Head on Collision = Murder Charge

[Saleen836]

There was an accident at end of June involving 2 cars in a head on, one driver sadly died at the scene the other has been charged with murder plus other things, never heard of someone being charged with murder after causing a crash!

https://www.wiltshire999s.co.uk/first-pictures-man...

[The Mad Monk]

The BBC version

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/england/wiltshire

[vaud]

Aside from the appalling loss, I admire her fiancé's humour at a very dark time for him

Maher and Mullaney had been engaged since the 1980s but never got married.
"We've only been together for 40-odd years, you can't rush these things," Maher said.

[Sheepshanks]

vaud said:

Aside from the appalling loss, I admire her fiancé's humour at a very dark time for him

Maher and Mullaney had been engaged since the 1980s but never got married.
"We've only been together for 40-odd years, you can't rush these things," Maher said.

I thought that too. Bit ironic. He could be in for a lot of hassle now - or perhaps he'll be glad of a clean break.


Regarding the charge - I could only guess that the passenger in the accused's car has said something.

Edited by Sheepshanks on Monday 6th July 23:12

[Starfighter]

I’d like to see more of this where there is an obvious disregard for others.

[vaud]

Starfighter said:

I d like to see more of this where there is an obvious disregard for others.

We will need to wait for the full story - causing death by dangerous is the obvious one, maybe manslaughter, but murder needs "malice aforethought"... so targeted..?

[Ian Geary]

Its awful for the family of the victim.

Murder would imply intent to kill though.

I do recall reading on here that police often go with the highest charge possible early on, and then reduce it later.

But ultimately they will have to disclose their evidence to the defence solicitor, so it's a case of waiting to see i suppose.

[HocusPocus]

The mens rea for murder isn't malice aforethought. It is the intention to kill.

[vaud]

HocusPocus said:

The mens rea for murder isn't malice aforethought. It is the intention to kill.

Sorry, yes, you are correct.

[SteveScooby]

HocusPocus said:

The mens rea for murder isn't malice aforethought. It is the intention to kill.

The intention to kill or cause serious harm.

[Jinba Ittai]

I assume that the victim and accused knew each other due to the police force’s mandatory self referral to the IOPC due to previous contact. What a terrible situation.

[LosingGrip]

Jinba Ittai said:

I assume that the victim and accused knew each other due to the police force s mandatory self referral to the IOPC due to previous contact. What a terrible situation.

Not always. A few things it could be.

[Sheepshanks]

LosingGrip said:

Jinba Ittai said:

I assume that the victim and accused knew each other due to the police force s mandatory self referral to the IOPC due to previous contact. What a terrible situation.

Not always. A few things it could be.

It says in one of the reports they got the direction of travel of the vehicles wrong so perhaps the initial investigation was somewhat lacking.

[agtlaw]

HocusPocus said:

The mens rea for murder isn't malice aforethought. It is the intention to kill.

Not quite.

"Subject to three exceptions (which constitute partial defences to murder, and result in a conviction for manslaughter) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:

- of sound mind and discretion (sane)
- unlawfully kills (not self-defence or other justified killing)
- any reasonable creature (a human being)
- in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs)
- under the King's Peace (not in wartime)
- with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (in contrast to the offence of attempted murder, where only intent to kill will suffice)"

Source: CPS