PPRuNe Forums


Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10th Aug 2017, 17:57   #21 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat View Post
Last time I read anything about this, attempted murder was very difficult indeed to prove, as, unlike for murder itself, you have to prove intent.
From the last link I gave above:

Quote:
Attempted murder, contrary to section 1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981

This offence is committed when a person does an act that is more than merely preparatory to the commission of an offence of murder, and at the time the person has the intention to kill.

It is an indictable only offence, which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life.

Unlike murder, which requires an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, attempted murder requires evidence of an intention to kill alone. This makes it a difficult allegation to sustain and careful consideration must be given to whether on the facts a more appropriate charge would be one under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Another possible charge may one of Making Threats to Kill (see below).

The courts will pay particular attention to counts of attempted murder and justifiably will be highly critical of any such count unless there is clear evidence of an intention to kill.

When considering the choice of charge, prosecutors should consider what alternative verdicts may be open to a jury on an allegation of attempted murder. Section 6(3) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 applies. Prosecutors should note the judgement in R v Morrison [2003] 1 W.L.R.1859, in which, on a single count of attempted murder, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had been right to leave to the jury an alternative count of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, because a defendant could not intend to kill without also intending to cause grievous bodily harm. If an alternative count can be left to the jury, prosecutors should not normally add it to the indictment, but should draw to the attention of counsel that the alternative count may be available.

It should be borne in mind that the actions of the defendant must be more than merely preparatory and although words and threats may provide prima facie evidence of an intention to kill, there may be doubt as to whether they were uttered seriously or were mere bravado.

Evidence of the following factors may assist in proving the intention to kill:

- calculated planning;
- selection and use of a deadly weapon;
- threats (subject to the paragraph above on bravado);
- severity or duration of attack;
- relevant admissions in interview
VP959 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2017, 21:39   #22 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 68
Posts: 1,002
Does the UK have a Law similar to that of the US.....we call ours "Felony Murder".

That offense occurs when a Person is killed during the commission or attempted commission of a violent Felony.


The Law
SASless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2017, 21:49   #23 (permalink)

Nigerian In Law
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Haven't been there, never done that.
Age: 58
Posts: 881
Welcome back SAS, where have you been ? No, we don't; we only have murder. But the circumstances can be taken into consideration at the Judges' discretion.

NEO
Nigerian Expat Outlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2017, 22:07   #24 (permalink)
Psychophysiological entity
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
Age: 77
Posts: 4,317
Tonight circa 19:00 the TV news is that he'd been released on bail.


FireFox "Headlines". (updated? Sometimes they seem to be)

The Met said the man officers arrested was still the subject of investigation but had not been released on official police bail.

What the hell does that mean? Or is it simply that an 8 year old schoolboy wrote it?
Loose rivets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2017, 22:17   #25 (permalink)
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 73
Posts: 1,784
I heard it reported as 'released whilst inquiries continue'.
Quote:
He was later released while inquiries continue, police said.
Sounds like they don't have sufficient evidence (or conviction) to charge.
G-CPTN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Aug 2017, 22:55   #26 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 65
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat View Post
Last time I read anything about this, attempted murder was very difficult indeed to prove, as, unlike for murder itself, you have to prove intent.
From Oz - not UK, but similar principle.

Quote:

From The West Australian newspaper

Man admits attacking his ex with an axe in front of horrified shoppers.

A Melbourne policeman has described the scene of a shopping centre axe attack in which a man repeatedly struck his estranged wife as one of the worst he’s seen.At one point the axe became stuck in the woman’s skull, requiring the man to wrench it out.
The attacker, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has pleaded guilty to intentionally causing serious injury to the woman at Narre Warren’s Fountain Gate Shopping Centre on March 27.
Inside a beauty parlour, he struck his wife 24 times with the small axe, wounding her face, arms and legs.

The woman suffered a skull fracture, a broken arm and was left with permanent scarring, including a long scar down her face.

The man was originally charged with attempted murder but this was dropped when he pleaded guilty to the lesser offence on Thursday.
I'm not sure how much more evidence you need to prove intent. This one seems pretty clear to me.
And, I'd like to know exactly what "legal reasons" preclude publishing this guys name or why a lesser charge is applicable when admission of guilt hardly seemed necessary to establish guilt.
WingNut60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Aug 2017, 12:45   #27 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-CPTN View Post
I heard it reported as 'released whilst inquiries continue'.

Sounds like they don't have sufficient evidence (or conviction) to charge.
That was my take on what's been reported. I'm still struggling to see how, given the evidence we've had access to (and accepting there may well be more we haven't seen or read of), the charge could be any more serious than ABH.

