Forum menu
I agree with you Junkyard, although juries can be unpredictable, so there's always a risk.
I hope the victim is doing ok. I'd like to see this a a step in the right direction and eventually GBH with intent charges would be brought in a case like this. It is only a matter of perception linked to the universal right to drive.
Occurred to me when I was riding home with my cam running... I wonder if she would have got any sentence at all if it hadn't been caught on CCTV...
Worrying thought.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/06/woman-cleared-careless-driving-crowd-funded-prosecution-cycling-uk ]EG.[/url]
[quote=Junkyard ]...like hitting someone with a hammer the consequences are so self evidently bad that you had to want to really hurt them hence you use a massive weapon to do it
and here we are into the difference between using a car and a hammer as a weapon - though not quite the usual argument. I reckon people genuinely don't realise the consequences of hitting somebody with a car, at least not fully. Given the issue here is one of intent, a perfectly valid defence would be the possibility that she was unaware - I reckon a significant enough proportion of drivers are for that one to fly. Even on balance of probability a reasonable argument could be made that she didn't intend to seriously injure him, because a lot of drivers don't see the difference between pushing somebody with your hands or a car.
i know your views on these issues and we rarely disagree and i think you are usually firmer than i am[ again no offence meant]
No worries - it's an interesting discussion, and strange to find myself arguing this side, though I'm trying to do it from the perspective of a reasonable defence barrister rather than a moral free one (you'll get no victim blaming from me).
everything is s statement after the fact
the reality is a judge felt it was an intentional act that would obviously result in serious injuryI see no reason to conclude a jury would not think this as well
Point was, it's easy to go "well, the judge agreed, so we should've pursued a different prosecution" [i]after[/i] you've got a verdict. As we've seen time and again, many other clearly "obvious" cases have resulted in less than satisfactory outcomes.
I hope the victim is doing ok
That's an incredibly good point whilst we're busy indulging STW's favourite pastime of arguing on the Internet. Has there been any updates since?
Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to see what sort of offences resulted in similar sentences for GBH.
[url= http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/father-daughter-runcorn-jailed-gbh-11793592 ]No "intent" here[/url]
[url= http://www.itv.com/news/london/2016-12-03/man-jailed-after-victim-found-slumped-in-car-with-stab-wounds-in-east-london/ ]nor here[/url]
More interesting though was this case which is back in the news today following an (unsuccessful) appeal http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-37572569 - it appears the CPS are happy to charge drivers with wounding with intent if there is sufficient proof of intent.
[i] a lot of drivers don't see the difference between pushing somebody with your hands or a car.[/i]
I know there are a lot of truly thick people driving around, but part of driver training HAS to be how dangerous cars are? I still remember sitting in a layby with my driving instructor telling me about braking distances and how it feels to hit something at 30mph etc. This was over 35 years ago.
here we are into the difference between using a car and a hammer as a weapon - though not quite the usual argument. I reckon people genuinely don't realise the consequences of hitting somebody with a car, at least not fully.
...
a lot of drivers don't see the difference between pushing somebody with your hands or a car.
I think you're on to something here.
Playing devil's advocate, her intention was potentially likely to be "I'll knock him off his bike" rather than "I'm going to kill him." Give him a bit of a fright and a grazed knee. I've seen a [b]lot[/b] of anti-cyclist sentiment on FB or other social media to this tune, "should've knocked him off," the actual death threats are sadly still present but are comparatively rare.
I think perhaps that a lot of people have "knock him off his bike" in their head as a concept like the beardy copper in the Carry On films who'd regularly stumble of his pedals and pratfall into a hedge at 2mph, or the bully in The Beano who'd shove the speccy swot over for crime of being girly, rather than the reality of a cyclist doing near-car speeds being ploughed into by a ton of metal.
I wonder if this will effect what happens to the vidette uk van driver from last weekend. His driving was equally bad but he was lucky that there wasn't a tree in front of the cyclist.
part of driver training HAS to be how dangerous cars are?
My very first lesson, before I've moved an inch, was, "what are you sitting in?"
"Erm. A car."
"No, it's a deadly weapon."
Great foundation, but it was then never mentioned again.
His driving was equally bad
In terms of severity I think this one was a lot worse. The Vidette incident was clearly outrageous, but he didn't chase the cyclist through the streets intentionally trying to run them over. Going back to "intent" a good lawyer could probably have written this off as a moment of misjudgement and that the driver meant to shove them onto the grass. (Which is mince of course.)
[quote=leffeboy ]I wonder if this will effect what happens to the vidette uk van driver from last weekend. His driving was equally bad but he was lucky that there wasn't a tree in front of the cyclist.
No affect at all I should think - he won't be being charged with causing serious injury, nor with GBH because the cyclist was uninjured. Possible charges are common assault or dangerous driving. I reckon the assault charge is actually easier to prove as there isn't the same subjectivity involved.
[quote=Cougar ]Playing devil's advocate, her intention was potentially likely to be "I'll knock him off his bike" rather than "I'm going to kill him." Give him a bit of a fright and a grazed knee.
That's certainly the obvious line for the defence - TBH I can't hand on heart say I don't find it plausible that really was her thinking. If I was in the jury box and presented with that defence for a "with intent" charge, I'd find it quite difficult to pronounce her guilty.
TBH I can't hand on heart say I don't find it plausible that really was her thinking.
I'd concur if it was a spur of the moment twitch of the wheel. Clearly pursuing him through the streets and then the violence of the swerve OTOH, I don't think so. Chasing someone down is clearly intentional, it's the difference between giving someone a slap outside a pub and running after them to give them a kicking after they've legged it.
"...it's a deadly weapon."
[i]"Coooool...!"[/i]
Would've been my response if it'd been my first lesson.
Point was, it's easy to go "well, the judge agreed, so we should've pursued a different prosecution" after you've got a verdict. As we've seen time and again, many other clearly "obvious" cases have resulted in less than satisfactory outcomes.
ah ok got it