- 29-06-2012, 18:50 #51
Police Officers can only give expert opinion that someone was drunk, "His eyes were glazed, speech was slurred he was drunk".
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......"
- 29-06-2012, 19:01 #52I 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......"
- 29-06-2012, 21:27 #53First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
I'm speaking out before they come for me.
- 29-06-2012, 23:02 #54
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.
Last edited by Pebbles015; 29-06-2012 at 23:04.
- 30-06-2012, 10:56 #55
- 30-06-2012, 11:38 #56
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.
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).
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
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!)
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.
Kicks to the body...GBH, Repeated kicks to the head...Attempt murder, there is no grey mark there
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).
- 30-06-2012, 11:55 #57
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
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.
- 30-06-2012, 13:59 #58
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.
- 30-06-2012, 14:07 #59
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- 30-06-2012, 16:38 #60
Hands up, got the ingredients of the offence wrong for attempt murder. My opinion still stands with regards to attempted murder being an appropriate charge in this case. Intent was clearly evident but at what level was that intent?
The fight had been won and the assailants did not leave it at that, the argument would be, what would have happened had the intervention not took place...