Can someone explain?
Can someone explain?
Can someone explain how a person can attack someone with a machete, hitting them in the head at 6 times, slashing their arms, and cutting the tendons in a hand and then only get convicted of wounding with intent instead of attempted murder?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51205548
Just how serious does an attack need to be before it can be deemed to be attempted murder?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51205548
Just how serious does an attack need to be before it can be deemed to be attempted murder?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: There and here
Posts: 2,101
The judge's decisions do seem very puzzling. The perpetrator has got 16 years, but how this wasn't attempted murder at first sight is a mystery. This miscreant had several previous charges (inadmissible in this case). He had an offensive weapon next to him, resisted arrest, no tax or insurance on his vehicle and on and on.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: FL450
Posts: 480
Here's your answer...https://uk.yahoo.com/news/machete-at...155712292.html
Or... UK justice is sh1t, judges are idiots and criminals have more rights than victims?
Out in less than 8 years and WILL offend again. Probably killing next time.
But that's PC for ya!
Or... UK justice is sh1t, judges are idiots and criminals have more rights than victims?
Out in less than 8 years and WILL offend again. Probably killing next time.
But that's PC for ya!
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: France
Age: 65
Posts: 61
See what this lady has to say about it
Her business is defending people who have been tasered
https://twitter.com/khan_sophie?ref_...Ctwgr%5Eauthor
https://twitter.com/khan_sophie?ref_...Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 51
Posts: 1,472
Whilst I share the disappointment at the lesser finding the fact is that murder is a crime of specific intent and if that intent can't be established then the offence is incomplete.
I find it harder to see how a machete isn't an offensive weapon.
Once again though, Taser proved it's worth.
I find it harder to see how a machete isn't an offensive weapon.
Once again though, Taser proved it's worth.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 73
Posts: 820
The link in post #4 provides the explanation. For attempted murder to be proved, the Crown must show conclusively that the offender set out to kill the bobby.
And there is no reason to expect he will be out in less than 8 years. I believe a 50% discount applies only to those who plead guilty at the first opportunity, so it looks as if the offender will serve 12 years, before the parole board get to consider him for release. And, if they are not satisfied, he could possibly do the full 16 years.
And there is no reason to expect he will be out in less than 8 years. I believe a 50% discount applies only to those who plead guilty at the first opportunity, so it looks as if the offender will serve 12 years, before the parole board get to consider him for release. And, if they are not satisfied, he could possibly do the full 16 years.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,627
Originally Posted by SpringHeeledJack
The judge's decisions do seem very puzzling. The perpetrator has got 16 years, but how this wasn't attempted murder at first sight is a mystery.
The judge isn't one of them.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 51
Posts: 1,472
Originally Posted by UniFoxOs
It is. For some reason the jury found him not guilty of possessing it. Unbelievable.
As with many things it's the intent with which it's used that makes it an offensive weapon.
I would suggest that the moment it was taken in hand to attack the officer it became a weapon.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by Tashengurt
A machete isn't an offensive weapon per se; for example using one to clear overgrowth wouldn't be an issue.
As with many things it's the intent with which it's used that makes it an offensive weapon.
I would suggest that the moment it was taken in hand to attack the officer it became a weapon.
As with many things it's the intent with which it's used that makes it an offensive weapon.
I would suggest that the moment it was taken in hand to attack the officer it became a weapon.
Quite how the jury reached the conclusion that he was not in possession of an offensive weapon under those circumstances is a bit bizarre. Then again, apparently the jury asked a question about his previous convictions, apparently, something that I would have thought they would have known could not be answered.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Surrey
Age: 63
Posts: 123
All this talk about carrying an offensive weapon in a vehicle has just led me to take some positive action.For years I have been driving around with one of those extendable batons in the boot of my car(think it's called an ASP),not for use as a weapon,offensive or defensive,but because it made an ideal tommy-bar for a large bottle jack that I carried when drawing a trailer,indeed the 3ft steel bar which slotted into the jack screw would have been a more terrifying weapon.however,having just done a little research,I see that they are considered to be an offensive weapon and cannot be carried in a public place,which includes ones car.So it has been consigned to the garage.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 51
Posts: 1,472
Originally Posted by ex82watcher
All this talk about carrying an offensive weapon in a vehicle has just led me to take some positive action.For years I have been driving around with one of those extendable batons in the boot of my car(think it's called an ASP),not for use as a weapon,offensive or defensive,but because it made an ideal tommy-bar for a large bottle jack that I carried when drawing a trailer,indeed the 3ft steel bar which slotted into the jack screw would have been a more terrifying weapon.however,having just done a little research,I see that they are considered to be an offensive weapon and cannot be carried in a public place,which includes ones car.So it has been consigned to the garage.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,627
Originally Posted by VP959
What I find hard to understand is that, according to what's been reported, he admitted having the machete in his van for self-defence, as he lived in his van alone.
It would appear that the jury accepted that explanation.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SW England
Age: 74
Posts: 3,865
I sincerely hope that his barrister's remarks about prosecuting PC Outten for tasering Rodwan are met with a suitable response by the Metropolitan Police. Recommending PC Outten for a commendation would seem to be appropriate!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,416
Why would the judicial antics, outlined above, cause any puzzlement or concern in a nation which was perfectly content, at the time, with the 'Guildford Four' and the 'Birmingham Six' procedures? The 'judicial system' is an orchestrated version of theatrical process which has little or nothing to do with 'justice' (or fairness). Hidebound by 'rules' introduced by members of the cast, the guilt or innocence of the accused relies on factors which are arbitrary, in the main. and dependent on the competence of one or other counsel and the gullibility of the 12.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: France
Age: 65
Posts: 61
The terrorism trials of the 1970's don't really reflect what happens today in respect of prosecution decisions and trial procedures.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, The creation of the Crown Prosecution service shortly after, and The Criminal Prodecures and Investigations Act and various Criminal Justice Acts, have all changed the way cases are brought before the courts.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, The creation of the Crown Prosecution service shortly after, and The Criminal Prodecures and Investigations Act and various Criminal Justice Acts, have all changed the way cases are brought before the courts.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
That contradicts the reports I've read (including the link in post #1) that Rodwan had claimed in court that he had the machete in his van for his gardening work
It would appear that the jury accepted that explanation.
It would appear that the jury accepted that explanation.
I would have thought that having such a "gardening tool" within easy reach of the driver's seat turns it from being an innocent tool to being an offensive weapon, much like having a hammer under your seat might do the same. One has to wonder how he managed to convince the jury with this tale.
