This was a completely unprovoked attack. There was no altercation.
Oli died because of hitting his head after being punched for no reason.
A funeral can't take place because the defence are demanding all these post mortem tests trying to imply Oli had a brain problem already and the punch/fall wasn't the cause of death.
Lots of lifes have been ruined for no reason whatsoever. I hope some sort of justice is done at the trial in February.
@GRAY9 , that is a horrible addition to the news. Man goes to a pub for a beer, get's punched for no reason and dies. After AFKA reminding us, I'll not say much more, but I hope at the least, the body is released for the funeral so that the family can try to get some closure on this.
Other reports suggest that as a result of the punch the victim fell backwards, striking his head on the floor and it was that injury that resulted in his death. If that is the case then I am surprised that there's a Murder charge as there doesn't seem to be any intent to kill. But we don't know the full circumstances and will need to wait for the trial.
For the perpetrator to be charged with murder, the police must show - and the CPS agree - that the perpetrator (among other things) acted with intent to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm. In other words, if the police can show he intended to commit GBH, but did not intend to kill, he can still be charged with murder.
An additional manslaughter charge can be added later.
Assuming there is no mens rea then a murder charge would not have a chance of success.
There are three elements to a manslaughter charge:
1. There must be an unlawful act 2. The unlawful act must be dangerous 3. The unlawful act must cause death
From what we can gather 1 and 2 are met. If the cause of death was the victim hitting their head on the floor rather than the blow itself then point 3 isn't met.
RIP Oliver.
But, as he's been charged with murder, wouldn't that mean the CPS are satisfied that there is a better-than-50% chance of conviction?
There is also precedent in the case of Gary Delaney.
Having reached the grand old age of 40 without coming close to wanting to punch anyone despite being in some pretty tricky situations at times I have no sympathy for the assailant and hope he has the book thrown at him.
Some people in life need to realise that 'growing a pair' means walking away rather than lashing out.
It's an awful tragedy that a young man has died. I can only try and imagine what his family must be going through.
I was trying to say above that for me, the facts are important. I have never thrown a punch at someone unless I was being or was just about to be punched and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times this has happened.
If I had connected and the assailant had died, in my view both myself and the assailant and their family would deserve sympathy.
Not knowing anything about what happened, I thought this may be the case.
In a situation where I am the assailant, the law should act appropriately to the facts but should act quickly.
Other reports suggest that as a result of the punch the victim fell backwards, striking his head on the floor and it was that injury that resulted in his death. If that is the case then I am surprised that there's a Murder charge as there doesn't seem to be any intent to kill. But we don't know the full circumstances and will need to wait for the trial.
For the perpetrator to be charged with murder, the police must show - and the CPS agree - that the perpetrator (among other things) acted with intent to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm. In other words, if the police can show he intended to commit GBH, but did not intend to kill, he can still be charged with murder.
An additional manslaughter charge can be added later.
Assuming there is no mens rea then a murder charge would not have a chance of success.
There are three elements to a manslaughter charge:
1. There must be an unlawful act 2. The unlawful act must be dangerous 3. The unlawful act must cause death
From what we can gather 1 and 2 are met. If the cause of death was the victim hitting their head on the floor rather than the blow itself then point 3 isn't met.
RIP Oliver.
But then someone that shoots a gun isn't the exact cause of death as it is the bullet. The vullet wouldn't end up there if someone didn't pull a trigger. If a punch isn't thrown the poor boy never hits his head.
'The actus reus of murder consists of the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace. The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought, which has been interpreted by the courts as meaning intention to kill or intention to cause GBH ... '
Punching someone hard enough to cause them to fall over and crack their head on the pavement is surely mens rea enough for GBH ..
In this case I fail to see why manslaughter is a potential charge .. there is mens rea enough here for a charge of murder .. mitigation is the only 'way out' of a long life sentence
'The actus reus of murder consists of the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace. The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought, which has been interpreted by the courts as meaning intention to kill or intention to cause GBH ... '
Punching someone hard enough to cause them to fall over and crack their head on the pavement is surely mens rea enough for GBH ..
