Thegreatape has it,
The intent or mens rea necessary to prove murder is that the action of the accused was intended to bring about the death of the person, or the intent was to wound or injure him grievously. The action caused the officer to die, so a murder charge is appropriate.
In cases of attempted murder it is not sufficient to simply foresee that driving an L200 at someone might kill them. It is a possible consequence, but not the only possible one (as other people have been hit by L200s and survived)
However, it is possible to infer through logic that driving an L200 at somene is very likely to cause them serious injury, so if the driver admits that he drove at both officers intending to get away from them, (and in theory had one been grievously injured as a result,) the law accepts that the intent was there through recklessness.
He has not admitted an intent to kill the second officer, and so attempted murder cannot be proven, but his admission of recklessness is enough to stand a charge of attempted wounding (GBH).
In the salon case, the Q7 driver did not kill, or even seriously injure the cyclist. A case of attempted murder would be proven only if there were sufficient evidence of her intent to kill him.
There is no such evidence of intent available presumably, BUT there is evidence of recklessness, inasmuch as driving a Q7 at a cyclist is likely to injure him grievously, and so the charge of attempting to cause GBH with intent is appropriate.
By the way, before anyone else makes the mistake of suggesting preferential treatment because of the uniform etc etc, the maximum sentence for attempted wounding with intent is life imprisonment, and the evidential standards and rules do NOT change depending on the occupation of the victim.
"The lad is accused of murder, and of "attempting to wound another police office", so he only aimed at one of them and wanted to only wound the other? "
as before drives at two police obviously intends to cause serious injury to both . kills one misses or lightly harms other.
murder = intent to cause serious injury (or kill) plus action causes death.
attempt wound = intent to cause serious injury plus does not in fact cause serious injury.
so the intent for both charges may be the same though the out come different.
By the way coppers are in the group who do get preferential treatment in sentencing of their murder as the "normal starting point" for sentence is a 30 year tariff on a life sentence, Criminal Justice Act 2003. now upped or to be upped to a whole life tariff by section 27 of The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
[quote=irc ]And another one.
http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/84673/trucker-charged-with-murder
The other one doesn't seem to have gone to trial yet.
scapegoat you go wrong when you introduce recklessness into the mix both Murder and attempted wounding are crimes of specific intent not recklessness so would require the defined intents not a recklessness as to the defined outcomes , reckless resulting in death would be manslaughter reckless resulting in a wound or gbh would be section 20 gbh not section 18 . driving recklessly would be Dangerous Driving or Causing death by dangerous driving or equivalent careless driving offences.
Heres a news article on the case and a picture of the un remorseful kid who did it, remanded in custody today, with his accomplice,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-34456424
Just cycled down there to see the flowers etc, about 12 police officers just standing there some crying, a few camera crews and other media,and quite a few other people..............
Crank boy. Not quite I'm afraid. RV Cunningham introduces the test of subjective recklessness into the consideration. The accused does not need to intend specifically to murder, but may carry out an act with intent of causing serious injury but which in actual fact results in the death of the victim. The recklessness test here is whether someone appreciates that driving a pickup at a person is likely to injure or kill them. A reasonable person would appreciate that doing so is likely to cause grievous harm, so at the point where he makes the decision to drive at him, he is guilty of attempting to wound them, and if he dies as a result, then despite the lack of intent to take his life, the intent (through subjective recklessness) is proven sufficiently to prove murder.
Which Cunningham case ? R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396 which used to define recklessness but is out of date or the more recent murder case ?
R v Cunningham [1982] AC 566 the House of Lords declined the opportunity to use the 1966 Practice Statement. The mens rea of murder remains intention to kill or intention to cause GBH.
PS I do this for a living and was reading the relevent section of Archbold when I posted my first comment to you . I am more than happy to be shown to be wrong but to do so you will need to demonstrate that recklessness to kill or recklesness to cause gbh/wound can found a conviction for murder.
Not being picky but you also conflate subjective and objective reasonableness in your post.
perchypanther - Member
It really boils my piss every time I watch one of these "traffic cop" shows on TV where they tell you at the end that the offenders received some paltry fine or a driving ban which they'll blatantly ignore just because they were lucky enough NOT to kill someone with their antics.
This ^^^ multiplied by quite a lot. I know securing a conviction for a lesser offence can seem more successful than failing to secure conviction for a greater offence but sometimes it feels morally wrong. That said my jury experience says it's totally the right way to go.
I'd also vote for the gunship helicopter approach to stopping those who fail to stop. Judge Dredd should be the future!
