Exactly, there are some grey area’s between the two but this is pretty clear cut because he armed himself with a firearm
Armed gang violence. What's going on in Liverpool?
- Thread starter VincentHanna
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
My posts #76 and #78 in this thread cover it as I too was unsure if they could pin murder on the shooter, so i decided to research it.
Given the CPS have a history of messing big cases like this up I still think they may go for the "safer" option of charges of manslaughter and attempted murder, but we'll see.
If you'd gone all the way around the Wrekin you might have arrived at transferred malice.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 5,423
- Location
- Bristol
Well I had no idea about transferred malice but it does make sense.
They'll go with murder because the case law is actually very clear on this.
IIRC there are cases about going back a very long time, before modern guns came in, and it's also what they use against terrorists who kill random targets, the intent to kill is there, it doesn't really matter in law if you killed the person you were aiming for or someone else, or were just planning on randomly killing.
About the only way the guy is getting a lesser charge is if he can convince a bunch of psychiatrists AND the jury that he was out of his mind at the time, which is a really really high bar to reach unless you've got a host of existing evidence about your condition before you picked up the gun and went shooting at random people (and it's very much a double edged sword as you will then likely be locked up in a secure unit with zero defined release date other than a possible minimum, and have to convince a bunch of very safety minded people that you're no longer a threat).
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,768
- Location
- Auckland
They don't "cover it" unless this is the chat you have with your made up friends at your made up pub where you're a made up lawyer.
Get a grip, use less pretentious words (some of which, I admit, you seem to understand) and increase your education = holy trinity. This Carry On film-esque persona you seem increasingly desperate to cultivate is just such an odd way of being or interacting with people.
Do you have a less dodgy looking website and are you sure this is UK law?Transferred Malice — e-lawresources.co.uk
www.e-lawresources.co.uk
R v Gnango where The Supreme Court ruled the trial judge’s direction had properly been given on application of the principle of ‘transferred malice’: where a defendant intends to kill or cause serious injury to one victim, V1, but accidentally kills another, V2, he will be guilty of the murder of V2.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,768
- Location
- Auckland
I’ve had a quick flick through the case and it’s slightly different to this case. It is quite interesting that they used the law to convict the other party involved in the criminal activity for the murder of the civilian even though he did not shoot the shot that killed her. They could use it to convict the guy that ran into the house if they found that he had attacked the shooter.
Though I’m going off track. This did answer my question as to if transfer of malice “law” did exist in the country.
The last time something like this happened the guy with a gun got something like 32 years as the minimum sentence (that's after any "discount" for say a guilty plea), realistically that guy wasn't getting out for 40 odd years.
the guys who held the guns got something like 10 years minimum and pretty much everyone even remoting involved got at least 5-10 years as the minimum sentence. IIRC the police got the people that had been storing the guns, the people that had obtained the guns and ammo, and various others. When you kill a kid in the UK with a gun the police and prosecutors tend to not only throw the book at you, but the whole library as they want to make it very very clear that any involvement in that sort of crime is going to get you put away for a long time (and oddly it does work, as it means that the other criminals are suddenly a little more likely to throw the gunnman under the bus, possibly litterally)
You probably want to actually look up how UK sentencing works (and the actual sentences) rather than the Daily Mail and Faux Noos.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
Here's a look at how UK sentencing works:
The murder of two-year-old James Bulger shocked Britain.
In 1993, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables abducted, tortured and murdered the toddler after leading him away from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside.
The child murderers were sent to a young offenders’ institute, where they stayed until their release at the age of 18 in 2001.
They were both given new identities on the understanding that they had been rehabilitated and did not break the law again.
Bulger’s parents have said the senseless murder devastated their family, and have spoken frankly about how they struggled to keep going after the loss, and the huge public interest in their family.
He was found guilty, alongside Thompson, on 24 November 1993 – when the pair became the youngest people convicted of murder in English history.
Jon Venables, 10 years of age, poses for a mugshot for police (Getty Images)
Venables was given extensive rehabilitation during his time in a young offenders’ institute and was issued with a new identity after leaving.
His identity has been changed twice since, after he compromised his identity and told friends he was a convicted murderer.
His current identity faced a legal threat in February 2018, 25 years after the murder, when Bulger’s father launched High Court proceedings to try and remove Venables’ entitlement to anonymity.
The lawyer representing Bulger’s father and uncle argued that the right to anonymity had only been granted on the understanding Venables did not re-offend.
Denise Fergus, James Bulger’s mother, stands with her husband Stuart as she speaks to the press (Getty Images)
As Venables has been convicted of crimes since, they wanted his lifelong privacy revoked. Bulger’s mother, however, disagreed and argued that the anonymity should be maintained to avoid vigilante justice.
The father lost his legal challenge and the Attorney General’s office concluded the injunction was still necessary and justified.
Two years later he was sent back to prison after he was found with images of child sexual abuse.
The Parole Board recommended his release in 2013. However, in 2017 he was arrested again for possessing child abuse images, and sentenced to 40 months behind bars in February 2018, almost 25 years to the day after he murdered Bulger.
In August 2019, his father warned that Venables will soon be on parole from his most recent period behind bars.
A parole hearing is expected to be held in October, half way through his prison sentence for the most recent offence.
Mr Bulger said: “Venables is up for parole any time now, and if it is granted he will be released into the community under a fake name and secret new identity.
“He is a dangerous, predatory child abuser and killer, and I am terrified he will strike again and harm another child like my James.”
He has not re-offended since being released, and in 2010 it was reported he was in a long-term relationship with a man who knows his true identity.
Thompson’s father left the family home five years before the attack in 1993, and his mother was an alcoholic and had depression.
