Driver tries to kill cyclist, hits building.

[jarlrmai]

She's a liar and not a very good one.

My view is if you intend to harm someone and you use overwhelming force whereby you cannot reasonably expect that death would not be one of the outcomes IE driving a car at someone intentionally then that is attempted murder or manslaughter, if you shoot someone with a gun and they live what are you charged with?

I understand the law might work differently and that the CPS get involved and the evidence standards are different or whatever bullshit is used to explain why the law is unevenly applied

 

[glenn forger]

I think if you had "at least four" children in a car that went out of control and mounted the pavement and demolished a shop you'd be worried frantic. Maybe it was her worry that made her tell the kids to "shut up" and then apologise?

 

[PhilDawson8270]

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.

I have a horrible feeling, and a distrust in jury's that they will fall in favour of the former.

 

[Arjimlad]

Agreed... beyond reasonable doubt is a high standard of proof...

 

[Cubist]

She's a liar and not a very good one.

My view is if you intend to harm someone and you use overwhelming force whereby you cannot reasonably expect that death would not be one of the outcomes IE driving a car at someone intentionally then that is attempted murder or manslaughter, if you shoot someone with a gun and they live what are you charged with?

I understand the law might work differently and that the CPS get involved and the evidence standards are different or whatever bullshit is used to explain why the law is unevenly applied

Unevenly?

Again, not everyone who is shot is killed. Remember the NI punishment kneecappings? How about the old gangland favourite of driving a car over a victim's legs on a kerb? Neither of those had murderous intent.

You cannot attempt manslaughter. Nor can you attempt to be reckless.

 

[glenn forger]

Pyne reversed before mounting the pavement. I guess her story is the car went backwards then forwards accidentally.

 

[oldstrath]

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.

So how does anyone ever get convicted of 'attempted murder', given that chucking three tonne of metal at some is not enough evidence for it?

 

[Karlt]

So how does anyone ever get convicted of 'attempted murder', given that chucking three tonne of metal at some is not enough evidence for it?

I'd suggest looking at some recent cases of attempted murder convictions. I'm not a lawyer; I'm just saying what the evidencial bar is in general terms.

 

[Cubist]

So how does anyone ever get convicted of 'attempted murder', given that chucking three tonne of metal at some is not enough evidence for it?

Because you have to prove that they intended to kill them. We've been over this. The burden of proof for intent is onerous, but not impossible. Reckless is easier, and can be based on foreseeable consequence, but unfortunately that doesn't fit for attempted murder, whereas it does fit for attempted GBH. I will repeat, the offence of attempted GBH is not let-off, it fits the evidence correctly and it still caries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

I once had to deal with a complaint. Some children had thrown a brick through a lounge window, and the complainant was furious with the police response. Officers had attended and dealt with it as a case of criminal damage... about £200 worth of glass was broken, and the offenders were quickly identified as being local school students who had been shouted at by the householder for using her garden as a shortcut.

Her Doctor husband however insisted that this was a case of attempted murder, as the brick had landed on a rug in the middle of the room and three hours earlier their one year old grandchild had been playing on that rug. The doctor had to be persuaded to understand that there was no way we could prove that the offenders knew that the baby had been on the rug, and would not have reasonably been expected to know that he had been. Further, we would have had to prove they knew the brick would actually (not potentially) land on the child and kill him had it done so.

I hope that example serves to prove how the actual consequences, not the potential consequences drive the decision making about charging standards.

 

[oldstrath]

Because you have to prove that they intended to kill them. We've been over this. The burden of proof for intent is onerous, but not impossible. Reckless is easier, and can be based on foreseeable consequence, but unfortunately that doesn't fit for attempted murder, whereas it does fit for attempted GBH. I will repeat, the offence of attempted GBH is not let-off, it fits the evidence correctly and it still caries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

I once had to deal with a complaint. Some children had thrown a brick through a lounge window, and the complainant was furious with the police response. Officers had attended and dealt with it as a case of criminal damage... about £200 worth of glass was broken, and the offenders were quickly identified as being local school students who had been shouted at by the householder for using her garden as a shortcut.

Her Doctor husband however insisted that this was a case of attempted murder, as the brick had landed on a rug in the middle of the room and three hours earlier their one year old grandchild had been playing on that rug. The doctor had to be persuaded to understand that there was no way we could prove that the offenders knew that the baby had been on the rug, and would not have reasonably been expected to know that he had been. Further, we would have had to prove they knew the brick would actually (not potentially) land on the child and kill him had it done so.

I hope that example serves to prove how the actual consequences, not the potential consequences drive the decision making about charging standards.

Well, only if you think the driver was unaware that she might hit a cyclist, and actually intended, in a fit of pique, to destroy a hair salon.

Surely, the children you mention had no useful way of knowing that there might have been a small child on the rug, on which the brick happened to land, and so, at most, might be termed reckless. But the driver equally surely knew exactly where the cyclist was, and, unless you really think she hates hair salons, only chance and lack of skill prevented her from hitting him. So no, not even nearly the same. We're back to having to believe that someone intelligent enough to pass a driving test cannot foresee that driving three tonne of metal over an unprotected body is likely to result in their death. Which I don't. And the police appear not to in the case of Dave Phillips.

 

[Karlt]

It's not merely about foreseeing the likely outcome. it's about very specifically intending to kill - not merely to be indifferent as to whether death occurred, but very specifically intending to kill. That's very hard to prove. For the record, I don't think the driver intended to kill in this case. I don't think she had a clear idea of what she wanted to do. Red mist.

The Dave Phillips case is not comparable because there the charge is murder, not attempted murder, and as has been explained multiple times intent to kill is not required for a murder charge as it is for an attempted murder charge.

 

[Cubist]

Well, only if you think the driver was unaware that she might hit a cyclist, and actually intended, in a fit of pique, to destroy a hair salon.

Surely, the children you mention had no useful way of knowing that there might have been a small child on the rug, on which the brick happened to land, and so, at most, might be termed reckless. But the driver equally surely knew exactly where the cyclist was, and, unless you really think she hates hair salons, only chance and lack of skill prevented her from hitting him. So no, not even nearly the same. We're back to having to believe that someone intelligent enough to pass a driving test cannot foresee that driving three tonne of metal over an unprotected body is likely to result in their death. Which I don't. And the police appear not to in the case of Dave Phillips.

With due respect, I can explain it over and over again, but I'm afraid it's up to you to do the understanding.

 

[Cubist]

[QUOTE 3941523, member: 45"]Do you really think that the driver wanted to kill the cyclist?[/QUOTE]
But how can we tell what she was thinking...

 

[Markymark]

[QUOTE 3941523, member: 45"]Do you really think that the driver wanted to kill the cyclist?[/QUOTE]
I'd say the driver woukd know full well that could well be the consequence.

 

[Cubist]

*a consequence........