Driver who deliberately knocked cyclist from bike jailed for 16 months (+ video)

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Sickening, both in the action and the charging/sentencing. So someone who makes efforts to avoid a collision, warns, slows their (already slow) speed to that of a jog and swerves away gets lambasted nationally and 18months because the other party unfortunately died and was even partly at fault. Against 16months for someone with a lethal weapon deliberately and with malicious intent seriously harms another but fortunately and by luck not design, does not kill them. Right there is how fucked up our so called justice system is! Where is the outrage, where is the headlines of hate, if someone uses a knife or a sledgehammer to attack you intent on causung you serious harm you don't get a tickle of 16 months and this cunt will be out in 8. What, another moments inattention or madness as one wanker wrote in the local rag.

I don't disagree with you, but I think we need to come up with a new word to describe shoehorning the Alliston case into a thread  

rowes wrote:

Was going to mention about 24 hours in Police Custody too and the fact the guy got 7 years for GBH with intent. I cannot see how this is any different? What need to happen to change the Police's and CPS approaches and actually treat cyclists as humans?

In the 24 hours case the driver had been beaten up just previously by the group at which he aimed his car while in this case the cyclists were entirely without blame and yet are held in less regard.

djfleming22 wrote:

 Watched 24 hrs in Police Custody the other night

Guy takes car and drives into a group of people who he had been fighting with, he badly injured one person the judge gave him 7 years for GBH with intent the police were trying to get him done for attempted murder the the CPS said no GBH, i cannot for the life of me see the difference between both crimes.

Except the Law is a complete ass.

As a criminal lawyer, I've writen about this before on this forum.

The intent to be proved is different for both offences.

For a section 18 cause grievous bodily harm offence, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to 'do some grievous bodily harm' to his or her victim.

For an attempted murder charge, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill. That's a higher standard of intent to prove than even for a murder charge, where the prosecution only have to prove an intention to cause grievous bodily (it's the accused's bad luck if his or her victim died because of the grievous bodily harm inflicted).

That's why attempted murder isn't charged that often as it's so notoriously difficult to convince juries of an intention to kill, as opposed to an intention to do some grievous bodily harm.

TerreyHill wrote:

djfleming22 wrote:

 Watched 24 hrs in Police Custody the other night

Guy takes car and drives into a group of people who he had been fighting with, he badly injured one person the judge gave him 7 years for GBH with intent the police were trying to get him done for attempted murder the the CPS said no GBH, i cannot for the life of me see the difference between both crimes.

Except the Law is a complete ass.

As a criminal lawyer, I've writen about this before on this forum.

The intent to be proved is different for both offences. For a section 18 cause grievous bodily harm offence, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to 'do some grievous bodily harm' to his or her victim.

For an attempted murder charge, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill. That's a higher standard of intent to prove than even for a murder charge, where the prosecution only have to prove an intention to cause grievous bodily (it's the accused's bad luck if his or her victim died because of the grievous bodily harm inflicted).

That's why attempted murder isn't charged that often as it's so notoriously difficult to convince juries of an intention to kill, as opposed to an intention to do some grievous bodily harm.

I thought the question was not about GBH vs attempted murder, as to why the driver in that "24 hours" case got a much longer sentence than the one in the story above?  7 years vs 16 months (and from the sound of it there was way more 'provocation' in the 7 years case than in the cyclist one.  Is it purely down to the concequences in terms of what injuries the person hit suffered?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

TerreyHill wrote:

djfleming22 wrote:

 Watched 24 hrs in Police Custody the other night

Guy takes car and drives into a group of people who he had been fighting with, he badly injured one person the judge gave him 7 years for GBH with intent the police were trying to get him done for attempted murder the the CPS said no GBH, i cannot for the life of me see the difference between both crimes.

Except the Law is a complete ass.

As a criminal lawyer, I've writen about this before on this forum.

The intent to be proved is different for both offences. For a section 18 cause grievous bodily harm offence, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to 'do some grievous bodily harm' to his or her victim.

For an attempted murder charge, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill. That's a higher standard of intent to prove than even for a murder charge, where the prosecution only have to prove an intention to cause grievous bodily (it's the accused's bad luck if his or her victim died because of the grievous bodily harm inflicted).

That's why attempted murder isn't charged that often as it's so notoriously difficult to convince juries of an intention to kill, as opposed to an intention to do some grievous bodily harm.

