Drunk driver cleared of attempted murder.

Beebo

Firm and Fruity
Location
Hexleybeef
This driver has been cleared of attempted murder and attempting to cause grievous bodily harm after deliberately running over a bouncer he had had a previous altercation with. Luckily no one was seriously injured.

I wasnt privy to all the envidence but the video seems quite clear cut. I appreciate he did plead guilty to drink driving and assault by beating, but the video makes terrible viewing. Sentencing is next week.

When will we get serious on deliberate car crashes, if he had attacked them with a knife would the punishment be the same?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-46519998
 

Drago

Flouncing Nobber
Location
Valhalla
I don't know for sure, but looks like CPS accepted a plea to avoid a full trial. A bit naughty. I've known them do that with a rape - they accepted a plea to a sexual assault instead, but didn't tell the victim who was, understandably, utterly distraught, leaving me to give her the good news.

They shouldn't be allowed to do it - if someone is suspected of a crime, and the evidence is there to support that, they should flipping well be tried for it. Accepting a plea to a lesser offence (in this case a substantially lesser offence) might make life easier for the CPS and keep their figures looking good, but it's not justice. Accepting a plea of common assault (by beating) when the evidence was sufficient to charge with GBH in the first place is a travesty of justice.
 
Accepting a plea to a lesser offence (in this case a substantially lesser offence) might make life easier for the CPS and keep their figures looking good, but it's not justice.
"Keeping their figures looking good" is just another way of saying that they will only go to trial on a charge where they believe there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction.

It's not as if they make any secret of that fact.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors
 
OP
Beebo

Beebo

Firm and Fruity
Location
Hexleybeef
I don't know for sure, but looks like CPS accepted a plea to avoid a full trial. A bit naughty. I've known them do that with a rape - they accepted a plea to a sexual assault instead, but didn't tell the victim who was, understandably, utterly distraught, leaving me to give her the good news.

They shouldn't be allowed to do it - if someone is suspected of a crime, and the evidence is there to support that, they should flipping well be tried for it. Accepting a plea to a lesser offence (in this case a substantially lesser offence) might make life easier for the CPS and keep their figures looking good, but it's not justice. Accepting a plea of common assault (by beating) when the evidence was sufficient to charge with GBH in the first place is a travesty of justice.
But it says in the report that a jury at Winchester Crown Court made the decision. So I presume there was a full trial.
 
But it says in the report that a jury at Winchester Crown Court made the decision. So I presume there was a full trial.
Yes. And it looks like he was only convicted of the offences he plead guilty to. I've just clicked a few links and I can't find out what his defence was, except for a hint of someone saying "drunkeness is no excuse".

I can't help feeling if he was of Pakistani (or wherever) origin, they might have found him guilty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

Levo-Lon

Guru
A road peace campaigner on the BBC told the whole world that leaving the scene of a hit and run carried a 6 MTH sentence.
Staying and being collard whilst under the influence or dangerous driving carried a 10-15 yr sentence.

Now I didn't now that but that may well be why hit and runs are so common now.
6 MTH or 10 year? I think I'll keep going then... feckin ludicrous.
Leaving the scene should be minimum 10 yr especially when you leave them in the road for dead!!
 
Writing it down doesn't turn target hitting into justice.
So what would you rather have happen? Try the defendant on the more serious charge, in the expectation that a jury is unlikely to convict them?

How does that serve justice any better?
 

FishFright

More wheels than sense
So what would you rather have happen? Try the defendant on the more serious charge, in the expectation that a jury is unlikely to convict them?

How does that serve justice any better?
I expect anyone to be judged by a jury in open court, where just is not just done but seen to be done.

Would rather have impressive statistics ?
 

Slick

Veteran
But a jury at Winchester Crown Court decided he had not and also cleared him of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent.

Eh, it does kinda look like there was some intent there. :wacko:
 
I expect anyone to be judged by a jury in open court, where just is not just done but seen to be done.
Fine, that's very commendable.

But a jury can only convict on the evidence they hear/see in court. The more serious the charge the CPS goes for, the more convincing a jury will typically take before it will convict a defendant. IMHO it's perfectly understandable that they sometimes opt for a lesser charge to make it more likely that a def won't walk free.
 
A road peace campaigner on the BBC told the whole world that leaving the scene of a hit and run carried a 6 MTH sentence.
Staying and being collard whilst under the influence or dangerous driving carried a 10-15 yr sentence.

Now I didn't now that but that may well be why hit and runs are so common now.
6 MTH or 10 year? I think I'll keep going then... feckin ludicrous.
Leaving the scene should be minimum 10 yr especially when you leave them in the road for dead!!
I’d have to see a source for that claim as it sounds ludicrous.

I’m not saying it’s wrong, as I have no experience to say so.

But it’s a claim that needs a source and evidence.
 
In this case, the CPS has not accepted anything, they have gone for the most serious charge.

But as is often the case, juries, bless them, will only convict on overwhelming evidence.

So rather than an example of the CPS caving in, this case is an example of why lesser charges are often accepted.

The common assault, which he admitted, is from an earlier altercation with the door staff.

He admitted dangerous driving - he could hardly do otherwise.

'Causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm' sounds good until you realise the doorman only suffered cuts and bruises - there was no grievous bodily harm.

Attempted murder was always ambitious, proving the defendant wanted to kill the doorman is hard.

You are asking the jury to get into the mind of a drunk and say they are satisfied to the extent of being sure the drunk intended to kill the doorman.
 
Top Bottom