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.
t the bed! Earlier in the thread someone noted that "attempted murder" was demoted to the lesser crime of "wounding with intent" as it would be easier to prove and to get a conviction. This too crossed my mind, however the defending QC jumped on this and said that the judge should be more lenient, acknowledging the jurors' rejection of the more serious charge of attempted murder and their acceptance that Rodwan was not carrying the machete unlawfully.
Also, anyone convicted of attacking someone with a blade should be prohibited from carrying any such weapon in public for the rest of their life. Carrying a machete after serving time for attacking someone with a machete should mean instant jail term.
Also, anyone convicted of attacking someone with a blade should be prohibited from carrying any such weapon in public for the rest of their life. Carrying a machete after serving time for attacking someone with a machete should mean instant jail term.
La Liga said:
he attempted murder wasn't 'demoted' to get an easier conviction. The attempted murder was presented to the jury who found it wasn't proven. They found the lesser offence to be proven.
This wasn't a case of 'bargaining' i.e. the defendant will plead guilty to the GBH with intent if the CPS will accept it rather than go to trial for attempted murder etc.
Not sure what point you're making (not being funny, genuinely not sure) with quoting the defendant's counsel, but obviously their job is to present the best case for the defendant, including mitigation.
If you look at it in the context of the first part of the post (which you pointed out was my misunderstanding of the system), the highlighted part was related to the fact that I believed that the QC used this fact to defend his client, hence why demote the crime to enable a prosecution when the defence will use this as a reason to reduce their clients sentence. This wasn't a case of 'bargaining' i.e. the defendant will plead guilty to the GBH with intent if the CPS will accept it rather than go to trial for attempted murder etc.
Not sure what point you're making (not being funny, genuinely not sure) with quoting the defendant's counsel, but obviously their job is to present the best case for the defendant, including mitigation.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff