Is it me. Or

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Post Reply
Jeffbfc
Posts: 1055
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:42 am
Been Liked: 382 times
Has Liked: 216 times

Is it me. Or

Post by Jeffbfc » Thu Jan 23, 2020 7:01 pm

Attacked a police man with a machete and gets convicted with wounding with intent but gets of with possessing an offensive weapon.
Sorry no.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51205548

Cardclaret
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 9:40 am
Been Liked: 9 times
Has Liked: 5 times

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by Cardclaret » Thu Jan 23, 2020 7:06 pm

He has form for this as well, previously got 9 years for attacking two people with a machete.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 5052
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 1841 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by Devils_Advocate » Thu Jan 23, 2020 7:59 pm

Jeffbfc wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 7:01 pm
Attacked a police man with a machete and gets convicted with wounding with intent but gets of with possessing an offensive weapon.
Sorry no.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51205548
Explanation from Secret Barrister if you are genuinely interested

Lots of people ask how attacking somebody with a machete can equate to a not guilty verdict of having an offensive weapon.

The answer likely lies in the complicated and counterintuitive way in which this offence works in law.
Put very simply, just because you have an offensive weapon and use it to cause injury, doesn’t necessarily mean you are guilty of an offence of having an offensive weapon in a public place.

As I say - counterintuitive. I have every sympathy with people who are confused.
Here’s how I think it’s probably gone:

There are 3 ways that something can be an offensive weapon:

1. It’s “offensive per se” - i.e. it has no lawful purpose and is designed to cause injury. Like a knuckleduster.
2. It’s adapted to cause injury - eg a bottle broken so it has sharp edges.

3. It’s not (1) or (2) but you intend to cause injury to a person with it (eg a baseball bat).

In this trial, it looks as if the machete was treated as in Category 3.
To prove a weapon is offensive under this category, the prosecution have to prove that the defendant had it *intending to use it to cause injury*.

Now here’s where it gets messy.
If you have a potentially offensive weapon with you for a lawful purpose (eg for work), and you then grab it and use it offensively to injure, long-established case law says you are not guilty of having an offensive weapon in a public place. (The “instantaneous arming” rule).
Image
In the Rodwan case, his defence appeared to be that he had the machete in his van for a gardening job.

Therefore, although the jury clearly found that he did go on to use it offensively, they may not have been sure that he intended to do so before the moment arose.
Image
As I say, if you think this is an odd area of the law, I’m not going to argue with you.

But the principle of “instantaneous arming” might explain why the jury reached what appears at first glance to be a bizarre verdict.

Funkydrummer
Posts: 5866
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:50 pm
Been Liked: 2130 times
Has Liked: 1461 times
Location: Burnley

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by Funkydrummer » Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:09 pm

Maybe then, in light of the above, he was charged with the wrong offence, which in itself, is negligent
and downright incompetent in my humble opinion.

I'm no lawyer, but maybe the charge should have been inappropriate use of a potentially dangerous implement
not used for the purpose it was intended.

Other wording is available, but I'm sure you get my drift.

thatdberight
Posts: 2505
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 657 times
Has Liked: 379 times

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by thatdberight » Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:15 pm

Excellent. The Secret Barrister gives a no doubt very correct explanation of details of intent.

If the convicted rapist, who's also got two previous machete attacks on his CV, had been where he should have been - behind bars for life - that might have saved anyone having to ponder the nuances of arboriculturally-contextualised machete excuses.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 5052
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 1841 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by Devils_Advocate » Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:16 pm

Im no lawyer also but I guess the problem with that might be if you're already charging with an offence that entails the inappropriate use of a dangerous weapon then you might not be able to also charge him of the offence you cited.

Having an offensive weapon is distinctly different from attacking someone with the weapon so can be two separate charges

Funkydrummer
Posts: 5866
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:50 pm
Been Liked: 2130 times
Has Liked: 1461 times
Location: Burnley

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by Funkydrummer » Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:21 pm

"Having an offensive weapon is distinctly different from attacking someone with the weapon so can be two separate charges"

Excellent analysis - two charges then, and two consecutive sentences to stretch until the scumbag has shuffled off this mortal coil.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 5052
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 1841 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by Devils_Advocate » Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:23 pm

Yep but unfortunately he was found not guilty of one of them

Funkydrummer
Posts: 5866
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:50 pm
Been Liked: 2130 times
Has Liked: 1461 times
Location: Burnley

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by Funkydrummer » Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:30 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:23 pm
Yep but unfortunately he was found not guilty of one of them
Yes, but that's the point in question in that it was the wrong charge, which is why
he was found not guilty. In this instance the charge didn't exist as he hadn't adapted a normal, everyday lawful implement. As I said above, that must be negligence, surely.

I remain to be convinced it's not negligence in the eyes of a layman.
Last edited by Funkydrummer on Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 5052
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 1841 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by Devils_Advocate » Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:34 pm

Funkydrummer wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:30 pm
Yes, but that's the point in question in that it was the wrong charge, which is why
he was found not guilty. In this instance the charge didn't exist as he hadn't adapted a normal, everyday lawful implement As I said above, that must be negligence, surely.

I remain to be convinced it's not negligence in the eyes of a layman.
I know but I'm not sure the charge you suggested could legally be charged alongside the charge he was found guilty of.

