Van driver guilty of wounding PC
Discussion
The max sentence for GBH with intent is life in prison - this deserves that considering his previous.
No doubt people have an annoyance with the offence of 'attempted murder' maybe not meaning in law what we think it means in plain English - but clearly GBH with intent covers doing something which almost kills someone and this must be interpreted as about as serious as you can get to murder without committing murder.
No doubt people have an annoyance with the offence of 'attempted murder' maybe not meaning in law what we think it means in plain English - but clearly GBH with intent covers doing something which almost kills someone and this must be interpreted as about as serious as you can get to murder without committing murder.
Taking account of his previous convictions for rape, wounding, earlier machete attacks etc dating back to the 80's, the bloke in question is a total scumbag by any normal, societal measure. Someone who treats a spell in prison as a risk of the job rather than a punishment or deterrent.
If I gambled, I would bet that the convictions above are only a small percentage of the crimes he has committed. He's clearly never earned a legitimate wage in his life and may be responsible for burglaries, thefts and other "minor" crimes to keep himself afloat.
I can understand the judge keeping his past secret during the trial, that's fair enough - every case should be judged on it's own evidence.
Unsurprisingly, he has been found guilty again.
Hope the judge can now take account of the previous proven offences when considering the sentence. I understand basic principles and reasoning in law, but it must have been a very fine line between wounding with intent (guilty), and attempted murder (not guilty).
From the BBC:
"The police officer "suffered six blows to the head from a 2ft-long blade after stopping Rodwan's white van... 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."
Only due to happenstance/luck that the copper didn't die and this individual charged with murder.
Hope he gets 15 years/life with no early parole.
If I gambled, I would bet that the convictions above are only a small percentage of the crimes he has committed. He's clearly never earned a legitimate wage in his life and may be responsible for burglaries, thefts and other "minor" crimes to keep himself afloat.
I can understand the judge keeping his past secret during the trial, that's fair enough - every case should be judged on it's own evidence.
Unsurprisingly, he has been found guilty again.
Hope the judge can now take account of the previous proven offences when considering the sentence. I understand basic principles and reasoning in law, but it must have been a very fine line between wounding with intent (guilty), and attempted murder (not guilty).
From the BBC:
"The police officer "suffered six blows to the head from a 2ft-long blade after stopping Rodwan's white van... 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."
Only due to happenstance/luck that the copper didn't die and this individual charged with murder.
Hope he gets 15 years/life with no early parole.
Edited by OzzyR1 on Friday 24th January 02:43
Harpoon said:
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
It's a dangerous path when possession is deemed an offense. I have a machete that I use in the garden. I also have a small axe. The axe is far more dangerous if used as a weapon. A claw hammer is probably somewhere in between.https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1220422...
Also in there is some video from the scene
Edited by Harpoon on Thursday 23 January 21:07
All have a legitimate use.
This is the footage if anyone missed it on the news.
It's edited for the news so not too graphic, but there is a picture of the PC immediately after which has a lot of blood so don't watch if you don't like blood.
https://youtu.be/isxl6vbg0J4
It's edited for the news so not too graphic, but there is a picture of the PC immediately after which has a lot of blood so don't watch if you don't like blood.
https://youtu.be/isxl6vbg0J4
98elise said:
It's a dangerous path when possession is deemed an offense. I have a machete that I use in the garden. I also have a small axe. The axe is far more dangerous if used as a weapon. A claw hammer is probably somewhere in between.
All have a legitimate use.
Possessing in the van and possessing in your hand hitting a policeman repeatedly over the head.must surely be slightly different.All have a legitimate use.
I wonder when someone last saw him using it for gardening work. If ever.
Peter911 said:
98elise said:
It's a dangerous path when possession is deemed an offense. I have a machete that I use in the garden. I also have a small axe. The axe is far more dangerous if used as a weapon. A claw hammer is probably somewhere in between.
All have a legitimate use.
Possessing in the van and possessing in your hand hitting a policeman repeatedly over the head.must surely be slightly different.All have a legitimate use.
I wonder when someone last saw him using it for gardening work. If ever.
The former isn't a crime and shouldn't be IMO. The latter is and should end in a very long sentence.
Reciprocating mass said:
Well if it’s a poor sentence then it will show that it’s time to stop apologising On behalf of the cps get rid of the sorry excuse for a service and let’s have a proper justice system that favours the victims instead of the perpetrators
The CPS don’t sentence people. The judge does. A judge is bound by sentencing guidelines.
A category one (the most serious) offence has a range of 9-16 years.
Reciprocating mass said:
I don’t really care who makes the sentences and who does what as long as scum like him never set foot out of clink again
That’s fine, but if you aren’t interested in the details the perhaps don’t make a foolish suggestion the organisation that isn’t involved with the sentencing be ‘got rid of’ if something which isn’t in their control isn’t to your liking...Presumably even if the policeman had died he would have been prosecuted for manslaughter rather than murder? All else being equal.
I think our laws around homicide need a big rethink.
We need something like second degree murder for cases of malicious attack leading to death as distinct from manslaughter, which I think is more commonly understood to mean accidental killing through carelessness or stupidity.
Something like this could be treated as a sub offence of second degree attempted murder (preferably better named) to reflect the difference between reckless accidents and lethal violence.
I think our laws around homicide need a big rethink.
We need something like second degree murder for cases of malicious attack leading to death as distinct from manslaughter, which I think is more commonly understood to mean accidental killing through carelessness or stupidity.
Something like this could be treated as a sub offence of second degree attempted murder (preferably better named) to reflect the difference between reckless accidents and lethal violence.
16 years.
https://news.sky.com/story/machete-attacker-who-sl...
Hopefully he'll never get out alive; he's clearly a danger to society.
https://news.sky.com/story/machete-attacker-who-sl...
Hopefully he'll never get out alive; he's clearly a danger to society.
JulianHJ said:
16 years.
https://news.sky.com/story/machete-attacker-who-sl...
Hopefully he'll never get out alive; he's clearly a danger to society.
Good, hope the piece of shttps://news.sky.com/story/machete-attacker-who-sl...
Hopefully he'll never get out alive; he's clearly a danger to society.
t dies behind bars. 16 years being the top of the sentencing guidelines.
Kill someone with the intention to cause GBH or the intention to kill and it's murder. Attempted murder is more limited and only an attempt to kill will suffice. Attempts always require intention to commit the offence in question.
I think our laws around homicide are fine.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Presumably even if the policeman had died he would have been prosecuted for manslaughter rather than murder? All else being equal.
No, as I wrote earlier had the police officer died then an intention to cause GBH would suffice for the mental element for the accused. Kill someone with the intention to cause GBH or the intention to kill and it's murder. Attempted murder is more limited and only an attempt to kill will suffice. Attempts always require intention to commit the offence in question.
I think our laws around homicide are fine.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 24th January 11:57
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff