Another wire at neck height

"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

wafflycat said:

See

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED23%20Jul%202007%2018%3A10%3A55%3A053
or

http://tinyurl.com/yuoag9

"Cyclist injured in trip wire incident"

Is there such an offence as "attempted GBH", which is
what this is?

BugBear

There is nothing 'attempted' about it. It might be argued that the charge
should be 'actual bodily harm', as 'gervous' would entail a much longer stay
in hospital for more serious injuries.

All this is a moot point until they catch the scrotes.

David Lloyd

David Lloyd said:

"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

wafflycat said:

See

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED23%20Jul%202007%2018%3A10%3A55%3A053
or

http://tinyurl.com/yuoag9

"Cyclist injured in trip wire incident"

Is there such an offence as "attempted GBH", which is
what this is?

BugBear

There is nothing 'attempted' about it. It might be argued that the charge
should be 'actual bodily harm', as 'gervous' would entail a much longer stay
in hospital for more serious injuries.

It could easily be interpreted as attempted murder though...

--
Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom

bugbear said:

Is there such an offence as "attempted GBH", which is
what this is?

In Scotland I think it would be "reckless conduct". A common law
crime. Common law having the advantage of being flexible enough to
cover unusual circumstances. Defined as "Culpable and reckless conduct
(also: Culpable violation and neglect of duty) Culpable and reckless
acts which cause injury to others or which create a risk of injury."
from www.nas.gov.uk/guides/legalTerms.asp

Iain

bugbear bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim said:

wafflycat said:

See

Quoted message said:

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&catego...

Quoted message said:

or

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/yuoag9

Quoted message said:

"Cyclist injured in trip wire incident"

Is there such an offence as "attempted GBH", which is
what this is?

BugBear

The last time I hear of this around here the police were reported to
be treating it as attempted murder.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

in message <[email hidden]>, John

Kane (') said:

bugbear bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim said:

wafflycat said:

See

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/yuoag9

Quoted message said:

"Cyclist injured in trip wire incident"

Is there such an offence as "attempted GBH", which is
what this is?

The last time I hear of this around here the police were reported to
be treating it as attempted murder.

I think that's right. It's reckless behaviour which might reasonably be
expected to kill. If it did kill it would be murder. So if it doesn't,
attempted murder looks like the right charge to me.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Hobbit ringleader gives Sauron One in the Eye.

wafflycat said:

See

I se that your calender is wrong, you appear to be a couple of days
ahead of the rest of us.

--
Mike
Van Tuyl titanium Dura ace 10
Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10
Raleigh Record sprint mongrel

Simon Brooke said:

I think that's right. It's reckless behaviour which might reasonably
be expected to kill. If it did kill it would be murder. So if it
doesn't, attempted murder looks like the right charge to me.

reckless behaviour which might reasonably be expected to kill is
manslaughter not murder.

Murder require specific intent to kill.

pk

Ace said:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:10:05 +0100, "p.k." <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2.. The suspect intended to do an act knowing that it was probable that it
would kill any person, or
3.. The suspect intended to cause grievous bodily harm [serious injury] to
any person, or
4.. The suspect intended to do an act knowing that it was probable that it
would cause grievous bodily harm to any person.

Quoted message said:

If the intent was to knock someone off their bike for a laff, then
manslaughter not murder?

Dunno how you could reach that conclusion. Knocking someone off a bike
with a wire is clearly likely to cause GBH, so it would clearly be
murder.

Quoted message said:

If I intend to cause someone GBH and kill them, it is murder. If I only
succeed in GBH it is GBH not murder!

But why not attempted murder? Still seems to me that it would be.

Beacause it's harder to prove. if the charge is GBH then the harm is
easily proved because the intent is a separate issue. If you go for
attempted murder you would have to prove that the offender intended to
cause GBH. Proving intent is always the hardest bit as you are trying
to prove what someone's thought process was before the incident, not
the result of their actions.

Proving intent really requires witnesses to the actions leading up to
the incident. For example if you have a witness who says 'I heard the
defendant say that it would be a good laugh to stretch a wire and if
we do it right it might break someone's neck' then you've got some
evidence that show intent and an attempt murder charge is easier to
establish. Without that type of evidence stick to the consequences.

Nigel
replace SPAMHATER with n and t*sc*li with totalise

Ace said:

murder.

Quoted message said:

If I intend to cause someone GBH and kill them, it is murder. If I
only succeed in GBH it is GBH not murder!

