Is it me. Or
Is it me. Or
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
Sorry no.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51205548
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 9:40 am
- Been Liked: 22 times
- Has Liked: 7 times
Re: Is it me. Or
He has form for this as well, previously got 9 years for attacking two people with a machete.
-
- Posts: 12369
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5209 times
- Has Liked: 921 times
Re: Is it me. Or
Explanation from Secret Barrister if you are genuinely interestedJeffbfc wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 7:01 pmAttacked 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
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.
-
- Posts: 8367
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2977 times
- Has Liked: 2075 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: Is it me. Or
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Is it me. Or
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 12369
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5209 times
- Has Liked: 921 times
Re: Is it me. Or
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
Having an offensive weapon is distinctly different from attacking someone with the weapon so can be two separate charges
-
- Posts: 8367
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2977 times
- Has Liked: 2075 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: Is it me. Or
"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.
Excellent analysis - two charges then, and two consecutive sentences to stretch until the scumbag has shuffled off this mortal coil.
-
- Posts: 12369
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5209 times
- Has Liked: 921 times
Re: Is it me. Or
Yep but unfortunately he was found not guilty of one of them
-
- Posts: 8367
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2977 times
- Has Liked: 2075 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: Is it me. Or
Yes, but that's the point in question in that it was the wrong charge, which is whyDevils_Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:23 pmYep but unfortunately he was found not guilty of one of them
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.
-
- Posts: 12369
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5209 times
- Has Liked: 921 times
Re: Is it me. Or
I know but I'm not sure the charge you suggested could legally be charged alongside the charge he was found guilty of.Funkydrummer wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:30 pmYes, 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.
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
-
- Posts: 8367
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2977 times
- Has Liked: 2075 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: Is it me. Or
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 12369
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5209 times
- Has Liked: 921 times
Re: Is it me. Or
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
Re: Is it me. Or
Shows what a sh1thouse country we live in.
This user liked this post: Pimlico_Claret
-
- Posts: 1302
- Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:08 am
- Been Liked: 614 times
- Has Liked: 680 times
Re: Is it me. Or
Defence lawyers in cases like this deserve karma.
Re: Is it me. Or
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.)
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.)
Re: Is it me. Or
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.Funkydrummer wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:41 pmNail 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, 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.
Re: Is it me. Or
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 1302
- Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:08 am
- Been Liked: 614 times
- Has Liked: 680 times
Re: Is it me. Or
16 years, out in 8, pathetic.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Is it me. Or
It's OK. He be "rehabilitated".
-
- Posts: 3603
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 am
- Been Liked: 1338 times
- Has Liked: 757 times
- Location: Nantwich
Re: Is it me. Or
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.
Re: Is it me. Or
It's all in the name, no it isn't you it's all of us for letting this happen.
-
- Posts: 7066
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
- Been Liked: 2240 times
- Has Liked: 1618 times
- Location: Baxenden
Re: Is it me. Or
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.
All that said someone has already posted that it is somewhat surprising, given his past, he was actually walking the streets at all.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
-
- Posts: 7066
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
- Been Liked: 2240 times
- Has Liked: 1618 times
- Location: Baxenden
Re: Is it me. Or
I stand corrected. Very true.