Cubist
Still wavin'
- Location
- Ovver 'thill
Perhaps Cycle Chat could set up a "legal decisions based on a pro-cyclist bias" forum and the CPS could consult it to make sure they make the right decisions every time?
Driver tries to kill cyclist, hits building.
- Thread starter glenn forger
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
No I think many would like the same level of justice whether the (alleged) victim is on a bike, a pedestrian, in a uniform....
Cubist
Still wavin'
- Location
- Ovver 'thill
Nearly. It would be attempted GBH, but otherwise your understanding is correct. .
The necessary mens rea or intent involved in murder must be either to kill, or to cause GBH. If someone dies as a result of your intention to cause GBH, the result is murder. If no one dies, then you have merely attempted GBH.
If someone is injured grievously as a result of your attempt to kill him, it's attempted murder.
Profpointy
Legendary Member
well there we go, every day's a school day.
Cubist
Still wavin'
- Location
- Ovver 'thill
There are two posts upthread inferring that the law was being applied more rigorously to the Merseyside Case than the salon incident.
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
Thanks, I keep forgetting that characteristic of English law. In Scotland you're arrested only if there's enough evidence to prefer a charge.
I'll revive my question once charges are laid.
GC
CopperCyclist
Veteran
+1 more 'this'
If the woman had hit and killed the cyclist she would have most likely been arrested for murder with a witness saying that she reversed first.
If PC Phillips had managed to jump out of the way, the driver would not have been arrested for attempt murder.
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
Now that the 18 year old suspect has been charged with the murder of PC Phillips, why hasn't he been charged with the attempted murder of his colleague and instead been charged with attempting to wound?
Both charges arise from a single course of action and I don't understand how the CPS can say there was intent to kill one but not the other.
GC
Both charges arise from a single course of action and I don't understand how the CPS can say there was intent to kill one but not the other.
GC
Profpointy
Legendary Member
someone above explained that intention to injure resulting in death counts as murder, but for attempted.murder.you need intention to kill
slowmotion
Quite dreadful
- Location
- lost somewhere
I have a general query for the CC legal experts. Please excuse my general ignorance of these matters.
I would imagine that the CPS has to decide which charges to prosecute. Presumably they weigh up the chance of conviction for each of them. Do they go for a prosecution with slim chances of a serious conviction, or a much greater chance of a minor conviction? Who decides? Please, I beg you, don't mention savage Tory cuts.
Thank you.
I would imagine that the CPS has to decide which charges to prosecute. Presumably they weigh up the chance of conviction for each of them. Do they go for a prosecution with slim chances of a serious conviction, or a much greater chance of a minor conviction? Who decides? Please, I beg you, don't mention savage Tory cuts.
Thank you.
Pale Rider
Legendary Member
The CPS lawyer drafts the indictment to be put before the jury, and that may include an alternative lesser charge where there is a statutory alternative.
It comes down to the professional judgment of the lawyer.
Some are not keen on alternatives, preferring to keep it simple for the jury.
However, in the case of a road death, the defendant may plead guilty to the lesser charge of death by careless, but the CPS still go for death by dangerous.
In that instance, both charges will appear on the indictment, and the jury will be be told the defendant has already pleaded guilty to the lesser charge.
Thus the jury's task is to decide if the admitted killer driving was dangerous or careless.
Some stuff here from the CPS charging guidelines:
Alternatives
It may be necessary to consider whether to include a lesser or alternative count in the indictment. Such consideration will include whether a lesser or alternative count would be likely to attract a plea of guilty and, if so, whether such plea would be acceptable. Considerations/views should be recorded on the file.
Although sections 6(3) and 6(4) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 permit a jury, in certain circumstances, to find a defendant guilty of a lesser or alternative offence, it is preferable to include any appropriate alternative counts in the indictment.
The reason for this is to avoid reliance on the trial judge or prosecuting counsel in bringing any such alternatives to the jury's attention.
A number of statutes enable alternative verdicts to be returned in relation to specific offences. An example is where, on a count for theft, the jury are not satisfied that the defendant committed the offence charged but can convict for the offence of taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent - section 12(4) of the Theft Act 1968.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/drafting_the_indictment/#alternatives
slowmotion
Quite dreadful
- Location
- lost somewhere
Thank you @Pale Rider. It looks like "It comes down to the professional judgment of the lawyer" at the CPS which, I suppose, is exactly as it should be. What's a better alternative....SC&P on CycleChat? I hope not. There seem to be way too many hangers and floggers in there.
Pale Rider
Legendary Member
I agree, although it comes down to the quality and professional integrity of the CPS lawyer.
As with any profession or trade, that quality is variable.
Some of the CPS case preparation lawyers have little or no experience of actually prosecuting a case at court.
Winning a criminal court case, rightly or wrongly, is as much about tactics as it is about knowledge of the law.
Again like any profession or job, the best people are the ones with the appropriate qualifications, but more importantly, plenty of experience.
In practice, the wiser CPS lawyers will consult and listen to the prosecuting barrister - who has the experience at court - before they take the charging decision.
Cubist
Still wavin'
- Location
- Ovver 'thill
As @Profpointy so neatly says, because the evidence the police have will make that the most appropriate course of action.
I am making an assumption here, but the suspect will have been interviewed, and given the charges above, his reply would have been " I drove at the two officers because I didn't want to be stopped and arrested. Yes, I understand that driving a pickup truck at someone is very likely going to result in serious injury, but I didn't mean to kill the one that died"
Given that as an admission, the police can prove an intention to wound or cause grievous bodily harm. The resultant death is one outcome, and the admitted intent to injure is sufficient malice for a murder charge. That same malice to injure was not acted upon the officer that managed to jump clear, but it has now been admitted. So the attempt to injure the second officer is charged appropriately.
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
@Profpointy and @Cubist , thanks for the patient explanations - I'm going to have to try harder to understand. I'm sure the approach in Scotland would be to charge with murder and attempted murder, maybe @Brandane can confirm.
GC
GC
