Killer driver gets almost five years
 

On 14/01/2016 19:17, John Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 13/01/2016 11:09, Tom Crispin wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:24:19 +0000, Mrcheerful wrote:

I wonder if he was riding in the primary position?

Riding a bicycle in the primary position is an excellent way to make
sure that drivers can see you, but is no defence against a driver
intent on using their vehicle as a lethal weapon.

and on some roads it will hold up traffic and cause road rage.

No it won't - cyclists ARE traffic.
And road rage is caused by inconsiderate car drivers, not traffic.
Anyway, it looks as though Mr. Gledhill won't be receiving mail at [his apparent home address] for quite a while.

You obviously hope that his family, despite the difficulties already
caused to them, are also going to be on the receiving end of bricks
through the windows and other terrorism perpetrated by militant, though
brain-dead, cyclists.

They can always disown their family member.

Why should they?

Would you?

Actually, I can imagine that you (and maybe one or two others) would.

Killer driver gets almost five years
 

JNugent wrote:
On 14/01/2016 19:17, John Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 13/01/2016 11:09, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:24:19 +0000, Mrcheerful wrote:

I wonder if he was riding in the primary position?

Riding a bicycle in the primary position is an excellent way to make
sure that drivers can see you, but is no defence against a driver
intent on using their vehicle as a lethal weapon.

and on some roads it will hold up traffic and cause road rage.

No it won't - cyclists ARE traffic. And road rage is caused by
inconsiderate car drivers, not traffic. Anyway, it looks as though
Mr. Gledhill won't be receiving mail at [his apparent home address]
for quite a while.

You obviously hope that his family, despite the difficulties already
caused to them, are also going to be on the receiving end of bricks
through the windows and other terrorism perpetrated by militant, though
brain-dead, cyclists.

They can always disown their family member.

Why should they?

Would you?

Actually, I can imagine that you (and maybe one or two others) would.

If they were of the type who evidently couldn't give a **** whom they hurt,
then why wouldn't anyone?

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

Killer driver gets almost five years
 

On 15/01/2016 12:27, John Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 14/01/2016 19:17, John Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 13/01/2016 11:09, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:24:19 +0000, Mrcheerful wrote:

I wonder if he was riding in the primary position?

Riding a bicycle in the primary position is an excellent way to make
sure that drivers can see you, but is no defence against a driver
intent on using their vehicle as a lethal weapon.

and on some roads it will hold up traffic and cause road rage.

No it won't - cyclists ARE traffic. And road rage is caused by
inconsiderate car drivers, not traffic. Anyway, it looks as though
Mr. Gledhill won't be receiving mail at [his apparent home address]
for quite a while.

You obviously hope that his family, despite the difficulties already
caused to them, are also going to be on the receiving end of bricks
through the windows and other terrorism perpetrated by militant, though
brain-dead, cyclists.

They can always disown their family member.

Why should they?
Would you?
Actually, I can imagine that you (and maybe one or two others) would.

If they were of the type who evidently couldn't give a **** whom they hurt,
then why wouldn't anyone?

Blood, as you might have heard, is thicker than water.

I would never disown a family member.

If you say so, I accept that you might.

There was a cyclist poster here once who thought it was hilarious that a
NIP for speeding had arrived addressed to him (as the owner of the car
in question) and that it was his wife who had been driving, as he took
delight in:

(a) telling the police, and

(b) telling us.

It must be a barrel of laughs round at his place. If I's been him, I'd
have considered employing a food-taster for a bit.

Killer driver gets almost five years
 

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 21:01:27 +0000
Phil W Lee wrote:

Rob Morley considered Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:44:46
+0000 the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 23:02:17 -0800 (PST)
Alycidon wrote:

On Thursday, 14 January 2016 01:56:30 UTC, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:08:22 AM UTC, Alycidon wrote:

http://road.cc/content/news/174735-d...-months-prison


The judge said "What you did was deliberate", which means it was
murder and the sentence should have been life without parole.

Indeed - just like this case. 24 years.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/bodybu...home-1-7625956

The difference between those cases is that in one the guilty party
got into his car with the intention of running someone down, while
in the other the act was committed in the heat of the moment.

"In the heat of the moment" is not a defence to murder though

I'm fairly sure it is.

Killer driver gets almost five years
 

On 16/01/2016 04:00, Rob Morley wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 21:01:27 +0000
Phil W Lee wrote:

Rob Morley considered Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:44:46
+0000 the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 23:02:17 -0800 (PST)
Alycidon wrote:

On Thursday, 14 January 2016 01:56:30 UTC, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:08:22 AM UTC, Alycidon wrote:

http://road.cc/content/news/174735-d...-months-prison


The judge said "What you did was deliberate", which means it was
murder and the sentence should have been life without parole.

