Ooooof-2nd video.
"blinded by the sun"
"Injured person was wearing all black clothing"
"felt like car went into a pothole"
"that bodywork damage? - hit a deer last night"
Etc etc
Hasn't the poor driver suffered enough with all this bad press?
Let's move on.
# she's the real victim#
Thoughts and prayers
There's another video from further back giving a bit more context.
Be aware this is quite horrid to watch> https://twitter.com/trailhuntlies/status/1585356089826357248?s=20&t=Un4vMbkQAhVxCIIch6jsiA < Regarding the brake lights just before impact, somebody on pistonheads noted that the brakes come on automatically on this car as a pedestrian safety feature. Guess it couldn't stop in time due to the loose surface
Can’t see any way that’s anything but attemped murder.
Ditto. It couldn't be clearer cut, surely.
I feel a bit sick. Jesus.
The perp is rich establishment. Vanishingly small chance that she’ll face any sort of justice
Yup, dont expect this to amount to anything other than a small fine.
She'll get convicted for this IMO, but I do wonder whether the sentence will seen as fitting the crime.
Even if it was Michael Myers you’d make some attempt to drive around him.
Unless you'd just seen the third Austin Powers movie, perhaps?
In an ideal world I think 'Causing Serious Injury By Dangerous Driving' should be the charge: Section 143 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
and a successful prosecution would depend on whether or not it can be argued that the victim suffered equivalent of GBH and that a 'competent and careful driver' could have foresaw the result of driving in the way the arrested woman did, as per section 2A of the Road Traffic Act 1998. Level 5 fine, 2 year ban and extensive retest plus up to 6 months imprisonment at a Magistrates Court, or up to 5 years imprisonment at Crown Court.
Realistically I'd expect 'Causing Serious Injury By Careless Driving' (penalties as above but only up to 2 years imprisonment by CC) and I'm assuming a Merc-driving hunt enthusiast can afford the smarmy, slimy 'finds a technicality' kind of legal representation so wouldn't be surprised if it was argued down to a basic careless/inconsiderate driving charge.
Can driving a car at speed at someone meet the definition of intending murder, by parallel to the above the fact it didn’t maim or kill shouldn’t lessen the offense in my eyes – anyone can see what the result could have been whatever the actual intent
How can driving a car at speed towards a person not be classed as attempted murder? You’re using the car as a weapon FFS. That video is horrendous. The metaphorical book should well and truly be thrown at her, preferably overhand
That is utterly horrific 😳
Imagine stabbing someone then arguing that you didn't mean to kill them, you only meant to maim them
I presume that if she’s arguing it wasn’t intentional, then surely failing to stop after blatantly running someone over somewhat undermines that line of defence?
Either way, get her banged up, crush the car and make her suffer.
I was going to post similar @northwind. It seems that because it’s a car the rules are different. It’s insane to think that shouldn’t result in an attempted murder charge.
The track was narrow. The vehicle appeared to be driving at an unsafe speed in a straight line.
Jury has to be swayed to on purpose. This :could' potentially be argued away as an accident.
Crushing the car is a waste of resources, confiscation and auctioning off would be better.
Failing that, the other crime here is that Nitromors is nothing like as effective as it used to be.
Speaking personally, attending a hunt as a member or supporter - means that in some way you are a member or enabler of the establishment. Driving a Mercedes doesn’t.
Clearly the driver intended to seriously injure the woman at the very least. Hateful act by the driver.
The track was narrow. The vehicle appeared to be driving at an unsafe speed in a straight line.
And it hadn't travelled far - that's a heavy right foot from a standstill down a narrow track that clearly has pedestrians on it.
tuboflard
Full MemberI presume that if she’s arguing it wasn’t intentional, then surely failing to stop after blatantly running someone over somewhat undermines that line of defence?
Either way, get her banged up, crush the car and make her suffer.
Well her defence could be "I feared for my life and hit them by accident when I was trying to get away. I was too scared to stop."
That's why the second vid I posted (now locked it seems) is important, it shows that she calmly got into the car and was not in immediate danger.
Her defence is likely to be "I was watching my rearview mirror to make sure I wasn't being followed/having anything thrown at my car, and I just didn't see her. I thought the noise was something being thrown at the car"
Northwind
Full Member
Imagine stabbing someone then arguing that you didn’t mean to kill them, you only meant to maim them
IANAShadyDefenceBarrister
Imagine waving a knife at someone to intimidate them, etc.
That would be manslaughter (no intent)?
So if they didn't die it would be ABH/GBH?
So in a car can it be argued down to some level of dangerous driving (it's beyond careless at least surely)?
How can driving a car at speed towards a person not be classed as attempted murder?
