Don Atkinson
pfm Member
Well again, many of us have a similar opinion, but it will need a formal conviction or appropriate outcome in a civil case, to vindicate these views.
Cheers
Don
Tomlinson cop not guilty
- Thread starter cooky1257
- Start date
Well again, many of us have a similar opinion, but it will need a formal conviction or appropriate outcome in a civil case, to vindicate these views.
Cheers
Don
cooky1257
pfm Member
I didn't push Mick he fell.
Don Atkinson
pfm Member
Mullardman
Moderately extreme...
From: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#manslaughter
'Unlawful Act Manslaughter
This is where the killing is the result of:
the defendant's unlawful act (not omission);
where the unlawful act is one which all sober and reasonable people would realise would subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm resulting there from, albeit not serious harm R v Williams and Davis (1992) 2 All ER 183;
whether or not the defendant realised this.
The act need not be directed against a person (e.g. arson) - see R v Willoughby (2005) 1 WLR 1880.
The knowledge attributed to the sober and reasonable person is that which such a person would acquire as an observer of the whole course of the defendant's conduct throughout the unlawful act: R v Watson (1989) 2 All ER 865, R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150, R v Carey and others (2006) EWCA Crim 17.
In manslaughter arising from an unlawful and dangerous act, the accused's state of mind is relevant only to establish that the act was committed intentionally and that it was an unlawful act.
Once these points are established the question whether the act was dangerous is to be judged not by the appellant's appreciation but that of the sober and reasonable man and it is impossible to impute the mistaken belief of the defendant that what he was doing was not dangerous: R v Ball 1989 CLR 730.'
Mull
'Unlawful Act Manslaughter
This is where the killing is the result of:
the defendant's unlawful act (not omission);
where the unlawful act is one which all sober and reasonable people would realise would subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm resulting there from, albeit not serious harm R v Williams and Davis (1992) 2 All ER 183;
whether or not the defendant realised this.
The act need not be directed against a person (e.g. arson) - see R v Willoughby (2005) 1 WLR 1880.
The knowledge attributed to the sober and reasonable person is that which such a person would acquire as an observer of the whole course of the defendant's conduct throughout the unlawful act: R v Watson (1989) 2 All ER 865, R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150, R v Carey and others (2006) EWCA Crim 17.
In manslaughter arising from an unlawful and dangerous act, the accused's state of mind is relevant only to establish that the act was committed intentionally and that it was an unlawful act.
Once these points are established the question whether the act was dangerous is to be judged not by the appellant's appreciation but that of the sober and reasonable man and it is impossible to impute the mistaken belief of the defendant that what he was doing was not dangerous: R v Ball 1989 CLR 730.'
Mull
Still
he said his naim was ralph
A tempting offer, but wouldn't that cause you to fall over? ;-)
Cav
pfm Member
This has been quoted before.
Presumably it was considered by the CPS, the prosecution, the defence, the judge and, most importantly, the jury.
We know what they thought.
Not the whole answer I know but I wouldn't think it's been a lot of fun for the nice man.
He might just think twice another time about shoving people around.
Mullardman
Moderately extreme...
sq225917
Bit of this, bit of that
He'd think a lot harder about it if he was banged up for manslaughter which is where he deserves to be.
TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
Mr.Tomlinson's killer is fired for gross misconduct, "inconceivable that he could hold a position in the police again."
The Met are now offering damages.
The Met are now offering damages.
If his conduct was grossly misconducted maybe charges should/have been pressed[and successfully]?
That's what happens when we "grossly misconduct" selves.......sorry...
Cav
pfm Member
Charges were pressed and he was acquitted.
Cav
pfm Member
Why (except you don't agree with it) and how would he be charged again?
Cav
pfm Member
I was not on the jury at the trial; I did not hear any of the evidence; nor did anyone here so far as I know.
What I do believe in is the system of trial by jury. The jury heard the evidence and reached its verdict. What I think of that is of no consequence.
Imagine if you were accused of some crime - who would you rather determine your culpability - a jury who hears all the evidence or people on pfm who know only what is reported in the media?