Another wire at neck height

in message <[email hidden]>, p.k.

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Nigel

(') said:

Beacause it's harder to prove. if the charge is GBH then the harm is
easily proved because the intent is a separate issue. If you go for
attempted murder you would have to prove that the offender intended
to cause GBH. Proving intent is always the hardest bit as you are
trying to prove what someone's thought process was before the
incident, not the result of their actions.

Proving intent really requires witnesses to the actions leading up to
the incident.

Not at all. All you need to prove is that the suspect did stretch the
wire at neck height. There is no possible reason to do this except to
cause injury or death, and anyone doing this must know that death is
a probable outcome.

1. MALICE AFORETHOUGHT

The mens rea for murder is malice aforethought. The House of Lords in R v
Moloney [1985] AC 905 held that nothing less than intention to kill or
cause grievous bodily harm (g.b.h.) would constitute malice aforethought:
merely foreseeing the victim's death as probable was insufficient.

Exactly.

You cannot stretch wire across a cyclepath at neck height without intending
the consequences of your actions; it is impossible to stretch a garrotte
trap 'by accident'. Doing it proves you intended to do it.

Quoted message said:

(a) Intention to kill

Murder is a crime of specific intent. Intention in this context includes
direct or oblique intent. Direct intent covers the situation where the
defendant desired the death. Oblique intent covers the situation where
the death is foreseen by the defendant as virtually certain, although not
desired for its own sake.

Again, exactly.

The death may not be 'desired for it's own sake', but it is very probable
and the perpetrator cannot possibly not foresee this, unless of such low
intelligence as to be actually unfit to plead. 'Virtually certain' is a
form of words you might argue with, as Danny and this woman in east anglia
both survived, but it's my opinion that they (and the perpetrators) were
bloody lucky.

Quoted message said:

In R v Cunningham [1981] 2 All ER 863, the defendant repeatedly struck
the victim around the head with a chair resulting in his death. The
prosecution contended that while there was no intention to kill, there
had been an intent to do really s.b.h. The defendant's plea of
manslaughter was rejected and he was convicted of murder. The House of
Lords stated that an intention to cause "really serious injury" was
sufficient to amount to the mens rea for murder.

Well, again, exactly.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Q: Whats a webmaster?
A: Like a spider, but nowhere near as intelligent.

in message <[email hidden]>, p.k.

(') said:

Ace said:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:44:10 +0100, "p.k." <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email hidden]>, Nigel
> ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

Quoted message said:

>> Proving intent really requires witnesses to the actions leading up
>> to the incident.
>
> Not at all. All you need to prove is that the suspect did stretch
> the wire at neck height. There is no possible reason to do this
> except to cause injury or death, and anyone doing this must know
> that death is a probable outcome.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

...The House of Lords stated that an intention
to cause "really serious injury" was sufficient to amount to the
mens rea for murder.

So committing an act which, if it lead to death, would be covered by
this sub-clause would also leave the charge of attempted murder open
if death did not occur. I really can't see what you find so difficult
about this.

If the intention is to cause GBH and you kill it is murder.

If the intention is to knock someone off their bike for a laff and they
die, then that seems to fit better with the definition of manslaugheter.

Nobody believes that stretching a wire at neck height is going to 'knock
someone off their bike for a laff'. Anybody - a five year old - can
predict that death is a probable outcome. The perpetrator may be intending
to 'kill someone for a laff', and, indeed, it's highly likely that that is
what's intended. But that's murder.

If you shoot a loaded shotgun at a cyclist saying 'I only wanted to knock
him off his bike for a laff', do you think anyone will take that
seriously? Same applies here.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.

in message <[email hidden]>, p.k.

(') said:

Ace said:

Are you trying to argue that stretching a wire at neck-height across a
cyclepath could _not_ be deemed as intention to do serious harm?

Deeming is not the name of the game - the game is intent.

The INTENT might simply be to knock soemone off for a laff.

Oh, don't be so bloody stupid. A wire to the throat kills (unless the
victim is bloody lucky). Anyone can see that.

'M'lud, my client stabbed the deceased in the heart with a carving knife
with the intent of brushing dust off his jacket.'

