January 16th 16, 05:23 PM
posted to uk.rec.cycling
external usenet poster
Killer driver gets almost five years
On 16/01/2016 16:53, John Smith 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)
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:
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.
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by s. 3 of the Homicide Act 1957, the defence (since superseded by the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
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.
Genuinely interesting stuff.