Because the law says to be found guilty of attempted murder you must have intended to kill them. That's rather difficult to prove. "I didn't intend to hit them at all, I only meant to scare them", "I knew I was unlikely to kill them but accepted I was likely to injure them", etc. Its a somewhat artificial legal debate though because the offence she has been arrested under could carry the same sentence anyway.
Causing Serious Injury By Dangerous Driving
I think if the reports on the injuries are accurate it might not meet the test. Sentencing under the offences against the person act are likely to be higher anyway as the working assumption with Death/Injury by Driving offences is that there was no intent of harm and the culpability is therefore lower.
Even if it was Michael Myers you’d make some attempt to drive around him. I can’t see any justifiable defence here.
Your honour, I was simply scared witless due to the threats and intimidation I was suffering whilst conducting my totally legal* hobby. I had my child with me and also feared for their safety. As I drove away I did swerve around the unpredictable and aggressive person but a pothole caused me to unfortunately clip them. I then didn’t stop for fear of more aggression.
*legal is somewhat subjective given what actually happens on a hunt, but on paper it is legal. (The dog accidentally grabbed the fox)
It all stinks more than a dog rolling in fox shit, but a blind man on a galloping horse can see the way this will play out in court.
Either way, get her banged up, crush the car and make her suffer.
Doubt it'll happen through official channels. They turn a blind eye every time. If past precedent is anything to go by, if she gets any comeback it'll be from the sabs themselves. Back in the 90s an 18 year old sab from Liverpool was killed after being run over and the perpetrator had to go into hiding after his house was trashed. A lot of people went to prison for that and the driver of the vehicle was never prosecuted. The violence meted out against sabs is horrific and it doesn't seem like much has changed since 30 years ago.
https://thecitro.substack.com/p/remembering-mike-hill-remembering
Cynically, I'm not sure it really matters what she's charged with, the defence will be a whole mix of "hardworking mother", "didn't mean to hit/cause harm", "does a lot for the community", "in fear of her life" and so on.
Sab probably portrayed as the exact opposite.
And some high up police/judiciary who just happen to know the huntmaster or own land upon which they ride or are connected in some other way.
Same in motorist/cyclist cases where it's a poor hardworking motorist and a deviant RLJing troublemaker cyclist who can't afford to get a proper mode of transport.
🙁
Edit: exactly as @oldschool says above
Regarding the brake lights just before impact, somebody on pistonheads noted that the brakes come on automatically on this car as a pedestrian safety feature. Guess it couldn’t stop in time due to the loose surface
They're designed to stop people who aren't paying attention, not those who are deliberately trying to hit someone.
TBH, the fact that it doesn't seem to slow at all, despite the brake lights triggering, is probably something for the prosecution to look at.
You *really* need to be mashing the pedal to override pedestrian safety braking functional stuff. Depending on how old it is/how it's set up.
mert
TBH, the fact that it doesn’t seem to slow at all, despite the brake lights triggering, is probably something for the prosecution to look at.
You *really* need to be mashing the pedal to override pedestrian safety braking functional stuff. Depending on how old it is/how it’s set up.
Yeah possibly, she was absolutely hoofing it, but I still think it's just heavy car, wide tyres, loose surface.
I think if the reports on the injuries are accurate it might not meet the test.
This makes no sense to me personally, that the punishment is driven by the outcome ... any fule can see that hitting someone with a car could / is likely to kill or life-changing type injure them. The fact it didn't has no bearing in my mind.
We do this at work - our H&S folks don't like the culture of 'near miss' being somehow less serious. If a roof isn't maintained and a slate falls off and no-one's under it, well that's 'OK'. It it slices someone's skull open...... prosecution and corporate manslaughter.
The cause is identical, you didn't maintain the roof / drove a car at someone. The rest is luck.
There's a thread over on pistonheads where I first heard of this. The footage of the actual hit is terrifying and shows that the driver (believed to be the landowner and hunt organiser) just drove straight at the woman, no deviation and at speed.
Horrifying and if it doesn't end up in a serious charge there will be outcry.
That is quite horrific bit if they are establishment then I'm quite sure some completely legal and logical sounding fiddle will be found. The world really is a bit shit
arrested on suspicion of attempted wounding with intent
That carries a hefty charge..
On a wider point, this is potentially really interesting, in terms of how drivers are dealt with in traffic incidents involving pedestrians and cyclists. If you hit someone in those circumstances, that would be an interesting precedent for charging*. The second video makes it very clear how horrific that kind of action is, and the potential consequences. If I was the person who was hit, I'd have bought a lottery ticket while my luck was clearly in.