I would guess that the police would very much like to try and get a more serious charge to stick, but having read the requirements for a conviction on the charge of GBH I'm struggling to see how they could realistically get a conviction. Maybe the police are holding off charging him in the hope that they can gather more evidence.
VP959 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Aug 2017, 12:55   #28 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 304
It's going to be difficult to get a serious charge to stick.
In essence he just gave her a push. Totally wrong of course, but he was unaware that a bus was coming up behind. He was reckless, but can't be proven to have intended permanent harm.
Sallyann1234 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Aug 2017, 13:41   #29 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sallyann1234 View Post
It's going to be difficult to get a serious charge to stick.
In essence he just gave her a push. Totally wrong of course, but he was unaware that a bus was coming up behind. He was reckless, but can't be proven to have intended permanent harm.
That's my take on it, too. I would guess that there is a fairly strong public outcry demanding a more serious charge, but it's hard to see how anything more serious than this:

Quote:
Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, contrary to section 47 Offences against the Person Act 1861

The offence is committed when a person assaults another, thereby causing Actual Bodily Harm (ABH). Bodily harm has its ordinary meaning and includes any hurt calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim: such hurt need not be permanent, but must be more than transient and trifling: (R v Donovan 25 Cr. App. Rep. 1, CCA).

It is an either way offence, which carries a maximum penalty on indictment of five years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

As stated in the Common Assault section of this Charging Standard, the factors in law that distinguish a charge under section 39 from a charge under section 47 are the degree of injury resulting and the sentencing powers available to the sentencing court.

Injuries

Where the injuries exceed those that can suitably be reflected by Common Assault - namely where the injuries are serious - a charge of ABH should normally be preferred.

In determining whether or not the injuries are serious, relevant factors may include, for example, the fact that there has been significant medical intervention and/or permanent effects have resulted. Examples may include cases where there is the need for a number of stitches (but not the superficial application of steri-strips) or a hospital procedure under anaesthetic. But there may be other factors which are also relevant and these will need to be carefully considered when deciding whether or not the injuries are serious.

Psychological harm that involves more than mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic can amount to ABH. In any case where psychiatric injury is relied upon as the basis for an allegation of ABH, and the matter is not admitted by the defence, expert evidence must be called by the prosecution (R v Chan-Fook 99 Cr. App. R. 147, CA)

Likely Sentence

For those cases where charges of either Common Assault or ABH are potentially available, police officers and prosecutors should refer to the Common Assault section of this Charging Standard. This provides clear guidance on the instances where Common Assault will be the appropriate charge.

This offence is capable of being racially aggravated under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. refer to Prosecuting cases of Racist and Religious Crime, elsewhere in this guidance.

Given that the victim's injuries were reported as being minor, but accepting that psychological injury can be included when determining the charge above, I have a feeling that the charge may well end up being common assault:

Quote:
Common Assault, contrary to section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

An offence of Common Assault is committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.

An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force.

A battery is committed when a person intentionally and recklessly applies unlawful force to another.

It is a summary offence, which carries a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum. However, if the requirements of section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are met, then Common Assault can be included as a count on an indictment. Refer to Summary offences and the Crown Court (Criminal Justice Act 1988 sections 40 and 41; Crime and Disorder Act 1998 section 51 and Sch.3 para.6, elsewhere in this guidance).

Where there is a battery the defendant should be charged with 'assault by beating'. (DPP v Little (1992) 1 All ER 299)
Common Assault or ABH?

In law, the only factors that distinguish Common Assault from Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (contrary to section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861) are the degree of injury that results and the sentence available to the sentencing court. But this latter factor is only relevant in the Crown Court. The magistrates' court is able to pass exactly the same maximum penalty for both offences, namely six months' imprisonment.

Where (as will often be the case) battery results in injury, a choice of charge is available. It is very important that such decisions are made on a consistent basis and having regard to the two key factors:

- The level of injuries that have resulted; and
- The likely sentence that the court will pass.

Injuries

Although any injury that is more than 'transient or trifling' can be classified as actual bodily harm, the appropriate charge will be one of Common Assault where no injury or injuries which are not serious occur.

In determining the seriousness of injury, relevant factors may include, for example, the fact that there has been significant medical intervention and/or permanent effects have resulted. But there may be other factors which are also relevant and these will need to be carefully considered when deciding whether or not the injuries are serious.

It should be borne in mind that Parliament created the offence of Common Assault specifically to cater for those assault cases in which the injuries caused are not serious.

Likely sentence

The offence of Common Assault carries a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment. This will provide the court with adequate sentencing powers in most cases. ABH should generally be charged where the injuries and overall circumstances indicate that the offence merits clearly more than six months' imprisonment and where the prosecution intend to represent that the case is not suitable for summary trial.

