Shopping & Style2 mins ago
Why Was He Not Charged With Manslaughter?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by davebro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//But I don't understand how they could get convictions for murder & manslaughter in the second case.//
Nor do I...for the reasons stated above. What you should do, dave, is to go to a Crown Court and observe from the public gallery, a trial on serious charges such as those under discussion here. If you last the distance (!) you will realise there is far, far more detail to such a prosecution than the snippets you are fed in the papers.
Nor do I...for the reasons stated above. What you should do, dave, is to go to a Crown Court and observe from the public gallery, a trial on serious charges such as those under discussion here. If you last the distance (!) you will realise there is far, far more detail to such a prosecution than the snippets you are fed in the papers.
There is no need to prove intent in a case of manslaughter. Broadly speaking manslaughter is usually charged when the accused causes the death of a person whilst committing a crime.For instance back in the fifties a thief who severed a gas pipe in a house in order to steal the lead was convicted of manslaughter when an occupant of he house died from gas poisoning.
A couple of points of correction, Andy:
//...the CPS needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the death of the victim was the accused's premeditated intention,...//]
There is no need to prove premeditation to support a murder conviction. Only "intent" is required and that intent can arise spontaneously.
//..and for a weight of evidence to provide a better than fity per cent chance of a conviction.//
The prospect of a conviction is not actually quantified. The Code for Crown Prosecutors simply says that there must be "...enough evidence to provide a 'realistic prospect of conviction' "
//In terms of manslaughter, as I understand it once again, a degree of intent has to be present,...//
The very essence of the difference between murder and manslaughter is that murder requires intent whereas manslaughter does not. Leaving aside "gross negligence" manslaughter, both murder and manslaughter must involve an unlawful and dangerous act. Again, quoting from the Code for Crown Prosecutors:
"The offence is made out if it is proved that the accused intentionally did an unlawful and dangerous act from which death inadvertently resulted."
So manslaughter can be seen, if you like, as "accidental murder."
//Looking at a siutation as a simple scenario, and deciding that an accused should be accused of something that will generate the maximum sentence, is not the way the law works.//
That is spot on, and a point often overlooked.
//...the CPS needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the death of the victim was the accused's premeditated intention,...//]
There is no need to prove premeditation to support a murder conviction. Only "intent" is required and that intent can arise spontaneously.
//..and for a weight of evidence to provide a better than fity per cent chance of a conviction.//
The prospect of a conviction is not actually quantified. The Code for Crown Prosecutors simply says that there must be "...enough evidence to provide a 'realistic prospect of conviction' "
//In terms of manslaughter, as I understand it once again, a degree of intent has to be present,...//
The very essence of the difference between murder and manslaughter is that murder requires intent whereas manslaughter does not. Leaving aside "gross negligence" manslaughter, both murder and manslaughter must involve an unlawful and dangerous act. Again, quoting from the Code for Crown Prosecutors:
"The offence is made out if it is proved that the accused intentionally did an unlawful and dangerous act from which death inadvertently resulted."
So manslaughter can be seen, if you like, as "accidental murder."
//Looking at a siutation as a simple scenario, and deciding that an accused should be accused of something that will generate the maximum sentence, is not the way the law works.//
That is spot on, and a point often overlooked.
May be if you get into a car with either drink or drugs inside you and in doing so you kill someone then the charge should be without question manslaughter. Driving with either inside you is a crime anyhow, so you are already driving dangerously before the killing in this case. Had there been more coverage, ( public outcry) of this case like there was that of PC Harper, may be the CPS would have thought again.
Barsel It appears that you and a few others seem to think I'm sticking up for the scum that killed PC Harper, not the case, I wish they would never get out of prison.
That said and done, all three claimed they didn't know he was being dragged behind, I know and everyone else knows that's not true. My point is that I can't see why this clown is only charged with dangerous driving, after all you could say the three that killed PC Harper had been driving the car "away" from him, PC Harper got himself caught up in the trailing rope.
That said and done, all three claimed they didn't know he was being dragged behind, I know and everyone else knows that's not true. My point is that I can't see why this clown is only charged with dangerous driving, after all you could say the three that killed PC Harper had been driving the car "away" from him, PC Harper got himself caught up in the trailing rope.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Law5 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
