So the police have said “that the car is believed to have followed the emergency vehicle onto the street that had previously been blocked. That vehicle is believed to be the only one to follow the ambulance through the roadblock, a spokesperson for the Merseyside Police added.”
Which very much goes against the video I saw last night that showed at least 2 other cars, with lights on/moving, in front of him.
I think will be a bit of a cluster F to unpick. No surprise that they’ve got an extension on detention.
Possible that some footage is before the cordon? I can see a Threshold Charge on something easy to prove so that he can be Remanded and they can work on the rest.
Intrigued why it’s two counts of the GBH related charges, but one count for DD? If youy counts were per person harmed it’d be more, and if it was per incident surely it would be 1 count? Unless they are suggesting the reversing bit at the beginning is one incident, then the putting his foot down is another?
Many are asking questions about traffic management, how it was planned and implemented not just on Dale Street/Water Street but across the whole city centre.
Wounding offences are individual based. So they’ve decided that he intended to cause 4 people GBH, and attempted two more. They all need separate charges.
The driving is for the overall matter. But, it seems overall a bit minimal. You can only get two years for it.
Is the number of charges presented enough so that the magistrate can and indeed has remanded him into custody and the CPS have time to further build charges for a later date. The police were probably up against the time constraints of charging or releasing under investigation.
Attempt murder was never going to stick. From all the video it’s clear this was more road rage/over reaction rather than going out of his way to run people over.
It’s not double jeopardy, but it is a duplicate charge in effect. You could potentially charge them as alternatives, but probably couldn’t be found guilty of both.
None of those are “mental health defences” and i’m terrified at how poor that article is.
For a start, diminished responsibility ONLY applies to charges of murder, and it’s only a partial defence, in that if you run it successfully, you will be found guilty of Manslaughter. (You’d think they’d mention those two things?)
Unfitness to plead isn’t a defence, it means you lack capacity to understand the whole process, the likelihood is you need medical treatment and could receive a hospital order, it doesn’t have an impact on whether you did or didn’t do the crime, it’s about your ability to follow the trial process or enter a plea. It’s not something you can run as a defence, it’s run by your lawyers being unable to take instructions from you.
An Insanity finding is not something you willingly run, it’s a pretty dire result as it again, often results in a hospital order, or even one with resrictions. In some cases you have people denying insanity, because the outcome would be worse than being convicted.
Automatism can be caused by a multitude of things, it’s where due to an external factor, or one outside your control, you were effectively unconscious at the time of the crime, not voluntarily able to engage in the crime. It’s not something that you can get from a psych report.
But this is what I expect from people who don’t understand the way the CJS actually works, people think you can just plead “mEntAL HeAltH” and get away with crimes because the system is so “soft” these days.