There may be exceptional cases where the injuries suffered by a victim are not serious and would usually amount to Common Assault but due to the presence of significant aggravating features (alone or in combination), they could more appropriately be charged as ABH contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. This would only be where a sentence clearly in excess of six months' imprisonment ought to be available, having regard to the significant aggravating features.

However, to reiterate, the presence of such significant aggravating features will not automatically mean that a charge of ABH should be preferred. The key determinant is the likely sentence that the court will pass.
One might hope that if the charge is just common assault, then the sentence should be at the upper end of the scale, given the extreme risk of serious injury, or even death, that was involved.

FWIW, and by way of contrast, I was cautioned for common assault when I was giving a statement after having helped grab an armed robber and pin him to the ground, waiting for the police to arrive. I wasn't impressed at being cautioned, neither was the then editor of the Mail on Sunday, who ran a full page article, complete with cartoon, about me and the incident...............
VP959 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Aug 2017, 13:45   #30 (permalink)
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 53
Posts: 4,121
Man arrested over Putney jogger attack is US investment banker at Mayfair equity firm

Man arrested appears to be a case of mistaken identity...

Quote:
One might hope that if the charge is just common assault, then the sentence should be at the upper end of the scale, given the extreme risk of serious injury, or even death, that was involved.
I certainly would hope that to be the case.
treadigraph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Aug 2017, 14:00   #31 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: On the beach with a cerveza.
Posts: 1,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-CPTN View Post
I heard it reported as 'released whilst inquiries continue'.

Sounds like they don't have sufficient evidence (or conviction) to charge.
The guy is claiming that he can prove he wasnt in the country at the time.

Back to square on for the Met?
Jet II is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Aug 2017, 14:41   #32 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 65
Posts: 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet II View Post
The guy is claiming that he can prove he wasnt in the country at the time.

Back to square on for the Met?
That should be reasonably easy to determine, but we have to take into account that it is the Met doing the investigation.

Why would his name be released if he is not fully in the frame? I'm sure his lawyers will sue for a large wedge of taxpayers money if he had nothing to do with it.
sitigeltfel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Aug 2017, 15:55   #33 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Penzance
Age: 66
Posts: 424
You never see joggers smile.
Just sayin'
RedhillPhil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Aug 2017, 16:26   #34 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 62
Posts: 2,577
And yet his name, his employer and other personal details are all over the web. Some justice.
ExXB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Aug 2017, 16:41   #35 (permalink)

I'd rather be floating

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 3,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by sitigeltfel View Post
That should be reasonably easy to determine
Depends how and where he went. Passport records for example would probably show only a minority of my recent trips from and back to the UK, and I haven't even been to Eire.
Gertrude the Wombat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Aug 2017, 16:49   #36 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 65
Posts: 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat View Post
Depends how and where he went. Passport records for example would probably show only a minority of my recent trips from and back to the UK, and I haven't even been to Eire.
He claims he was in the US on the date of the incident. Try getting in and out of there without it being recorded.
sitigeltfel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Aug 2017, 17:32   #37 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 681
Yes, if he was in the US then he would have had an entry stamp on his passport. Of course, perversely, the US will now require him to have a visa if he wants to travel there again because he's been arrested, even if it's clear that it was mistaken identity. I know I'd be adding the costs of dealing with that to any claim I made against the Met. A day in London to get the visa, time ti fill in the paperwork, the actual cost of it, rinse and repeat when it expires.
llondel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Aug 2017, 17:58   #38 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by llondel View Post
Yes, if he was in the US then he would have had an entry stamp on his passport. Of course, perversely, the US will now require him to have a visa if he wants to travel there again because he's been arrested, even if it's clear that it was mistaken identity. I know I'd be adding the costs of dealing with that to any claim I made against the Met. A day in London to get the visa, time ti fill in the paperwork, the actual cost of it, rinse and repeat when it expires.
But, isn't he a US citizen?

Earlier in this thread, in this post: Aggressive Jogging, there is an observation that the style of the joggers socks looked North American. Maybe there is some evidence that we're unaware of that means the police are looking more closely for someone from that part of the world. If there was any exchange of words then perhaps one of the witnesses thought they heard a North American accent. That, combined with an ID from the video or a witness might be enough for an arrest.
VP959 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Aug 2017, 19:15   #39 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 681
OK, if he's a US citizen then he should be in the clear. The US stamps all passports going into the country and if he's used his US passport to enter the UK then it should have a sta
llondel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Aug 2017, 19:16   #40 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 681
OK, if he's a US citizen travelling on that passport then he should be in the clear because it should have a UK entry stamp in it to back up his claim of being elsewhere.
llondel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 09:40.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1