Newsbot Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 A 57-year-old man, who suffered serious head injuries in an attack at a house on the Isle of Man, dies. Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/6961934.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Didn't realise the injuries were that bad!, Guess their looking at manslaughter not ABH now. Poor guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Didn't realise the injuries were that bad!, Guess their looking at manslaughter not ABH now. Poor guy Surely if it was with intent there is more than a possiblility of a murder charge - could you reasonably expect someone to die as a result of what was done. If so its murder - I think - Mr Wright is that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Surely if it was with intent there is more than a possiblility of a murder charge - could you reasonably expect someone to die as a result of what was done. If so its murder - I think - Mr Wright is that correct? Awful. I think murder is all about intent, did you knowingly try to kill him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
access55 Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Didn't realise the injuries were that bad!, Guess their looking at manslaughter not ABH now. Poor guy Surely if it was with intent there is more than a possiblility of a murder charge - could you reasonably expect someone to die as a result of what was done. If so its murder - I think - Mr Wright is that correct? From memory of nightime Law class Mens Rea = Guilty Mind (Intent of the crime) Actus Reus = Guilty Act (Pysical act of the crime) For Murder both have to be proved - manslaughter is the killing act without the intent to kill - so the court would have to prove the attackers intended to killl for a murder conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Didn't realise the injuries were that bad! They were remanded in custody, which was a bit of a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Surely if it was with intent there is more than a possiblility of a murder charge - could you reasonably expect someone to die as a result of what was done. If so its murder - I think - Mr Wright is that correct? How do you prove they intended to kill though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Time for the mods to close the thread, methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 I think (but obviously JW is best placed to say) that you have to intend either to kill them or cause them grievous bodily harm in order for a murder charge to stick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 How awful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 If you get charged with GBH and the victim then dies, a murder charge can be imposed. GBH mens rea is to cause serious harm to someone, which is enough for a murder MR. As I can't remember what these guys were charged with, I am being hypothetical! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheJudge Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 I think (but obviously JW is best placed to say) that you have to intend either to kill them or cause them grievous bodily harm in order for a murder charge to stick Correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Murder is the appropriate charge when a victim dies as the result of injuries sustained from an attack which can be made out as GBH. The basic reasoning behind this is that an attacker should not be able to avoid culpability for the full consequences of their actions: if they attack someone intending to do them really serious harm then they must accept that, in inflicting such harm, there is a risk that the victim will die. It's pretty exceptional, but if there was some intervening act (novus actus interveniens) that could be shown to have caused the death, such as the victim sustaining additional injuries through a separate attack, then a GBH charge could still be appropriate for the original attackers. If I remember case law correctly even where the victim dies from an infection contracted in hospital the infection is not sufficient as a novus actus and the original attackers would still be culpable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 That would make sense, I guess the reasoning is that the victim wouldn't have been in hospital to contract the infection if the attacker hadn't beaten him up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Indeed. You guess right, although gross medical negligence could break the chain with the original attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.