FGW driver injured as window hit

[DarloRich]

I would hope the seriousness of their actions will be brought home by a criminal record and time spent inside.

 

[455driver]

So for what crimes is it OK to mount a defense? Is it

You can obviously mount a defence for any crime! :roll:
But your defence should be relevant and not the usual wishy washy bullmanure that gets trotted out which are merely excuses for stupidity/ignorance.

I am not making a general point.

The opening part of your post is a general point and not specific to this incident.

I am testing your position, something i have notice you dont like much

Really, you dont read many of my posts then do you!

 

[crewmeal]

I would hope the seriousness of their actions will be brought home by a criminal record and time spent inside.

Not a hope, the do gooders jobsworth will want to find out why they did it and send them on a holiday to Thailand. Now if this were Iran or Saudi Arabia words like public square, noose, sword, chop come to mind!

 

[Requeststop]

Not a hope, the do gooders jobsworth will want to find out why they did it and send them on a holiday to Thailand. Now if this were Iran or Saudi Arabia words like public square, noose, sword, chop come to mind!

Lovely, especially when I just read of Samuel Pepys describing how ill he felt after witnessing the public hanging, drawing and quartering of a Roundhead General after the restoration of the monarchy!

 

[crewmeal]

I stand by what I said especially after yesterday's events in Woolwich. It's time we had some real justice in this country. Deliberately throwing a brick or whatever from a bridge is an act of premeditated murder in my book. They thought and planned the act, they got their weapon, they performed the act. Time these scum faced up to real justice.

http://metro.co.uk/2011/12/02/concrete-blocks-hurled-at-cars-on-a12-sparks-attempted-murder-probe-242081/

 

[broadgage]

In UK law, even those accused of the most serious crimes are entitled to defence in court.
There are two main types of defence, the first one is attempting to prove that the accused is completly innocent (it was not me, must be someone who looks like me, etc)
The second type of defence is used when guilt has already been admitted or proved, this consists of the defence arguing that their client should receive a lighter sentence on the grounds of dimimished responsability, provocation, poor upbringing, bad luck etc.
The defence side of a court case are not to be criticised for doing their job which is to get their customer aquited, or if this is not possible a lighter sentence.
Likewise though, unless there are genuine mitigating circumstances (which seems very unlikely in this case), I would hope that the judge would still see fit to impose a severe sentence. Judges are well aware of defence tactics and no doubt take this into account.

In cases of this nature, I believe that sentences are often too light, remembering that the actual time served in prision is normally very much less than the headline sentence.

I do of course wish the driver a speedy recovery, and also hope that the brick thrower will ample time inside to reflect upon their sins.

 

[martybabes]

Lets keep defence and mitigation separate (as they are, in fact, two distinctly separate things).

The defence is when the accused is putting his case forward that he is not guilty of the charge made against him. It might be "I didn't do it" or "I did something else but less dangerous" or "I didn't intend those consequences when I did that."

Mitigation is the statement put forward, after guilt has been established, intended inter alia to persuade the judge to exercise leniency in sentencing.

And also remember this:
The court is required to have regard to sentencing guidelines. If the sentence handed down appears to be excessive (or even unduly lenient), an appeal can be lodged addressing that issue only.

 

[CC 72100]

Was it 158960 that was involved, as I'm currently on it (much better than the voyager before) and it is running as a two car, with vehicles 52769 and 57769 - no coach C?

 

[TEW]

It was 158798 I believe.

 

[142056]

Could this be something to do with the 1336 service to Cardiff Central I saw at Bath Spa yesterday with a 2 carriage 150 attached to the front of a 3 car 158? Didn't catch either unit number though...

 

[TEW]

That would have be 150202+158952. They were attached because of a fault with 158952, I'm not sure it was running on two engines only or whether there was a fault with the cab that meant it had to be boxed in. 158798 went to SPM on Monday night to have it's windscreen replaced.

 

[455driver]

Could this be something to do with the 1336 service to Cardiff Central I saw at Bath Spa yesterday with a 2 carriage 150 attached to the front of a 3 car 158? Didn't catch either unit number though...

