Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Yeah, using a knife might be considered a little OTT for just intending to frighten soneone, and the general presumption is one of intent when using a knife to cause injury.
And indeed, circumstances make a big difference. In out OPs scenario the car punched him off agai st the curb. If the car had, say, mounted the path or crossed a central reservation to do this then the intent might be clearer.
In cases such as this it often comes down to evidence obtained by way of interview when trying to establish mens rea. And just to muddy the waters still further it is possible to assault someone by way of a reckless act rather than intentional one, but gaining a conviction on reckless intent is even more far fetched in terms of proving beyond reasobable doubt, but it can happen.
The law is written to tell us what the policy makers think. CPS guidance to police and prosecutors tells us how the government of the day think. And then case law tells us how judges think. These 3 considerations are often wildly contradictory and gave to be measured when determining a complex case, but form the info alone provided by our OP I can see I way of ever proving intent, and without that reasobable suspicion the alternative is to consider a driving offence.
I'm surprised more murderers don't simply run people over for this very reason.
And indeed, circumstances make a big difference. In out OPs scenario the car punched him off agai st the curb. If the car had, say, mounted the path or crossed a central reservation to do this then the intent might be clearer.
In cases such as this it often comes down to evidence obtained by way of interview when trying to establish mens rea. And just to muddy the waters still further it is possible to assault someone by way of a reckless act rather than intentional one, but gaining a conviction on reckless intent is even more far fetched in terms of proving beyond reasobable doubt, but it can happen.
The law is written to tell us what the policy makers think. CPS guidance to police and prosecutors tells us how the government of the day think. And then case law tells us how judges think. These 3 considerations are often wildly contradictory and gave to be measured when determining a complex case, but form the info alone provided by our OP I can see I way of ever proving intent, and without that reasobable suspicion the alternative is to consider a driving offence.
I'm surprised more murderers don't simply run people over for this very reason.