[Closed] Using your car as a weapon = murder

Might lead to proper sentencing and more thought before, say, shoving a protestor off the road with your Range Rover.

She did ultimately get nicked for that, though I don't know what happened then.

Main difference between those 2 stories and the usual, is no-one who got killed was a cyclist.

[i]shoving a protestor off the road with your Range Rover[/i] - protestor also not cyclist.

Seems that the law is applied differently if there's a bike involved.

The first one was arrested, not charged, so I’d wait to see that one. The second may have a lot of evidence to allow a chance of successfully convicting.

The problem you have with most day to day stuff is proving intent, premeditation and so on, the cps will alway lower the charge to the best chance of conviction

There seems to be a partial acceptance in prosecution of driving offenses that it's probably the most dangerous thing most people do on a daily basis, therefore the likelihood/risk of an 'accident' occuring is simply much higher than say, accidentally stabbing someone with a knife and killing them.

Therefore the burden of proof on intent is much greater to prove murder and responsibility apportioned to the offender is slightly diminished.

IANAL.

As someone who had a driver ram my back wheel, thankfully pitching me onto the bonnet of the car not the floor, then driving a good few metres before slamming the brakes to throw me off, then getting out to give me a good kicking, I though this may be attempted murder, at the very least assault. We even had a witness sit and watch the incident and jot a couple of notes and a CCTV of the car, apparently at point of impact.

The police had no interest in the case, apparently could not 'retrieve' the CCTV and suggested that at best it might be a bit of a spat....

Then they discovered that this chap had a (lot) of previous, warnings, suspended sentence etc. So it did go to magistrate, who kicked it straight out to Crown Court, who eventually gave the driver 1 year sentence for Assault - but only has he punched and headbutted me.

The driving was irrelevant apparently, as I was not seriously injured. My argument that I was not seriously injured or killed was by fortune and my skill was irrelevant.

Something is very, very wrong with it all.

(This was in 2007, so things may have changed somewhat)

can we point to these and say “no it’s not careless driving, it’s attempted murder”?

Possibly, but the law doesn't allow for every driver who hits someone to be charged with attempted murder. If they intended to do so, then yes it could be attempted murder, GBH or ABH depending on how badly the victim is hurt and how much intent can be proven. Even if the prosecution can't prove the driver intended to hit the cyclist (which can't often be easy) then Dangerous Driving can still carry a 2 year sentence, as much as 14 years of the victim is killed, not all driving offences are a couple of points and a fine.

I have always thought that if you want to murder someone then just drive into them. Would only really work for someone you had no connection with though as running over your wife may raise a few eyebrows on motives and such like!

1) was arrested for suspicion of murder and released without charge. It’ll go to CPS for review, if they agree it was reasonable force to save another he’ll not be prosecuted.

2) Has been charged with murder or death by dangerous driving plus drink driving.

Absolutely no comparison.

As above, 1 will use the public safety and immediate threat to life argument, 2 is the father, so motive and intent could be many things, they might have evidence of previous assaults, threats, etc, not a good case by the looks of it, and he’s been charged, which means the cps have met the threshold, so must be quite a lot of evidence

OP your logic is faulty. The key element of murder is intent, not use of a weapon. Use of something which has no purpose (in context) other than to harm is evidence of intent, though not conclusive. When used as a means of transport a vehicle clearly has a reason for use other than to harm, so no intent can be inferred from mere use of a vehicle, more is needed.

By the way I was out brandishing my weapon on the public highway today, it was very pleasant.

Murder needs to be a deliberate act, and attempted murder needs to be a deliberate attempt to murder, where the victim survives.

Outwith that, as in the case of for example stabbing, you can stab someone and they are only injured, so although a charge of attempted murder can be levied, the prosecution has to prove the intention was to murder, and thats not as easy for them as it sounds, hence ABH,GBH.

There is also intent. As in you intended to hurt them severely, but not for them to die so the intent aspect is added.

Prosecution these days seems happier, even in the cases of deliberate acts where the victims dies, is to convict on a manslaughter charge. I dont know why this is. You stick a knife in someone you should know full well the actions you undertake can lead to them dying, so if they do, in my mind at least the charge should be murder.

Knives, as with swords and guns are tools we have used for centuries to kill other people, so on that aspect using one to commit harm where the victim dies must be an act of murder.

Cars are not in the above category. They weren't made as weapons, but they are capable of causing harm, even serious or death.