Aye, right.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Conservatives are not necessarily stupid,
;; but most stupid people are conservatives -- J S Mill

p.k. said:

Simon Brooke said:

I think that's right. It's reckless behaviour which might reasonably
be expected to kill. If it did kill it would be murder. So if it
doesn't, attempted murder looks like the right charge to me.

reckless behaviour which might reasonably be expected to kill is
manslaughter not murder.

Murder require specific intent to kill.

pk

But this is not reckless behaviour, it is deliberately setting a trap
intended to main or kill. If the wire is set at approximately neck
height I'd call it attempted murder.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

See

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED23%20Jul%202007%2018%3A10%3A55%3A053

or

http://tinyurl.com/yuoag9

"Cyclist injured in trip wire incident"

"A cyclist had to be rushed to hospital after she struck a trip wire
stretched across a path.

Emily Smith was cycling with her partner on the path adjacent to the Bure
Valley Railway, close to the old Coltishall Railway Station, when the wire
caught her in the neck, knocking her off her bike.

An ambulance crew took Ms Smith to the Norfolk and Norwich University
Hospital suffering from neck and back pain but after a series of x-rays and
scans she was discharged the same evening.

The 26-year-old professional gardener has been unable to work since the
accident, on the evening of Thursday, July 19, but considers herself lucky
that the injuries she sustained were not worse.

Recovering at her home in High Street, Coltishall, she said: “Fortunately I
received no broken bones and left hospital with severe bruising and upper
body and back pain. If I had being going faster it could have been much
worse.

“This was a despicable action taken by someone in the area and one that has
put me off using this stretch of track, which I frequently used before.

“The summer holidays have just started and so a lot of people, including
children, are going to be using that track.”

The police are investigating the incident and have taken the piece of wire
away for examination.

A spokeswoman said: “The piece of wire was attached to a post by the side of
the path and it had been broken off and stretched across the path at about
head height.”

Anyone with information is asked to contact PC James Shepherd at Aylsham
police station on 0845 4564567."

Yet another reason to be avoiding farcilities whenever possible...

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, p.k.

(') said:

Ace said:

Are you trying to argue that stretching a wire at neck-height across a
cyclepath could _not_ be deemed as intention to do serious harm?

Deeming is not the name of the game - the game is intent.

The INTENT might simply be to knock soemone off for a laff.

Oh, don't be so bloody stupid. A wire to the throat kills (unless the
victim is bloody lucky). Anyone can see that.

'M'lud, my client stabbed the deceased in the heart with a carving knife
with the intent of brushing dust off his jacket.'

Aye, right.

I think the key phrase there is 'bloody stupid', Simon. I'm afraid that in
this day and age the mindless morons who do this sort of thing _are_ quite
capable of doing so without a clear idea of the possible consequences.
They're that bloody stupid, having been raised in a culture of cartoon
violence, and having been sheltered by poor parenting and policing from ever
having to confront the consequences of their actions.

Budstaff said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, p.k.

(') said:

Ace wrote:
> Are you trying to argue that stretching a wire at neck-height across a
> cyclepath could _not_ be deemed as intention to do serious harm?

Deeming is not the name of the game - the game is intent.

The INTENT might simply be to knock soemone off for a laff.

Oh, don't be so bloody stupid. A wire to the throat kills (unless the
victim is bloody lucky). Anyone can see that.

'M'lud, my client stabbed the deceased in the heart with a carving knife
with the intent of brushing dust off his jacket.'

Aye, right.

I think the key phrase there is 'bloody stupid', Simon. I'm afraid that in
this day and age the mindless morons who do this sort of thing _are_ quite
capable of doing so without a clear idea of the possible consequences.
They're that bloody stupid, having been raised in a culture of cartoon
violence, and having been sheltered by poor parenting and policing from ever
having to confront the consequences of their actions.

Thankfully, being 'bloody stupid' is not a defence in law.

--
Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom

p.k. said:

Murder require specific intent to kill.

Another area where Scots law differs.
www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/12/20339/47561#7
"Murder is committed when the accused has acted with the intention of
killing the victim or where the accused's conduct has been 'wickedly
reckless"

If this happened in Scotland and a cyclist was killed then murder
might be the charge used. Although maybe reduced to culpable homicide
during the trial.
I would say stretching a wire over a path at neck height is
"wickedly reckless".

Iain