Murder charge after cyclists death

Eau Rouge

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leic ... 598194.stm

"A 21-year-old man has been charged with murder following the death of a cyclist who was involved in a road traffic incident in Leicester on Tuesday."

Wow. That's a pretty unusual step for the Police.
It makes you wonder what was unusual enough about this case for the Police to charge him with murder.

lost_in_thought

Eau Rouge wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/8598194.stm

"A 21-year-old man has been charged with murder following the death of a cyclist who was involved in a road traffic incident in Leicester on Tuesday."

Wow. That's a pretty unusual step for the Police.
It makes you wonder what was unusual enough about this case for the Police to charge him with murder.

Now that is interesting... Keep an eye on this one, I think!

Aguila

Most likely scenario the driver knew the cyclist and ran him over deliberately. Would have to be very clear intent for murder to be the charge.

spen666

seems to have driven over pavement and him in in front gasrden / drive of property

Clever Pun

Aguila wrote:

Most likely scenario the driver knew the cyclist and ran him over deliberately. Would have to be very clear intent for murder to be the charge.

murder is premeditated.. so the above sounds right

lost_in_thought

spen666 wrote:

seems to have driven over pavement and him in in front gasrden / drive of property

Blimey.

Ah, yes, CSI tells me that murder has to be premeditated... but I never know whether to believe them!

zanes

"Road rage" incident perhaps- Previously not known to each other but interacted somehow on journey? That would be pre-meditated, would it not?

holybinch

I don't think murder has to be premeditated.
You can have a murder of opportunity for instance.
Or murder in a fit of rage.

It still remains murder, since you want to kill the person, but no premeditation.
I know French law makes the distinction, not sure about the British law.

greg66_tri_v2.0

I'm trampling all over spen's area here, but AFAIK pre-meditation/malice aforethought (gotta love that phrase) is an element of murder in American law, beloved of TV and film producers.

In England, murder requires (and I'm pretty rusty on this) (a) killing (like, deerrrrr!); (b) an intention either to kill, or to cause GBH. GBH is itself a term of art, including wounding (also a term of art; puncturing the skin, IIRC) or really serious bodily injury.

So much for legal definitions. Charging someone with murder depends on what the prosecution thinks it would be able to prove to a jury to the requisite standard at trial.

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

I'm trampling all over spen's area here, but AFAIK pre-meditation/malice aforethought (gotta love that phrase) is an element of murder in American law, beloved of TV and film producers.

In England, murder requires (and I'm pretty rusty on this) (a) killing (like, deerrrrr!); (b) an intention either to kill, or to cause GBH. GBH is itself a term of art, including wounding (also a term of art; puncturing the skin, IIRC) or really serious bodily injury.

So much for legal definitions. Charging someone with murder depends on what the prosecution thinks it would be able to prove to a jury to the requisite standard at trial.

So what's the difference between murder and manslaughter? Do we have manslaughter over here?

holybinch

Manslaughter is killing someone without the intention to kill him/her I'd say.
Just your standard homicide... running over someone in your car for instance.

davmaggs

the news and the authorities often give a certain view in their press releases.

OT story:

I remember mentioning a local police appeal sign about a hit and run (cyclist hit by a car) to a neighbour as it seemed poor that no-one witnessed the event on a main road. It turns out that the police failed to mention on the sign that the car hit the cyclist, then reversed to do it again, before the occupants got out and finished him off with a handgun. Puts a different spin on events when a local dealer gets taken out by another one.

Long story short, the news can lie by omission

greg66_tri_v2.0

holybinch wrote:

Manslaughter is killing someone without the intention to kill him/her I'd say.
Just your standard homicide... running over someone in your car for instance.

Now at the outer limits of my knowledge...

Manslaughter can be (a) mitigated murder (eg presence of provocation, diminished responsibility); or (b) (as above) killing without the intent to kill/cause GBH required for murder.

