Murder/ manslaughter. Ok my qualifications in law extend to the dizzy heights of A Level, however...?

Certainly the mental element is all important.

Intention to cause death or gbh is critical for a successful murder conviction is my understanding.

Simply knowing that an act could cause death is not enough.

Regardless, judicial discretion regarding sentence length for murder and manslaughter is the same in the UK as I understand.

this CPS webpage is surprisingly helpful

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder...

You are right. I have stated same on a similar question relating to Philpot. Malice aforethought is the Mens Rea for murder but it is also my understanding that (and a burning house is the classic example) if your actions are such that the LIKELY outcome is death of a person which a reasonable person would see as likely under the circumstances then a murder conviction is appropriate. Obviously you can only know by sitting through the whole trial.

But the house was set fire to and it was reasonable to expect the children to be inside. Such action by Philpot was murder in my view.

Others have answered your question. Murder requires intent to kill or do serious harm. While what the Phillpotts did was appalling, their intention, it seems, was to burn the house to claim the insurance, not to harm their children (who they planned to rescue). So either the CPS decided that intent could not be proven, or the jury found manslaughter but not murder (I don't know what the original charge was).

Anyway, I believe that Mick Phillpott received a life sentence and the other 2 17 years each, similar sentences to those they would have received for murder.

I am not a lawyer but I believe murder requires intent and obviously the CPS were satisfied there was no intent to kill those poor children

Manslaughter can still carry a life sentence, which they deserve

I agree with you, another failure of the system