The mother of a severely disabled 22-year-old man was today convicted of ­murder despite her claim that she had injected him with a lethal shot of heroin to bring his suffering to an end.
Frances Inglis, 57, insisted throughout the two-week trial that she was innocent because she had killed her son with love in her heart, and not malice. She was given a life sentence and told she must spend a minimum of nine years in jail.
Tom Inglis was left severely brain­damaged after a road accident in July 2007, and his mother believed he was locked into a "living hell" with no hope of recovery.
But 10 members of the jury were not convinced, and by a majority verdict she was found guilty of murdering him when he lay in bed in a care home in November 2008. She was also found guilty of making a previous attempt on his life. As the foreman read the verdict, members of Inglis's family were escorted out of the public gallery after shouting "shame on you".
Judge Brian Barker at the Old Bailey said: "You cannot take the law into your own hands and you cannot take away life, however compelling you think the reason." This was not an act of legal altruism, but "a calculated and consistent course of criminal conduct", he told her.
"We can all understand the emotion and the unhappiness that you were experiencing. The fact is that you knew that you intended to do a terrible thing. You knew you were breaking society's conventions, you knew you were breaking the law, and you knew the consequences."
Giving evidence, Inglis, a softly spoken mother of three from Dagenham, east London, had maintained that as far as she was concerned, Tom's life ended on 7 July 2007 when he fell out of a moving ambulance. He had been injured in a fight outside a pub on a Friday, and then suffered serious head injuries after falling from the vehicle.
Police said they understood he was being taken to hospital against his wishes and that the ambulance door opened three times.
The head injuries Tom Inglis sustained in Rush Green Road, Romford, were so serious that his mother believed he would never lead a normal life again. So when she injected him with a lethal dose of heroin 16 months later as he lay in a care home, mute and in need of 24-hour care, she didn't feel she was murdering him. She was releasing him, she told the court. He had not uttered a word since the accident, nor communicated in any way beyond squeezing his mother's hand, but Inglis felt certain he was in constant pain and would have no wish to continue living like that.
Sobbing in the witness box, she said: "I know Tom – no way would he have wanted to live totally dependent. I can remember saying I felt I would rather he go to heaven than to hell on earth. I know Tom would not want to live. He had lost his life."
For Inglis, who had no previous convictions and had worked with adults and children with learning disabilities, the final straw came around six months after her son's accident, when she was told that the only way for her son to be allowed to die legally would be to apply to the high court to withhold his food and water.
"I couldn't bear the thought of Tom dying of thirst or hunger," she told the jury, through streams of tears. "To me that would be so cruel, so cruel. To die slowly like that would be horrible."
After researching her son's condition on the internet, Inglis decided to end his misery in the most painless way she could: a drug overdose. Not knowing any drug dealers, she started hanging around places she knew drugs were sold – outside a local station, outside the jobcentre and needle exchanges – until she managed to buy the two grams her internet research told her would be enough to kill. She stole syringes from the hospital and then waited for a moment to strike.
"I asked myself what I would want," she told the court. "I would want someone to love me enough to help me die. That's why I thought heroin – a painless, peaceful death."
Asked during the trial whether she was guilty of the charge on the indictment, she said: "I don't see it as killing or murder. The definition of murder is to take someone's life with malice in your heart. I did it with love in my heart, for Tom, so I don't see it as murder. I knew what I was doing was against the law. I don't know what name they would call it but I knew that the law would say it was wrong. I believed it would have been Tom's choice to have been allowed to die rather than have the intervention to keep him alive."
Speaking after the verdict, Inglis's oldest son, Alex, 26, said: "I want to say that all of the family and Tom's girlfriend support my mum 100%. All those who loved and were close to Tom have never seen this as murder, but as a loving and courageous act.
"What this case and a number of others have exposed is a need for a complete rethink of existing laws in regard to people that have been, and will be, in the same position as Tom. How can it be legal to withhold food and water, which means a slow and painful death, yet illegal to end all suffering in a quick, calm and loving way? It's cruel, inhumane and illogical. The law simply isn't keeping pace with modern medicine and aggressive surgery, which is wrong, as it leaves too many people in such tragic and painful existences. We have a duty of care to them and we should not allow this situation to continue. It should not be left to a wife, husband, mother, father, sister or brother to have to end their suffering, and be convicted for murder."
Asked if the long sentence sent a warning to others considering a "mercy killing", Detective Chief Inspector Steve Collin, the officer in charge of the case, said: "There's no such thing as a mercy killing in law."
Parents under pressure: previous cases
March 2008
Judith Richmond, 41, who suffered from bipolar disorder, drowned in a lake near the home in South Cerney, Gloucestershire, she shared with nine-year-old daughter Millie, who suffered from cerebral palsy. She is thought to have drowned Millie ­accidentally while trying to give her a healing bath.
November 2007
Four-year-old Naomi Hill, who had cerebral palsy, was drowned by her mother Joanne, who had suffered depression. Joanne Hill was jailed for life in September 2008.
October 2007
Fiona Pilkington, 38, left, killed herself and daughter Francecca Hardwick, 18, right, by setting fire to their car. Francecca had severe learning difficulties and the family had been subjected to harassment by youths in Barwell.
July 2004
Jacob Wragg, 10, who suffered from Hunter syndrome, was suffocated by his father Andrew. The former SAS soldierRobert Andrew Wragg was found guilty of manslaughter but spared jail in December 2005.
A woman has been convicted of murder after killing her son in an "act of mercy". The Old Bailey, a London court, heard that Frances Inglis, 57, injected Tom, 22, with heroin and gave her a life sentence.

Old Bailey 
Tom had been injured in a street fight in July 2007 and was put in an ambulance depite his desire not to be hospitalised. The ambulance door was opened three times; the third time Tom jumped out and sustained injuries that left him in a coma. He became mute and dependant on 24-hour care. His only method of communication was to squeeze a hand.

Frances was told that if she wanted Tom to die legally then she could ask the High Court to allow his food and water to be withdrawn, so that he would starve to death. Frances told the court "I know Tom – no way would he have wanted to live totally dependent. I can remember saying I felt I would rather he go to heaven than to hell on earth. I know Tom would not want to live. He had lost his life."

"I couldn't bear the thought of Tom dying of thirst or hunger," she said of the idea of food and water withdrawal.  "To me that would be so cruel, so cruel.  To die slowly like that would be horrible."  Instead she used the Internet to research Tom's condition and concluded that a heroin overdose would be the most painless method available.  A learning disabilities worker with no convictions, she concluded two grams was sufficient to kill and began spending time in areas she believed drugs were on sale – outside the local station, job centre and needle exchanges.

Frances was determined to release Tom from his "living hell" and said she had "no choice" in the matter. "I asked myself what I would want," she said. "I would want someone to love me enough to help me die. That's why I thought heroin – a painless, peaceful death." She obtained her two grams and stole syringes from Tom's hospital before injecting him, but he was revived by nurses and she was charged with attempted murder. She was bailed but barred from contacting her son.

Fourteen months later she obtained access to Tom by posing as his aunt and placed superglue in the lock of his door, further barricading it with an oxygen cylinder and a wheelchair. It took staff thirty minutes to break in, by which time Frances had injected one of Tom's arms and both his thighs with heroin. This time he died.

Frances had left a letter to her family in which she talked of her concerns for her other two sons and dog, as well as the running of the house, expecting a murder arrest. On one bed she left a photograph of Tom as well as a prayer written by his girlfriend. Police also found older letter by Frances, one of which read "People keep saying Tom is not suffering. How can they know how he feels?" 

She was asked if guilty of murder and attempted murder, to which she responded "I don't see it as killing or murder. The definition of murder is to take someone's life with malice in your heart. I did it with love in my heart, for Tom, so I don't see it as murder. I knew what I was doing was against the law. I don't know what name they would call it but I knew that the law would say it was wrong. I believed it would have been Tom's choice to have been allowed to die rather than have the intervention to keep him alive."

The jury "could not have had a more difficult case," according to Judge Brian Barker, but he told them nobody was allowed to override the law. Ten members of the jury agreed, but two sided with Frances, leaving a conviction by majority verdict. The jury foreman was greeted by cries of "shame on you" from France's relatives, for which they were ejected from the building. "We can all understand the emotion and the unhappiness that you were experiencing," Barker told Frances, later adding "You knew you were breaking society's conventions, you knew you were breaking the law, and you knew the consequences." He ordered her to serve a minimum of nine years.


"What this case and a number of others have exposed," said France's eldest son, Alex, "is a need for a complete rethink of existing laws in regard to people that have been, and will be, in the same position as Tom. How can it be legal to withhold food and water, which means a slow and painful death, yet illegal to end all suffering in a quick, calm and loving way? It's cruel, inhumane and illogical... We have a duty of care to them and we should not allow this situation to continue. It should not be left to a wife, husband, mother, father, sister or brother to have to end their suffering, and be convicted for murder." Detective Chief Inspector Steve Collin, who was in charge of the case, flatly disagreed. "There's no such thing as a mercy killing in law."

"I want to say that all of the family and Tom's girlfriend support my mum 100%. All those who loved and were close to Tom have never seen this as murder, but as a loving and courageous act," said Alex.