Dalain Atkinson

[xsnaggle]

There was criminal intent , at the very least , to cause serious injury and there could have been proven criminal intent to kill or he wouldn't have been charged with murder . The CPS must have had enough evidence to charge him with the murder of the victim but the court decided he was guilty of manslaughter, not murder . However this is a very thin line and the reason why people convicted of manslaughter often get very heavy sentences .



Its one step down from murder , the copper would have known what he was doing was going to cause the victim serious injury

That would have been ABH , GBH etc if the victim hadn't died

Clearly the manslaughter verdict is the right one

there may have been alleged criminal intent but it was clearly not proven.
Also a charge and conviction for manslaughter means it was found that he had no intent to kill the victim and that the death was unforeseen.
If there was , in the eyes of the jury, intent to seriously injure he would have been charged with GBH with intent which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and is actually a more serious charge than manslaughter.
This what happened to a neighbour of mine in the N East of England. He deliberately beat his partner and she died. But the autopsy found that she may have died at any moment because of another unassociated condition, but he was not charged or found guilty of manslaughter because that implies the death was as a result of his actions but he did not intend to kill, and there was no intent to seriously injure, and no malice, just stupidity or neglect. He was charged with GBH with intent, which implied he intended to at least seriously injure her, because that is the more serious charge and reflects his criminal intent to seriously injure. He was found guilty and got 10 years.
Part of the definition of manslaughter from the Cambridge dictionary:-
"Manslaughter involves the killing of another person, but it's distinct from the crime of murder. ... Manslaughter is an unlawful killing that doesn't involve malice aforethought—intent to seriously harm or kill, or extreme, reckless disregard for life."

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

there may have been alleged criminal intent but it was clearly not proven.
Also a charge and conviction for manslaughter means it was found that he had no intent to kill the victim and that the death was unforeseen.
If there was , in the eyes of the jury, intent to seriously injure he would have been charged with GBH with intent which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and is actually a more serious charge than manslaughter.
This what happened to a neighbour of mine in the N East of England. He deliberately beat his partner and she died. But the autopsy found that she may have died at any moment because of another unassociated condition, but he was not charged or found guilty of manslaughter because that implies the death was as a result of his actions but he did not intend to kill, and there was no intent to seriously injure, and no malice, just stupidity or neglect. He was charged with GBH with intent, which implied he intended to at least seriously injure her, because that is the more serious charge and reflects his criminal intent to seriously injure. He was found guilty and got 10 years.
Part of the definition of manslaughter from the Cambridge dictionary:-
"Manslaughter involves the killing of another person, but it's distinct from the crime of murder. ... Manslaughter is an unlawful killing that doesn't involve malice aforethought—intent to seriously harm or kill, or extreme, reckless disregard for life."

Thanks for that , I stand corrected

I find it bizarre that booting someone twice in the head is not intended to seriously harm someone or doesn't show a reckless regard for life ?

If the case is as it is then the police and cps would have been better off charging the officer with GBH with intent if the conviction is a more serious one and the sentence is harsher

But the family have got justice with a manslaughter conviction and he's looking at 5 plus years I would think

[Hilts]

Thanks for that , I stand corrected

I find it bizarre that booting someone twice in the head is not intended to seriously harm someone or doesn't show a reckless regard for life ?

If the case is as it is then the police and cps would have been better off charging the officer with GBH with intent if the conviction is a more serious one and the sentence is harsher

But the family have got justice with a manslaughter conviction and he's looking at 5 plus years I would think

Dont thank him. Hes not right.

Maximum sentence for Manslaughter is life.

If Dalian survived this assault hed probably been charged with GBH with intent.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Dont thank him. Hes not right.

Maximum sentence for Manslaughter is life.

If Dalian survived this assault hed probably been charged with GBH with intent.

Well let's be straight here

This is the first conviction of this type for 30 years

Either people getting a beating have faked their injuries or there are quite a few police officers walking round scot free 🤔

[Hilts]

Im pretty certain that as Dalian died after this horrific assault that GBH with intent wasnt an option.

Ultimately a jury thought they couldnt convict on murder but agreed on Manslaughter.

Of course you can get a longer sentence for GBH with intent.

You can also get the longer sentence for Manslaughter depends on the crime committef. Its up to the judge to decide.

[xsnaggle]

Thanks for that , I stand corrected

I find it bizarre that booting someone twice in the head is not intended to seriously harm someone or doesn't show a reckless regard for life ?

If the case is as it is then the police and cps would have been better off charging the officer with GBH with intent if the conviction is a more serious one and the sentence is harsher

But the family have got justice with a manslaughter conviction and he's looking at 5 plus years I would think

I agree with you. The initial tazering may have been reckless but without deliberate intent but the subsequent kicking was clearly intentional and he must had had reasonable knowledge that his actions could or would cause serious injury, kicking someone in the head with a police boot (Probably steel toecapped but I don't know) is not likely to be harmless.
GBH with intewnt would for me have been the obvious route.
Either CPS didn't think there was a chance of conviction on that or maybe the colour of the clothes he was waring coloured their thinknig too

[xsnaggle]

Im pretty certain that as Dalian died after this horrific assault that GBH with intent wasnt an option.

Ultimately a jury thought they couldnt convict on murder but agreed on Manslaughter.

Of course you can get a longer sentence for GBH with intent.

You can also get the longer sentence for Manslaughter depends on the crime committef. Its up to the judge to decide.

The point is one shows intent clearly. It was an option because there was a question that his condition may have contribute to his death.

[xsnaggle]

Dont thank him. Hes not right.

Maximum sentence for Manslaughter is life.

If Dalian survived this assault hed probably been charged with GBH with intent.

I am right, GBH with intent also carries a life tarrif and a conviction is more likely to carry a harsh penalty than manslaughter, purely because of the intent. The survival of the victim is not necessary for GBH. As I say, there was an attempt to show that there may have been other causes for his death and if accepted by the jury would have resulted in an acquittal for manslaughter, but a charge of GBH would still have stood up.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Don’t turn this around on me. You quite clearly started this thread playing the race theme and a black man suffering at the hands of the authorities. Don’t deny it. Youre as transparent as Casper.

He kicked him to stop him getting back up. Fight or flight. Coppers should be allowed to use excessive force in the face of violence. In times gone by a good hiding from a copper was a far better deterrent and source of punishment than the politically correct softly softly approach adopted today.

The Law recognises that 'excessive force' is....er.....excessive i.e. beyond which is necessary.

[Hilts]

I am right, GBH with intent also carries a life tarrif and a conviction is more likely to carry a harsh penalty than manslaughter, purely because of the intent. The survival of the victim is not necessary for GBH. As I say, there was an attempt to show that there may have been other causes for his death and if accepted by the jury would have resulted in an acquittal for manslaughter, but a charge of GBH would still have stood up.

Yes but Dillan died. Im pretty certain GBH with intent wasnt an option.

Theyve cleared him of murder.

They cant then go to GBH with intent as if hes intended to do serious harm surely he gets convicted of murder.

Theyve agreed on Manslaughter.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

you hear all the time about blokes being given a beating outside a nightclub , they go into a coma and then the police announce the person has died and the enquiry is now one of murder

8 months later the person who admits the assault ends up being convicted of manslaughter

So the issue on intent clearly comes in . This copper clearly didn't intend to kill the victim but he was seen kicking the man at least twice in the head .

The court must have been presented with medical evidence that the cause of death was trauma leading directly to his death due to him being kicked and beaten ?

Otherwise the officers actions would not have caused his death and he couldn't have been convicted of manslaughter ?

[Taunton Blue Genie]

you hear all the time about blokes being given a beating outside a nightclub , they go into a coma and then the police announce the person has died and the enquiry is now one of murder

8 months later the person who admits the assault ends up being convicted of manslaughter

So the issue on intent clearly comes in . This copper clearly didn't intend to kill the victim but he was seen kicking the man at least twice in the head .

The court must have been presented with medical evidence that the cause of death was trauma leading directly to his death due to him being kicked and beaten ?

Otherwise the officers actions would not have caused his death and he couldn't have been convicted of manslaughter ?

Sentences that read like statements but with question marks at the end always confuse me.....

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

I am going to kill you or give you a good beating is not the same as going out and giving someone a good leathering or walking into a shop , buying a butcher knife and going round to the house of the bloke who has been boffing your wife and stabbing him 30 times

[Taunton Blue Genie]

I am going to kill you or give you a good beating is not the same as going out and giving someone a good leathering or walking into a shop , buying a butcher knife and going round to the house of the bloke who has been boffing your wife and stabbing him 30 times

Thank you, Judge Sludge.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Sentences that read like statements but with question marks at the end always confuse me.....

I am looking for legal direction

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Thank you, Judge Sludge.

well its basic and written in a language we can all understand

Call it common law

[Taunton Blue Genie]

well its basic and written in a language we can all understand

Call it common law

Common Law is that which is defined by precedent.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Common Law is that which is defined by precedent.

Double Dutch to me

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Double Dutch to me

You have just received a good leathering (although the term is ill-defined in law).

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

You have just received a good leathering (although the term is ill-defined in law).

I define what constitutes a good leathering

This isn't one

[Taunton Blue Genie]

I define what constitutes a good leathering

This isn't one

[xsnaggle]

Yes but Dillan died. Im pretty certain GBH with intent wasnt an option.

Theyve cleared him of murder.

They cant then go to GBH with intent as if hes intended to do serious harm surely he gets convicted of murder.

Theyve agreed on Manslaughter.

As I said in my original reply to sludge, my next door neighbours partner died, but he was charged with GBH and convicted.
The reason is if the defence puts up a case that the person had some underlying condition that means they may have died at any time from that, then it is difficult to prove that the beating was the direct case of death.
A person can say, "I intended to beat the victim to teach him/her a lesson but I never intended to kill anyone" and if the jury accepts that he is off free.
However if the charge is GBH he cannot make that defence so the likelihood of a conviction is greater/

[Hilts]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-57595434

Unable to reach a verdict on 2nd officer.

[splott parker]

Fair play if Atkinson had ever played for us the various spellings of his first name would rival Boothroyd, Risdale etc

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-57595434

Unable to reach a verdict on 2nd officer.

Well if that's the case and the CPS seek a second trial and its the same conclusion then she's faced justice