Cyclist deliberately run down

dilemna

This has appeared on another forum. Shocking.

http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/conten ... 3A07%3A610

chuckcork

I don't understand how this wasn't attempted murder.

always_tyred

What bothers me most is that there appears to be some acceptance of the concept of slightly knocking someone off. Surely the second the decision is made to run a car into a bicycle is made, the intent to cause serious injury is established. But no. Here in lovely Britain, you can intend only to nudge someone off their bike.

KnightofCydonia

looks like the kind of anger-issues **** who shouldn't be on the road in any form.

thedirge

jail, attempted murder.

he'll still be out in no time.

dilemna

Just reading comments on this thread I posted and have looked out the window to see that a chav in a black Vauxhall Vectra is trying to turn his car around while holiding and eating an ice cream from his right hand :roll: :roll: . His chav gf passenger is using her mobile...... What hope is there with such numptees on the road? I would bet that the idiot in this thread who ran down the cyclist was a Vauxhall Nova driver. By far the most hazardous drivers on the the road are those driving Vauxhalls I have found - by a long way.

airborne_warrior

No doubt he'll get community service with our joke of a justice system. Pricks like that should be shot.

downfader

Thats just sickening. It should be a life time ban from driving with a murder change on top. In cases like this I really wished they'd add charge after charge and tally them up like they do in the States. :?

thedirge

downfader wrote:

Thats just sickening. It should be a life time ban from driving with a murder change on top. In cases like this I really wished they'd add charge after charge and tally them up like they do in the States. :?

doesnt seem to be working over there mind.

doog442

looks like he was charged with GBH with intent which is a bloody serious charge and not to far below attempt murder....yet the jury roll over and actually believe the chavvy little prat didnt intend to cause the injuries.......

Would be nice if the judge could make up for this miscarriage of justice and send him down for the maximum period

But of course this just wont happen will it ....36 months..out in 18 :!:

Was he insured...cyclist will get pittance from MIB who will fight it i dare say

downfader

thedirge wrote:

downfader wrote:

Thats just sickening. It should be a life time ban from driving with a murder change on top. In cases like this I really wished they'd add charge after charge and tally them up like they do in the States. :?

doesnt seem to be working over there mind.

True in the case of cyclists. I was thinking more of the armed robbers and co out there tbh. They end up with 150 year or something stupid like that.

Jay dubbleU

Sounds like both he and his girlfriend have anger problems - surely using a car as a weapon is attempted murder ? He needs a long jail sentence to think about his problems

NGale

his sentence will depend on previous convictions and previous prison stays.

for GBH with Inent the usual sentence is four years with the chance of release at the three quater point with any remand time taken into account and taken off the serving time.

If he is sentenced to anything under 4 years he is also eligable for release on tag which on a 4 year sentence means he can be released after 3 years and spend the next year on a tag.

if he gets over 5 years then he will have a parole review after 2 years and if successful on that would be released and hen be at the behest of the probation service for the rest of the period but could very easily be revoked and put back inside if he so much as sniffs in the wrong place

at the moment I would expect that he would get three years at most and moved into open conditions after a year and a half!!!

doog442

he was aquitted on the GBH section 18 and convicted on the section 20

interesting to see we both agree on the 36 months ..

NGale

experiance of 4 years working in a prison has made my mind pretty sharp to these things.

I made my escape though

gb155

I dont get why its not attempted murder ?

doog442

gb155 wrote:

I dont get why its not attempted murder ?

I agree

For attempt murder you need an intent to kill OR commit GBH

He was convicted of S20 GBH

Yet again the CPS take the easy route out... his only defence on an attempt murder charge in this case would have been provocation...sticking 2 fingers up isnt provocation

chuckcork

doog442 wrote:

gb155 wrote:

I dont get why its not attempted murder ?

I agree

For attempt murder you need an intent to kill OR commit GBH

He was convicted of S20 GBH

Yet again the CPS take the easy route out... his only defence on an attempt murder charge in this case would have been provocation...sticking 2 fingers up isnt provocation

If you swung a sledgehammer at someone the possible result of doing so would be obvious. How is driving a larger, heavier car with a far greater kinetic energy at someone not the same, simply because it has wheels and an engine?

As has been previously commented it seems the only legal way to kill someone in the UK, or attempt to kill them, is with a car....with the CPS seemingly going out of their way to avoid prosecution.

Eau Rouge

doog442 wrote:

gb155 wrote:

Yet again the CPS take the easy route out... his only defence on an attempt murder charge in this case would have been provocation...sticking 2 fingers up isnt provocation

But the Jury found him not guilty of Section 18 GBH, but guilty of Section 20 GBH, the difference between the two being that intent.
If the Jury didn't see an intent to commit GBH, they were hardly going to see an intent to kill, and with only an attempted murder charge before them, would he have been free to walk away from court?
Did the CPS not then get it right?

The real question should be how anyone convinced 12 people that driving a car at someone intending to knock them off their bike is something you can do without intending to seriously injure them. Thats just....frightening really.

doog442

Eau Rouge wrote:

doog442 wrote:

gb155 wrote:

Yet again the CPS take the easy route out... his only defence on an attempt murder charge in this case would have been provocation...sticking 2 fingers up isnt provocation

But the Jury found him not guilty of Section 18 GBH, but guilty of Section 20 GBH, the difference between the two being that intent.
If the Jury didn't see an intent to commit GBH, they were hardly going to see an intent to kill, and with only an attempted murder charge before them, would he have been free to walk away from court?
Did the CPS not then get it right?

The real question should be how anyone convinced 12 people that driving a car at someone intending to knock them off their bike is something you can do without intending to seriously injure them. Thats just....frightening really.

fine they second guessed the jury and went with the safe bet..can understand the logic as homicide charge is hit or bust?? (I think- someone enlighten me)

regarding the jury well you are in the laps of the gods...perhaps the issue here is did they really understand the meaning of intent and the diff between S18/20..i mean the legal profession get examined on it and study stated cases yet a raw jury are expected to draw there own conclusion in a few hours on a piece of legislation that has been around since the year dot

Capo

regarding the jury well you are in the laps of the gods...perhaps the issue here is did they really understand the meaning of intent and the diff between S18/20..i mean the legal profession get examined on it and study stated cases yet a raw jury are expected to draw there own conclusion in a few hours on a piece of legislation that has been around since the year dot

Should be the judge who interprets matters of law, the jury is there to decide questions of fact. Could be that the judge didn't make it clear enough to the jury what the actual issues they had to decide upon were.

Eau Rouge

doog442 wrote:

perhaps the issue here is did they really understand the meaning of intent and the diff between S18/20..i mean the legal profession get examined on it and study stated cases yet a raw jury are expected to draw there own conclusion in a few hours on a piece of legislation that has been around since the year dot

I can't blame the law on this one. He admitted intend to drive the car at the cyclist, so legal technicalities about the meaning of intent don't seem to be involved in this case.
They simply agreed with him that it's possible to intentionally drive a car at a cyclist and seriously want them to only fall off and maybe scrap their knee.

Why the prosecuting barrister didn't ask the driver if he'd mind standing in the court while they swung a tonne and a half of concrete at him, of course only knocking him over, maybe scraping his knee, like Denny Crane would have, I'll never understand.

The public (the jury in this case, but loads of juries in loads of similar cases show a significant public perception) really do think you can drive a car into someone and not do them serious injury. It explains loads, but it's still frightening.
The CPS seem to be fully aware of this too.

biondino

dilemna wrote:

Just reading comments on this thread I posted and have looked out the window to see that a chav in a black Vauxhall Vectra is trying to turn his car around while holiding and eating an ice cream from his right hand :roll: :roll: . His chav gf passenger is using her mobile...... What hope is there with such numptees on the road? I would bet that the idiot in this thread who ran down the cyclist was a Vauxhall Nova driver. By far the most hazardous drivers on the the road are those driving Vauxhalls I have found - by a long way.

A passenger? On a mobile phone! Stone her!