There have been cases of murder being levied and the verdicts brought in of murder, where the accused used the car to hit someone ,then drive over them deliberately several times, probably knowing they would die from such actions.

I think in these cases, the conviction is of manslaughter

Funny thing is, you cannot be charged with attempting to commit attempted manslaughter.

So for murder the charge must be one of intent.

Anything can be used for murder, but it's proving that the intention was to kill.
Just because someone gets killed with a car doesn't mean it's murder i.e. two cars crash together - If the person in one car dies, it doesn't mean necessarily that the person in the other car can be charged with murder.

Edit: bit too late!

It enough to intend to cause grievous bodily harm (which judges tend to explain to juries as "really serious harm"). From the CPS website:

Intent

The intent for murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. R v Woollin [1999] 1 Cr App R 8 (HOL). The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case - R v Matthews (Darren John) [2003] EWCA Crim 192.

I wasn't trying to say that any car crash should be considered murder, just where the car is deliberately used as a weapon. Granted it might be difficult to prove and get anywhere with it in practise but a change of peoples perception of a car as a potential weapon would be nice.

See Matt's example above - a deliberate ramming with a car and that aspect of it is basically ignored.

I'm sure I remember cases that are good examples but my Google is failing me... a road rage argument followed by a driver ramming a cyclist and causing serious injury only to get off with some driving related offence, more lenient than if he used (for example) a baseball bat.

The issue, as ever, is proving the intent to murder, beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. Fail that test, the accused walks free, so lower charges more likely to get a conviction.

Seems obvious from a headline but with full and conflicting evidence, easy to see why it doesn't happen.

I'd like to see attitudes changed.

was arrested for suspicion of murder and released without charge. It’ll go to CPS for review, if they agree it was reasonable force to save another he’ll not be prosecuted.

Reasonable force? It read to me that the two left the footpath and headed into the road where they were hit by the driver. Is there anything to suggest the driver meant to hit them?

It's the best way to rid the world of someone with the least penalty.

Very sore topic for me, received life changing injuries from a driver 6 years ago. GMP just said 'your insurance would sort it'. Not even any driver training. Investigating officer was anti-bike as my wife found out whilst I was in intensive care. Officer on scene actually said it was clear cut driver issue - nothing after that.

Thing is, a girl I went to school with, is a cylist and a GMP officer, thinks GMP are OK - they really are not, and I've given her many other cyclist's cases, one was my mate !

GMP hate cyclists. It's in the system. Greater Manchester Police for those that don't know.

You want to commit murder, use a car.

Is there anything to suggest the driver meant to hit them?

There is a petition up for him to be treated as a hero instead of being charged, basically it sounds like he tried to use his car to stop the guy attacking his ex wife.

Anything can be used for murder, but it’s proving that the intention was to kill.

Yep and using a car puts you in a much better place than using a knife or gun.
Running someone over can easily be put down as an accident (didn't see the person, sun in my eyes, lost control of car etc,.) and with no witnesses would most likely be believed

You don't really have that same list of believable reasons when stabbing or shooting someone do you...

There is a petition up for him to be treated as a hero instead of being charged, basically it sounds like he tried to use his car to stop the guy attacking his ex wife.

Police have to go thru the motions as he’s killed someone,CPS or Court(if it gets to that point)will have the final say.

Sorta boggo law stuff.

..

Police have to go thru the motions as he’s killed someone,CPS or Court(if it gets to that point)will have the final say.

Sorta boggo law stuff.

I realise that, was just trying to show to slowoldman that there was intent involved by the car driver.

Yeah there is.

https://twitter.com/mohammedakunjee/status/1486490203527262213?s=21

I realise that, was just trying to show to slowoldman that there was intent involved by the car driver.

My bad 🙂

Anyway if I was planning the the perfect murder it would more than likely involve a car and bicycle(and a very bright light and a parked van)

I think the only way public perception would change would be if a high profile cycle loving politician had an unpleasant but deliberate experience.

And as predicted he will face no charges.

Driver arrested over Maida Vale knife killer's death faces no charge https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60218733

By the way I was out brandishing my weapon on the public highway today, it was very pleasant.

How long do you have to be on the offenders register for this time? 😉

And as predicted he will face no charges.

Driver arrested over Maida Vale knife killer’s death faces no charge https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60218733/blockquote >

Seems about right given the circumstances. Pray you're never faced with that situation yourself.