Driver tries to kill cyclist, hits building.

[glenn forger]

Unless she says "I was terrified for my child, the man was
Kicking his way into my car and my foot slipped on the gas"

 

[Cubist]

So you've demonstrated that you can think of two possible excuses/defences/mitigating factors for two different set of circumstances. What is your point please caller?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

More details of the hearing here.


"A witness saw the cyclist roll over the bonnet of the white 4x4, and heard Pyne shouting “shut up” at her crying children after the car came to rest in the wreckage of the salon in Park Road, Kingston."


She was also driving her kids around in a car with tyres below the legal tread limit.


GC

 

[glenn forger]

That if you use as car as a weapon, aim at people at bikes, not old bill.

 

[glenn forger]

Ah, i see her excuse was exactly as predicted.

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

It's murder if they are killed.

It would be attempted murder if it had been a copper

 

[oldstrath]

Ironically, the intent bar for intended murder is higher than for murder.

For attempted murder, the intent must be to kill.

For murder, the intent only has to be to cause serious injury.

And how on earth will anyone ever know whether she intended to kill or to maim? She drove quickly enough to break her car, another car, and an entire building. I think there's half a chance she might have killed him had she hit him.

So again - how so you think we can know what she 'intended'? And what exactly would she have had to do to make you (and the lawyers) believe she intended to kill? Write a note in advance?

 

[Cubist]

She's been charged with attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent. Simon Edgeley was injured but not grievously (as defined by the current charging standard).

The maximum sentence for attempted GBH with intent is life imprisonment.

Murder carries a mandatory life sentence.

The CPS make charging decisions based on the evidence presented. To charge someone with attempted murder requires evidence that the person committing the act intended it to result in death.

To charge someone with attempted GBH requires evidence proving a deliberate intent or recklessness as to the potential outcome.

Recklessness is far easier to prove, as the circumstances (eg the size of the vehicle and vulnerability of Simon Edgeley) provide a reasonable expectation (or inference?) that someone hit by an Audi Q7 would be grievously injured. The likelihood of the vehicle killing someone cannot be ignored, but statistically at least (and this will be in the mind of the jurors) lots of people are hit and run over by vehicles, but only a small proportion of them die.

Were she to be charged with attempted murder, she would simply say she simply meant to hurt him, or teach him a lesson, reckless as to the potential outcome of her actions.

PC Dave Phillips is dead.

 

[oldstrath]

PC Dave Phillips is dead.

Indeed he is, and that is is sad. But by what magic spell are lawyers able to discern that the intentions of the two drivers were different?

 

[Karlt]

And how on earth will anyone ever know whether she intended to kill or to maim? She drove quickly enough to break her car, another car, and an entire building. I think there's half a chance she might have killed him had she hit him.

So again - how so you think we can know what she 'intended'? And what exactly would she have had to do to make you (and the lawyers) believe she intended to kill? Write a note in advance?

I am not a lawyer. I'm sure there's a body of case law that shows the evidencial bar for establishing intent to kill. I'm only telling you what the law actually says.

 

[Cubist]

Indeed he is, and that is is sad. But by what magic spell are lawyers able to discern that the intentions of the two drivers were different?

I'm afraid that if/when it comes to trial, they won't. However, in terms of consequence, the court has an option to find an alternative verdict of manslaughter. (Maximum penalty life imprisonment)

 

[Karlt]

Indeed he is, and that is is sad. But by what magic spell are lawyers able to discern that the intentions of the two drivers were different?

They don't have to be. If the victim dies, then intent to cause serious injury is sufficient for a murder conviction. It is not however sufficient for an attempted murder conviction should the victim live. The essence of attempted murder is intent to kill; the essence of murder is intent to kill or cause serious injury where the action has caused death.

 

[glenn forger]

"My car malfunctioned"

http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/1..._trying_to_mow_down_cyclist_in_road_rage_row/

Traffic officer PC Peter Traylor told Kingston Crown Court today that he could find “no fault” with the car other than those caused by the accident which resulted in more than £25,000 worth of damage to the Park Salon.

 

[glenn forger]

He said: “I tried lots of different scenarios to try and [get the car] to do what the lady had told us it had done.



“The car's fail safe system would not let me do it.”

 

[Arjimlad]

Obviously, this will come down to whether the jury believes she got the pedals wrong/got in an awful muddle what with all the excitement or whatever, or tried to run the cyclist over. Sounds like the cases for both sides are being fully aired.