Hammersmith Ghost murder case

The Hammersmith Ghost murder case of 1804 set a legal precedent in the UK regarding self-defence: that someone could be held liable for their actions even if they were the consequence of a mistaken belief.

Two women, one elderly and the other pregnant, were reported to have been seized by the ghost on separate occasions while walking near the churchyard; they were apparently so frightened they both died from shock a few days afterwards.

[7][8] A brewer's servant, Thomas Groom, later testified that, while walking through the churchyard with a companion one night, close to 9:00 pm, something rose from behind a tombstone and seized him by the throat.

"[5] On 29 December, William Girdler, a night watchman, saw the ghost while near Beavor Lane and gave chase; the apparition threw off its shroud and managed to escape.

With London not having an organised police force at the time, and as "many people were very much frightened," according to Girdler, several citizens formed armed patrols in the hope of apprehending the ghost.

[5][8] At the corner of Beavor Lane, while making his rounds at around 10:30 pm on 3 January 1804, Girdler met one of the armed citizens patrolling the area, 29-year-old excise officer Francis Smith.

Flower, examined the body on 6 January and pronounced death to be the result of "a gunshot wound on the left side of the lower jaw with small shot, about size No.

Despite a number of declarations of Smith's good character, the chief judge, Lord Chief Baron Sir Archibald Macdonald, advised the jury that malice was not required of murder – merely an intent to kill: I should betray my duty, and injure the public security, if I did not persist in asserting that this is a clear case of murder, if the facts be proved to your satisfaction.

Not one of these circumstances occur here.The Lord Chief Baron observed that Smith had neither acted in self-defence nor shot Millwood by accident; he had not been provoked by the supposed apparition nor had he attempted to apprehend it.

Mistakenly believing that an assault was taking place, Williams intervened and injured the apparent assailant, who was actually attempting to apprehend a suspected thief.

Even if the jury come to the conclusion that the mistake was an unreasonable one, if the defendant may genuinely have been labouring under it, he is entitled to rely upon it.The appeal was allowed, and the conviction quashed.