Van driver guilty of wounding PC
Discussion
A van driver who repeatedly struck a police officer with a machete during a routine traffic stop has been found guilty of wounding with intent.
Rodwan, 56, of Luton, had claimed he was acting in self defence. He was convicted of wounding with intent but found not guilty of attempted murder.
Rodwan, who has previous convictions for rape and two other machete attacks, was also cleared by the jury of possessing an offensive weapon.
PC Outten suffered six blows to the head from a 2ft-long blade after stopping Rodwan's white van for having no insurance.
He suffered six deep wounds to the head, exposing his skull, slash wounds to his arm, several broken fingers and three severed tendons in one hand.
Rodwan said he retrieved his machete from the van but could not remember how many times he hit PC Outten with it before getting out.
He said: "I was just trying to hit him to get him away from me."
Image copyright Met Police
Rodwan had claimed he had the machete in his van for his gardening work.
The jury was told the defendant had a conviction for rape in 1982.
And in 1997 at Snaresbrook Crown Court he was convicted of two offences of wounding with intent for an unprovoked machete attack on a tenant and his friend for which he was sentenced to nine years in prison.
During his trial, Mrs Justice Carr ruled Rodwan's violent past was inadmissible despite jurors asking about previous convictions.
From the BBC, which includes a video of the attack.
So many failures here, so much highlighted about the problems with the justice system here in the UK.
Rodwan, 56, of Luton, had claimed he was acting in self defence. He was convicted of wounding with intent but found not guilty of attempted murder.
Rodwan, who has previous convictions for rape and two other machete attacks, was also cleared by the jury of possessing an offensive weapon.
PC Outten suffered six blows to the head from a 2ft-long blade after stopping Rodwan's white van for having no insurance.
He suffered six deep wounds to the head, exposing his skull, slash wounds to his arm, several broken fingers and three severed tendons in one hand.
Rodwan said he retrieved his machete from the van but could not remember how many times he hit PC Outten with it before getting out.
He said: "I was just trying to hit him to get him away from me."
Image copyright Met Police
Rodwan had claimed he had the machete in his van for his gardening work.
The jury was told the defendant had a conviction for rape in 1982.
And in 1997 at Snaresbrook Crown Court he was convicted of two offences of wounding with intent for an unprovoked machete attack on a tenant and his friend for which he was sentenced to nine years in prison.
During his trial, Mrs Justice Carr ruled Rodwan's violent past was inadmissible despite jurors asking about previous convictions.
=============
From the BBC, which includes a video of the attack.
So many failures here, so much highlighted about the problems with the justice system here in the UK.
Interesting thread on Twitter about why having a machete like that doesn't mean possession of an offensive weapon in public:
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1220422...
Also in there is some video from the scene
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1220422...
Also in there is some video from the scene
Edited by Harpoon on Thursday 23 January 21:07
Nasty job. Lucky he has his Taser and the composure to use it effectively.
Attempted murder is a very hard offence to prove given you have to prove intent to kill.
Even if you do something that is likely to kill it doesn’t mean you intended to do so.
Attempted murder is a very hard offence to prove given you have to prove intent to kill.
Even if you do something that is likely to kill it doesn’t mean you intended to do so.
CoolHands said:
Well I hope the bobbys learn from that, when you get him out the vehicle, don’t let him back in
Not always that simple. La Liga said:
Attempted murder is a very hard offence to prove given you have to prove intent to kill.
Even if you do something that is likely to kill it doesn’t mean you intended to do so.
I can't see how hitting someone on the head with a machete can be anything but intending to kill?Even if you do something that is likely to kill it doesn’t mean you intended to do so.
How s
t are the CPS!!!!They went for a lesser charge that was easier to guarantee a conviction. Might not be murder but they can still impose a decent term on the oxygen thief.
See it all the time with the piss heads on a Saturday night that get physical. Last time I got whacked by somebody in cuffs would you believe, CPS wouldn't go for assault they went for a racially aggravated charge instead because it was easier to reach the threshold to secure a conviction and they got some time in the big house to dwell on what they had done. Should have kept their mouth shut and they would have been home the morning after with a bking or at worst a caution
See it all the time with the piss heads on a Saturday night that get physical. Last time I got whacked by somebody in cuffs would you believe, CPS wouldn't go for assault they went for a racially aggravated charge instead because it was easier to reach the threshold to secure a conviction and they got some time in the big house to dwell on what they had done. Should have kept their mouth shut and they would have been home the morning after with a b
king or at worst a cautionEdited by shep1001 on Thursday 23 January 21:43
Fatboy said:
La Liga said:
Attempted murder is a very hard offence to prove given you have to prove intent to kill.
Even if you do something that is likely to kill it doesn’t mean you intended to do so.
I can't see how hitting someone on the head with a machete can be anything but intending to kill?Even if you do something that is likely to kill it doesn’t mean you intended to do so.
How s
t are the CPS!!!!I imagine the prosecution barrister and team knew what they were doing and it was probably a case of it not being possible to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
Remember 'probably' or 'likely' isn't enough. The jury have to be sure.
Had he killed the officer it'd be easier to prove murder as that includes the intent to cause GBH as well as intent as the mental element.
shep1001 said:
They went for a lesser charge that was easier to guarantee a conviction.
Attempted murder was put to the jury, which is the most serious offence this could be. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff