Guilty: Jury decide mum DID try to mow down autistic cyclist

[Alycidon]

QUOTE:
"A mother was found guilty of attempted grievous bodily harm today after a jury ruled she did deliberately try to run her Turbo charged 4x4 into a cyclist she had argued with.

A jury took just two hours and one minute to decide Natalie Pyne, 31, had aimed her white Audi Q7 at autistic Simon Edgley in a road rage attack in Kingston in June last year while she had at least four children in the car.

His bicycle was left mangled after the attack but he escaped with minor injuries.

Kingston Crown Court heard how Pyne claimed her 4x4 malfunctioned before she clipped Mr Edgley and went through the bay window of the Park Salon in Park Road causing more than £25,000 worth of damage.

But traffic officer PC Peter Traylor told the jury he could find "no fault" with Pyne's "very powerful" car.

She will be sentenced on November 6 at Kingston Crown Court."

[Alycidon]

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/13837908.Guilty__Jury_decide_mum_DID_try_to_mow_down_autistic_cyclist_after_a_road_rage_row/

[JNugent]

Does the law have such a concept as "attempted grievous bodily harm"?

[JNugent]

On 10/10/2015 03:31, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:59:49

> It seems iniquitous that a driver who does the same to a police
> officer, but successfully, is charged with murder.
>
> Why was she not charged with attempting the same offence?
>
> Anybody who is not cognisant of the fact that a motor vehicle presents
> a threat to the life of an unprotected human being in it's path surely
> wouldn't have ever managed to obtain a licence to drive one -
> therefore she demonstrably had (or should have had) that knowledge.
>
> Deliberately aiming a motor vehicle at a vulnerable road use is
> attempted murder. No excuses.

For once (and subject to the precise evidence, notoriously deficient in
press reports), I'm inclined to agree with you, M'Lud.

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:59:49
> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

> It seems iniquitous that a driver who does the same to a police officer,
> but successfully, is charged with murder.
>
> Why was she not charged with attempting the same offence?

Because for a charge of murder to 'stick', all that needs to be
demonstrated by the prosecution is the _mens rea_ of intention to commit
grievous bodily harm.

For a charge of attempted murder to be successful, intention to murder has
to be demonstrated. Otherwise, it's just 'intention to commit GBH'.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'Unsuccessful candidates for the Presidency should be quietly hanged as
a matter of public sanitation and decorum'
(H.L. Mencken)

[Alycidon]

On Saturday, 10 October 2015 13:08:03 UTC+1, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:

> >
> > Why was she not charged with attempting the same offence?
>
> Because for a charge of murder to 'stick', all that needs to be
> demonstrated by the prosecution is the _mens rea_ of intention to commit
> grievous bodily harm.
>
> For a charge of attempted murder to be successful, intention to murder has
> to be demonstrated. Otherwise, it's just 'intention to commit GBH'.

QUOTE:

Jon Fray of the Kingston Cycling Campaign commented:

"I am not experienced in law but I suppose the police picked the charge of attempted GBH because they thought that is the one that would stick. I have some sympathy for people who think it should have been a harsher [charge.]"

http://road.cc/content/news/167662-4x4-driver-tried-mow-down-cyclist-and-ploughed-hair-salon

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:

> Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yit...@yahoo.fr> considered Sat, 10 Oct 2015

> Deliberately aiming over a tonne of motor vehicle at an unprotected
> human being is a level of force similar, if not greater, than firing a
> rifle at them.
>
> As I said, ANYONE who has had any training at all in the operation of
> a motor vehicle should be aware of that fact, and thus the intention
> must clearly be to cause death,.

Since people are hit by vehicles all the time, and since a vehicle is not
generally considered a weapon (unlike a firearm), what you think is not
enough. Nor is it enough that most people are aware that a car can kill.
The prosecution would have had to demonstrate that the defendant actually
intended to kill. Only such intention to kill can justify attempted
murder. In _R v. Whybrow_ (1951) 35 Cr App R 141, the defendant wired up a
soap dish to the mains, to kill his wife. At his trial, the judge directed
the jury that an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm would
suffice on a charge of attempted murder. On appeal, the Court of Appeal
said that this was a misdirection and that only an intention to kill would
suffice for attempted murder. Recklessness as to the risk of causing
murder or grievous bodily harm will not suffice.

> If the failure to achieve that is to be taken as some evidence to only
> cause serous injury, there would be no such offence as attempted murder
> without a clearly shown death threat, either in a lasting form (writing,
> voicemail, etc) or before witnesses. Such a pre-existing death threat
> would not be required for any other weapon - why would it be when the
> weapon of choice is a motor vehicle?
>
> I think it is disgraceful that the jury were not given the chance to
> decide on the matter, but sadly we have come to expect no better from the
> CPS.

I agree with you. But this is not the fault of the CPS.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'AADP's Left-Wing Israeli Intellectual'
'... the monstrous morality of anti-Semitism continues as an immortal
beast behind the politically correct mask of anti-Zionism'
(Giulio Meotti)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 14:59:49 -0700, Alycidon wrote:

> QUOTE:
> "A mother was found guilty of attempted grievous bodily harm today after
> a jury ruled she did deliberately try to run her Turbo charged 4x4 into
> a cyclist she had argued with.
>
> A jury took just two hours and one minute to decide Natalie Pyne, 31,
> had aimed her white Audi Q7 at autistic Simon Edgley in a road rage
> attack in Kingston in June last year while she had at least four
> children in the car.

One has to wonder what the piece of road lice did to upset her so much.

>
> His bicycle was left mangled after the attack but he escaped with minor
> injuries.
>

So, no real damage then. Except to the toy of course.

> Kingston Crown Court heard how Pyne claimed her 4x4 malfunctioned before
> she clipped Mr Edgley and went through the bay window of the Park Salon
> in Park Road causing more than £25,000 worth of damage.
>

This looks like evidence that her car did go wrong. Nobody deliberately
aims their car at a building.

> But traffic officer PC Peter Traylor told the jury he could find "no
> fault" with Pyne's "very powerful" car.
>

What does the power have to do with anything? Looks like victim-blaming
to me.

> She will be sentenced on November 6 at Kingston Crown Court."

She should appeal.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Forgery.
But I'm flattered.







"Mr Pounder Esquire" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:mvdr1h$3ua$1...@dont-email.me...

[thesimo...@gmail.com]

Thanks for such understanding, calling me Road Lice.
And there was real damage done, other than to my "toy".
I've been left with a PTSD I still cannot get help with, and which effects every moment of my life.
Please be aware that what you say can really hurt people, even if it is your view.

[Nick]

If it makes you feel any better you are replying to someone who was
parodying one of the anti cyclist posters to the group.

This post is like two years old. I can't help but think the PTSD? would
be less if you put the whole thing behind you.