Driver tries to kill cyclist, hits building.

[Karlt]

I'd say the driver woukd know full well that could well be the consequence.

But that's not the test for Attempted Murder. It has to be the intended consequence.

 

[Markymark]

Yes a direct consequence. If I fired a gun out of my bedroom windiw into the street I would do do knowing it could kill someone. If I aimed it at someone they could be killed. It's also possible it might not kill them.

 

[Inertia]

Yes a direct consequence. If I fired a gun out of my bedroom windiw into the street I would do do knowing it could kill someone. If I aimed it at someone they could be killed. It's also possible it might not kill them.

Indeed but it would be up to the prosecution to prove you intended to kill, a motive to kill helps prove things. The only motive we have for her reversing, isn't a definite motive to kill, IMO.

 

[Markymark]

If I shot a rifle from my bedroom window woukd tgat be attempted murder? I'm not a very good shot.

 

[Inertia]

If I shot a rifle from my bedroom window woukd tgat be attempted murder? I'm not a very good shot.

From your description, no, but it Sounds pretty reckless.

 

[jarlrmai]

Every time we have this debate I do eventually come around to the reasons why it's not attempted murder in the eyes of the law, and I thank you lawyer types for calmly explaining things to us.

It just seems odd to me that killing a man by running him over in the "heat of the moment" during a police chase to avoid going over a stinger = murder, perhaps his "intention" was to make the officer move out of the way? But reversing a car and then driving it at someone in the "heat of the moment" is a much lesser charge.

If the cyclist had died would she be charged with murder?

 

[Inertia]

Every time we have this debate I do eventually come around to the reasons why it's not attempted murder in the eyes of the law, and I thank you lawyer types for calmly explaining things to us.

It just seems odd to me that killing a man by running him over in the "heat of the moment" during a police chase to avoid going over a stinger = murder, perhaps his "intention" was to make the officer move out of the way? But reversing a car and then driving it at someone in the "heat of the moment" is a much lesser charge.

If the cyclist had died would she be charged with murder?

I dont think these things and black and white which is why a jury will decide on the facts of each case.

Are they actually going to charge them with murder? It seems their main aim was to avoid a stinger rather than aiming to kill him.

I think if she had killed him she could have been charged with murder as it looks like she intended to harm him (and did). You have the body.

As he is alive its harder to prove she intended to kill him, as she didnt..

 

[Karlt]

It's black and white inasmuch as the law sets out the bars that must be reached for each offence. If the victim had died then a murder charge would certainly be a possibility. It's not so much that it's harder to prove intent when there's no death; it's rather that intent to kill is only required for the attempted murder charge whilst it isn't required for the actual murder charge, odd as that may seem.

In the recent police officer case, if the defence is that they were aiming to avoid the stinger and the prosecution cannot present evidence that this is untrue and the police officer was the target, then indeed a murder prosecution would fail, although a manslaughter charge is still possible.

 

[Cubist]

[QUOTE 3941631, member: 9609"]to me there is a significant difference between the two incidents, if you go out on the rob and steal a vehicle then you have had time to weigh up the various scenarios and possibilities, someone being killed is a very realistic outcome, and for me this comes very close to full murder. If someone of otherwise good character going about their lawful business in a moments madness commits an act of rage and someone dies, then for me this is quite along way from being full murder (could well deserve a life sentence, but it is a long way off premeditated murder)[/QUOTE]

Murder is a common law offence. As such it has no statutory definition. However, legal arguments around the necessary points to prove are encapsulated in case law, and any doubts or defences etc can be explored that way.

The archaic term "Malice Aforethought" is the definition of intent we need to consider. How and when that malice is formulated is immaterial, and does not require the prosecution to prove a timescale as such. The phrase may suggest a lengthy or drawn out period of preparation based on a plan to kill somebody, but that malice can actually be decided on instantly. Your phrase "moment of madness" sums it up, (although of course that "madness" is not to be confused with mental health as it would make it mitigation or even a defence). That moment when the person in a fit of rage thinks "I'm going to kill him" and then drives three tonnes of car at him intending at that time that the consequence of that action will be to kill him is sufficient "aforethought".

 

[glasgowcyclist]

They don't have to be. If the victim dies, then intent to cause serious injury is sufficient for a murder conviction. It is not however sufficient for an attempted murder conviction should the victim live. The essence of attempted murder is intent to kill; the essence of murder is intent to kill or cause serious injury where the action has caused death.

Does this not create a bit of a conundrum in the case of PC Phillips? Presumably the accused have been charged with something in respect of his colleague who had to jump clear of the pickup.
Does anyone know whether the charge is attempted murder or attempted GBHWI?

GC

 

[Inertia]

Does this not create a bit of a conundrum in the case of PC Phillips? Presumably the accused have been charged with something in respect of his colleague who had to jump clear of the pickup.
Does anyone know whether the charge is attempted murder or attempted GBHWI?

GC

Noone has been charged at all yet, only arrested.

 

[Cubist]

If I shot a rifle from my bedroom window woukd tgat be attempted murder? I'm not a very good shot.

If you miss:
Not unless you specifically aimed it at someone with the intention of killing them.

If someone is killed however:
Having intended to kill one person you then hit and killed another, that would be murder. (transferred malice)

And if you fired into a crowd fully expecting or intending that someone/anyone in that crowd would be hit and killed, then that would be murder.

 

[swee'pea99]

Reasonable doubt would probably get someone off nine times out of ten, but I think she might have problems even with a sympathetic jury explaining away the reverse-then-drive. It's one thing to muddle your pedals, it's quite another to do something as complex as go one way, stop, then go the other way 'by mistake', or due to a malfunction.

 

[Cubist]

Noone has been charged at all yet, only arrested.

This.

 

[Profpointy]

If you miss:
Not unless you specifically aimed it at someone with the intention of killing them.

If someone is killed however:
Having intended to kill one person you then hit and killed another, that would be murder. (transferred malice)

And if you fired into a crowd fully expecting or intending that someone/anyone in that crowd would be hit and killed, then that would be murder.

and if I undserstand the law examples upthread, if I intend to shoot someone in the hand, but kill them it's murder. But if I intend to shoot them in the hand but miss, it's merely GBH not attempted murder