He had no history of violence prior to the murder.
Robert Thompson, 10 years of age, poses for a mugshot for British police (Getty Images)
Police believe that Thompson was the ringleader behind the attack, who urged Venables to follow him.
Detective Phil Roberts, from the local force’s serious crime squad, received the call in 1993 notifying him of a missing boy.
“As far as I’m concerned that day — 20 years ago — I stared evil in the face,” he has said.
“I think Thompson was in charge, but they both attacked James.
A surveillance camera shows the abduction of two-year-old James Bulger from the Bootle Strand shopping mall February 12 1993 at 3:42pm near Liverpool. (Getty Images)
“They were a match made in hell. A freak of nature. They went out that day to kill — I truly believe that. And if they hadn’t been caught I fear they would have struck again.
“Pure evil, I will never change my mind about that.”
The murder of two-year-old James Bulger shocked Britain.
In 1993, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables abducted, tortured and murdered the toddler after leading him away from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside.
The child murderers were sent to a young offenders’ institute, where they stayed until their release at the age of 18 in 2001.
They were both given new identities on the understanding that they had been rehabilitated and did not break the law again.
Bulger’s parents have said the senseless murder devastated their family, and have spoken frankly about how they struggled to keep going after the loss, and the huge public interest in their family.
What happened to Jon Venables?
The child murderer was born 13 August 1982, making him ten-years-old when he abducted Bulger from the New Strand Shopping Centre.He was found guilty, alongside Thompson, on 24 November 1993 – when the pair became the youngest people convicted of murder in English history.
Venables was given extensive rehabilitation during his time in a young offenders’ institute and was issued with a new identity after leaving.
His identity has been changed twice since, after he compromised his identity and told friends he was a convicted murderer.
His current identity faced a legal threat in February 2018, 25 years after the murder, when Bulger’s father launched High Court proceedings to try and remove Venables’ entitlement to anonymity.
The lawyer representing Bulger’s father and uncle argued that the right to anonymity had only been granted on the understanding Venables did not re-offend.
As Venables has been convicted of crimes since, they wanted his lifelong privacy revoked. Bulger’s mother, however, disagreed and argued that the anonymity should be maintained to avoid vigilante justice.
The father lost his legal challenge and the Attorney General’s office concluded the injunction was still necessary and justified.
Has Jon Venables committed other crimes?
In 2008, seven years after being released from prison, Venables was arrested after a drunken fight and was given a formal warning by the probation service. He was also given a caution for being in possession of Class A drug cocaine.Two years later he was sent back to prison after he was found with images of child sexual abuse.
The Parole Board recommended his release in 2013. However, in 2017 he was arrested again for possessing child abuse images, and sentenced to 40 months behind bars in February 2018, almost 25 years to the day after he murdered Bulger.
In August 2019, his father warned that Venables will soon be on parole from his most recent period behind bars.
A parole hearing is expected to be held in October, half way through his prison sentence for the most recent offence.
Mr Bulger said: “Venables is up for parole any time now, and if it is granted he will be released into the community under a fake name and secret new identity.
“He is a dangerous, predatory child abuser and killer, and I am terrified he will strike again and harm another child like my James.”
What happened to Robert Thompson?
Thompson’s new identity is protect by an unprecedented injunction, which applies around the world, meaning that even searching for his address could lead to a prison sentence.He has not re-offended since being released, and in 2010 it was reported he was in a long-term relationship with a man who knows his true identity.
Thompson’s father left the family home five years before the attack in 1993, and his mother was an alcoholic and had depression.
He had no history of violence prior to the murder.
Police believe that Thompson was the ringleader behind the attack, who urged Venables to follow him.
Detective Phil Roberts, from the local force’s serious crime squad, received the call in 1993 notifying him of a missing boy.
“As far as I’m concerned that day — 20 years ago — I stared evil in the face,” he has said.
“I think Thompson was in charge, but they both attacked James.
“They were a match made in hell. A freak of nature. They went out that day to kill — I truly believe that. And if they hadn’t been caught I fear they would have struck again.
“Pure evil, I will never change my mind about that.”
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
And then their case was so good he / them were granted bail. Perhaps if they'd named names the public could have said "Wrong man / men", not that I think the cops are capable these days of even writing a parking ticket out correctly, let alone processing a murder case, without ********* it up. Too busy poncing about in uniform with transvestites.
Great bit of whataboutery, given this is a very different style of case, for example in your example above the killers were both children themselves.
Now this is a huge shock but the legal system tends to treat children, especially those who aren't even in their teens slightly differently to adults who are over 18.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,512
- Location
- ST4
Or they simply don't have the evidence yet to charge.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
Read the reports on case, what happened to Venables after his initial incarceration? Found with Class A drugs, fighting, twice found with child pornography. 5 (FIVE) years ago the ******** was still found with kiddie porn!!
The pair of them should have been thrown bloodied into a sty of starving boars. Just a solitary example of the wet and woolly UK laws, justice system and parole boards. There are countless more.
That's the ones that got to court and the parole board let the beasts loose time and time again! Not including the myriad of cases where the police incompetently knackered the case up before it even came to court.
Don't worry. Lessons are being learnt.
And don't use age as an excuse, these ongoing crimes have been allowed into adulthood, and James Bulger suffered just as disgusting, terrifying, perverted, degrading and horrific death at the hands of these animals as he would have by any adult pervert. And he is just as dead.
Given what they are accused of - running around Liverpool discharging weapons indiscriminately, the murder of a child and attempted murder of another man, surely they would be remanded in custody? Or they can at least request an extension to question them further?
Unless they are confident the shooter is the man who has now returned to prison for breaching his licence terms.