But why not attempted murder? Still seems to me that it would be.

Sorry, I miised out the word "attempted"

Try to commit GBH and succedd = GBH not murder

Try to commit GBH & go to far = murder NOT attempted murder.

pk

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:39:16 +0100, "p.k." <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ace said:

murder.

Quoted message said:

If I intend to cause someone GBH and kill them, it is murder. If I
only succeed in GBH it is GBH not murder!

But why not attempted murder? Still seems to me that it would be.

Sorry, I miised out the word "attempted"

I think I realised what you meant.

Quoted message said:

Try to commit GBH and succedd = GBH not murder

But why not attempted murder? Still seems to me that it would be.

--
Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom

in message <[email hidden]>, Nigel

(') said:

Beacause it's harder to prove. if the charge is GBH then the harm is
easily proved because the intent is a separate issue. If you go for
attempted murder you would have to prove that the offender intended to
cause GBH. Proving intent is always the hardest bit as you are trying
to prove what someone's thought process was before the incident, not
the result of their actions.

Proving intent really requires witnesses to the actions leading up to
the incident.

Not at all. All you need to prove is that the suspect did stretch the wire
at neck height. There is no possible reason to do this except to cause
injury or death, and anyone doing this must know that death is a probable
outcome.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.

bugbear bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim said:

wafflycat said:

See

Quoted message said:

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&catego...

Quoted message said:

"Cyclist injured in trip wire incident"

Why do they call it a "trip wire"? How can you possibly "trip" on a
wire stretched at head height?

Garrotte wire would seem closer to the intended function of this
device.

Have you noticed how the press is so reluctant to call a spade a spade
when reporting nastiness towards cyclists, and yet will resort to the
most colourful language available when reporting the relatively
trivial misdemeanors of cyclists themselves?

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Nigel

(') said:

Beacause it's harder to prove. if the charge is GBH then the harm is
easily proved because the intent is a separate issue. If you go for
attempted murder you would have to prove that the offender intended
to cause GBH. Proving intent is always the hardest bit as you are
trying to prove what someone's thought process was before the
incident, not the result of their actions.

Proving intent really requires witnesses to the actions leading up to
the incident.

Not at all. All you need to prove is that the suspect did stretch the
wire at neck height. There is no possible reason to do this except to
cause injury or death, and anyone doing this must know that death is
a probable outcome.

MENS REA

1. MALICE AFORETHOUGHT

The mens rea for murder is malice aforethought. The House of Lords in R v
Moloney [1985] AC 905 held that nothing less than intention to kill or cause
grievous bodily harm (g.b.h.) would constitute malice aforethought: merely
foreseeing the victim's death as probable was insufficient.

(a) Intention to kill

Murder is a crime of specific intent. Intention in this context includes
direct or oblique intent. Direct intent covers the situation where the
defendant desired the death. Oblique intent covers the situation where the
death is foreseen by the defendant as virtually certain, although not
desired for its own sake. The most recent authority on intention is:

R v Woollin (1998) The Times, July 23.

(b) Intention to cause G.B.H.

In R v Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664, the Court of Appeal held that a defendant
could be convicted of murder if it was established that he had intended to
kill, or had intended grievous bodily harm. The latter was accepted as
sufficient mens rea for murder because if a defendant was willing to inflict
g.b.h., how was he to know that the victim might not die? An intention to
cause g.b.h. at least evidenced a willingness to accept a substantial risk
that the victim might die.

In R v Cunningham [1981] 2 All ER 863, the defendant repeatedly struck the
victim around the head with a chair resulting in his death. The prosecution
contended that while there was no intention to kill, there had been an
intent to do really s.b.h. The defendant's plea of manslaughter was rejected
and he was convicted of murder. The House of Lords stated that an intention
to cause "really serious injury" was sufficient to amount to the mens rea
for murder.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:44:10 +0100, "p.k." <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Nigel
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Proving intent really requires witnesses to the actions leading up to
the incident.

Not at all. All you need to prove is that the suspect did stretch the
wire at neck height. There is no possible reason to do this except to
cause injury or death, and anyone doing this must know that death is
a probable outcome.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

...The House of Lords stated that an intention
to cause "really serious injury" was sufficient to amount to the mens rea
for murder.

So committing an act which, if it lead to death, would be covered by
this sub-clause would also leave the charge of attempted murder open
if death did not occur. I really can't see what you find so difficult
about this.

