Original subtitles

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.