PC Harper "Manslaughter"...

xxlshirts_fit_all

Well-known member
Watching the news show the horrific lead up to the death of PC Harper at the hands of those scum...

Im not gonna say that the decision is right or wrong but it has shocked me seeing how the events built up...

Poor Soul :cry:
 
Driver atleast should be murder. Once you realise there’s somebody attached to the back of the car and do 60mph you can’t not intend to cause serious injury. Absolute scumbags. No remorse so hopefully maximum sentence available
 
Driver atleast should be murder. Once you realise there’s somebody attached to the back of the car and do 60mph you can’t not intend to cause serious injury. Absolute scumbags. No remorse so hopefully maximum sentence available
Man slaughter is defined as malice afore thought, there has to be intent and a sense of planning to commit murder.

So sadly I don’t think there was a possibility of it being murder.
 
Man slaughter is defined as malice afore thought, there has to be intent and a sense of planning to commit murder.

So sadly I don’t think there was a possibility of it being murder.

Once he realised The pc was attached and then done 60 he intended to cause serious injury.
 
His poor wife sat in court watching those scumbags and their families celebrating being found innocent of murder .
 
Last edited:
An awful story. If you read about how they attempted to nobble and/or intimidate the jury, it says a lot about the power some people (i.e. criminals) can wield. Quite worrying.
 
The system of law and punishment in this country is broken and completely unfit for purpose. All you can do is put as much distance between you and scum like this and hope that you never encounter them.

It shouldn’t be like this; they should be put away for a minimum of 25 years.

They won’t be.
 
Driver atleast should be murder. Once you realise there’s somebody attached to the back of the car and do 60mph you can’t not intend to cause serious injury. Absolute scumbags. No remorse so hopefully maximum sentence available

At what point did he realise there was someone attached to the car? I thought that was always denied.
 
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully killed and intended either to kill or to cause really serious harm. If an unlawful act results in somebody's death, but the accused did not intend to cause death, they will be guilty of manslaughter.

We don't know the facts of this case, but if those scumbags realised PC Harper was attached to the car, then that is surely murder. Let's hope the Judge can impose a really high sentence on them at least.
 
Last edited:
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonably doubt that the accused unlawfully killed and intended either to kill or to cause really serious harm. If an unlawful act results in somebody's death, but the accused did not intend to cause death, they will be guilty of manslaughter.

We don't know the fact of this case, but if those scumbags realised PC Harper was attached to the car, then that is surely murder. Let's hope the Judge can impose a really high sentence on them at least.

Agreed but I suspect they will be unlucky if they actually serve five years each.
 
It might be the ‘wrong’ kind of justice for some but it was a juey verdict after listening to tons of evidence.
We are told at different times (depending on the latest events) we have the ‘best’ judicial system in the world or ‘it is broken’.
It’s like the BBC either too left wing or too right wing - depending on your stance.

Our system is focussed on punishment and, I think, we lock more people up (as % of population) than most other developed countries.
 
It might be the ‘wrong’ kind of justice for some but it was a juey verdict after listening to tons of evidence.
We are told at different times (depending on the latest events) we have the ‘best’ judicial system in the world or ‘it is broken’.
It’s like the BBC either too left wing or too right wing - depending on your stance.

Our system is focussed on punishment and, I think, we lock more people up (as % of population) than most other developed countries.

If you're on Twitter follow the Secret Barrister. Some excellent legal insights from a person actually practising law. Also read the book as it's shocking some of the things mentioned.
 
The fact they will be out in under 5 years is frankly stunning. You see people serve similar time or worse for far 'lesser' crimes.

The most awful part was they simply don't give a feck. Imagine his wife and family watching as they cheered because they only got manslaughter. Also waving and laughing at the press as they were loaded into the vans. Absolutely no f*cks given that they killed a bloke while stealing someone else's property (that in itself should be a few years).

They are all teenagers so will be out before they are 25 to carry on with lives. I have absolutely no doubt they will all be in trouble with the law within years of coming out. You seriously think they will come out as 'model citizens?'.

What an horrific way to die😕
 
That clip where it showed 2 of the b***ards laughing when getting into a police van made my blood boil!! Hopefully they will receive some " nice" hospitality in the short time they will be in prison.
 
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully killed and intended either to kill or to cause really serious harm. If an unlawful act results in somebody's death, but the accused did not intend to cause death, they will be guilty of manslaughter.

We don't know the facts of this case, but if those scumbags realised PC Harper was attached to the car, then that is surely murder. Let's hope the Judge can impose a really high sentence on them at least.

you don’t have to to intend to cause death. If you intend to commit serious harm, and they die, that is murder
 
At what point did he realise there was someone attached to the car? I thought that was always denied.

Id read that they sped up to try and ‘shake him off’ ( I can’t remember the correct wording) so they must have known he was there.
 
The intent for murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. R v Woollin[1999] 1 Cr App R 8 (HOL). The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case - R v Matthews (Darren John) [2003] EWCA Crim 192.
 
The mens rea for murder has changed over the years and certainly since I did my law degree. The “virtual certainty“ clause in the previous post came in 1985 and the Crown v Woolin. That case involved an infant death.

I can assume the jury were directed to find against the murder charge because the prosecution could not establish the men’s rea of Murder test by the driver in particular.
 
Back
Top