Thanks to those with knowledge of the law for their explanations, much appreciated.
By reasonableness above I intended to type recklessness.
Conversely, there is case law in Scotland that entitles a jury to convict if the accused 'acted with utter and wicked recklessness as to the consequences of his act upon his victims'. Happens that it comes from an attempted muder case but that makes no odds to the mens rea.
Today's light reading was "parasitic accessory liability" in murder. I think I understand it can't work out if I agree with it and can see someone trying to stretch it to make the passenger in the car in this case guilty of murder.
I'm trying to resist the urge to go and read about parasitic accessory liability, but it's drawing me in...
I succumbed...I remember that Gnango case now. I think I end up in the same place as you - I can follow the logic of the argument(s), but it doesn't sit well. I guess with this one anything said by the passenger will become pertinent in terms of the aiding and abetting, if it could be evidenced, which I would think is unlikely.
Well I spent the evening reading two law commission reports one Scottish one English on intent in Scotland.'acted with utter and wicked recklessness as to the consequences of his act upon his victims'seems to be little different to English intent to GBH when you take on board the English definition of intent. You may or may not like the English report describes your murder law as chaotic it also lumps Scotland in with overseas jurisdictions.
I've worked in England and Scotland. One CJ system is somewhat prone to making it up as it goes along. I imagine I might agree with a lot of that report.
Couldn't see that this has been discussed on here since the verdict, but that crashed woman in the Q7 that drove at the cyclist in New Malden and then hit a hair salon. She got 3 years 😀
^^ that's an interesting one. She had previous for some pretty lousy driving but was still able to drive a tank like a Q7. We were chatting about this on our club run - I'd like to see some kind of endorsement on licences when there's been a conviction for dangerous driving - or even speeding if it's really extreme e.g. 50 in a 30 - so you can't drive anything above a certain size or over certain bhp.
1. It be embarrassing to explain to friends and family why you've downgraded to a Nissan Micra - social costs like this can be very powerful. Very visible too.
2. It sends a clear message that there are serious consequences
3. It limits the damage they can do to everyone else
4. It takes the argument away from defence lawyers saying the crook needs their car for work and family - they still have a car but it's embarrassingly small and slow...
The only reason she got a decent sentence was the previous, and it could be argued that if the courts had dealt with the first matter correctly, she wouldn't have had the opportunity to try to kill a cyclist with her Q7.
Absolute psycho.
and it could be argued that if the courts had dealt with the first matter correctly,
We've long gone past this point, driving is now seen as an innate right and you have to do something very extreme to get banned from the road for anything more than a year or two.
Pretty sure any car is fast enough to break the law in. I'd prefer to just see them banned outright.
^^ that's an interesting one. She had previous for some pretty lousy driving but was still able to drive a tank like a Q7. We were chatting about this on our club run - I'd like to see some kind of endorsement on licences when there's been a conviction for dangerous driving - or even speeding if it's really extreme e.g. 50 in a 30 - so you can't drive anything above a certain size or over certain bhp.
1. It be embarrassing to explain to friends and family why you've downgraded to a Nissan Micra - social costs like this can be very powerful. Very visible too.
2. It sends a clear message that there are serious consequences
3. It limits the damage they can do to everyone else
4. It takes the argument away from defence lawyers saying the crook needs their car for work and family - they still have a car but it's embarrassingly small and slow...
I was saying pretty much this to a (non-cycling) mate the other day - subject of some dick he knows who was bragging about getting off a ban due to needing a car. Mate thought this was a great idea, mostly as it'd humiliate this one particular arse, but as you say, that's the value of it.
(I was suggesting low performance car, plus some sort of specic plates, like an L plate but maybe with a dunce's hat or "coffee beans" image; my mate thought mandatory pink/orange stripes respray 😀 )
taxi driver has been charged with murder after a car hit a man in Essexhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-32720566
Wonder how that happened when the victim wasn't a cop?
Well, probably due to the fact that the victim was his estranged wife's new partner and he ran him over SIX times.
Found guilty now, will be a life term
Yes
https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/newsroom/cyclist-killed-in-aust-collision/
Sadly on a road I use 🙁
Yep - taxi driver got life, min 18 years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-34766321
Having sad that, this was a pretty straightforward murder case, the weapon just happened to be a car
Q7 woman got 3 years, and a 4 year driving ban.
Does the driving ban start when she gets out? Otherwise she's only off the road for a year after her sentence ends...
[i]“She is not a woman prone to aggressive outbursts, she is not that type of person and this wasn’t an act of violence.”[/i] !!!