Dude, I think you have some anger/prejudice issues you need to resolve :roll:

gtvlusso

What a vile person - Having broken the cyclists pelvis (hope he gets well soon), and saying "I didn't mean to hurt him" perhaps Mr Angry should have his ability to multiply removed and save society from his offspring.....

jonginge

His defence was a bit like saying 'I only meant to shoot/stab him a little bit'... :roll:

sarajoy

Frustrating

Why didn't they have someone who did elementary mechanics at school there just making the point about conservation of momentum?

For a big heavy vehicle to transfer energy to a very light vehicle, the light vehicle will gain MUCH more speed (towards the ground, in this case) from the impact than the heavy vehicle dropped.

I remember once trying to convince an old man to move out the way of a car (that his old mate was driving) which was veerrryy slowly reversing towards him. The old man was very upset and angry about something and so wasn't listening/couldn't hear me.

The incredibly slowly reversing car did eventually get to him, and the man ended up doing quite the forward-roll out of the force from the car. I'm still quite upset that I didn't physically push him out the way at the time. He was rather more agitated and angry after that...

Mossrider

If you've ever served on a jury you will understand what a terribly difficult thing it is to put any one in prison (even when they undoubtedly deserve it!). They will have had advice from the judge as to the most relevant factors in the summing up. My experience is that it is a very careful process (and sometimes very frustrating). Often they will be cautious; on the basis that it is better that, than find something guilty of what they did not do.

Remember, you've only read a brief summary, the jury had to sit through this for several days and then sit for some hours, or days and plough through it all again to come to a decision. THey would also have known nothing of the previous history of this man (which you do).

Not that I was defending him - someone tried to intimidate me with a speeding car only last week.

spen666

Mossrider wrote:

If you've ever served on a jury you will understand what a terribly difficult thing it is to put any one in prison (even when they undoubtedly deserve it!). .....

The jury do NOT send anyone to prison.

Their role is to decide issues of fact - ie decide guilty or not.

Sending someone to prision is a sentencing matter for the judge ( or magistrate if in mags court- but no jury in mags court)

The law is clear and it is actually in most respects easier to convict someone today legally than in the past as now you can introduce hearsay evidence, bad character evidence etcthat preiously were not admissible

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

Mossrider wrote:

If you've ever served on a jury you will understand what a terribly difficult thing it is to put any one in prison (even when they undoubtedly deserve it!). .....

The jury do NOT send anyone to prison.

Their role is to decide issues of fact - ie decide guilty or not.

Sending someone to prision is a sentencing matter for the judge ( or magistrate if in mags court- but no jury in mags court)

The law is clear and it is actually in most respects easier to convict someone today legally than in the past as now you can introduce hearsay evidence, bad character evidence etcthat preiously were not admissible

Spen, from that article, is there anything you can devine about this issue of "intent". As I posted earlier, I was particularly concerned that the law appears to recognise that aiming a car at someone can, in theory, be done WITHOUT the intent to seriously injure.

I just can't get my head around that concept. Have I misunderstood? Is it more complex?

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Mossrider wrote:

If you've ever served on a jury you will understand what a terribly difficult thing it is to put any one in prison (even when they undoubtedly deserve it!). .....

The jury do NOT send anyone to prison.

Their role is to decide issues of fact - ie decide guilty or not.

Sending someone to prision is a sentencing matter for the judge ( or magistrate if in mags court- but no jury in mags court)

The law is clear and it is actually in most respects easier to convict someone today legally than in the past as now you can introduce hearsay evidence, bad character evidence etcthat preiously were not admissible

I wouldn't like to express a view on only part of the facts.

clearly the jury heard ALL the evidence presented in the case and being directed by the Judge on the law decided that the intent to cause SERIOUS HARM was not there
Spen, from that article, is there anything you can devine about this issue of "intent". As I posted earlier, I was particularly concerned that the law appears to recognise that aiming a car at someone can, in theory, be done WITHOUT the intent to seriously injure.

I just can't get my head around that concept. Have I misunderstood? Is it more complex?

always_tyred

Okay, makes a little more sense I guess.

Essentially, then, if the defendant can convince the court that they are sufficiently dim as to lack adequate consequential thought, they get a lesser charge. Grr.

Serious harm vs. harm - what sort of thresholds of harm do these describe? For example, is being knocked unconscious "harm" but being knocked uncounscious and breaking a bone "serious harm"?