Next question: why aren't all deaths that aren't murder classified as manslaughter?

Can you hear the ice cracking yet? I can.

holybinch

I'd venture a guess... political reasons? :roll:

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

holybinch wrote:

Manslaughter is killing someone without the intention to kill him/her I'd say.
Just your standard homicide... running over someone in your car for instance.

Now at the outer limits of my knowledge...

Manslaughter can be (a) mitigated murder (eg presence of provocation, diminished responsibility); or (b) (as above) killing without the intent to kill/cause GBH required for murder.

Next question: why aren't all deaths that aren't murder classified as manslaughter?

Can you hear the ice cracking yet? I can.

Indeed - it seems from what has been said that manslaughter is killing someone but not meaning to. So everything that's not murder...

What's death by dangerous driving then? Manslaughter with a car? Or is that another CSI-ism? Maybe you could provide us with a sliding scale...

I can hear a loud creaking...

holybinch

I'd think accidental death is if your responsability is not engaged directly.
For instance:
A balcony falls and kills someone.
Builder, manufacturer, owner are cleared of all responsability, everyone did as they should have.
Verdict, freak death, accidental?

Same thing happen, but someone didn't do their job properly (builder used staples or papier maché to fix balcony)
Manslaughter?

In the car, it's another story it seems

Kieran_Burns

Manslaughter can be committed in one of three ways:

1) killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, namely provocation, diminished responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact.

2) conduct that was grossly negligent given the risk of death, and did kill, is manslaughter ("gross negligence manslaughter"); and

3) conduct, taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm, that resulted in death, is manslaughter ("unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter").

3. The term "involuntary manslaughter" is commonly used to describe a manslaughter falling within (2) and (3) while (1) is referred to as "voluntary manslaughter".

Subject to three exceptions (see Voluntary Manslaughter below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:

* of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
* unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
* any reasonable creature (human being);
* in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;
* under the Queen's Peace;
* with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).

greg66_tri_v2.0

lost_in_thought wrote:

Indeed - it seems from what has been said that manslaughter is killing someone but not meaning to. So everything that's not murder...

What's death by dangerous driving then? Manslaughter with a car? Or is that another CSI-ism? Maybe you could provide us with a sliding scale...

I can hear a loud creaking...

OK. Last one.

This is a useful resource.

Manslaughter requires a mental element of its own (which I didn't make clear; it's not just the absence of a mental element required for something else). There's a case referred to there which is similar to an example I was going to give: a doctor does something in the course of treatment that results in a death. Unlikely to face a manslaughter charge, I'd've thought.

Death by dangerous driving was introduced (according to that page) to meet the low conviction rate for manslaughter in motoring death cases; so motoring would also be an example where in normal circs even if there's a death, the mental element isn't sufficient to warrant a manslaughter charge.

And obv if you have a defence to murder (eg self-defence) that succeeds, you get off altogether. So that's a non-murder killing that isn't manslaughter.

Now would be a good time for someone who really knows about this to come along...

lost_in_thought

What about vehicular manslaughter? This, again, may be straight from an episode of CSI. I do like that show...

holybinch

Erm, comes back to what was said a lot of times on these pages.
If you're in a car, normal law doesn't apply to you if you kill someone.
Perfect... :roll:

Kieran_Burns

lost_in_thought wrote:

What about vehicular manslaughter? This, again, may be straight from an episode of CSI. I do like that show...

Americanism.

They actually convict for assault with a deadly weapon when someone intentionally drives a car at you.

Good law I always think.


(but then I also like their understanding that people breaking into your house step outside the protection of the law)

lost_in_thought

Alright, that was a badly worded question....

So, you've killed someone with a car.

Does vehicular manslaughter exist here? If so how does it differ from causing death by dangerous driving? What other charges exist? How do they (whoever does the charging) choose what to charge people with?

