Red light jumping cyclist prosecuted for manslaughter

[mjr]

From this concurrent thread>https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/h...light-on-your-bike.272802/page-2#post-6337108
it would seem that the only thing that differentiates this guy from many cyclists observed by cycle chat members, is that he actually hit someone.

It's a key thing but far from not the only thing. The average cyclist is a 45-year-old able-bodied white man (at least in the 2017 National Travel Survey) and I suspect the average RLJer isn't much different. Credit to the BBC for (as far as I saw) not running 23-year-old Ermir Loka's picture or mentioning the presence of an interpreter, unlike certain other sites.

And a thing I hesitate to ask but will: accused of doing 15mph and with something strapped to his down tube: was that an e-bike?

 

[Brandane]

What they absolutely do not have to prove is any intent to kill.

OK, I may have been wrong. It's happened before, once .
Found this on the CPS link previously posted:

Intent

The intent for murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. R v Woollin [1999] 1 Cr App R 8 (HOL). The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case - R v Matthews (Darren John) [2003] EWCA Crim 192.

In my defence, there have been cases reported in the media where the impression has been given that an accused was convicted of manslaughter rather than murder, due to the absence of an intent to kill.

 

[Pale Rider]

In my defence, there have been cases reported in the media where the impression has been given that an accused was convicted of manslaughter rather than murder, due to the absence of an intent to kill.

That can happen if a jury is given manslaughter as an alternative to murder.

In that instance, the matter turns on whether the defendant intended serious harm or simply caused serious harm.

A QC told me it's comparable to the two popular assault charges, wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm and causing grievous bodily harm.

If the intent to harm is there (and the person is dead), it's murder.

If there was no intent to harm, but the person is still dead, it's manslaughter.

It also seems to me that juries like to see some intent to kill in their murderers, despite being told by the prosecutor and judge in his summing up that it's not required.

Plus proving intent - what was in a person's mind - is notoriously difficult in any criminal charge which requires it.

 

[Cycling_Samurai]

Mr McCombie rest in peace dear Sir.

in memory of the late Mr McCombie, I refrain from making jokes at this time.

 

[steveindenmark]

Had Mr Loka been driving a car instead of riding a bike, would he still be facing manslaughter charges?

A genuine question by the way.

No probably death by dangerous driving.

 

[MontyVeda]

Keep up at the back!