 

I thought the question was not about GBH vs attempted murder, as to why the driver in that "24 hours" case got a much longer sentence than the one in the story above?  7 years vs 16 months (and from the sound of it there was way more 'provocation' in the 7 years case than in the cyclist one.  Is it purely down to the concequences in terms of what injuries the person hit suffered?

My post assumed djfleming22 couldn't see the difference between GBH with intent and attempted murder.

TerreyHill wrote:

djfleming22 wrote:

 Watched 24 hrs in Police Custody the other night

Guy takes car and drives into a group of people who he had been fighting with, he badly injured one person the judge gave him 7 years for GBH with intent the police were trying to get him done for attempted murder the the CPS said no GBH, i cannot for the life of me see the difference between both crimes.

Except the Law is a complete ass.

As a criminal lawyer, I've writen about this before on this forum.

The intent to be proved is different for both offences. For a section 18 cause grievous bodily harm offence, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to 'do some grievous bodily harm' to his or her victim.

For an attempted murder charge, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill. That's a higher standard of intent to prove than even for a murder charge, where the prosecution only have to prove an intention to cause grievous bodily (it's the accused's bad luck if his or her victim died because of the grievous bodily harm inflicted).

That's why attempted murder isn't charged that often as it's so notoriously difficult to convince juries of an intention to kill, as opposed to an intention to do some grievous bodily harm.

I dont think thats what hes saying - hes saying why did the guy on 24hrs get 7 years and this case not the same - what is the difference between the two crimes?.  I watched the 24hrs and the crime is identical.  It makes no sence at all.

TerreyHill wrote:

As a criminal lawyer, I've writen about this before on this forum.

The intent to be proved is different for both offences. For a section 18 cause grievous bodily harm offence, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to 'do some grievous bodily harm' to his or her victim.

For an attempted murder charge, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill. That's a higher standard of intent to prove than even for a murder charge, where the prosecution only have to prove an intention to cause grievous bodily (it's the accused's bad luck if his or her victim died because of the grievous bodily harm inflicted).

That's why attempted murder isn't charged that often as it's so notoriously difficult to convince juries of an intention to kill, as opposed to an intention to do some grievous bodily harm.

With your experience and knowledge, you are undoubtedly right.  However, I would assume that someone driving a motor vehicle at me intended to kill me, given that 1700 people a year are killed by motor vehicles, and I don't see how the driver could claim that his intent was only to wound.  If you drive a car at someone, there is a high likelihood that they will be killed, and there is no way you could guarantee that they would only be injured.

I realise that the law is arcane and not necessarily common sense or understanding, but I would argue that driving a car at someone is attempted murder.  He would almost certainly have been charged with that if the victim was a policeman.

burtthebike wrote:

TerreyHill wrote:

As a criminal lawyer, I've writen about this before on this forum.

The intent to be proved is different for both offences. For a section 18 cause grievous bodily harm offence, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to 'do some grievous bodily harm' to his or her victim.

For an attempted murder charge, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill. That's a higher standard of intent to prove than even for a murder charge, where the prosecution only have to prove an intention to cause grievous bodily (it's the accused's bad luck if his or her victim died because of the grievous bodily harm inflicted).

That's why attempted murder isn't charged that often as it's so notoriously difficult to convince juries of an intention to kill, as opposed to an intention to do some grievous bodily harm.

With your experience and knowledge, you are undoubtedly right.  However, I would assume that someone driving a motor vehicle at me intended to kill me, given that 1700 people a year are killed by motor vehicles, and I don't see how the driver could claim that his intent was only to wound.  If you drive a car at someone, there is a high likelihood that they will be killed, and there is no way you could guarantee that they would only be injured.

I realise that the law is arcane and not necessarily common sense or understanding, but I would argue that driving a car at someone is attempted murder.  He would almost certainly have been charged with that if the victim was a policeman.

The guy on 24 hours was as thick as pigs poo. When psychologists explain that kids and young adults don't understand consequences, he was an example of that.

And yes if you go after an officer of the law you will get the book thrown at you, because however badly you behave you are never suppose to go after people whose job is to up hold the law.

burtthebike wrote:

TerreyHill wrote:

As a criminal lawyer, I've writen about this before on this forum.

The intent to be proved is different for both offences. For a section 18 cause grievous bodily harm offence, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to 'do some grievous bodily harm' to his or her victim.

For an attempted murder charge, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill. That's a higher standard of intent to prove than even for a murder charge, where the prosecution only have to prove an intention to cause grievous bodily (it's the accused's bad luck if his or her victim died because of the grievous bodily harm inflicted).