EDIT: Did you expect the spanish inquisition?

cheehee

I live in Leicester. New Parks is a sh!te hole..................That is all

greg66_tri_v2.0

lost_in_thought wrote:

What about vehicular manslaughter? This, again, may be straight from an episode of CSI. I do like that show...

Stop it. Stop it now.

Bloody CSI, mutter mutter, miranda rights, mutter mutter...

Doesn't it ever strike you as ever so slightly implausible that they can resolve a blurry reflection that isn't really in the original photograph so well they end up with something that wouldn't look out of place in a professional studio photographer's portfolio?

Or that they have a magic spray that identifies blood/semen/tissue fluid? Or that they do all their work to a loud musical backing track? Or that the entire state of Florida has the colour turned up to 11? Or that David Caruso has three acting faces (puzzled, concerned, victorious) and the only way to tell them apart is to work out what direction he's looking in and what he's doing with his sunglasses?

etc.

And breathe...

Eau Rouge

Death by Dangerous Driving and Death by Careless Driving are two other offences. I *think* the idea is that there are certain specific ways of killing someone that are covered by their own specific laws (such as the two driving ofences) and hence aren't treated as manslaughter. It can make things clearer by allowing the law to be more specific about a particular activity. Having a huge manslaughter law that included the nuances of the driving laws as well as a bunch of other things would be a bit of a hassle for the court services.
Sentencing is by guidelines anyway, and if drivers were subject to manslaughter laws instead of their own laws they would still get the same (paltry) sentences as per the guidelines.

greg66_tri_v2.0

holybinch wrote:

Erm, comes back to what was said a lot of times on these pages.
If you're in a car, normal law doesn't apply to you if you kill someone.
Perfect... :roll:

Interesting you say that. If the wiki page is right, the offence of death by dangerous driving was introduced as a reaction a juries' innate sympathy with the driver (remember that a lot of these cases would have been vehicle on vehicle collisions).

The mood of society changes, and it's certainly moved against drivers recently. It would be interesting to see whether the mood is now sufficient to see manslaughter charges being made to stick at trial.

snailracer

Kieran_Burns wrote:

... the crime of murder is committed, where a person:

* of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
* unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
* any reasonable creature (human being);
* in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;
* under the Queen's Peace;
* with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).

Blimey, murderers must be really smart to be able to figure this lot out

cheehee

Greg66 wrote:

Or that they have a magic spray that identifies blood/semen/tissue fluid? Or that they do all their work to a loud musical backing track? Or that the entire state of Florida has the colour turned up to 11? Or that David Caruso has three acting faces (puzzled, concerned, victorious) and the only way to tell them apart is to work out what direction he's looking in and what he's doing with his sunglasses?

etc.

And breathe...

Ha Ha top ranting

zanes

Greg66 wrote:

Or that they do all their work to a loud musical backing track?

CSI's set in a University?

Kieran_Burns

I suppose it's just easier to post the link where I got my info from:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homi ... slaughter/

given the source I think the CSI fiction can be ignored

W1

Greg66 wrote:

holybinch wrote:

Erm, comes back to what was said a lot of times on these pages.
If you're in a car, normal law doesn't apply to you if you kill someone.
Perfect... :roll:

Interesting you say that. If the wiki page is right, the offence of death by dangerous driving was introduced as a reaction a juries' innate sympathy with the driver (remember that a lot of these cases would have been vehicle on vehicle collisions).

The mood of society changes, and it's certainly moved against drivers recently. It would be interesting to see whether the mood is now sufficient to see manslaughter charges being made to stick at trial.

I doubt it. Most drivers (me included) have an element of "there by the grace of god" when it comes to accidents. The smallest of errors (and none of us are perfect) can cause a death when behind the wheel of a car, and as most people on juries drive, most will have sympathy in those circumstances.

Much like the "mercy killings" or battered wife killings that are legally murder but use a loophole to charge the offender with manslaughter and thereby give the judge full discretionary sentencing powers.