18 Aug 05
Originally posted by DOlivier2004Of course, because there's no jury under UK Law.
Well, several posters have already answered your question, very well I might add, but I prefer to have a UK barrister throw an opinion on what type of manslaughter this is. No reasonable jury would hand down a murder conviction, based on the evidence that's out in the public now.
19 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThe thing with English homicide law is that a some of it's unwritten, there was never a "It's illegal to kill people Act of 1066". As I understand it there's murder, manslaughter and causing death by dangerous driving. There is no murder 2 as in the states. Criminally negligent homicide is one of the forms of manslaughter, there are degrees of culpability within that so disregarding a hazard would be considered worse than not perceiving it, the difference would come in sentencing but both would be called manslaughter due to negligence. Murder carries an automatic life sentence, manslaughter does not, but the judge can give that sentence - there was a recent case where a student killed his parents to go on a spending spree with their credit cards and the judge accepted the defence of diminished responsibility due to narcisism reducing the charge to one of manslaughter but gave him a life sentence anyway. Typical sentences for causing death by dangerous driving are about 6 months and being banned from driving for 2 years.
You are obviously totally untrained in any legal thought, so I won't waste futher time with you. If someone wants to cite me the sections of English homicide law that concern manslaughter, I could give a legal analysis of them and see if England recognizes a difference between manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide or not. Since all you ...[text shortened]... as a practicing attorney, not some uninformed BS session with my friends at a cafe.
19 Aug 05
3 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaWebster. As in the famous American dictionary guy? Or someone else?
He "forgot" to mention my quote of the Merrian Webster Dictionary of Law.
And he forgot to mention that New York Law has nothing to do with the case. Maybe you can cite Sumerian Law so that it relates.
Goebbels was a genius.
If you mean who I think you mean, you just proved my point.
EDIT: I just went to amazon to check it out. You do mean the American guy!
Which means YOUR legal quotes are even less relevant than no1marauders: at least his can be seen as accurate to a particular jurisdiction. Yours, on the other hand, are probably both too vague AND in the wrong jurisdiction!
I'd prefer New York Law to General American Summary For Easy Reading, thank you very much.
19 Aug 05
Originally posted by DeepThoughtMurder 1 in the US refers to that which can get a death sentence; it is murder with various aggrevating circumstances in most states. It sounds to me like the manslaughter-criminally negligent homicide distinction is, in effect, the same as in NY with negligent homicide being treated as a lesser type of manslaughter rather than as a lesser crime altogether as in NY. But the practical effects would be the same; you are liable for a greater sentence with reckless manslaughter than negligent manslaughter/homicide. Guess I'll have to check Sumerian law to see if it's the same there, too.
The thing with English homicide law is that a some of it's unwritten, there was never a "It's illegal to kill people Act of 1066". As I understand it there's murder, manslaughter and causing death by dangerous driving. There is no murder 2 as in the states. Criminally negligent homicide is one of the forms of manslaughter, there are degrees of c ...[text shortened]... causing death by dangerous driving are about 6 months and being banned from driving for 2 years.
19 Aug 05
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI believe that before the end of this parliment Murder will be graded to 4 levels following the American system. Thankfully the death penalty will not reintroduced though.
The thing with English homicide law is that a some of it's unwritten, there was never a "It's illegal to kill people Act of 1066". As I understand it there's murder, manslaughter and causing death by dangerous driving. There is no murder 2 as in the states. Criminally negligent homicide is one of the forms of manslaughter, there are degrees of c ...[text shortened]... causing death by dangerous driving are about 6 months and being banned from driving for 2 years.
19 Aug 05
1 edit
Just for the heck of it, the section of the Queensland Criminal Code that defines murder:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s302.html
(click 'next' and you'll see that all other unlawful killing is manslaughter)
I should point out that the question of intent is not the only question. You have to establish the killing IS unlawful as well.
There are issues of self-defence here (or, strictly speaking, defence of another). In Australian law at least that ends up leading to questions of belief and proportionality of response. I can't remember if the belief is subject or objective, and the law changed here during the 1990s so Lord knows which way around it is in England.
20 Aug 05
This whole argument may be premature.
A witness to the shooting, Mark Whitby, said he was sitting on the train when "I heard a lot of shouting."
"I saw a chap run on to the train," Whitby said. "He was running so fast he half sort of tripped. He was being pursued by three guys. One had a black handgun in his hand."
"As he sort of went down, two of them sort of dropped on to him to hold him down, and the other one fired. I heard five shots."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/23/london.tube/
Doesn't jib with ITV's leaked information.
And the restraining officer is as yet unidentified.
I suppose let's wait and see is out of the question.
20 Aug 05
Originally posted by orfeoThe actual definition of murder in English lawis GBH (grievous bodily harm) leading to death. In the 19th century a judge ruled that the death had to follow within a year and a day, but I think that that's been changed due to the ability of the medical community to keep people alive.
Just for the heck of it, the section of the Queensland Criminal Code that defines murder:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s302.html
(click 'next' and you'll see that all other unlawful killing is manslaughter)
I should point out that the question of intent is not the only question. You have to establish the killing IS un ...[text shortened]... tive, and the law changed here during the 1990s so Lord knows which way around it is in England.
21 Aug 05
Originally posted by DeepThoughtNo GBH is required - R v. Hayward and R v. Halliday (can't recall dates, sorry) both established that creating a state of fear sufficient that the victim dies in trying to escape - or even dies of fright - provides sufficient causation for the charge of murder.
The actual definition of murder in English lawis GBH (grievous bodily harm) leading to death. In the 19th century a judge ruled that the death had to follow within a year and a day, but I think that that's been changed due to the ability of the medical community to keep people alive.
I think the most interesting recent case for the law in this area is likely to be the reasoning in the recent Tony Martin case around use of reasonable force, and how the courts apply the concept of reasonable force in situations where 'reasonable' can validly be considered shooting to kill.
22 Aug 05
Originally posted by OsseYes, but suppose they had a heart attack and survived it, then you've got GBH.
No GBH is required - R v. Hayward and R v. Halliday (can't recall dates, sorry) both established that creating a state of fear sufficient that the victim dies in trying to escape - or even dies of fright - provides sufficient causation for the charge of murder.
I think the most interesting recent case for the law in this area is likely to be the reasoning i ...[text shortened]... reasonable force in situations where 'reasonable' can validly be considered shooting to kill.
On the original point of the thread, this makes quite interesting reading, and does rather cast into doubt any justification that the Police may claim to have had:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4158832.stm