Indeed - just like this case. 24 years.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/bodybu...home-1-7625956

The difference between those cases is that in one the guilty party
got into his car with the intention of running someone down, while
in the other the act was committed in the heat of the moment.

"In the heat of the moment" is not a defence to murder though

I'm fairly sure it is.

Perhaps a mitigation defence rather than a defence against conviction.

But Lee, LJ will have chapter and verse on it, I'm sure.

Killer driver gets almost five years
 

JNugent wrote:
On 16/01/2016 04:00, Rob Morley wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 21:01:27 +0000
Phil W Lee wrote:
Rob Morley considered Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:44:46
+0000 the perfect time to write:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 23:02:17 -0800 (PST)
Alycidon wrote:
On Thursday, 14 January 2016 01:56:30 UTC, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:08:22 AM UTC, Alycidon wrote:

http://road.cc/content/news/174735-d...-months-prison

The judge said "What you did was deliberate", which means it was
murder and the sentence should have been life without parole.

Indeed - just like this case. 24 years.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/bodybu...home-1-7625956

The difference between those cases is that in one the guilty party got
into his car with the intention of running someone down, while in the
other the act was committed in the heat of the moment.

"In the heat of the moment" is not a defence to murder though

I'm fairly sure it is.

Perhaps a mitigation defence rather than a defence against conviction.

But Lee, LJ will have chapter and verse on it, I'm sure.

Loss of control is a partial defence to the charge of murder - see ss.
54–55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. This was previously dealt with
by s. 3 of the Homicide Act 1957, the defence (since superseded by the
Coroners and Justice Act 2009) resting on a two-part test:

1. Was the defendant provoked by things said or done (or by both) to
temporarily and suddenly lose his self-control (this is the subjective
test)?

2. Would the provocation make a reasonable person lose his self-control
and act as the defendant did (this is the objective test)?

The government, in its consultation paper _Murder, manslaughter and_
_infanticide: proposals for the reform of the law_ , it was stated that the
defence was too generous in those cases where the defendant acted in anger,
and the law relating to the old defence of 'provocation' was too complex.

The modern defence of loss of control rests on three criteria:

1. The defendant's acts or omissions in doing or being a party to the
killing resulted from his or her loss of self control and ;

2. The loss of control had a qualifying trigger and ;

3. A person of the defendant's age and sex and with a normal degree of
tolerance and self-restraint might, in the same circumstances, have reacted
in the same or in a similar manner to the defendant.

Loss of control is not a true defence, however, because even if successful,
the defendant will usually be answerable for a lesser charge - voluntary
manslaughter, for example.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

Killer driver gets almost five years
 

On 16/01/2016 16:53, John Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 16/01/2016 04:00, Rob Morley wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 21:01:27 +0000
Phil W Lee wrote:
Rob Morley considered Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:44:46
+0000 the perfect time to write:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 23:02:17 -0800 (PST)
Alycidon wrote:
On Thursday, 14 January 2016 01:56:30 UTC, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:08:22 AM UTC, Alycidon wrote:

http://road.cc/content/news/174735-d...-months-prison

The judge said "What you did was deliberate", which means it was
murder and the sentence should have been life without parole.

Indeed - just like this case. 24 years.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/bodybu...home-1-7625956

The difference between those cases is that in one the guilty party got
into his car with the intention of running someone down, while in the
other the act was committed in the heat of the moment.

"In the heat of the moment" is not a defence to murder though

I'm fairly sure it is.

Perhaps a mitigation defence rather than a defence against conviction.

But Lee, LJ will have chapter and verse on it, I'm sure.

Loss of control is a partial defence to the charge of murder - see ss.
54–55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. This was previously dealt with
by s. 3 of the Homicide Act 1957, the defence (since superseded by the
Coroners and Justice Act 2009) resting on a two-part test:

1. Was the defendant provoked by things said or done (or by both) to
temporarily and suddenly lose his self-control (this is the subjective
test)?

2. Would the provocation make a reasonable person lose his self-control
and act as the defendant did (this is the objective test)?

The government, in its consultation paper _Murder, manslaughter and_
_infanticide: proposals for the reform of the law_ , it was stated that the
defence was too generous in those cases where the defendant acted in anger,
and the law relating to the old defence of 'provocation' was too complex.

The modern defence of loss of control rests on three criteria:

1. The defendant's acts or omissions in doing or being a party to the
killing resulted from his or her loss of self control and ;

2. The loss of control had a qualifying trigger and ;

3. A person of the defendant's age and sex and with a normal degree of
tolerance and self-restraint might, in the same circumstances, have reacted
in the same or in a similar manner to the defendant.

Loss of control is not a true defence, however, because even if successful,
the defendant will usually be answerable for a lesser charge - voluntary
manslaughter, for example.

Many thanks.

Genuinely interesting stuff.