Doubt it.
158952 and 150202.

 

[O L Leigh]

This is a right pickle and no mistake.

A colleague of mine was in a similar situation to this FGW man when he was a trainee. In his case, the windscreen was shattered by a fire extinguisher thrown from the middle cab of an 8 car train passing on the opposite line but with the same outcome. This was also the subject of discussion along very similar lines.

The problem is in securing a conviction. For attempted murder you have to show beyond reasonable doubt that the person intended to kill their victim. In the case under discussion it would be very easy for even the most incompetent defence counsel to get their client off, meaning no conviction, no criminal record and no punishment. It is better that the CPS pursues a lower charge on the basis of being confident that they can secure a conviction. No matter how we might feel about this as individuals, this is the right approach because it reduces the chances of someone getting away unpunished.

In this instance, as with the one affecting my colleague a few years ago, I don't think there is any chance that they defendant could claim they hadn't thrown the brick or that it was the result of a poor upbringing. More likely they would claim that they hadn't done so with malice or that they hadn't realised it would break the windscreen and cause injury. Unfortunately these are the kinds of defence that make it very hard for juries to prove premeditation, the sort of thing that is required to convict someone for the more serious charge of attempted murder.

As it happens, the person who launched a fire extinguisher at my colleague was convicted under a railway byelaw and given a custodial sentence. Not a long one admittedly, but he does at least have the conviction against his name.

O L Leigh

 

[jon0844]

Perhaps we need a new law or an update that can allow a more serious punishment for when intent to kill cannot be proved, but where it is still quite obvious that a crime carried a very high - and obvious - chance of killing someone.

 

[dviner]

Perhaps we need a new law or an update that can allow a more serious punishment for when intent to kill cannot be proved, but where it is still quite obvious that a crime carried a very high - and obvious - chance of killing someone.

Wouldn't that be covered by "Reckless Endangerment"?

 

[PHILIPE]

Read in the paper yesterday that a 15 year old boy has been nicked.

 

[Julian W]

Read in the paper yesterday that a 15 year old boy has been nicked.

That's a shame that he's under age as I'm sure he'll receive nowhere near the punishment he deserves...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That's a shame that he's under age as I'm sure he'll receive nowhere near the punishment he deserves...

On the other hand, he's young enough that there'll be a chance to teach him the error of his ways and turn his life around. Silver linings...

 

[455driver]

On the other hand, he's young enough that there'll be a chance to teach him the error of his ways and turn his life around. Silver linings...

Yeah of course it will!

Ever the optimist arent we! :roll:

 

[Dieseldriver]

Generally if you are throwing a brick at the windscreen of a fast moving train at the age of 15, there isn't much hope IMO. We all do stupid things (I know I have) but a calculated, premeditated violent act such as that generally means that the person is, and always will be a c**t.

 

[Monty]

Generally if you are throwing a brick at the windscreen of a fast moving train at the age of 15, there isn't much hope IMO. We all do stupid things (I know I have) but a calculated, premeditated violent act such as that generally means that the person is, and always will be a c**t.

I am inclined to agree, I did silly s**t when I was that age but nothing near anything quite so dangerous. While I can understand people are reluctant to write off a person at such a young age, it's the offender him/herself who needs to learn what they did was wrong (not that you should need telling throwing a brick is bad m'kay :roll. That point won't be made if you let them off with a suspended sentence followed by litter picking by the A34 for a few weeks.

However this all has little relevence at the moment, nobody has been found guilty yet.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Generally if you are throwing a brick at the windscreen of a fast moving train at the age of 15, there isn't much hope IMO. We all do stupid things (I know I have) but a calculated, premeditated violent act such as that generally means that the person is, and always will be a c**t.

How do you know it was premeditated?

 

[455driver]

How do you know it was premeditated?

Are you saying that it might have been the case that the assailant "accidentally" happened to drop a brick over a bridge just as a train went by? :roll:

 

[bangor-toad]

Any outcome shouldn't be pre-judged.