In this case I fail to see why manslaughter is a potential charge .. there is mens rea enough here for a charge of murder .. mitigation is the only 'way out' of a long life sentence
The one-punch killers documentary was good actually (surprisingly, as it was Channel 5) and a bit of an eye opener.
But no matter how you look at it, the victim is this young man, his family and friends. The guy who punched him accepted the risk of this happening and can swivel as far as I'm concerned, whatever his sentence ends up being.
agreed .. he'll be out in three or four years .. Timon has a history of previous violence and will be on Iicence for five years after release as he is 'of significant risk' to the public ! .. in that case keep the horrible c**t behind bars for a long time ... I hope the prosecution ask for a COA review
Horrible little hooligan, and there are far too many of those on our streets these days.
I think manslaughter rather than murder is the correct decision, but the sentence is far too short. Presume he doesn't even have to serve the full 6 if he behaves himself inside. Nothing like enough punishment for him, nothing like enough of a deterrent to others.
Horrible little hooligan, and there are far too many of those on our streets these days.
I think manslaughter rather than murder is the correct decision, but the sentence is far too short. Presume he doesn't even have to serve the full 6 if he behaves himself inside. Nothing like enough punishment for him, nothing like enough of a deterrent to others.
I've struggled to accept the difference between manslaughter and murder, even though I understand it. If you intentionally and recklessly commit a criminal act directly against a person which it would be reasonable to believe might result in someone's death, then surely it should be murder if that is in fact the result?
Reading comments about cases like this I'm thankful that if I do ever face being jailed that the sentence is handed down by a judge rather than an angry mob.
Reading comments about cases like this I'm thankful that if I do ever face being jailed that the sentence is handed down by a judge rather than an angry mob.
so on the balance of the reporting that you have seen and the evidence you know of ,do you think thats a fair sentence ?
Horrible little hooligan, and there are far too many of those on our streets these days.
I think manslaughter rather than murder is the correct decision, but the sentence is far too short. Presume he doesn't even have to serve the full 6 if he behaves himself inside. Nothing like enough punishment for him, nothing like enough of a deterrent to others.
this, for me, sums it up
same here. Unfortunately this sort of thing has always gone on as there is no deterrent for a drunk angry sociopath.
I've struggled to accept the difference between manslaughter and murder, even though I understand it. If you intentionally and recklessly commit a criminal act directly against a person which it would be reasonable to believe might result in someone's death, then surely it should be murder if that is in fact the result?
I don't like the invariable back-up status of manslaughter at all. (I'm guessing here but assume in this matter the prosecution had both charges on the indictment with the manslaughter charge as the alternative.) It gives the jury an easy cop-out if they are so minded.
In that regard, the US system seems much better than ours: 1st degree murder has the "wilful and premeditated" bit, whereas 2nd degree murder would apply if there was malice but it was not planned to actually kill someone. There then follows voluntary manslaughter and finally involuntary manslaughter. Thus giving four options, while we only have two. It would be interesting to know what the jury would have concluded if they had had these options put before them.
There needs to be more nuance in our treatment of these cases in my opinion.
I've struggled to accept the difference between manslaughter and murder, even though I understand it. If you intentionally and recklessly commit a criminal act directly against a person which it would be reasonable to believe might result in someone's death, then surely it should be murder if that is in fact the result?
I don't like the invariable back-up status of manslaughter at all. (I'm guessing here but assume in this matter the prosecution had both charges on the indictment with the manslaughter charge as the alternative.) It gives the jury an easy cop-out if they are so minded.
In that regard, the US system seems much better than ours: 1st degree murder has the "wilful and premeditated" bit, whereas 2nd degree murder would apply if there was malice but it was not planned to actually kill someone. There then follows voluntary manslaughter and finally involuntary manslaughter. Thus giving four options, while we only have two. It would be interesting to know what the jury would have concluded if they had had these options put before them.
There needs to be more nuance in our treatment of these cases in my opinion.
Reading comments about cases like this I'm thankful that if I do ever face being jailed that the sentence is handed down by a judge rather than an angry mob.
