London black taxi driver ‘used car as weapon to ram cyclist’

[MikeF]

That's the headline http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/cab-driver-used-car-as-weapon-to-ram-cyclist-a3148771.html
If true I just don't understand the mentality of some people, and not the first time a car has been used to deliberately assault a person.

[greyingbeard]

Driver charged with dangerous driving and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Its at the Old Bailey, where the serious cases are heard, so hopefully he will get a serious jail term.

Why not a charge of attempted murder ? The potential of ramming someone with a car is clear.

[Tonyf33]

Driver charged with dangerous driving and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Its at the Old Bailey, where the serious cases are heard, so hopefully he will get a serious jail term.

Why not a charge of attempted murder ? The potential of ramming someone with a car is clear.

Because the CPS are a useless pile of steaming dung.

[karlt]

It's not the CPS. The bar for attempted murder isnintent to kill. Not doing something that could kill. The intent has to be to kill. This is higher than the intent bar for murder, that only requires intent to cause severe injury.

[MikeF]

And another one at the Old Bailey. Typical Mail Headline making it seem it was the cyclist who caused the problem. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3384136/Delivery-driver-deliberately-knocked-female-cyclist-49-bike-flashed-V-sign-him.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490 Although it shouldn't be the case, and I hope the judge directs the jury correctly, it may depend on how many of the jurors are cyclists or are sympathetic to the needs of cycling.
Noticed how both the accused are pictured being very smartly dressed - not their normal or casual clothes, I suspect.

[reohn2]

Noticed how both the accused are pictured being very smartly dressed - not their normal or casual clothes, I suspect.

Why should that make any difference?
It's the van drivers actions that's on trial,not his or the cyclists dress sense

It's a bit like the way some of the press have banged on about Jeremy Corbyn's dress on occasion,when all I'm interested in is his ability run the country,not whether he has a Saville Row tailor .

[james01]

Noticed how both the accused are pictured being very smartly dressed - not their normal or casual clothes, I suspect.

Why should that make any difference?
It's the van drivers actions that's on trial,not his or the cyclists dress sense

It's a bit like the way some of the press have banged on about Jeremy Corbyn's dress on occasion,when all I'm interested in is his ability run the country,not whether he has a Saville Row tailor .

It shouldn't make a difference but it does. A distant relative with an appalling speeding record but plenty of money hired a lawyer to get him off a ban which was looming under the points system. The lawyer instructed him to appear in court soberly dressed in a suit and carrying a Daily Telegraph under his arm. He got off with a fine.

[reohn2]

It shouldn't make a difference but it does. A distant relative with an appalling speeding record but plenty of money hired a lawyer to get him off a ban which was looming under the points system. The lawyer instructed him to appear in court soberly dressed in a suit and carrying a Daily Telegraph under his arm. He got off with a fine.

Sadly all too frequently the case

[greyingbeard]

A good brief will coach his client in what to say, how to look suitably sorry, and have very good reasons that make this offence far less punishable than all the others. They charge accordingly.

[iviehoff]

It's not the CPS. The bar for attempted murder isnintent to kill. Not doing something that could kill. The intent has to be to kill. This is higher than the intent bar for murder, that only requires intent to cause severe injury.

If you do something that did not intend to kill, but was something that could be reasonably foreseen to be life endangering, the charge would be manslaughter, not murder. You can't be charged with "attempted manslaughter" because with no intent there can be no attempt. So ABH is the appropriate charge in such circumstances. It is far from the only case where the resulting charge is related to luck. For example, the difference between dangerous driving and causing death by DD, is largely down to luck.

[karlt]

It's not the CPS. The bar for attempted murder isnintent to kill. Not doing something that could kill. The intent has to be to kill. This is higher than the intent bar for murder, that only requires intent to cause severe injury.

If you do something that did not intend to kill, but was something that could be reasonably foreseen to be life endangering, the charge would be manslaughter, not murder. You can't be charged with "attempted manslaughter" because with no intent there can be no attempt. So ABH is the appropriate charge in such circumstances. It is far from the only case where the resulting charge is related to luck. For example, the difference between dangerous driving and causing death by DD, is largely down to luck.

You can be charged with murder if the victim dies as long as you intended to do serious harm. The specific intent to kill is only required for attempted murder, not actual murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_English_law - "Murder is an offence under the common law of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to unlawfully cause either death or serious injury."

I agree with the rest of your post. I have often mused as to how fair it is that the luck element is so significant in driving offences. Consider two scenarios:

1. Driver misses seeing approaching vehicle as preparing to pull out despite looking, perhaps because oncoming vehicle is hidden in a seccade (q.v.). Driver of oncoming vehicle dies.
2. Driver impressing his mates, drives like a lunatic, wrong side of road, overtaking on white lines, but no collision ensues. Picked up by Dibble seeing erratic driving.

The first will be down for a Death by Careless Driving charge (potentially), the latter for Dangerous Driving. Who will get the higher penalty? Should they? It's an ethical minefield.

[greyingbeard]

has this charmers case finished yet ? Whats the verdict ?

[iviehoff]

It's not the CPS. The bar for attempted murder isnintent to kill. Not doing something that could kill. The intent has to be to kill. This is higher than the intent bar for murder, that only requires intent to cause severe injury.

If you do something that did not intend to kill, but was something that could be reasonably foreseen to be life endangering, the charge would be manslaughter, not murder. You can't be charged with "attempted manslaughter" because with no intent there can be no attempt. So ABH is the appropriate charge in such circumstances. It is far from the only case where the resulting charge is related to luck. For example, the difference between dangerous driving and causing death by DD, is largely down to luck.

You can be charged with murder if the victim dies as long as you intended to do serious harm. The specific intent to kill is only required for attempted murder, not actual murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_English_law - "Murder is an offence under the common law of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to unlawfully cause either death or serious injury."

I agree with the rest of your post. I have often mused as to how fair it is that the luck element is so significant in driving offences. Consider two scenarios:

1. Driver misses seeing approaching vehicle as preparing to pull out despite looking, perhaps because oncoming vehicle is hidden in a seccade (q.v.). Driver of oncoming vehicle dies.
2. Driver impressing his mates, drives like a lunatic, wrong side of road, overtaking on white lines, but no collision ensues. Picked up by Dibble seeing erratic driving.

The first will be down for a Death by Careless Driving charge (potentially), the latter for Dangerous Driving. Who will get the higher penalty? Should they? It's an ethical minefield.

You are terminologically correct, whereas I interpreted it a bit, perhaps rather casually: guidance states that "serious injury" means "very serious injury".

The conundrum you raise is the classic conundrum of state-administered justice. In a "perfect world", where offenders were dealt with according to the reality of what they did, and we sought to minimise total overall harm rather than the random outcome of specific events, we would punish people for what they did, not the consequences to the extent that they were random. However this doesn't work in the real world. Justice tends - not entirely but mostly - to have its attention drawn to actions according to their consequences, so many actions where little consequence eventuated are overlooked. Also, there is a restorative element to justice, and the notion of "responsibility" means being responsible for consequences. Also we are a democracy and many people vote for outcome-based justice. So the practical reality is that outcomes are relevant.

[MikeF]

Here's the verdict for the van driver (according to the Mail).
Pay £1000 compensation to the cyclist
Fine £550
5 points on licence
Court Costs £1550

[MikeF]

The Taxi driver was cleared by the jury at the Old Bailey http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-black-taxi-driver-cleared-of-ramming-cyclist-with-car-a3151971.html