ARmy Rumour SErvice

I would love to be able to say on oath "He was swearing, frightening members of the public, and threatening people. He is a cunt. I therefore arrested him......"

Wouldn't you have to be a policeman first?

Originally Posted by LancePrivateJones

I remember Peter Sutcliffe appearing at the Bailey back in the early 1980's.
The Attorney General said that he would agree to Sutcliffe's guilty plea to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility when the Judge jumped in and told the Attorney General to do one.
After much huffing and puffing from both defence and prosecution plus psychiatric experts the Judge got his way and the trial for Murder went ahead.

Good Judge, shame that there aren't more of his type around today.

Exactly right. If the judge had accepted the manslaughter charge then Sutcliffe may well have been released before now.

Originally Posted by oldgadge

Some good points already made but re the idea of charging the 2 RLC soldiers with murder, surely premeditation has to be shown for murder to be proved. I am a layman so maybe someone with legal knowledge can inform us?

Charging for attempted murder would have been appropriate in this case as they repeatedly kicked in the head to stop the victims getting up. One kick in the head is enough for attempted murder.

For one thing, there is no such thing as attempted manslaughter, therefore, if you intended to kill someone but didnt, or you did something to someone on purpose with recklessness or a real prospect of loss of life, that would be attempted murder.

To differentiate between the two, whether the victim lived or died, you need to look at the two different offences of GBH.

Section 18 and section 20

Section 20 is GBH without intent. EG. Pushing somebody away (unlawfully or disproportionately) and they fall and break their shoulder. It is known as 'Unlawful wounding'

Section 18 is GBH with intent. Ie, you intended to cause the harm by either a particularly deliberate act, sustained attack or using a weapon. If a weapon was used then it is almost certain that intent can be proved. (there is issue if you had an implement already in your hand for an innocent use, such as retaliation to an attack while your chopping vegetables for eg.)
This is known as 'Malicious Wounding'

When someone has died as a result of an attack but it was not intentional to actually kill, if intent to cause injury is proved then murder is also proved. This is as close to what the yanks call second degree murder, we have in this country.

If there was no intent to cause death nor even injury, the charge of manslaughter is appropiate if the act that caused the death was unlawful or reckless as to whether the injury or death would result.

In this case, had the men died, there would have certainly been a murder conviction as it was quite clearly intentional wounding.

The difference between Section18 and Attempted murder is a very fine one and one thats usually played out by plea bargain rather than trial. Personally, I'd have like to have seen an attempted murder charge with an alternative for the jury to return a verdict of malicious wounding. The reason being that it was a repeated and sustained attack to the head. Feet also count as weapons where as a fist in the vast majority of circumstances does not.

Kicks to the body...GBH, Repeated kicks to the head...Attempt murder, there is no grey mark there.

Originally Posted by Buzz

I don't as a rule go in for mandatory daily wail sentencing bollocks for all the reasons you mentioned but glass attacks just have a certain cunt factor to them that should always attract a custodial sentence. Maybe it's the context in which they take place that bothers me the most.

Deliberately trying to scar someone's face up takes a special kind of cunt. A few years ago I saw a 'woman' (term used in the loosest possible sense) smash a glass into the face of the man she'd been talking to for a good ten minutes without any warning whatsoever. Apparently the fat cunt had decided that because she was a dyke she shouldn't have to talk to men. Fair play to him, though, he just put his pint down, walked calmly to the jacks and started picking glass out of his face.

pebbles some very genuinely interesting questions and points, and I have had to refresh the noggin and I genuinely think it's a good bit of the debate.

Originally Posted by Pebbles015

Charging for attempted murder would have been appropriate in this case as they repeatedly kicked in the head to stop the victims getting up. One kick in the head is enough for attempted murder.

That depends on the intent of the offender (I'll show my working so you can see where I am coming from).

CPS advice on murder:

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).

So it is the last isn't it? What did the defendent intend to do at the time they did that act.

In contrast to the offence of murder, attempted murder requires the existence of an intention to kill, not merely to cause grievous bodily harm: R v Grimwood (1962) 3 All ER 285. The requisite intention to kill can be inferred by the circumstances: R v Walker and Hayles (1990) 90 Cr App R 226

Homicide; Murder and Manslaughter: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service

So, if with regards to all the circumstances the offence can be sustained through evidence there you have it (though mark the apparent difference between when the victim dies and doesn't, quirk of the law there it seems!)

Originally Posted by Pebbles015

For one thing, there is no such thing as attempted manslaughter, therefore, if you intended to kill someone but didnt, or you did something to someone on purpose with recklessness or a real prospect of loss of life, that would be attempted murder.

Well that's true! it seems to me you cannot Attempt manslaughter, as the outcome is the offence (if you follow my meaning!)

Don't forget recklessness relies on the risk that the defendent saw was unreasonable and yet went on to take it anyway (ie, and I'm sure you know, the "Caldwell recklessness test" of the reasonable person is gone and it is the defendent themself).

I stand to be corrected, but I do not think that you can have "reckless attempted murder", and nothing less than a "settled intent to kill" (I seem to recall from a stated case memorised for some reason) will support a murder charge. So logically, how can you be reckless and yet have the intent? If you see what I mean? I stand to be corrected on that though, maybe I have got the wrong end of a stick.

Originally Posted by Pebbles015

When someone has died as a result of an attack but it was not intentional to actually kill, if intent to cause injury is proved then murder is also proved

Well depending on the extent of the injury intended, yes (as per the CPS guidance at the top).

Kicks to the body...GBH, Repeated kicks to the head...Attempt murder, there is no grey mark there

Well there is, isn't there? It is in the intent of the offender.

If you can adduce evidence that was their intent, then the conviction is to be found. If not, then the conviction is not to be found.

Maybe I am mixing the toxic brew of law, charge, trial and aggravation/mitigation?

Still, it's a violent and dreadful set of circumnstances.

(PS-What was the reference for the intoxication you mentioned, apologies if I missed it).

If it was just a straightforward bar brawl, with a few minor bumps and bruises, that's nothing. The real factor is the blinding and loss of someone's career that deserves the hard time. In 1999, I did a resettlement course in Plymouth. One bloke in my room was doing NEBOSH, and part of his course was to spend a day in Plymouth courts to watch the proceedings. That night, he told us of a real bastard of a judge who took no shit. I wonder if this was the same judge.

Tough sentences handed out at Plymouth are unfortunately the exception rather than the rule. The presiding judge is often Judge Gilbert who, although bound by sentencing guidelines etc, mostly opts for the most lenient from his options.

Originally Posted by Koschei

Deliberately trying to scar someone's face up takes a special kind of cunt. A few years ago I saw a 'woman' (term used in the loosest possible sense) smash a glass into the face of the man she'd been talking to for a good ten minutes without any warning whatsoever. Apparently the fat cunt had decided that because she was a dyke she shouldn't have to talk to men. Fair play to him, though, he just put his pint down, walked calmly to the jacks and started picking glass out of his face.

You weren't exactly drinking at JuJu's were you?