Shopping & Style1 min ago
one for all the legal eagles in here
how can 4 men be charged with murder for shooting a biker on the motorway, none of them have admitted pulling the trigger and all 4 couldn't of held the gun at the same time
and then you get the baby p situation, they cant get charged with murder because they cant prove who inflicted the killing blow
aren't these 2 cases similar but with very different outcomes or am i totally missing the point here
and then you get the baby p situation, they cant get charged with murder because they cant prove who inflicted the killing blow
aren't these 2 cases similar but with very different outcomes or am i totally missing the point here
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by danchip. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I know this doesn't really answer your question, but I've copied this from the bbc news site.
"Both men were found not guilty of the child's murder or manslaughter at the Old Bailey.
They were convicted of the specific charge of "causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable person", under section five of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.
The law was brought in to prevent several adults blaming each other for the death of a child or vulnerable adult."
"Both men were found not guilty of the child's murder or manslaughter at the Old Bailey.
They were convicted of the specific charge of "causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable person", under section five of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.
The law was brought in to prevent several adults blaming each other for the death of a child or vulnerable adult."
I don't know anything about the details of either case (I haven't really followed them) but it's very easy to construct a scenario in which the outcomes would be so.
If all four men were involved in the murder, ie planning it, assisting in it, providing the weapon, etc then they'd all be guitly of the murder even if only one of them actually pulled the trigger.
However, if in the second case there's no doubt that someone murdered the child but it's not certain which one and there may have been no pre-meditation to do so on the part of the other two then presumably it wouldn't be possible to charge any of them with murder but instead the charge outlined by sara3.
If all four men were involved in the murder, ie planning it, assisting in it, providing the weapon, etc then they'd all be guitly of the murder even if only one of them actually pulled the trigger.
However, if in the second case there's no doubt that someone murdered the child but it's not certain which one and there may have been no pre-meditation to do so on the part of the other two then presumably it wouldn't be possible to charge any of them with murder but instead the charge outlined by sara3.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_wa rwickshire/7752925.stm
there are 7 men involved with the biker case, and as Skyline says, it was thorough plan and they all played their part.
there are 7 men involved with the biker case, and as Skyline says, it was thorough plan and they all played their part.
Seven men were found guilty of Gerry Tobin's murder:
http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlan ds-news/2008/11/27/seven-men-guilty-of-biker-g erry-tobin-s-murder-65233-22357571/
It was pre-planned and they all set out to murder him.
http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlan ds-news/2008/11/27/seven-men-guilty-of-biker-g erry-tobin-s-murder-65233-22357571/
It was pre-planned and they all set out to murder him.
In Scotland the accused(s) would have been charged with Murder 'Art and Part'. Irrespective of who commits the fatal blow or pulls the trigger, if the aim of extinguishing life is common between the group, then all are as guilty as each other. The burden of proof remains with the prosecution and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.
The distinction with Baby P and the Bikers, I presume, is 'INTENT'.
From the outside looking in it appears that all four bikers intended to have a rival gang biker killed. In the case of Baby P, perhaps only one person intended to kill either intentionally or recklessly. The other two just stood by and watched or knew what was going on but didn't report it. The bikers assaukt was a one-off incident. Baby P's injuries were sustained (unfortunately) over some considerable time.
Is that a half-decent explanation? If not, let me know and I'll go back to the books (no bad thing) for a refresher. It is an interesting question.
The distinction with Baby P and the Bikers, I presume, is 'INTENT'.
From the outside looking in it appears that all four bikers intended to have a rival gang biker killed. In the case of Baby P, perhaps only one person intended to kill either intentionally or recklessly. The other two just stood by and watched or knew what was going on but didn't report it. The bikers assaukt was a one-off incident. Baby P's injuries were sustained (unfortunately) over some considerable time.
Is that a half-decent explanation? If not, let me know and I'll go back to the books (no bad thing) for a refresher. It is an interesting question.
1 to 5 of 5
Latest Posts
Crosswords10 mins ago
News12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
Good Morning Late Wednesday Birds.
ChatterBank16 mins ago