Whether the CPS would think it likely that such a charge would stick
would be down to the individual circumstances, of course. It's quite
possible that in this case they may not, but then they have all the
facts available to them, whereas we're just positing possibilities
based on news reports.

--
Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom

Ace said:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:44:10 +0100, "p.k." <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Nigel
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Proving intent really requires witnesses to the actions leading up
> to the incident.

Not at all. All you need to prove is that the suspect did stretch
the wire at neck height. There is no possible reason to do this
except to cause injury or death, and anyone doing this must know
that death is a probable outcome.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

...The House of Lords stated that an intention
to cause "really serious injury" was sufficient to amount to the
mens rea for murder.

So committing an act which, if it lead to death, would be covered by
this sub-clause would also leave the charge of attempted murder open
if death did not occur. I really can't see what you find so difficult
about this.

If the intention is to cause GBH and you kill it is murder.

If the intention is to knock someone off their bike for a laff and they die,
then that seems to fit better with the definition of manslaugheter.

Murder require spcific intent, Mens rea, to do at least serious harm:

In English law, s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 provides a statutory framework
within which mens rea is assessed. It states:

A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence,
(a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a
result of his actions by reasons only of its being a natural and probable
consequence of those actions; but
(b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by
reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as
appear proper in the circumstances.
I can certainly see how Murder would be difficult to prosecute and how
attempted murder, by my reading, impossible

pk

In article <[email hidden]>, mb
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

wafflycat said:

See

I se that your calender is wrong, you appear to be a couple of days
ahead of the rest of us.

It hasn't appeared on my server yet - maybe it will in a couple of days.
:-)

Nigel said:

Beacause it's harder to prove. if the charge is GBH then the harm is
easily proved because the intent is a separate issue. If you go for
attempted murder you would have to prove that the offender intended to
cause GBH. Proving intent is always the hardest bit as you are trying
to prove what someone's thought process was before the incident, not
the result of their actions.

Proving intent really requires witnesses to the actions leading up to
the incident. For example if you have a witness who says 'I heard the
defendant say that it would be a good laugh to stretch a wire and if
we do it right it might break someone's neck' then you've got some
evidence that show intent and an attempt murder charge is easier to
establish. Without that type of evidence stick to the consequences.

I was once on the jury of a case where someone was attacked
with a knife. The charges were Malicious Wounding or Malicious
Wounding With Intent To Cause GBH.
The judge instructed us that, absent evidence of intent, we were
entitled to find that the act of using a knife proved intent.
I would argue the same here. Stretching a wire at neck height
across a cycle path proves intent to seriously injure a passing
cyclist.

There was a case a while back where someone dropped a car
battery from a bridge into the path of a car, resulting in the driver
losing control and dying. The charge was murder. I see no
difference here.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:31:50 +0100, "p.k." <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ace said:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:44:10 +0100, "p.k." <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email hidden]>, Nigel
> ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

Quoted message said:

>> Proving intent really requires witnesses to the actions leading up
>> to the incident.
>
> Not at all. All you need to prove is that the suspect did stretch
> the wire at neck height. There is no possible reason to do this
> except to cause injury or death, and anyone doing this must know
> that death is a probable outcome.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

...The House of Lords stated that an intention
to cause "really serious injury" was sufficient to amount to the
mens rea for murder.

So committing an act which, if it lead to death, would be covered by
this sub-clause would also leave the charge of attempted murder open
if death did not occur. I really can't see what you find so difficult
about this.

If the intention is to cause GBH and you kill it is murder.

If the intention is to knock someone off their bike for a laff and they die,
then that seems to fit better with the definition of manslaugheter.

Murder require spcific intent, Mens rea, to do at least serious harm:

Are you trying to argue that stretching a wire at neck-height across a
cyclepath could _not_ be deemed as intention to do serious harm?

--
Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom

Ace said:

Are you trying to argue that stretching a wire at neck-height across a
cyclepath could _not_ be deemed as intention to do serious harm?

Deeming is not the name of the game - the game is intent.

The INTENT might simply be to knock soemone off for a laff.

Note the bit from an earlier quote:

##
A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence,
(a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a
result of his actions by reasons only of its being a natural and probable
consequence of those actions;
##

Now, You and i might see the likely probable consequence of a wire across a
path as being serious injury, but so far as the court is concerned that is
not enough: What was in the mind (the mens rea) of the person putting the
wire?

The court
##
(b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by
reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as
appear proper in the circumstances.
##

pk