That's why attempted murder isn't charged that often as it's so notoriously difficult to convince juries of an intention to kill, as opposed to an intention to do some grievous bodily harm.

With your experience and knowledge, you are undoubtedly right.  However, I would assume that someone driving a motor vehicle at me intended to kill me, given that 1700 people a year are killed by motor vehicles, and I don't see how the driver could claim that his intent was only to wound.  If you drive a car at someone, there is a high likelihood that they will be killed, and there is no way you could guarantee that they would only be injured.

I realise that the law is arcane and not necessarily common sense or understanding, but I would argue that driving a car at someone is attempted murder.  He would almost certainly have been charged with that if the victim was a policeman.

The guy on 24 hours was as thick as pigs poo. When psychologists explain that kids and young adults don't understand consequences, he was an example of that.

And yes if you go after an officer of the law you will get the book thrown at you, because however badly you behave you are never suppose to go after people whose job is to up hold the law.

burtthebike wrote:

TerreyHill wrote:

As a criminal lawyer, I've writen about this before on this forum.

The intent to be proved is different for both offences. For a section 18 cause grievous bodily harm offence, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to 'do some grievous bodily harm' to his or her victim.

For an attempted murder charge, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill. That's a higher standard of intent to prove than even for a murder charge, where the prosecution only have to prove an intention to cause grievous bodily (it's the accused's bad luck if his or her victim died because of the grievous bodily harm inflicted).

That's why attempted murder isn't charged that often as it's so notoriously difficult to convince juries of an intention to kill, as opposed to an intention to do some grievous bodily harm.

With your experience and knowledge, you are undoubtedly right.  However, I would assume that someone driving a motor vehicle at me intended to kill me, given that 1700 people a year are killed by motor vehicles, and I don't see how the driver could claim that his intent was only to wound.  If you drive a car at someone, there is a high likelihood that they will be killed, and there is no way you could guarantee that they would only be injured.

I realise that the law is arcane and not necessarily common sense or understanding, but I would argue that driving a car at someone is attempted murder.  He would almost certainly have been charged with that if the victim was a policeman.

The guy on 24 hours was as thick as pigs poo. When psychologists explain that kids and young adults don't understand consequences, he was an example of that.

And yes if you go after an officer of the law you will get the book thrown at you, because however badly you behave you are never suppose to go after people whose job is to up hold the law.

Bluebug wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

TerreyHill wrote:

As a criminal lawyer, I've writen about this before on this forum.

The intent to be proved is different for both offences. For a section 18 cause grievous bodily harm offence, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to 'do some grievous bodily harm' to his or her victim.

For an attempted murder charge, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill. That's a higher standard of intent to prove than even for a murder charge, where the prosecution only have to prove an intention to cause grievous bodily (it's the accused's bad luck if his or her victim died because of the grievous bodily harm inflicted).

That's why attempted murder isn't charged that often as it's so notoriously difficult to convince juries of an intention to kill, as opposed to an intention to do some grievous bodily harm.

With your experience and knowledge, you are undoubtedly right.  However, I would assume that someone driving a motor vehicle at me intended to kill me, given that 1700 people a year are killed by motor vehicles, and I don't see how the driver could claim that his intent was only to wound.  If you drive a car at someone, there is a high likelihood that they will be killed, and there is no way you could guarantee that they would only be injured.

I realise that the law is arcane and not necessarily common sense or understanding, but I would argue that driving a car at someone is attempted murder.  He would almost certainly have been charged with that if the victim was a policeman.

The guy on 24 hours was as thick as pigs poo. When psychologists explain that kids and young adults don't understand consequences, he was an example of that. And yes if you go after an officer of the law you will get the book thrown at you, because however badly you behave you are never suppose to go after people whose job is to up hold the law.

Wonder how much he had to pay someone to pass his theory test?

burtthebike wrote:

...... for what could be said to be attempted murder...... 

There is, I'm afraid, very little chance of proving to a jury that the driver's intention was actually to kill.

mike the bike wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

...... for what could be said to be attempted murder...... 

There is, I'm afraid, very little chance of proving to a jury that the driver's intention was actually to kill.

 

 

Just have to watch 24hrs in custody that was on Ch4 last night. Guy got beaten up outside a pub by a gang, went to his car, drove up to them (on the other side of the railings) gave them a mouthful, got a mouthful back, so reversed down the street, mounted the pavement and drove straight at them, missed the gang and got an innocent bystander. CPS refused attempted murder and charged him with GBH