Whilst I can't see how it's possible to accidentally throw a brick over a bridge parapet, someone did drop that cement mixer off a bridge onto a passing train a few years back...

As imperfect as they are, the Courts will get to sort this one out.

JW

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Are you saying that it might have been the case that the assailant "accidentally" happened to drop a brick over a bridge just as a train went by? :roll:

Where did I say anything like that? The person I quoted said it was premeditated. I asked how he knew. Clearly there is some misunderstanding here of what premeditation is.

 

[TDK]

This is a right pickle and no mistake.

The problem is in securing a conviction. For attempted murder you have to show beyond reasonable doubt that the person intended to kill their victim. In the case under discussion it would be very easy for even the most incompetent defence counsel to get their client off, meaning no conviction, no criminal record and no punishment. It is better that the CPS pursues a lower charge on the basis of being confident that they can secure a conviction. No matter how we might feel about this as individuals, this is the right approach because it reduces the chances of someone getting away unpunished.

In this instance, as with the one affecting my colleague a few years ago, I don't think there is any chance that they defendant could claim they hadn't thrown the brick or that it was the result of a poor upbringing. More likely they would claim that they hadn't done so with malice or that they hadn't realised it would break the windscreen and cause injury. Unfortunately these are the kinds of defence that make it very hard for juries to prove premeditation, the sort of thing that is required to convict someone for the more serious charge of attempted murder.

As it happens, the person who launched a fire extinguisher at my colleague was convicted under a railway byelaw and given a custodial sentence. Not a long one admittedly, but he does at least have the conviction against his name.

O L Leigh

I understand what you are saying however if someone throws a brick at a moving train or any vehicle it is attempted murder - whether the defendant will get that charge is another story. The defendants defence (and they will have a defence if they get caught) will try their hardest to get the minimal possible so it will be down to the judge, CPS, solicitors etc and historically unfortunately this happens time and time again. If I was the driver I would take the defendant to the high court for a damages claim! What to you think? Would you do the same?

 

[Dieseldriver]

How do you know it was premeditated?

There is a physical process and a thought process that needs to take place for that crime to happen. There would be enough time for them to back out. The fact is, they threw a brick at the windscreen of a train travelling at high speed. I think if anyone was going to even contemplate defending them, they are moronic.
I actually sign through where this incident happened and a week before it in a different location I had some misunderstood, poor misguided souls throwing hefty logs at mine and another train.
Forgive me as while I get ready to duck while approaching an over bridge with people looking over the track at 90mph I don't stop to try and justify that act...

 

[jon0844]

I can't see much to defend these actions, or any defence that the offender wasn't aware of the severe risk to human life (or lives).

I could understand if a kid threw a water bomb and didn't understand that, while doing no damage, it could still be distracting.. but a brick? No, does not compute in my head!

 

[martybabes]

I understand what you are saying however if someone throws a brick at a moving train or any vehicle it is attempted murder

No it isn't. There has to be an intent to commit murder (or an intent to commit GBH).

Clearly there is some confusion here as to what people think is murder and what the law says is murder. That's why there are lawyers in this world.

And even if you (or anyone else) thinks the defendant is guilty, he is entitled to have someone defend his position and present his case in court. He may end up being found guilty but his guilt is for the court to determine not the keyboard warriors on here who only have snippets of information and bucket-loads of prejudice or predetermination. Thank heavens for an independent jury.

You may think that the person who undertakes the task of defending the indefensible is a moron but that is what any defendant is entitled to. And if, as seems to be the case here, the defendant is only 15 years old, it is all the more proper and fair IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE that he should have the benefit of a professional representative.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

There is a physical process and a thought process that needs to take place for that crime to happen. There would be enough time for them to back out. The fact is, they threw a brick at the windscreen of a train travelling at high speed.

That's not premeditation. If I walk along a bridge, spot a brick, and think 'Hmm, that'll be fun to throw', and do, the crime is not premeditated. If I left the house that morning to go and chuck a brick at the 11.42 London train then that is. I hope this helps you understand premeditation.