Blimey. He should have been done for GBH. When are people going to realise their cars/vans/trucks/bikes are murder weapons when in the wrong hands.
community service?! for using a deadly weapon? gbh? for @@@@ sake!
Hang on a second. The fella was found not guilty of all the charges except the ranting and raving.
Who here has never had a rant at a car driver?
I’m not saying he’s in the right btw
It seems odd, claims like ‘he drove over my arm leaving last nerve damage’ would leave fairly obvious evidence you would think. Surely you wouldn’t claim that unless it happened? But he’s found not guilty of that, so I guess 150 hours for waving a mallet and ranting is fair…
Un F***ing Believable!
O.K. the guys got a mental problem (note the history) but for causing, at least, actual bodily harm he get Community Service?
I must remember to do an armed robbery next time I’m in Scotland. If I get caaught I can always plead that it’s the noises in my head and the flashing lights I keep seeing. Oh, and I’m depressed.
May I suggest you read the article again before hanging him out to dry:)
Put him to jail or something.
Put him to jail or something.
Re read the article. This guy has major problems that are not going to be fixed by Community Service.
He also caused Actual (possibly Grievous) Bodily Harm to apparently innocent parties.
This still looks like another crock of **** to me.
(If it’s O.K. with you, I’ll reserve my sympathy for the victims.)
You’re missing the point again mate. he was found NOT GUILTY of any physical assault. He was only guilty of having a rant.
I noted that he was found not guilty. I’m just wondering how?
If the text is reasonably accurate, can only have been a **** poor case presentation by the Scottish equivalent of the CPS.
And “missing the point”. What is Community Service going to do for this guys problems. What is the outcome for the victims?
(Nice to see that some peoplestill have such a touching faith in the judiciary as to believe the verdict is always perfect.)
Agree with you mate.
I’m no legal expert but it seems like the riders “claims” were uncorroborated by enough evidence to convince a jury of any wrongdoing.
If you hit a crash helmet with a rubber mallet I would wager that it would leave black skid marks all over the place.
As someone else mentioned, if the fellas arm was run over I’m sure there would be some physical evidence of some trauma.
I may be totally wrong, he might have bribed the jury, who knows;)
In any case, yes I do have faith in the British Judicial System. I just hope an innocent accused never faces 12 peers as open minded as your good self;)
Boring legal post to follow…
In my opinion - there is insufficient detail in the report to make a judgement on why the prosecution for assault failed. It would appear that he was charged by the procurator fiscal with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and breach of the peace (which is completely different to an English Breach of the Peace). In England he would probably have been charged with Section 4 Public Order Act 1986( Fear or Provocation of Violence), possibly possession of an offensive weapon, and ABH. But he may well have also been charged with Dangerous or careless driving, an offence which is much easier to prove in the circumstances described. They may have also wanted to have a look at Sec 35 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 which creates the offence of causing bodily harm by wilful neglect or wanton and furious driving…
The difficulty with proving the assault, in these circumstances is proving either the requisite state of mind (mens rea for the legal types) and/or the degree of recklessness required for an assault conviction. The driving offence is much easier to deal with.
Having said all that, the punishment he has received for the breach is actually quite severe given the current sentences I’ve seen dished out…but that’s probably more of a sad indictment on the state of the legal system at the moment.
Reading the article I was wondering if he found his behaviour negative and dangerous.
In more simple terms than Johnse 1 put it:
“You are to pass judgement on the evidence presented, not on your opinion.” I paraphrase from the beak on a case where I was a jurer.
And Chunky, I’ve been there, done that and found someone as guilty as hell innocent because the police case (pre CPS) had inconsistencies, gaps and contradictions.
Because of that verdict, the victim was denied access to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
Now tell me the legal system always delivers the right verdict.
"“You are to pass judgement on the evidence presented, not on your opinion.” That’s exactly what I have done. You however have formed an opinion that the driver is guilty of ABH etc without seeing any evidence whatsoever.
I’m not saying the British Judiciary System is perfect, nothing is. Compared to that of other lands I’d still rather be tried here than anywhere else in the world:)