Been plenty of previous cases where I would agree with you. Look at his previous though:
"Timon was convicted of battery after he admitted punching a woman in the face, allegedly knocking her out having previously threatened to "bang" her out. He also had previous convictions for shouting at a bus driver while brandishing a golf club and throwing a punch at a barman after being refused re-entry to a pub at closing time."
This is someone who shows no indication at all that he's willing, able or interested in learning from his previous mistakes. Putting aside the punishment element, he's a danger to the public and his track record suggests that he'll still be a danger to the public when he gets out.
For reference, he has received exactly the same sentence as Adam Johnson received for grooming and sexual activity with a girl aged 15. Take both cases and look at the impact on the victim and the victim's family, and the likelihood of the perpetrator re-offending - I don't understand how they can both end up with the same sentence.
It would be interesting to see how the percentages stack up with regard to how many people are totally cleared in a situation where there are 4 available options ranging in severity though.
Does reasonable doubt move from guilty/not guilty to guilty/probably guilty/maybe guilty/not guilty? Not very well put, but you get the gist.
If you're almost sure 'he done it' but there's still that element of doubt then you are legally obliged to acquit him. If there's a lesser charge available however, you may well find him guilty of that instead, even though there could still be an element of doubt. It's not right (from a legal perspective) but I think it's probably human nature.
Even if he served the 6 years (which obviously he won't) how can that be punishment for ending one person's life and ruining others that will have to live with this ordeal every day.
Reading comments about cases like this I'm thankful that if I do ever face being jailed that the sentence is handed down by a judge rather than an angry mob.
so on the balance of the reporting that you have seen and the evidence you know of ,do you think thats a fair sentence ?
I do not have all the evidence from the case and nor am I qualified in legal matters. I have to respect the judgement handed out by a judge. Any time there's a case that stirs up strong emotions in the public people will generally say "not long enough" when most of the time a judge has used precedence to sentence.
I've struggled to accept the difference between manslaughter and murder, even though I understand it. If you intentionally and recklessly commit a criminal act directly against a person which it would be reasonable to believe might result in someone's death, then surely it should be murder if that is in fact the result?
I don't like the invariable back-up status of manslaughter at all. (I'm guessing here but assume in this matter the prosecution had both charges on the indictment with the manslaughter charge as the alternative.) It gives the jury an easy cop-out if they are so minded.
In that regard, the US system seems much better than ours: 1st degree murder has the "wilful and premeditated" bit, whereas 2nd degree murder would apply if there was malice but it was not planned to actually kill someone. There then follows voluntary manslaughter and finally involuntary manslaughter. Thus giving four options, while we only have two. It would be interesting to know what the jury would have concluded if they had had these options put before them.
There needs to be more nuance in our treatment of these cases in my opinion.
I'm not sure there needs to be that level of differential. It's not the crime, it's the sentencing that differentiates manslaughter and that is for the judge to determine.
Murder is a mandatory Life sentence. For manslaughter the range is anything from a Community Order to a Life sentence - so the three lesser degrees in the US can easily fit into the manslaughter range. In this case it would appear (although none of us were in Court I presume) that the crime would seem to fit the 2nd Degree Murder category and should have had a much higher sentence.
It will be interesting to see if the CPS appeal the sentence.
Reading comments about cases like this I'm thankful that if I do ever face being jailed that the sentence is handed down by a judge rather than an angry mob.
so on the balance of the reporting that you have seen and the evidence you know of ,do you think thats a fair sentence ?
I do not have all the evidence from the case and nor am I qualified in legal matters. I have to respect the judgement handed out by a judge. Any time there's a case that stirs up strong emotions in the public people will generally say "not long enough" when most of the time a judge has used precedence to sentence.
Why don't you read up a little before posting on here then?
A politely, friendly bloke went out for a drink on an August bank holiday weekend and for no reason whatsoever a thug punched him in the head and killed him.
He may not have intended to kill him but he wanted to do him damage and when you punch someone there is always this risk.
His brother is insider for murder already, his unapologetic mother (who has raised 2 murderers) was at court goading the family when the murder verdict was announced so yes I do think "it's not long enough" when you bare in mind the amount of time he will actually serve.
