A machete attack to head doesn't count as attempted murder??

[Phil1]

Lawyers version of Dermot Gallagher

Except he knows what he’s talking about, unlike Dermot.

 

[bakerdave76]

To be fair his machete wasn't that sharp

Please tell me this is some kind of sick joke ?

 

[Mike Cledford]

That would depend on whether he was charged with murder.

If they charged him with attempted murder it would seem they would have charged him with murder if death had resulted. Everything else is the same.

 

[yeseye]

To be fair his machete wasn't that sharp

He needs to get himself a lawn mower!

 

[MillionMilesAway]

If they charged him with attempted murder it would seem they would have charged him with murder if death had resulted. Everything else is the same.

If he'd killed him, it may well have been a manslaughter charge, based on the requirements for the charge of murder.

I don't think there is such a charge as 'attempted manslaughter', so charging him with both 'attempted murder' (i.e. did he intend to kill?) and 'wounding with intent' was probably the options they had as charges.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

A man is stopped by the Police for having no insurance, tries to drive off, firstly punches the Police officer, then pulls out a machete and repeatedly strikes the Police officer in the head. Aparently this doesnt count as attempted murder in the UK these days?? And the 2ft machete isn't found to be an offensive weapon because the man said he used it for gardening. Am I missing something?

Nope, it's the idiots who come up with the rules and regulations that are missing something. I think the idea of murder has to have some kind of 'cunning plan'! Spur of moment killings slot into manslaughter. Violence should be off the streets no matter whether there's a previous blueprint or not. Any death that is the result of a crime should not be treated leniently.

 

[willipp]

I've done it twice, and had some very similar experiences.
One we were pretty certain the defendant was not mentally competent, and after he was found guilty, the judge pretty much seemed to agree with that by referring him for assessment.
There was one where two jurors read books in the jury room, having decided their verdict early on.
At least one case we may have been watching too much TV drama, as we couldn't work out why the charge was what it was, and why an obvious point was addressed.

About 2/3 of the jurors were people I'd be happy with having on a jury!

I do like the Secret Barrister, he's usually precise in his statements, as long as people don't reinterpret them to suit themselves.

I had similar experiences on my dury duty. I only got one case and it was a very serious charge against a man on a woman, about as serious as it can get. It was effectively impossible to know whether he'd done it or not as the victim had zero memory of the event and he denied it completely. It may have happened, but it was impossible to convict based on what was presented. At least 3 jurors (all women) refused to budge from a guilty verdict and when asked why their standard responses were things like 'i can just tell he did it', 'look at him, he looks guilty' or 'i've seen things like this before and they've always done it'. To be clear the only thing i think in their eyes that made him look guilty was he was a man.

All in all, it scared the shit out of me that we let people decide these cases who can be so prejudice and just decide a persons fate based on their pre determined guilt.

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

I had similar experiences on my dury duty. I only got one case and it was a very serious charge against a man on a woman, about as serious as it can get. It was effectively impossible to know whether he'd done it or not as the victim had zero memory of the event and he denied it completely. It may have happened, but it was impossible to convict based on what was presented. At least 3 jurors (all women) refused to budge from a guilty verdict and when asked why their standard responses were things like 'i can just tell he did it', 'look at him, he looks guilty' or 'i've seen things like this before and they've always done it'. To be clear the only thing i think in their eyes that made him look guilty was he was a man.

All in all, it scared the shit out of me that we let people decide these cases who can be so prejudice and just decide a persons fate based on their pre determined guilt.

watch the film 12 Angry Men . A great film highlighting the pressures and prejudices of a jury.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I had similar experiences on my dury duty. I only got one case and it was a very serious charge against a man on a woman, about as serious as it can get. It was effectively impossible to know whether he'd done it or not as the victim had zero memory of the event and he denied it completely. It may have happened, but it was impossible to convict based on what was presented. At least 3 jurors (all women) refused to budge from a guilty verdict and when asked why their standard responses were things like 'i can just tell he did it', 'look at him, he looks guilty' or 'i've seen things like this before and they've always done it'. To be clear the only thing i think in their eyes that made him look guilty was he was a man.

All in all, it scared the shit out of me that we let people decide these cases who can be so prejudice and just decide a persons fate based on their pre determined guilt.

Yes, we also had a yes/no rape case, with teenagers. All non-verbal evidence was uncontested but inconclusive, so could basically be ignored. It pretty much came down to whether or not the defendant was convincing or not in giving evidence. Some jurors 'knew' immediately.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

I'd be no good on a jury. I'd just want to know which footy team they supported - anything blue and they're innocent, anything red guilty as fuckin' sin! Any other colours, I'd let 'em off with a caution!