• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

Anything but murder

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Anything but murder

    "Property baron Nicholas van Hoogstraten has been held responsible by the High Court for the killing of businessman Mohammed Raja."


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...es/4541878.stm

    In a nutshell:

    'Not a murderer'
    Done for manslaughter
    Got off the manslaugter charge
    Now he's 'responsible for killing'.

    #2
    Murder?

    Nicholas van Hoogstraten was let off the charge because of a technicality. When he was arrested the CPS had filled in the wrong form.

    Comment


      #3
      Not quite sure about that. IIRC, he had admitted to paying two heavies to have the guy done over, who later died, but this didn't count as manslaughter, a crime for which the heavies got done... (caveat - again IIRC)
      We must strike at the lies that have spread like disease through our minds

      Comment


        #4
        Rumpole of the Bailey

        Why wasn't this conspiracy to murder? Any barrack room lawyers out there?

        Comment


          #5
          Because they couldn't prove he wanted the guy killed. He claimed the hired help had accidentally exceeded their mandate. Presumably the court agreed, if it convicted them of manslaughter rather than murder.

          Comment


            #6
            Is he a NL contributer ?
            Your parents ruin the first half of your life and your kids ruin the second half

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by NoddY
              "Property baron Nicholas van Hoogstraten has been held responsible by the High Court for the killing of businessman Mohammed Raja."


              http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...es/4541878.stm

              In a nutshell:

              'Not a murderer'
              Done for manslaughter
              Got off the manslaugter charge
              Now he's 'responsible for killing'.
              Wasn't there something similar with Tony Martin who shot and killed a burglar? He literally got away with murder because when he shot one guy dead, he had actually been intending to shoot the other guy: so although he had been intending to murder Fearon, he didn't even hit him with that shot; and although he killed Barras, he hadn't been intending to with that shot.

              Comment


                #8
                There is something wrong with this civil crap - you either guilty of criminal offence or you not - this should be done on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt", however bankrupting someone after he/she was judged not guilty by sueing in civil case that will be judged on "balance of probabilities" is just plain wrong, regardless of technicality or not that was responsible for not guilty verdict.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by IR35 Avoider
                  Because they couldn't prove he wanted the guy killed. He claimed the hired help had accidentally exceeded their mandate. Presumably the court agreed, if it convicted them of manslaughter rather than murder.
                  Not so long ago it would have been murder, bang to rights - In common law, any death that occurred as a direct result of a felony (in this case conspiracy to commit felonious assault) was considered murder, even if the death was accidental or the felons were unaware of it at the time.
                  Last edited by OwlHoot; 19 December 2005, 20:16.
                  Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by expat
                    Wasn't there something similar with Tony Martin who shot and killed a burglar? He literally got away with murder because when he shot one guy dead, he had actually been intending to shoot the other guy: so although he had been intending to murder Fearon, he didn't even hit him with that shot; and although he killed Barras, he hadn't been intending to with that shot.
                    There must have been slightly more to it than that. Other circumstances aside, the legal principle of transferred malice applies - For example, if you intentionally take a swing at someone but they duck and you deck someone standing behind them, then you could be convicted just the same as if you had struck the person who ducked, despite the unintended "accidental" assault on the actual victim.

                    (But if after the person ducked, you accidently hit and smashed a priceless ming vase, you couldn't be prosecuted for criminal damage, despite the blow being deliberate, because malice is not deemed transferrable to a different kind of crime!)
                    Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X