The law is an ass.

soapster said:
Jury decision after trial.
Click to expand...
The CPS will have decided the charge upon which the jury decides guilt though

I agree with the OP. If somebody is alleged to have had three goes at driving at people, presumably with intent to kill or seriously harm, how can that not be anything other than attempted murder?

Perhaps the CPS didn’t think that charge would stick with the evidence available and they had a better chance of conviction with the lesser charge?
FoldingStars said:
Punishments for driving offences in this country (probably others too) are so weak it's a joke. Driving shouldn't be seen as a right, 3 points on your licence doesn't stop people speeding or being on their phone, losing your licence for a set period or even forever should be a much more common occurrence IMHO.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree.
 


Kent_Mackem said:
The CPS will have decided the charge upon which the jury decides guilt though

I agree with the OP. If somebody is alleged to have had three goes at driving at people, presumably with intent to kill or seriously harm, how can that not be anything other than attempted murder?

Perhaps the CPS didn’t think that charge would stick with the evidence available and they had a better chance of conviction with the lesser charge?

Absolutely agree.
Click to expand...
He was sentenced for the GBH which he'd previously admitted. He was charged with attempted murder but not convicted.
"
Wallis, of Orchard Rise, Cocking Lane, Treswell, Nottinghamshire, previously admitted two counts of grievous bodily harm with intent, two counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving and four counts of attempted grievous bodily harm.
He was found not guilty of attempted murder following a trial."
 
Tex said:
Maybe the punishment for attempted murder should be the same as for murder?

Especially if the law’s perspective is about intent. I tried to blow someone’s head off with my magnum but he moved or I’m a lousy shot so I just I injured him with a flesh wound, therefore I get five years instead of life? Doesn’t seem right.
Click to expand...
I’d give a longer sentence for attempted murder than murder tbh. Basic 25 years for both offences; plus an additional 10 for making an arse of it.
 
stapler said:
No mate, it is driving a van at someone.

It is not as if being hit by a van inevitably means death. The fact that nobody died in this case shows that to anyone who didn't know already.

People do loads of stupid things without intending the worst possible consequences.
Click to expand...
Absolute bollox!
Someone gets in a fight, lands a punch which kills someone, murder charge but you drive at people three times and it's a lesser charge?
 
Augustus Winthrop said:
Absolute bollox!
Someone gets in a fight, lands a punch which kills someone, murder charge but you drive at people three times and it's a lesser charge?
Click to expand...
There is next to no chance of a murder charge in your first example and even less chance of conviction. Manslaughter more likely.

But even if the fight example could be classed as murder, there is a clear distinction between that case and this one. Nobody died in this case. Death is pretty much requirement number 1 for something to be called murder, both legally and in ordinary language.

Going back to your fight example, if someone threw a punch and the punchee didn't die, the puncher would not be facing an attempted murder charge. It would be somewhere between battery and GBH with intent, depending on the harm caused.
Augustus Winthrop said:
I know!!!
But complete bollox!
Or are we to trust every sentence handed down?
Click to expand...

All it means is that the jury could not be sure beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to kill anyone. What do you suggest we do instead?
 
Last edited:
stapler said:
There is next to no chance of a murder charge in your first example and even less chance of conviction. Manslaughter more likely.

But even if the fight example could be classed as murder, there is a clear distinction between that case and this one. Nobody died in this case. Death is pretty much requirement number 1 for something to be called murder, both legally and in ordinary language.

Going back to your fight example, if someone threw a punch and the punchee didn't die, the puncher would not be facing an attempted murder charge. It would be somewhere between battery and GBH with intent, depending on the harm caused.


All it means is that the jury could not be sure beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to kill anyone. What do you suggest we do instead?
Click to expand...
It's quite funny that I often get slated for my liberal views yet in this case of someone driving a van at a group of people THREE times that throws reasonable doubt out of the equation (imho )🤷‍♂️
 
It’s actually easier to prove a murder charge then attempted murder. All comes
down to intention and planning. Recklessness does not come into it.

In these situations, where the “red mist” comes down, as the judge said, it is very difficult to prove the planning element. I imagine the defence would have raised that he only wanted to scare the group (shit defence I know) but might have been enough to create enough doubt in the juries mind.

CPS went for the lesser charge of s.18 GBH as it’s much easier to prove. Surprised there hasn’t been a review on the law of murder, seems to come around every 20 years or so.
 
Last edited:
Kent_Mackem said:
The CPS will have decided the charge upon which the jury decides guilt though

I agree with the OP. If somebody is alleged to have had three goes at driving at people, presumably with intent to kill or seriously harm, how can that not be anything other than attempted murder?

Perhaps the CPS didn’t think that charge would stick with the evidence available and they had a better chance of conviction with the lesser charge?

Absolutely agree.
Click to expand...
as said previously he was charged with a more serious offence but the jury decided that him pleading to the lesser charge was sufficient and more appropriate.

with murder there has to be intent to cause serious injury. There is no doubt by his actions that he did have the intent.

However when did that intent occur. was it 3 hours before or was it when something just happened and he got a sugar rush to his head. Reading the story (which never ever gives the full evidence as presented to the jury). It would have been presented to the jury, that at that time he lost his head, he was not acting rationally, so he did not or could not form the intent.

previous case law needs to be taken into account.

to be honest, it is a very complicated subject and it will depend on how it is presented to the court, depends on the jury.

It is entirely possible that the same circumstances could be presented to another jury in another part of the country and he could be found guilty of attempted murder
 
Augustus Winthrop said:
It's quite funny that I often get slated for my liberal views yet in this case of someone driving a van at a group of people THREE times that throws reasonable doubt out of the equation (imho )🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

12 people, who heard all the evidence, disagree with you.

So what do you suggest instead? I asked already, but you didn't answer. What is your alternative?
 
stapler said:
12 people, who heard all the evidence, disagree with you.

So what do you suggest instead? I asked already, but you didn't answer. What is your alternative?
Click to expand...
I put imho at the end of my last post. I haven't got an alternative.
As you say the jury heard all of the evidence, I can only assume he had a pretty smart legal team to convince the jury that murder wasn't his intent!
 
KM92 said:
It’s actually easier to prove a murder charge then attempted murder. All comes
down to intention and planning. Recklessness does not come into it.

In these situations, where the “red mist” comes down, as the judge said, it is very difficult to prove the planning element. I imagine the defence would have raised that he only wanted to scare the group (shit defence I know) but might have been enough to create enough doubt in the juries mind.

CPS went for the lesser charge of s.18 GBH as it’s much easier to prove. Surprised there hasn’t been a review on the law of murder, seems to come around every 20 years or so.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the victim being dead is a good bit of proof.
 

Back
Top