having convulsions.

I had the syringe
for his injection in my hand.

But I couldn't do it.

I was watching him
and his face was all twisted up in pain.

I just wanted it to stop.

So, I held him and I waited.

When the convulsions ended...

I knew he'd gone.

As you can imagine,
she was distraught, racked with guilt,

and in the emotion of the moment decided to end it all.
Hence, the fire.

And your client didn't think
to mention this before?

Unfortunately, not.

It would have made life
a lot easier all round, if she had.

But, well, as you can see,
this changes everything.

Right.

So, you're thinking, what?

We abandon the charges,

the judge discharges the jury
and we start again?

Well, ideally yes.

I mean, you could charge her
with arson, but failing to give an injection?

I wouldn't fancy your chances.

- I've heard enough.
- Now look, I didn't have to come here.

I could've just blindsided you
in court. But I felt in the interests of justice--

You can see yourselves out.

Fine.

We'll leave it to the jury.

Just don't say
I didn't warn you.

- You didn't believe that, did you?
- I don't know.

Sounds like
she's finally telling the truth.

The post-mortem report
categorically states

smoke inhalation
as cause of death.

The medical evidence means
that she's lying,

or more likely, he's told her
what to say.

But why would Peck even
try this? He must have seen the post-mortem.

"Why bother about truth when
you can go with emotion?"

It was CO asphyxiation.
Absolutely, no doubt about it.

Why the renewed interest?

Well, his mother's claiming
that he died from an epileptic seizure.

That he was already dead
when the fire started.

You've got to be breathing
to get smoke in your lungs.

There's no two ways about it.

Thanks Heather.

Of course.

It is possible that
a particularly violent seizure could result in a coma.

In which case the victim
would be breathing

just enough
to get smoke in his lungs.

But to a lay person,
he might appear dead.

She said
it was a possibility, that's all.

James, it means Megan
must have believed Ian was dead when she started the fire.

Then, why didn't she
plead guilty from the start?

All Megan cares about
is staying with her daughter.

Peck's promised he can make
that happen.

This is a woman who's been
at the mercy of the system her whole life.

Her barrister
tells her what to say, she's not gonna argue with him.

Chances are he wouldn't
have listened to her anyway.

Yeah, exactly.
For all we know, she tried to tell him,

he panicked and
changed her plea to insanity.

If she really did
think Ian was dead, then there's no intention to kill.

She should
never have been charged with murder.

So, just to clarify
for the jury...

you didn't put Ian
in a residential home,

did you,
because you're his mother and you cared for him?

I couldn't.

He was my baby.
I loved him so much.

No further questions, My Lady.

Mrs. Parnell,

you described to the court
how after Ian died you took his pills

and you started the fire
so, that you could go together.

Yeah, that's right.

The trouble is...

It's very difficult for us
to believe you when you've lied...

over and over again
about the events of that night.

- Well, I didn't mean to lie.
- But the fact is you did.

Uh, the only thing that we know
for certain is that you went down the stairs,

you unlocked
the maintenance cupboard, you poured paint thinner

over the stairs
and you set it alight.

Leaving your young son to die
in that fire.

- No, I wouldn't do that.
- But that's exactly what you did.

No, I didn't.

Because he was already dead.
I told you.

I know you'd like us
to believe that...

but I'm afraid
it's simply not true.

I refer the court
to post-mortem report

on Ian Parnell,
dated March nineteenth.

It clearly states...

the cause of death...

was smoke inhalation.

Well, that's not right.

Megan the pathologist
found smoke in Ian's lungs.

It could only have got there
if he was still breathing

- when you started the fire.
- They've-- they've got it wrong.

I was there,
he'd stopped breathing.

Megan, it is simply
physically impossible.

It can't be.

It can't be.

I thought it was a mistake.

Megan, I'm so sorry,
but it wasn't a mistake.

Ian didn't die...

- as a result of the seizure.
- No.

It may have looked
like he'd stopped breathing.

In fact, he could have slipped
into a coma,

- and you couldn't tell the difference.
- No.

But I'm afraid the fact is Ian
was still alive when you started the fire.

No.

No.

I-- I-- I would-- I would never
have done that.

I would never have left him to--

Oh my God, no.

Not my little boy.

I-- I wouldn't have.

Not my Ian.
Not...

Peck should be struck off.

To put her up there
without explaining the post-mortem results

that is unforgivable.

I take it that we all believe
she was telling the truth?

Then, now what?

Judge Hall's called us in.

I presume she'll want
to discharge the jury, start again.

With what charge?

It'll still be manslaughter.

She started the fire
that ultimately killed her son.

And she withheld an injection

that could have prevented him
from going into a coma in the first place.

Mercy killing is still killing,

and it's still illegal.

So, Megan Parnell has to spend
the next six months in limbo,

then go through
this all over again, because her lawyer let her down?

But, we can hardly continue
the current trial.

Even if the judge
and the defense agreed,

then Megan could appeal
any conviction

on the grounds
that she was wrongly advised.

Which means...

her barrister would be accused
of negligence.

So, with decent representation,
she could be out in six months.

We take defense
out of Peck's hands.

I don't understand.
You want to just carry on?

Having weighed up the options,

the prosecution would still
be prepared to accept a plea to manslaughter.

I'm sure you realize
the implications of continuing?

It would spare Megan
the trauma of a second trial.

And whatever sentence
you choose to pass...

could take into account
the circumstances surrounding Ian's death.

Hmmm. That's certainly true.

Alright.

I am prepared to continue.

Provided we all understand
each other.

Okay, great.

So, what do we do now?

Megan Parnell,
you have pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter,

and admitted to causing
the death of your son, Ian Parnell,

in a fire at your home.

The seriousness
of this crime...

leaves me no option
but to impose a custodial sentence.

However,
given your previous good character,

and your sadly mistaken belief

that your son was already dead
when you started the fire,

the court wishes
to show a degree of leniency.

I hereby sentence you
to three years in prison,

with the recommendation

that you'd be fully
psychologically assessed

prior to the commencement
of the sentence.

You may take the prisoner down.