Another wire at neck height

in message , p.k.
') wrote:

Martin Dann wrote:
p.k. wrote:
Simon Brooke wrote:
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.

IANAL etc.
AIUI if you intend to injure, but not kill someone, but
that person dies from your actions, then it is still murder.


1.. The suspect intended to kill, or
2.. The suspect intended to do an act knowing that it was probable that
it would kill any person, or

That's the one.

Stretching a wire at neck height carries a considerable probability that a
person hitting it at speed will die. The person stretching it must know
this, and thus must intend this. Therefore, attempted murder.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn.
;; Jim Morrison

in message , Nigel
') wrote:

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.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

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

On 24 Jul, 10:49, bugbear wrote:
wafflycat wrote:
See

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/...POnline&catego...

"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 wrote:
in message , Nigel
') wrote:

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.

Ace wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:44:10 +0100, "p.k."
wrote:

Simon Brooke wrote:
in message , Nigel
') wrote:

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

...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 , mb
says...
wafflycat wrote:

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.
:-)

On 25 Jul, 07:37, Nigel wrote:

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.

Ace wrote:
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

in message , p.k.
') wrote:

Simon Brooke wrote:
in message , Nigel
') wrote:

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.

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.

Exactly.

You cannot stretch wire across a cyclepath at neck height without intending
the consequences of your actions; it is impossible to stretch a garrotte
trap 'by accident'. Doing it proves you intended to do it.

(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.

Again, exactly.

The death may not be 'desired for it's own sake', but it is very probable
and the perpetrator cannot possibly not foresee this, unless of such low
intelligence as to be actually unfit to plead. 'Virtually certain' is a
form of words you might argue with, as Danny and this woman in east anglia
both survived, but it's my opinion that they (and the perpetrators) were
bloody lucky.

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.

Well, again, exactly.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Q: Whats a webmaster?
A: Like a spider, but nowhere near as intelligent.

in message , p.k.
') wrote:

Ace wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:44:10 +0100, "p.k."
wrote:

Simon Brooke wrote:
in message , Nigel
') wrote:

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

...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.

Nobody believes that stretching a wire at neck height is going to 'knock
someone off their bike for a laff'. Anybody - a five year old - can
predict that death is a probable outcome. The perpetrator may be intending
to 'kill someone for a laff', and, indeed, it's highly likely that that is
what's intended. But that's murder.

If you shoot a loaded shotgun at a cyclist saying 'I only wanted to knock
him off his bike for a laff', do you think anyone will take that
seriously? Same applies here.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.