So the Met police get away with muder once again!

[Lateralthinking1]

if a person who is drunk gets into a car and knocks down a pedestrian, is he less guilty if that pedestrian only suffers a fractured shoulder than if the pedestrian is killed? Or, to put it the other way round, is he equally guilty if the pedestrian suffers a relatively minor injury compared with if the pedestrian is killed? Does the extent of your guilt really just depend on good or bad luck?

Ah! I like these questions because they help to move us in the direction I was implying. There is a lot to be said, I think, for considering actual consequence last, not that this is to argue for ignoring consequence. In a sense, potential consequence is a more accurate indicator of any offence than actual consequence because in many instances actual consequence is about luck.

Going to the other end of the spectrum - the cause - enables you to make a distinction between drunk driver and drunk driver. I would be less punishing on someone who is heavily alcohol dependent than a person who has simply overdone it at an office party. I would also make distinctions between repeat offences by the alcohol dependent and repeat offences by the merely blase.

In the case of the alcohol dependent, I'd want to know what steps the person had taken to rectify the problem. I would take those into account. In the case of both kinds of drunk driver, I would look at the full range of mitigating factors. Were they called away suddenly because their child had gone missing or something along those lines? To me, that makes quite a difference.

It sounds soft. Anyone who has lost a relative because of a drunk driver or even been knocked over by a drunk driver and suffered just a scratch wants action to be taken. They feel angry. They can't see it as simply bad luck. But there is such a thing as bad luck in life. You could be killed by lightning or in many other ways. The law should not be there mainly as revenge for distress.

My objective would be to minimise the problem of drink driving by coming down very heavily on the unlawfully uncaring and seeking caring practical solutions in the case of those who have been reckless because of problems. One thing that worries me is the requirement on the police to increase arrests. It creates easy targets. We need to focus on the real criminals rather than crimes.

[scottycelt]

The coroner recorded a verdict of 'unlawful killing', but does that in law necessarily equate with 'manslaughter' (or, in other circumstances, murder) which was the charge? (I don't know, but I assume it doesn't).

There's a whole moral discussion about culpability as it relates to what a person actually does and the result of that action: if a person who is drunk gets into a car and knocks down a pedestrian, is he less guilty if that pedestrian only suffers a fractured shoulder than if the pedestrian is killed? Or, to put it the other way round, is he equally guilty if the pedestrian suffers a relatively minor injury compared with if the pedestrian is killed? Does the extent of your guilt really just depend on good or bad luck?

Edit: Full inquest verdict was: Abdominal haemorrhage due to blunt force trauma to the abdomen in association with cirrhosis of the liver.

Yes, I agree with much of that, which is why I considered a manslaughter charge a bit 'OTT' as there were other factors at play which no doubt contributed to the victim's death. I have always thought that 'manslaughter ' (at least involuntary) related to a death directly caused by recklessness and carelessness by another or others. The officer's act was clearly deliberate but it only partly explained Mr Tomlinson's death so it is a complicated case, as you say. 'Unlawful Killing' appears to cover everything inc murder, manslaughter, etc and I'm not entirely sure what purpose it serves.

That is precisely why I think the officer should have been charged with assault and battery (or something similar) as, to me, that was the crime he was clearly seen to have committed and also witnessed by others. It would have been quite astonishing if he had been acquitted on that charge, and indeed the PC may well have been advised to plead guilty, anyway.

All now 'water under the bridge ... '

[Ariosto]

'Come out'? ... not likely, Ariosto ... !!

Of course, my remark was a general one and, in any case, I did use the word 'appears'. As we all know, appearances sometimes can be quite deceptive!

I duly note what you have now put on record ...

Thanks for clearing that up Scotty - maybe I was being a bit paranoid!! ME paranoid!!? I'm usually too laid back ...

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes, I agree with much of that, which is why I considered a manslaughter charge a bit 'OTT' as there were other factors at play which no doubt contributed to the victim's death. I have always thought that 'manslaughter ' (at least involuntary) related to a death directly caused by recklessness and carelessness by another or others. The officer's act was clearly deliberate but it only partly explained Mr Tomlinson's death so it is a complicated case, as you say. 'Unlawful Killing' appears to cover everything inc murder, manslaughter, etc and I'm not entirely sure what purpose it serves.

That is precisely why I think the officer should have been charged with assault and battery (or something similar) as, to me, that was the crime he was clearly seen to have committed and also witnessed by others. It would have been quite astonishing if he had been acquitted on that charge, and indeed the PC may well have been advised to plead guilty, anyway.

All now 'water under the bridge ... '

No, please, no!

Why can't the policeman now be charged with assault, or actual bodily harm? Doeas the fact that he was acquitted of manslaughter disallow lesser charges being brought?

As to the question of previous evidence being brought to court on the policeman's past record, assuming as I had that the law had now been changed to permit that, that record was excluded because it did not include any criminal charges on the PC?

I'm not however sure as to French Frank's view of the PC's past record not being germane to the case, whereas Mr Tomlinson's state of health was. If the policeman's record had been raised, fellow officers would have been called to testify on or against his behalf.

[amateur51]

... Fotherington Tomas was no friend of Molesworth. He was a gurl and a sissy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fotherington-Thomas

As any fule kno'

[french frank]

I'm not however sure as to French Frank's view of the PC's past record not being germane to the case, whereas Mr Tomlinson's state of health was. If the policeman's record had been raised, fellow officers would have been called to testify on or against his behalf.

That's not my view. I was simply saying what I believe is the legal position. Previous convictions, for example, can be taken into consideration when sentencing but generally must not be revealed to the jury before they give their verdict.

Compare that with a rape case where the defendant's record, even if highly 'relevant', can't be revealed whereas the victim's history can be used by the defence counsel to destroy her credibility (unless the law has been changed on that).

[Lateralthinking1]

No, please, no!

Why can't the policeman now be charged with assault, or actual bodily harm? Doeas the fact that he was acquitted of manslaughter disallow lesser charges being brought?

Or rather GBH? It wasn't a broken fingernail!

[Serial_Apologist]

Or rather GBH? It wasn't a broken fingernail!

Yes why not. Where is the line drawn between ABH and GBH?

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes why not. Where is the line drawn between ABH and GBH?

Without googling it, I don't know precisely but GBH is always dramatic. ABH can be quite serious or minor like a scratch. It can often be used for the latter when the culture is not to convict for common assault. As for common assault, I believe it doesn't necessarily involve physical contact.

If you wave your arms suddenly and I think you are going to hit me, you can be guilty of common assault even if you say that your intention was to stop me talking so that I could see a badger in the lane before it disappeared into a bush. It all depends then on others' interpretation of the events.

That was what someone told me anyway. No doubt this will be corrected if I am wrong.