It may well be nothing to do with incompetence of the crown prosecution but just that the law is complex and a pile of sh*t at times and this scumbags lawyer just did his job well

Funkydrummer
Posts: 5866
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:50 pm
Been Liked: 2130 times
Has Liked: 1461 times
Location: Burnley

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by Funkydrummer » Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:41 pm

Nail on the head there DA, it's all one big game of give and take until both parties are happy with the result.

I've always failed to understand how one human being can defend another human being, in cases like this, in the knowledge that his client is one hell of a danger to society and in their heart of hearts know that they are 100% guilty as charged.

I wouldn't be able to sleep at night which explains, in some part, why I was not a lawyer.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 5052
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 1841 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by Devils_Advocate » Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:49 pm

Yep I couldn't do it and its shocking. This stuff understandably makes the headlines but its also one the reasons the very rich feel like they can do as they please and face no legal reprise

fanzone
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:00 pm
Been Liked: 62 times
Has Liked: 34 times

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by fanzone » Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:51 pm

Shows what a sh1thouse country we live in.
This user liked this post: Pimlico_Claret

Pimlico_Claret
Posts: 1043
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:08 am
Been Liked: 490 times
Has Liked: 569 times

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by Pimlico_Claret » Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:16 pm

Defence lawyers in cases like this deserve karma.

claret59
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:10 pm
Been Liked: 54 times

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by claret59 » Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:40 pm

Although 'plea bargaining' (as practised in the US) is not technically legal in the UK something very similar goes on here, and I suspect in this case too.
Possession of an Offensive weapon in these circumstances is unlikely to affect the sentence when convicted of serious wounding with intent, so 'we'll give you that one as NG if you plead to the wounding,' (or similar paraphrasing.)

dsr
Posts: 9348
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 2810 times
Has Liked: 1220 times

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by dsr » Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:49 pm

Funkydrummer wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:41 pm
Nail on the head there DA, it's all one big game of give and take until both parties are happy with the result.

I've always failed to understand how one human being can defend another human being, in cases like this, in the knowledge that his client is one hell of a danger to society and in their heart of hearts know that they are 100% guilty as charged.

I wouldn't be able to sleep at night which explains, in some part, why I was not a lawyer.
On the other hand, is it fair to say that anyone who is charged of offences like this should be automatically denied the right to a fair trial? Innocent people have been charged and indeed convicted in the past. You can't let the lawyers decide guilt or innocence - you need to go to trial.

On the other hand, it looks like the jury were a soft lot. Soft in the mind or soft-hearted, or both. Or else they don't like the police.
Last edited by dsr on Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

IanMcL
Posts: 16244
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:27 pm
Been Liked: 3244 times
Has Liked: 3720 times

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by IanMcL » Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:53 pm

Letter openers come in all shapes and sizes!

It is a bit like my Skian Dhu. It is fine to wear as part of the Highland garb, as it is sheaved. However, if you draw it, it becomes a weapon.

Pimlico_Claret
Posts: 1043
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:08 am
Been Liked: 490 times
Has Liked: 569 times

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by Pimlico_Claret » Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:50 am

16 years, out in 8, pathetic.

thatdberight
Posts: 2505
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 657 times
Has Liked: 379 times

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by thatdberight » Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:26 pm

Pimlico_Claret wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:50 am
16 years, out in 8, pathetic.
It's OK. He be "rehabilitated".

BennyD
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 am
Been Liked: 1206 times
Has Liked: 598 times
Location: Nantwich

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by BennyD » Fri Jan 24, 2020 3:30 pm

I seem to remember from a previous life in my dim and distant past, that an offensive weapon is any article that is made, intended or adapted to cause injury. Therefore, by intending to cause injury with an article that has another use, that article should automatically become an offensive weapon if it causes injury. For example, if memory serves me right, sticking a pen into the eye of someone you are fighting with makes it an offensive weapon.

LordBob
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:19 pm
Been Liked: 197 times
Has Liked: 147 times

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by LordBob » Fri Jan 24, 2020 3:41 pm

It's all in the name, no it isn't you it's all of us for letting this happen.

houseboy
Posts: 5206
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
Been Liked: 1489 times
Has Liked: 1213 times
Location: Baxenden

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by houseboy » Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:14 pm

I'm glad the secret barrister cleared that one up somewwhat as I was about to post that a machete is not, in itself, an offensive weapon, it has a perfectly legal use, as indeed does a shotgun if licenced, or a kitchen knife. Even a car can be used, as we all know too well, to kill people. The law is a strange affair to us mear mortals but it has to be to avoid any confusions.

All that said someone has already posted that it is somewhat surprising, given his past, he was actually walking the streets at all.

thatdberight
Posts: 2505
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 657 times
Has Liked: 379 times

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by thatdberight » Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:18 pm

houseboy wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:14 pm

All that said someone has already posted that it is somewhat surprising, given his past, he was actually walking the streets at all.
Disappointing, maybe. Surprising? Hardly.

houseboy
Posts: 5206
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
Been Liked: 1489 times
Has Liked: 1213 times
Location: Baxenden

Re: Is it me. Or

Post by houseboy » Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:29 pm

thatdberight wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:18 pm
Disappointing, maybe. Surprising? Hardly.
I stand corrected. Very true.

Post Reply