Undaid worker wrecks Travelodge with digger

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Subaru driver killed elderly couple, 87 and 88, in high speed crash

Carl Morris had been driving his Subaru Impreza at speed when he lost control of it

www.getsurrey.co.uk

A dangerous driver killed an elderly couple in a car crash minutes after he had been driving at high speeds with his friend in their Subaru Impreza cars.

Morris was jailed for four years and six months

 

[nogojones]

I don't have a wife

Glad to hear she got away

 

[Spymaster]

Subaru driver killed elderly couple, 87 and 88, in high speed crash

Carl Morris had been driving his Subaru Impreza at speed when he lost control of it

www.getsurrey.co.uk

The sentence here was obviously too short but the difference is intent. This bloke, whilst an arsehole, did not intend to do any hurt or damage, whilst the digger driving wife beater, obviously did. The consequences were more serious for the arsehole driver but the law recognises intent or the lack thereof.

The Surrey case you've quoted would be better compared to the case of Charlie Alliston, who unintentionally killed a pedestrian whilst cycling 'wantonly and furiously' through The City.

Cyclist Charlie Alliston jailed for 18 months over death of pedestrian

Alliston jailed over death of Kim Briggs, who sustained ‘catastrophic’ head injuries in east London collision last year

www.theguardian.com

 

[Pickman's model]

The judge accepted Manley, who was reported to have "social problems", had a number of issues in his life.

"This grievance, or perceived grievance, in consequence of the fact you had not been paid your wages, may well have been the catalyst which led you on this day to erupt like a volcano."

Is "erupt like a volcano" a normal way of speaking for judges? Is it a legal and technical definition here? A term of art?

what the judge actually say was 'to erupt like a vulcan - oh, that's not right is it?'

but the that's not right, is it was wiped off the record

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

The sentence here was obviously too short but the difference is intent. This bloke, whilst an arsehole, did not intend to do any hurt or damage, whilst the digger driving wife beater, obviously did. The consequences were more serious for the arsehole driver but the law recognises intent or the lack thereof.

The Surrey case you've quoted would be better compared to the case of Charlie Alliston, who unintentionally killed a pedestrian whilst cycling 'wantonly and furiously' through The City.

Cyclist Charlie Alliston jailed for 18 months over death of pedestrian

Alliston jailed over death of Kim Briggs, who sustained ‘catastrophic’ head injuries in east London collision last year

www.theguardian.com

I know the law takes intent in to account, however driving like this prick did it was pretty much guaranteed that he would do for someone, not really much difference to loosing off rounds from a gun in a high street, the outcome is pretty much inevitable. And regardless, two dead people vs some damage to a budget hotel.

 

[kabbes]

The sentence here was obviously too short but the difference is intent. This bloke, whilst an arsehole, did not intend to do any hurt or damage, whilst the digger driving wife beater, obviously did. The consequences were more serious for the arsehole driver but the law recognises intent or the lack thereof.

The Surrey case you've quoted would be better compared to the case of Charlie Alliston, who unintentionally killed a pedestrian whilst cycling 'wantonly and furiously' through The City.

Cyclist Charlie Alliston jailed for 18 months over death of pedestrian

Alliston jailed over death of Kim Briggs, who sustained ‘catastrophic’ head injuries in east London collision last year

www.theguardian.com

You’re saying that the digger man intended to hurt or kill people?

 

[Spymaster]

... driving like this prick did it was pretty much guaranteed that he would do for someone ...

Nah. Most of the time pricks get away with prick driving.

 

[Spymaster]

You’re saying that the digger man intended to hurt or kill people?

No. He intended to cause a load of damage and was reckless as to whether deaths or injuries occurred.

 

[kabbes]

No. He intended to cause a load of damage and was reckless as to whether deaths or injuries occurred.

Well the Subaru driver intended to drive at highly unsafe speeds and was reckless as to whether deaths or injuries occurred.

the only real difference is that the Subaru driver’s recklessness was at a much more extreme level and he did indeed kill people through that recklessness.

 

[Spymaster]

Well the Subaru driver intended to drive at highly unsafe speeds and was reckless as to whether deaths or injuries occurred.

