Cycling UK Forum

Q: On what grounds can you be charged/found guilty of murder if you didn't intend to kill them?

The fact the car was being pursued at high speed (which needs looking at AGAIN!) & trying to evade capture surely gives reasonable doubt as to any intention to kill. I can't see how plod/CPS will get a murder charge to stick.
As for the women, it'll come as no surprise if CPS cave in and a lesser charge is accepted. Nothing but a hefty ban plus prison sentence would be acceptable as justice.

Tonyf33 wrote:Q: On what grounds can you be charged/found guilty of murder if you didn't intend to kill them?

On the grounds that someone's dead.

If you intend to seriously injure someone, or are reckless about the consequences of an obviously dangerous action, then if someone gets killed, you are charged with murder; if they don't, you are charged with attempted GBH or GBH with intent.
To get charged with attempted murder, it's got to be shown that you definitely intended to kill, rather than just injure. That's difficult in the case of driving a car at someone - there's too much chance that they would be injured rather than be killed.

This case and the case of the police in Liverpool would be the same if the only officer on the central reservation had been the one who jumped clear.

Flinders wrote:4x4s built higher than a standard saloon ought to require an additional driving test. Large 4x4s with slab-fronts, even those with less powerful engines, are very dangerous for pedestrians (because a pedestrian won't slide up the high bonnet in a collision, it will be a direct slap bang hit and the pedestrian will take all the energy in the collision) even if driven safely.
It is completely ridiculous for people to be using these vehicles for ordinary transport of people, shopping, etc. If they aren't going to be hauling a heavy trailer or going off-road on a regular basis, they ought not to be being used on the roads.

I agree - it will be much better if road-ragers or the merely inattentive or incompetent use ordinary saloons rather than large slab-fronted 4x4s.

Driving a car at someone in a fit of rage is attempted murder.

There have been a few cases is Scotland recently where cars have been driven at pedestrians as a result of some dispute or other and the charge of attempted murder has been brought. Maybe another difference between Scottish and Englihs law.

In the Liverpool case surely guy will argue he was attempting to evade capture not that he just intended to wound.

JimL wrote:In the Liverpool case surely guy will argue he was attempting to evade capture not that he just intended to wound.

Apropos of this, it was surely obvious, as sadly it proved, that a Police Officer would be seriously injured or worse using a "Stinger" device as here, since it puts them within feet of a fleeing vehicle travelling (usually) at substantial speed.

I'm sure procedures will be changed as a result of this.

I wouldn't bet too much money on prison.

She's got the 'children to think about' card to play, and that often keeps criminals out of jail.

I've always though this is odd. Surely it would make more sense to jail parents who are serious criminals and put their children into the care of non-criminal foster parents who would have a better influence on them.

Bonefishblues wrote:

JimL wrote:In the Liverpool case surely guy will argue he was attempting to evade capture not that he just intended to wound.

Apropos of this, it was surely obvious, as sadly it proved, that a Police Officer would be seriously injured or worse using a "Stinger" device as here, since it puts them within feet of a fleeing vehicle travelling (usually) at substantial speed.

I'm sure procedures will be changed as a result of this.

That's the problem though, only recently two cyclists were killed when a BMW lost control whilst being chased at speed by the police, the level of crime where the police seem happy to go at reckless speeds in areas that are not designed for such and obviously those being pursued should be scrutinised & re-assessed for the safety not only of officers but that of the public too.

unfit mother - should have kids taken away/ sacked from her job, denied any credit, her face plastered around so we know the face and her life made absolute HELL for the rest of her miserable disgusting life

mercalia wrote:unfit mother - should have kids taken away/ sacked from her job, denied any credit, her face plastered around so we know the face and her life made absolute HELL for the rest of her miserable disgusting life

Genuinely not sure if serious.

Bonefishblues wrote:

Flinders wrote:4x4s built higher than a standard saloon ought to require an additional driving test. Large 4x4s with slab-fronts, even those with less powerful engines, are very dangerous for pedestrians (because a pedestrian won't slide up the high bonnet in a collision, it will be a direct slap bang hit and the pedestrian will take all the energy in the collision) even if driven safely.
It is completely ridiculous for people to be using these vehicles for ordinary transport of people, shopping, etc. If they aren't going to be hauling a heavy trailer or going off-road on a regular basis, they ought not to be being used on the roads.

I agree - it will be much better if road-ragers or the merely inattentive or incompetent use ordinary saloons rather than large slab-fronted 4x4s.

You raise and interesting idea which made me wonder if, for more serious traffic offences drivers get their normal ban/retest/fine, etc. but then, for the rest of their lives are limited to cars max 1000cc (or motorbikes 100cc), Maybe adjust those limits a bit or make than a vehicle category so they are restricted to "Category <X>" vehicles so the category could be adjusted with technology changes/electric vehicles/etc. in the future. So no pleading "I need a car" and thus being let-off because they could still have a car, just a slow and slightly safer one. Maybe same where people facing a ban for speeding argue they need a car for whatever excuse seems to be accepted and would then have to trade their 1 year ban for a lifetime restriction to "Category <X>" vehicles.

Ian

Psamathe wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:

Flinders wrote:4x4s built higher than a standard saloon ought to require an additional driving test. Large 4x4s with slab-fronts, even those with less powerful engines, are very dangerous for pedestrians (because a pedestrian won't slide up the high bonnet in a collision, it will be a direct slap bang hit and the pedestrian will take all the energy in the collision) even if driven safely.
It is completely ridiculous for people to be using these vehicles for ordinary transport of people, shopping, etc. If they aren't going to be hauling a heavy trailer or going off-road on a regular basis, they ought not to be being used on the roads.

I agree - it will be much better if road-ragers or the merely inattentive or incompetent use ordinary saloons rather than large slab-fronted 4x4s.

You raise and interesting idea which made me wonder if, for more serious traffic offences drivers get their normal ban/retest/fine, etc. but then, for the rest of their lives are limited to cars max 1000cc (or motorbikes 100cc), Maybe adjust those limits a bit or make than a vehicle category so they are restricted to "Category <X>" vehicles so the category could be adjusted with technology changes/electric vehicles/etc. in the future. So no pleading "I need a car" and thus being let-off because they could still have a car, just a slow and slightly safer one. Maybe same where people facing a ban for speeding argue they need a car for whatever excuse seems to be accepted and would then have to trade their 1 year ban for a lifetime restriction to "Category <X>" vehicles.

Ian

+ 1 Brilliant idea.

Yes, could do the same for new drivers too, limit their choice for a probationary period. For a 4x4 off-roader, you'd have to pass a tractor test first.

People are able to drive 4x4s safely on UK roads, I've seen it done often enough, just that a lot aren't able to, that's down to attitude/skill, the vehicle itself isn't the problem IMHO

Postboxer wrote:Yes, could do the same for new drivers too, limit their choice for a probationary period. For a 4x4 off-roader, you'd have to pass a tractor test first.

Good thought. However I think I'm right in saying that if you pass a regular car driving test (category B) you’ll get entitlement to drive agricultural tractors (category F), so probably needs a bit of work

Tonyf33 wrote:People are able to drive 4x4s safely on UK roads, I've seen it done often enough, just that a lot aren't able to, that's down to attitude/skill, the vehicle itself isn't the problem IMHO

Is unquestionably the right answer, I think.