How is this manslaughter?

[Bus Honeygun]

Pretty grim stuff. A true 'piece of shit' for anyone who's ever read Bonfire of the Vanities or is familiar with NYPD slang.

Faces of biker gang members who killed grandfather on A38

The three men will be told how long they will serve in jail next January after a jury found them all guilty of manslaughter

www.devonlive.com

But can anyone explain in legal terms how this ends up as manslaughter rather than the murder it clearly is?

 

[Poot]

No, but my OH asked exactly the same question last night.

 

[pogofish]

I think this in the article answers it:

Prosecutors told the jury that the three men had effectively conspired to track down a member of the Red Chiefs MC and cause them serious harm, but while Parry - a former Royal Engineer in the British Army - admitted his actions did cause the death of Mr Crawford, he told the jury he did not set out to kill him. For their part, Pawley and Brading insisted no such plan was ever created and it was pure chance that they happened to be alongside Mr Crawford on the on-slip when he was struck by the Transit van.

And the court bought it, in the absence of any convincing proof that they had determinedly set-out to kill someone.

 

[8ball]

I think this in the article answers it:



And the court bought it, in the absence of any convincing proof that they had determinedly set-out to kill someone.

That seems very legally ropey if it is in fact the defence.
I would expect a diminished responsibility defence to be the only way of turning that from a murder charge to manslaughter, and that's a tough one to pull if you're in charge of a vehicle and using it as a weapon.

IANAL applies.

Athos may be able to assist here.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

To get murder the pros has to show that they attempted to inflict serious harm. What's written here is that two of them meant no harm at all and the third did it on the spur of the moment without thinking at all.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

And the court bought it, in the absence of any convincing proof that they had determinedly set-out to kill someone.

That seems very legally ropey if it is in fact the defence.

again, I'm not a lawyer or copper, but this isn't how I understood it

I thought that if you set out to do something that is at least likely to do serious harm, and it killed someone, that was murder, even if there wasn't an intent to kill.

i thought manslaughter was either something by accident / negligence, or a violent act that would not normally be expected to kill someone, but on this occasion did

 

[8ball]

I thought that if you set out to do something that is at least likely to do serious harm, and it killed someone, that was murder, even if there wasn't an intent to kill.

Same here.

 

[JimW]

They copped to the lesser charge too didn't they, so think Crown goes with that to wrap it up rather than risking an acquittal even if on face of it unlikely.

 

[8ball]

To get murder the pros has to show that they attempted to inflict serious harm. What's written here is that two of them meant no harm at all and the third did it on the spur of the moment without thinking at all.

Yeah, but who is likely to believe such transparent bollocks?

 

[killer b]

the jury in the trial they've just been convicted of manslaughter at?

 

[pseudonarcissus]

the jury in the trial they've just been convicted of manslaughter at?

Who had to sit through a distressing trial and listen to all the evidence instead of having the benefit of reading a newspaper article

 

[8ball]

the jury in the trial they've just been convicted of manslaughter at?

I guess it’s as likely that a jury was that stupid as it is likely that they didn’t want their houses to burn down.

 

[8ball]

Who had to sit through a distressing trial and listen to all the evidence instead of having the benefit of reading a newspaper article

The contention was that the decision was based on what was stated in the article. Though I’m coming round to the idea of recalibrating my view of juries.

 

[Pickman's model]

The contention was that the decision was based on what was stated in the article. Though I’m coming round to the idea of recalibrating my view of juries.

yeh you'd rather be tried by a diplock court or similar

 

[Bus Honeygun]

I guess it’s as likely that a jury was that stupid as it is likely that they didn’t want their houses to burn down.

That's a point given the background of the offenders.

 

[8ball]

yeh you'd rather be tried by a diplock court or similar

Have you served on juries many times?

 

[Pickman's model]

Have you served on juries many times?

no. have you been tried by them many times?

 

[8ball]

no. have you been tried by them many times?

As many times as diplocks.

 

[Pickman's model]

As many times as diplocks.

i'd still prefer to take my chances with a jury than without one

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Middle aged and older men belonging to violent gangs - puzzling.

 

[8ball]

i'd still prefer to take my chances with a jury than without one

No quarrel there. If I ever want to take someone out on a motorway slip road I’ll be insisting on one.

 

[Poot]

Middle aged and older men belonging to violent gangs - puzzling.

I thought the same. But actually, forming factions and fighting each other makes some sort of sense if you've been in the military since you were 15, especially if it's normalised because everyone around you is doing it. But yeah, it does look a bit silly.

 

[JimW]

Mainstay of ethnic militias bullying the neighbours the world over.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Middle aged and older men belonging to violent gangs - puzzling.

Try read this thread, Biker gangs / "patch clubs" but don't tell anyone I pointed you towards it, cos snitches...

 

[pogofish]

No quarrel there. If I ever want to take someone out on a motorway slip road I’ll be insisting on one.

It has long been said that "if you want to get away with murder, use a vehicle and claim it was an accident"!

 

[pogofish]

I also came across an instance of murder being downgraded to manslaughter - A guy I was at college with who killed his wife, she lingered in a coma for a month or two longer than it was possible for him to be charged with murder, so manslaughter it had to be. He served six/seven years - a horribly tragic mess!

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I also came across an instance of murder being downgraded to manslaughter - A guy I was at college with who killed his wife, she lingered in a coma for a month or two longer than it was possible for him to be charged with murder, so manslaughter it had to be. He served six/seven years - a horribly tragic mess!

The year and a day rule has now been scrapped, in fact just a couple of weeks ago some scumbucket who set fire to his partner in 1998 and got 15 years for that and was then handed 24 on top when she died in 2019.

 

[pogofish]

The year and a day rule has now been scrapped, in fact just a couple of weeks ago some scumbucket who set fire to his partner in 1998 and got 15 years for that and was then handed 24 on top when she died in 2019.

This would have been in the early 2000s - He faced-up to his responsibility at the time and would have pleaded guilty even it had been murder. Plus his own and his wife's families co-operated over access and the upbringing of their kids, so he has been able to put a less chaotic life back together since release.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Seems like the victim was part of another biker gang so meh. Doubt any of his organs were salvageable so that rules out the one contribution to society these people ever make.

 

[8ball]

Seems like the victim was part of another biker gang so meh. Doubt any of his organs were salvageable so that rules out the one contribution to society these people ever make.

Corneas?