Comments
There is also precedent in the case of Gary Delaney.
Having reached the grand old age of 40 without coming close to wanting to punch anyone despite being in some pretty tricky situations at times I have no sympathy for the assailant and hope he has the book thrown at him.
Some people in life need to realise that 'growing a pair' means walking away rather than lashing out.
I was trying to say above that for me, the facts are important. I have never thrown a punch at someone unless I was being or was just about to be punched and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times this has happened.
If I had connected and the assailant had died, in my view both myself and the assailant and their family would deserve sympathy.
Not knowing anything about what happened, I thought this may be the case.
In a situation where I am the assailant, the law should act appropriately to the facts but should act quickly.
He may be a lovely bloke, but he certainly didn't look it (not that that's proof of any kind).
'The actus reus of murder consists of the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace.
The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought, which has been interpreted by the courts as meaning intention to kill or intention to cause GBH ... '
Punching someone hard enough to cause them to fall over and crack their head on the pavement is surely mens rea enough for GBH ..
In this case I fail to see why manslaughter is a potential charge .. there is mens rea enough here for a charge of murder .. mitigation is the only 'way out' of a long life sentence
The one-punch killers documentary was good actually (surprisingly, as it was Channel 5) and a bit of an eye opener.
But no matter how you look at it, the victim is this young man, his family and friends. The guy who punched him accepted the risk of this happening and can swivel as far as I'm concerned, whatever his sentence ends up being.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39078685
in that case keep the horrible c**t behind bars for a long time ... I hope the prosecution ask for a COA review
I think manslaughter rather than murder is the correct decision, but the sentence is far too short. Presume he doesn't even have to serve the full 6 if he behaves himself inside. Nothing like enough punishment for him, nothing like enough of a deterrent to others.
Unfortunately this sort of thing has always gone on as there is no deterrent for a drunk angry sociopath.
In that regard, the US system seems much better than ours: 1st degree murder has the "wilful and premeditated" bit, whereas 2nd degree murder would apply if there was malice but it was not planned to actually kill someone.
There then follows voluntary manslaughter and finally involuntary manslaughter. Thus giving four options, while we only have two. It would be interesting to know what the jury would have concluded if they had had these options put before them.
There needs to be more nuance in our treatment of these cases in my opinion.
"Timon was convicted of battery after he admitted punching a woman in the face, allegedly knocking her out having previously threatened to "bang" her out.
He also had previous convictions for shouting at a bus driver while brandishing a golf club and throwing a punch at a barman after being refused re-entry to a pub at closing time."
This is someone who shows no indication at all that he's willing, able or interested in learning from his previous mistakes. Putting aside the punishment element, he's a danger to the public and his track record suggests that he'll still be a danger to the public when he gets out.
For reference, he has received exactly the same sentence as Adam Johnson received for grooming and sexual activity with a girl aged 15. Take both cases and look at the impact on the victim and the victim's family, and the likelihood of the perpetrator re-offending - I don't understand how they can both end up with the same sentence.
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/663384.0/
Does reasonable doubt move from guilty/not guilty to guilty/probably guilty/maybe guilty/not guilty? Not very well put, but you get the gist.
Even if he served the 6 years (which obviously he won't) how can that be punishment for ending one person's life and ruining others that will have to live with this ordeal every day.
Murder is a mandatory Life sentence. For manslaughter the range is anything from a Community Order to a Life sentence - so the three lesser degrees in the US can easily fit into the manslaughter range. In this case it would appear (although none of us were in Court I presume) that the crime would seem to fit the 2nd Degree Murder category and should have had a much higher sentence.
It will be interesting to see if the CPS appeal the sentence.
A politely, friendly bloke went out for a drink on an August bank holiday weekend and for no reason whatsoever a thug punched him in the head and killed him.
He may not have intended to kill him but he wanted to do him damage and when you punch someone there is always this risk.
His brother is insider for murder already, his unapologetic mother (who has raised 2 murderers) was at court goading the family when the murder verdict was announced so yes I do think "it's not long enough" when you bare in mind the amount of time he will actually serve.