Pensioner spared jail, banned from pub for killing his wife

A judge told a pensioner who killed his wife that stopping him going to the pub would be a "more meaningful" sentence than sending him to jail, the Telegraph reports.

Edward Flaherty, 74, was convicted of strangling his 69-year-old wife Ina with a tie after she refused to give him money to go out drinking.

But Lord Matthews said that his dementia made him unsuited to prison and instead imposed a one year restriction of liberty order which will keep him inside his home during opening hours.

He will be tagged and banned from leaving his home in Glasgow between 11am and 11pm after being found guilty of culpable homicide.

The sentence comes after changes to the murder laws in England and Wales were announced last week which will mean that husbands who kill nagging wives will no longer be able to claim they were provoked.

The reforms were designed to ensure that domestic violence is treated like other forms of homicide. The claim of provocation was said to be used by most male defendants who were denying murder of a female partner.

At the High Court in Glasgow, the judge told Flaherty: "You were found guilty of the culpable homicide of your wife who you were together with for many years. In normal circumstances this would attract a prison sentence in double figures.

"I have read and considered a number of reports from experts. It is plain to me that if I were to impose that sort of sentence you would be released in a very short time because prison would not be able to cope with your condition.

"Sentencing you would just be a token gesture. I am anxious to impose a sentence that restricts your liberty.

"You still go to the pub where you went with your wife. That must annoy her relatives. Not being able to go there will be a more meaningful disposal than a prison sentence which will not last long."

Flaherty went on trial last year accused of murdering his wife but was convicted by a jury of the reduced charge of culpable homicide.

The jury was told that only slight pressure around Mrs Flaherty's neck could have caused her death because of the condition of her arteries.

Some jurors wept as he told the court that he and his wife had a "strong and firm" marriage which lasted 52 years. He had never once struck her, and she had never hit him.

During the trial he said he had no recollection of the moment he strangled her. But when asked who had killed her, he said: "It must have been me. There are no ghosts running about the house who would have done that."

Is this kind of sentence suitable for a convicted murderer, even if they do have dementia? Are the media making too big a deal of the 'banned from the pub' angle when in fact he's banned from leaving his house during most daylight hours?