Why was this not attempted murder?

[Fetchez la vache]

"Cardiff Crown Court heard Verrall used his 1,000kg Ford Fiesta as a "weapon"."
I'm interested as to why cases such as this (there seem to be similar ones involving cyclists) are never brought as cases of "attempted murder".
Do we know the reason for this? Is it possibly due to ease of prosecution, rather than potentially what actually happened? Has there ever been a successful case of "attempted murder" involving using a car as a weapon?

BBC News: Newport driver jailed for 10 years for ramming scooter rider

[anonymous-user]

I would guess because he was driving a car, if he had used a different weapon then who knows as the intent appears the same to me.

[Pica-Pica]

I would imagine unless you deliberately ran over them, whilst they are laying on the ground, then doubt a charge of attempted murder Would stick.

[MikeM6]

Did he attempt to kill the other person and could you prove that? Or did he intend to seriously hurt them, which I imagine is an easier thing to prove.

[Bigends]

Im sure he intended to cause him some serious damage rather than kill him

[mac96]

I don't think this event really bears out the cliche about vehicle drivers 'getting away with it'. Some one could deliberately arm themselves with a knife, go out and stab someone with it, and get less than 10 years if his victim didn't die.

For example, this charming bunch:
https://www.cambs.police.uk/news-and-appeals/Rober...

The driver lost his temper, he hadn't gone out that day with the intent to harm anyone. That's not an excuse, but it makes him better/less bad than the knife attackers.

[bobtail4x4]

[916]

Attempted murder is very hard to prove, in fact harder to prove then murder.
A simplified version :
To prove attempted murder you must prove an attempt to kill.
To prove murder you need the death of a person and a intent to seriously harm the person.
Manslaughter an unlawful act resulting in death.

So in the case, it doesn’t surprise me there was no attempted murder charge.

[MikeM6]

bobtail4x4 said:

Quite funny. Hope it's not taken seriously though.

[Psycho Warren]

MikeM6 said:

Quite funny. Hope it's not taken seriously though.

what you mean like after the michael ryan shootings, afer dunblane, the scottish knee jerk air rifle ban? etc etc etc. we have a moden history of knee jerk shooting bans/ restrictions to appease the poorly educated masses to be seen to be doing something.

america takes it too far the other way though.

[TVRnutcase]

MikeM6 said:

Quite funny. Hope it's not taken seriously though.

That is EXACTLY how it is.

Back on topic - 10 years in jail would seem to equate with other wounding charges - certainly a fairly solid time to reflect on ones crimes

[anonymous-user]

It is always hard to prove a state of mind such as intent to kill. The prosecution must prove the intent to kill, and not just the intent to cause serious harm. Intent can be inferred from circumstances, but an inferential case is not an easy one to sustain.

[MikeM6]

TVRnutcase said:

MikeM6 said:

Quite funny. Hope it's not taken seriously though.

That is EXACTLY how it is.

Back on topic - 10 years in jail would seem to equate with other wounding charges - certainly a fairly solid time to reflect on ones crimes

Of course it bloody isn't. A gun is a tool to kill someone that the general public should not have access too. There is no sound reason for gun ownerships, and many are against it. The only reason why some countries permit it, is that they like guns and want to own them. Doesn't mean they should though.

Some wire is a tool that can be used to kill, but it's primary function is elsewhere. Ditto a bat or knife, both of which you can't just walk around welding in public anyway.

[Zetec-S]

MikeM6 said:

Of course it bloody isn't. A gun is a tool to kill someone that the general public should not have access too. There is no sound reason for gun ownerships, and many are against it. The only reason why some countries permit it, is that they like guns and want to own them. Doesn't mean they should though.

Some wire is a tool that can be used to kill, but it's primary function is elsewhere. Ditto a bat or knife, both of which you can't just walk around welding in public anyway.

Reminds me of this...

https://youtu.be/k7ThhuIUll8

[78Pace]

MikeM6 said:

Of course it bloody isn't. A gun is a tool to kill someone that the general public should not have access too. There is no sound reason for gun ownerships, and many are against it. The only reason why some countries permit it, is that they like guns and want to own them. Doesn't mean they should though.

Some wire is a tool that can be used to kill, but it's primary function is elsewhere. Ditto a bat or knife, both of which you can't just walk around welding in public anyway.

Mike, your comment is very generalist and not entirely correct. Firearms are also items of sports equipment, with shooting having been in all but 2 iterations of the modern Olympics. Shooting is the only sport in the UK regulated by law (and rightly so). I suspect that you may perhaps have formed your views on the basis of crimes reported in the media? That is all well and good, but please don't apply those conclusion to everyone. Are you aware that handgun crime has increased significantly since the ban came in in 1997 and that such crimes use illegally held firearms? The issue is not with those who legally possess firearms, but those who are in illegal possession of them.

[anonymous-user]

A point of detail: shooting is not in fact the only legally regulated sport. Aspects of football are regulated, as are aspects of horse racing, to name but two.

[Psycho Warren]

78Pace said:

Are you aware that handgun crime has increased significantly since the ban came in in 1997 and that such crimes use illegally held firearms? The issue is not with those who legally possess firearms, but those who are in illegal possession of them.

The public in general is totally ignorant of that fact, hence "mothers against guns" and all those nutty campaigners who should be getting psychiatric help for unresolved grief rather than being allowed to campaign for something they don't understand.

The public perception is that everyone with an interest in shooting sports is a gun nutter who will eventually turn and shoot people. Hence its always an easy vote winner to throw in more gun restrictions because "guns kill people" etc.

[anonymous-user]

I add that the single crime that led to the handgun ban in the UK was sufficient in itself to justify that ban. There is no need for anyone to have a handgun at home. The sport of shooting has not died out because of the ban.

[Centurion07]

Psycho Warren said:

The public in general is totally ignorant of that fact, hence "mothers against guns" and all those nutty campaigners who should be getting psychiatric help for unresolved grief rather than being allowed to campaign for something they don't understand.

The public perception is that everyone with an interest in shooting sports is a gun nutter who will eventually turn and shoot people. Hence its always an easy vote winner to throw in more gun restrictions because "guns kill people" etc.

Guns DO kill people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

[78Pace]

Centurion07 said:

Guns DO kill people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

If that statement were true then I'd consider myself lucky to have survived nearly 50 years in my sport of shooting! Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world and yet has very low gun crime levels. The USA would be an example to disprove this. However my point is that guns themselves don't kill people - it is people who do so and that's why we have the legislation in place.