But the consequences of his actions were unintentional. The consequences of digger man's actions were completely intentional.

the only real difference is that the Subaru driver’s recklessness was at a much more extreme level and he did indeed kill people through that recklessness.

Neither were prosecuted for recklessness.

 

[kabbes]

But the consequences of his actions were unintentional. The consequences of digger man's actions were completely intentional.


Neither were prosecuted for recklessness.

No, one of them was prosecuted for killing as a result of that intentional recklessness. The other was prosecuted for property damage. The fact that the property damage is judged more harshly than the results of intentionally risking other people’s lives and then killing them is pretty appalling.

 

[Spymaster]

No, one of them was prosecuted for killing as a result of that intentional recklessness.

Yes. But the consequence was not intended, whereas the consequence of the other crime was. If the violent wife beater didn't have a form sheet for violent offences as long as a donkey's cock, he would have received a lesser sentence. I would assume that the dickhead driver hasn't been in serious trouble before and was sentenced as a first offence, certainly that he's never killed anyone before. So there's a balancing act going on. Not that I don't think the driver should have got more time. I definitely do.

The fact that the property damage is judged more harshly than the results of intentionally risking other people’s lives and then killing them is pretty appalling.

I agree.

 

[Teaboy]

People do get done for murder when they didn't necessarily intend to kill someone. If you just meant to rough them up a bit and they ended up dead you're still going down for murder. If your actions are so reckless as to endanger life regardless of whether you meant to you're on a murder charge.

I'm not going down the whole route of motorists who kill are murderers but just saying that its not always about intent.

 

[Marty1]

The proletariat always gets the shit sandwich

 

[Spymaster]

People do get done for murder when they didn't necessarily intend to kill someone. If you just meant to rough them up a bit and they ended up dead you're still going down for murder. If your actions are so reckless as to endanger life regardless of whether you meant to you're on a murder charge.

The mens rea for murder is to cause death or grevious bodily harm so it goes a bit further than just roughing someone up a bit. Death or serious injury has to be a virtual certainty of ones actions for murder, otherwise you're looking at a lesser charge.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

The mens rea for murder is to cause death or grevious bodily harm so it goes a bit further than just roughing someone up a bit. Death or serious injury has to be a virtual certainty of ones actions for murder, otherwise you're looking at a lesser charge.

Intend to cause serious harm, is where murder kicks in.

 

[Spymaster]

Intend to cause serious harm, is where murder kicks in.

Yep. GBH.

 

[Teaboy]

The mens rea for murder is to cause death or grevious bodily harm so it goes a bit further than just roughing someone up a bit. Death or serious injury has to be a virtual certainty of ones actions for murder, otherwise you're looking at a lesser charge.

I'm not so sure about that.

 

[Spymaster]

I'm not so sure about that.

I'm on may way out but that is the case. Look up mens rea for murder.

 

[Spymaster]

Here you go:

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.

Homicide: Murder, manslaughter, infanticide and causing or allowing the death or serious injury of a child or vulnerable adult | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

 

[kabbes]

It’s not about whether the Subaru driver committed murder or not. I’m quite happy to leave it at the fact that he caused death by criminal recklessness and negligence. That in itself should be enough

 

[Teaboy]

It’s not about whether the Subaru driver committed murder or not. I’m quite happy to leave it at the fact that he caused death by criminal recklessness and negligence. That in itself should be enough

No one is saying that. I introduced the murder thing with reference to another point, in fact I said

I'm not going down the whole route of motorists who kill are murderers but just saying that its not always about intent.

 

[Spymaster]

It’s not about whether the Subaru driver committed murder or not. I’m quite happy to leave it at the fact that he caused death by criminal recklessness and negligence.

Do you think that the cyclist who did the same and only got 18 months was massively under-sentenced then?

 

[TopCat]

Has anyone got prisoner details for the digger guy? I think he is fabulous, the sentence is inappropriate and he deserves letters and canteen top ups.

 

[kabbes]

Do you think that the cyclist who did the same and only got 18 months was massively under-sentenced then?

Haven’t read the case but assuming the circumstances are similarly reckless, yes. Of course.