*On a side note, if it's a wounding with intent conviction, can a driving ban be imposed as it's not a driving offence?
I watched the original twitter video (but can't see it now for some reason - access seems to have been restricted) and she seemed to get into her car without much fuss but I was at work so didn't have sound on. Was she ranting and raving and threatening folk before driving off?
I don't really follow how she can go from not looking too narked to going mental that she then deliberately drives at someone 10 seconds or so later without any further provocation. Especially when she was openly being filmed. Lunatic.
I watched the original twitter video (but can’t see it now for some reason – access seems to have been restricted)
Not just me then.
Should the driver feel the full weight of the law? Yes. Will they? Doubt it.
The number plate M411ARD [MALLARD] is going to be quite distinctive around those parts; I'd imagine she'll be changing that pretty smartish. She certainly won't be parking it in any public car parks for the foreseeable.
Jesus, poor lass.
Should these vids not be pulled to avoid the trial by meeja defence?
On some cars when the abs /anti skid / asc operates the brake lights come on automatically
Could be the abs, but could be tcs as its a loose surface, maybe potholes road. Gear change under load and the asc detected an imbalance and feathers the brakes.
Either way, she will get away with a pathetic fine, few points on her licence and carry on as if nothing happened. Because she will have a top lawyer, the crown wont. She will have mitigating circumstances, there is no benefit to the public for a custodial sentence. The cps will do a deal for a guilty plea to a lower charge to get it cleared off the books
*On a side note, if it’s a wounding with intent conviction, can a driving ban be imposed as it’s not a driving offence?
Yes, there is a general (but often forgotten) power of the courts to disqualify anyone from driving even if the prosecution is not under the road traffic act (e.g. someone nicking fuel from petrol stations) https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/ancillary-orders/9-disqualification-from-driving-general-power/
I think it is very likely that there would be some road traffic charges on the list too (like failing to stop, failing to report etc) anyway.
Should these vids not be pulled to avoid the trial by meeja defence?
A valid point, given the way the thread has gone.
Back in the 90s an 18 year old sab from Liverpool was killed after being run over and the perpetrator had to go into hiding after his house was trashed
I'm no fan of hunts, and I'm well aware the way sabs have been treated by hunt supporters and the law has been disgraceful, but some of you need to have a look at yourselves with the relish you seem to have for vigilante style revenge.
I've cycled past sabs gathering to protest at a hunt, and I was ****ing scared by the anger and distrust shown to me just as a passing cyclist.
some of you need to have a look at yourselves with the relish you seem to have for vigilante style revenge.
I'm not seeing anyone advocating that at all?
I know a few people in Knossington, and immediately thought of one woman who could be the culprit, but I'd guess she was more likely to be riding her horse at the time. She is a huge Hunt supporter, but, even she wouldnt be so daft as to drive her car like that.
even she wouldnt be so daft as to drive her car like that.
I just don't get it either. I know quite a few of the local hunt folk around here through various non-hunt (farming) contacts. Whilst there is no love lost between them and the antis (who are very active around here) the hunt folk are all hyper aware that they are always being filmed and not to do owt stupid.
I would say it's not clear she *deliberately* drove at someone. It may be (or may be claimed) she wasn't looking/didn't see.
I would say it's Def careless driving, poss dangerous driving. Not because of how those charges are worded, but what they actually mean in law.
She was arrested 'on suspicion of attempted wounding with intent'. That at least sounds as if they are treating it very seriously and that the police initially think she deliberately drove at the woman
That at least sounds as if they are treating it very seriously and that the police initially think she deliberately drove at the woman
I don't think that the arresting charge has to have anything to do with what you're eventually facing in court. The police likely charged with that to reduce focus on the case (just charging with careless would inevitably get them bombarded with angry social media contact), which they can walk back to a driving charge whenever they want
No comment on hunts or hunt protesters, but that second vid is sickening, shocking and the woman is lucky not to have suffered serious injury, how she didn’t is frankly astonishing tbh.
The driver needs to be held accountable for that. Fek.
I don’t think that the arresting charge has to have anything to do with what you’re eventually facing in court
That I agree with but I hope that the arresting charge will reflect the amount of effort initially put in to collect information. If charged with dropping litter I wouldn't expect much effort, if charged with attempt do deliberately injure someone then I would expect it to be taken more seriously. In the end any charge will be one they think they have a reasonable chance of making stick.
woman is lucky not to have suffered serious injury,
if she hadn't moved 1ft to the left just before impact she'd probably be dead.
I’m not seeing anyone advocating that at all?
Exhibit A:
If she’s not charged and convicted then the sabs will know who she is. One way or the other she’ll end up regretting her actions.
