Drunk driver cleared of attempted murder.

Slick

Veteran
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.
What other possible outcome would a reasonable person expect from driving a car at someone?
 
What other possible outcome would a reasonable person expect from driving a car at someone?
The full wording of the charge is 'causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm'.

The defendant has to do two things, cause the gbh and intend to do it.

In this case, he may have done one but not the other, he certainly didn't do both.

For attempted murder, he has to intend to murder someone, or more importantly, a jury has to be convinced he intended to murder that person.

Given he was drunk, so drunk he drove straight into a lamppost after hitting the doorman, one can imagine the jury may have felt he was incapable of forming the intent to murder.

They are also likely to have considered motive, is it likely someone tossed out of a nightclub would be so aggrieved by that as to form the intention to murder the doorman who did it?

Once again, you can imagine several jurors having a problem with that proposition.
 
They are also likely to have considered motive, is it likely someone tossed out of a nightclub would be so aggrieved by that as to form the intention to murder the doorman who did it?

Once again, you can imagine several jurors having a problem with that proposition.
I really appreciate your contribution, and I would like to agree. I have trouble imagining someone so aggrieved with a doorman that he tried to kill them.

But I have exactly the same amount of trouble imagining someone who was so aggrieved by a doorman that he decided to run him down with a car. And the video clearly shows that happened.
 

glasgowcyclist

Charming but somewhat feckless
Location
Scotland
Given he was drunk, so drunk he drove straight into a lamppost after hitting the doorman, one can imagine the jury may have felt he was incapable of forming the intent to murder.
I can see the argument that he was too drunk to complete the task but would disagree with the jury that he was therefore incapable of forming the intent to kill his victim
 

FishFright

More wheels than sense
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.
Now try that from the victims point of view
 
Now try that from the victims point of view
Rightly or wrongly, there are only two tests that the CPS applies when deciding whether to proceed with a prosecution. Neither of those is directly influenced by the victim's point of view.
 

Brads

Well-Known Member
Having experienced doormen at various venues, I could fully understand if the court found that provocation was a factor.
Don`t believe everything you see online. And don`t assume because he was in a car he was the devil.

He was caught doing something stupid so takes his medicine, but that doesn`t mean it was 100% his badness at blame.
 
Last edited:
The doorman was wearing hi viz and behind safety barriers in the 'doormans only lane', obviously the driver was effected by the (extremely) low setting sun and it was all the doormans fault for not wearing an helmet.
 
Top Bottom