Two years for motorist who deliberately ran over cyclist before threatening to do so again

Natrix wrote:

There's no reason why a replacement heart valve should shorten anybodys expected lifespan, certainly not to just 6 years. (Speaking as somebody with a mechanical heart valve  )

I don't know what his heart valve has to do with running someone over anyway.

wellsprop wrote:

Natrix wrote:

There's no reason why a replacement heart valve should shorten anybodys expected lifespan, certainly not to just 6 years. (Speaking as somebody with a mechanical heart valve  )

I don't know what his heart valve has to do with running someone over anyway.

Are metal heart valves magnetic? Was the cyclist on a steel frame??

craigstitt wrote:

So let's get this straight.

1. He deliberately drove into someone to their serious injury.
2. He threatened the injured victim that he would do it again
3. He fled the scene of an accident
4. He lied to the police about the marks on his car
5. He was driving with cateracts

So IMHO the charges should be Attempted Murder or a minimum of GBH, Section 4 Public order offence, leaving the scene of an accident, perjury and driving with a reportable condition.

But somehow in the CPS's mind the best course of action is a dangerous driving charge?

There was never going to be an attempted murder charge, as it requires proving an intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is a higher hurdle to jump than running a murder charge, which only requires proof of an intent to do grievous bodily harm - if that intent results in you killing your victim rather than just causing them grievous bodily harm, then tough luck for you.

That's why attempted murder charges are so rare. The only attempted murder case I've been involved in as a former prosecutor involved the accused cutting his victim's throat and leaving him for dead in a remote location in the middle of a winter's night - the intent to kill was pretty clear in that matter.

The CPS could have run a section 18 'cause grievous bodily harm with intent' charge, and looking at the sentencing guidelines, there probably would have been a slightly higher sentence if he'd pleaded guilty to such a charge.

However, it's likely the CPS may have accepted a guilty plea to the lesser section 20 'inflict grievous bodily harm' offence if they'd run a section 18 charge, as the section 20 offence doesn't require the added difficulty of intent to be proved - a guilty plea to a section 20 charge would likely have resulted in a lesser sentence than what was handed down here.

TerreyHill wrote:

craigstitt wrote:

So let's get this straight.

1. He deliberately drove into someone to their serious injury.
2. He threatened the injured victim that he would do it again
3. He fled the scene of an accident
4. He lied to the police about the marks on his car
5. He was driving with cateracts

So IMHO the charges should be Attempted Murder or a minimum of GBH, Section 4 Public order offence, leaving the scene of an accident, perjury and driving with a reportable condition.

But somehow in the CPS's mind the best course of action is a dangerous driving charge?

There was never going to be an attempted murder charge, as it requires proving an intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is a higher hurdle to jump than running a murder charge, which only requires proof of an intent to do grievous bodily harm - if that intent results in you killing your victim rather than just causing them grievous bodily harm, then tough luck for you.

That's why attempted murder charges are so rare. The only attempted murder case I've been involved in as a former prosecutor involved the accused cutting his victim's throat and leaving him for dead in a remote location in the middle of a winter's night - the intent to kill was pretty clear in that matter.

The CPS could have run a section 18 'cause grievous bodily harm with intent' charge, and looking at the sentencing guidelines, there probably would have been a slightly higher sentence if he'd pleaded guilty to such a charge.

However, it's likely the CPS may have accepted a guilty plea to the lesser section 20 'inflict grievous bodily harm' offence if they'd run a section 18 charge, as the section 20 offence doesn't require the added difficulty of intent to be proved - a guilty plea to a section 20 charge would likely have resulted in a lesser sentence than what was handed down here.

Out of interest, what on earth counts as " intent" to lawyers? Apparently deliberately hitting someone with 1500kg of of metal, then threatening to do it again, isn't enough to convince - does it need a sworn affidavit in front of three lawyers?

oldstrath wrote:

TerreyHill wrote:

craigstitt wrote:

So let's get this straight.

1. He deliberately drove into someone to their serious injury.
2. He threatened the injured victim that he would do it again
3. He fled the scene of an accident
4. He lied to the police about the marks on his car
5. He was driving with cateracts

So IMHO the charges should be Attempted Murder or a minimum of GBH, Section 4 Public order offence, leaving the scene of an accident, perjury and driving with a reportable condition.

But somehow in the CPS's mind the best course of action is a dangerous driving charge?

There was never going to be an attempted murder charge, as it requires proving an intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is a higher hurdle to jump than running a murder charge, which only requires proof of an intent to do grievous bodily harm - if that intent results in you killing your victim rather than just causing them grievous bodily harm, then tough luck for you.

That's why attempted murder charges are so rare. The only attempted murder case I've been involved in as a former prosecutor involved the accused cutting his victim's throat and leaving him for dead in a remote location in the middle of a winter's night - the intent to kill was pretty clear in that matter.

The CPS could have run a section 18 'cause grievous bodily harm with intent' charge, and looking at the sentencing guidelines, there probably would have been a slightly higher sentence if he'd pleaded guilty to such a charge.

However, it's likely the CPS may have accepted a guilty plea to the lesser section 20 'inflict grievous bodily harm' offence if they'd run a section 18 charge, as the section 20 offence doesn't require the added difficulty of intent to be proved - a guilty plea to a section 20 charge would likely have resulted in a lesser sentence than what was handed down here.

 

Out of interest, what on earth counts as " intent" to lawyers? Apparently deliberately hitting someone with 1500kg of of metal, then threatening to do it again, isn't enough to convince - does it need a sworn affidavit in front of three lawyers?

I somewhat agree with you, in that I think the law puts too much focus on 'intent' (i.e. thoughts in someone's head) in general, but is it really 'lawyers' that are the issue, or jurors and law-makers and Joe Public?

My problem with putting so much emphasis on 'intent' is that it doesn't put enough emphasis on power-differentials. A group with sufficient power don't _need_ intent to commit harm, they can do it quite casually without having to make any special effort.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

TerreyHill wrote:

craigstitt wrote:

So let's get this straight.

1. He deliberately drove into someone to their serious injury.
2. He threatened the injured victim that he would do it again
3. He fled the scene of an accident
4. He lied to the police about the marks on his car
5. He was driving with cateracts

So IMHO the charges should be Attempted Murder or a minimum of GBH, Section 4 Public order offence, leaving the scene of an accident, perjury and driving with a reportable condition.

But somehow in the CPS's mind the best course of action is a dangerous driving charge?

There was never going to be an attempted murder charge, as it requires proving an intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is a higher hurdle to jump than running a murder charge, which only requires proof of an intent to do grievous bodily harm - if that intent results in you killing your victim rather than just causing them grievous bodily harm, then tough luck for you.

That's why attempted murder charges are so rare. The only attempted murder case I've been involved in as a former prosecutor involved the accused cutting his victim's throat and leaving him for dead in a remote location in the middle of a winter's night - the intent to kill was pretty clear in that matter.

The CPS could have run a section 18 'cause grievous bodily harm with intent' charge, and looking at the sentencing guidelines, there probably would have been a slightly higher sentence if he'd pleaded guilty to such a charge.

However, it's likely the CPS may have accepted a guilty plea to the lesser section 20 'inflict grievous bodily harm' offence if they'd run a section 18 charge, as the section 20 offence doesn't require the added difficulty of intent to be proved - a guilty plea to a section 20 charge would likely have resulted in a lesser sentence than what was handed down here.

 

Out of interest, what on earth counts as " intent" to lawyers? Apparently deliberately hitting someone with 1500kg of of metal, then threatening to do it again, isn't enough to convince - does it need a sworn affidavit in front of three lawyers?

I somewhat agree with you, in that I think the law puts too much focus on 'intent' (i.e. thoughts in someone's head) in general, but is it really 'lawyers' that are the issue, or jurors and law-makers and Joe Public? My problem with putting so much emphasis on 'intent' is that it doesn't put enough emphasis on power-differentials. A group with sufficient power don't _need_ intent to commit harm, they can do it quite casually without having to make any special effort.

The problem with intent, as you've pointed out, is that as the prosecutor you're inviting the jury to go inside the accused's mind to determine what he or she was thinking/intending at the time. When the red mist descends on people in road rage cases such as this, it's very difficult to persuade a jury to accept beyond a reasonable doubt that an accused intended in the moment to kill or do grievous bodily harm, rather than being reckless (which is the test for the section 20 offence, ie. he or she  foresaw that some harm would be caused by his or her actions). 

Steve Cooper wrote:

The thing that surprised me is the Daily Mail comments section were mostly supportive and critical of the sentence.

Lock people up forever and support a cyclist over a driver; or go soft on someone whilst putting cyclists in their rightful place in the gutter.  What a choice for a DM reader.  If the cyclist had been an immigrant then the choice would have got even more confusing.

Simboid wrote:

Amazingly EVERY commentor in the Daily Heil is on the side of the cyclist!

Most of them but not all, and in an act of selflessness that will never be repeated, I've read through all the comments on a DM page.

"@geo - knock yourself out, bud. You're just one inattentive moment from being another stain in the gutter"

"Ban cyclists from the road, then incidents like this won't happen innit? Bring on your arrows, you sad lycra-wearing fraggles"

"Cyclists are a menace, i am suprised more people dont run them over"

So the stereotypical DM readers are still there, but mostly keeping their powder dry until the next anti-cycling campaign.