Dalian - Copper convicted

John67

Well-known member
If I got into a scrap and used a weapon to subdue the person and then booted him in the head several times and then the person died…would that be Manslaugher or Murder? Honest question as I don’t know the law. Happy that this brute of an officer is no longer patrolling UK streets though.
 
Murder has to have the element of intent to kill and the intent has to come before the attack. As FC said from the information provided that would usually be dealt with as manslaughter because intent is very difficult to prove if there is no obvious lead up to the killing, for example buying a gun.

If the CPS try and get a murder conviction they cannot include manslaughter to fall back on to. Lots of countries do allow this multiple offence at trial, the UK don't.

All elements except intent are the same for both murder and manslaughter. The test in UK law is what would a sober and reasonable bystander have concluded from watching the events unfold.
 
Murder has to have the element of intent to kill and the intent has to come before the attack. As FC said from the information provided that would usually be dealt with as manslaughter because intent is very difficult to prove if there is no obvious lead up to the killing, for example buying a gun.

If the CPS try and get a murder conviction they cannot include manslaughter to fall back on to. Lots of countries do allow this multiple offence at trial, the UK don't.

All elements except intent are the same for both murder and manslaughter. The test in UK law is what would a sober and reasonable bystander have concluded from watching the events unfold.
Actually, the law says that murder requires the accused to have intended really serious harm, rather than an intent to kill.

Given that I'm a little surprised that manslaughter is the verdict.
 
Actually, the law says that murder requires the accused to have intended really serious harm, rather than an intent to kill.

Given that I'm a little surprised that manslaughter is the verdict.
That's correct Jonny. I think the legal definition is something like the defendant must have felt sure that death or gievous bodily harm is a certainty. But I am praphrasing here.

What is interesting is the interpretation of GBH, which I think, is left to the jury to decide on. It doesn't as I recall have a defined level of seriousness in law.
 
That's correct Jonny. I think the legal definition is something like the defendant must have felt sure that death or gievous bodily harm is a certainty. But I am praphrasing here.

What is interesting is the interpretation of GBH, which I think, is left to the jury to decide on. It doesn't as I recall have a defined level of seriousness in law.
GBH does actually have clear definition in law and kicks to a victim's head is generally seen to meet that threshold, so I'm at a loss to understand the verdict really.

But the judge is there to direct points of law, the jury's job is to determine guilt, or otherwise.

I think there's always the X factor involved when a police officer is on trial and Jury's are often very reluctant to convict, which may have influenced the verdict.
 
GBH does actually have clear definition in law and kicks to a victim's head is generally seen to meet that threshold, so I'm at a loss to understand the verdict really.

But the judge is there to direct points of law, the jury's job is to determine guilt, or otherwise.

I think there's always the X factor involved when a police officer is on trial and Jury's are often very reluctant to convict, which may have influenced the verdict.
Just looked this up on the CPS website, they say, amongst other things, of course:

The words "grievous bodily harm" bear their ordinary meaning of "really serious" harm: DPP v Smith [1960] 3 W.L.R. 546. Golding [2014] EWCA Crim 889 indicates that harm does not have to be either permanent or dangerous and that ultimately, the assessment of harm done is a matter for the jury, applying contemporary social standards. Further, there is no necessity for an assault to have been committed before there could be an infliction of GBH: Golding.

That just confuses me more, to be honest, but it seems to say that when assessing the harm done to come to a conclusion of GBH is a matterr for the jury.

Neither GBH nor really serious harm have a definition, except that it does not have to be perrmanent or dangerous, which seems a bit odd to me. I get pemanent, not so much dangerous.
 
I would have said its murder, if you continue to lick someone in the head after they're practically knocked out then there's no defence, the time to stop should have been when he was subdued, after that it's murder
 
I would have said its murder, if you continue to lick someone in the head after they're practically knocked out then there's no defence, the time to stop should have been when he was subdued, after that it's murder
I don't know but my assumption has always been that manslaughter protects people from a murder charge in circumstances where you momentarily lose control. For example you catch your wife in bed with someone and beat him to death or you kill someone to protect a child continuing the beating long after the perpetrator is a danger.
 
If the CPS try and get a murder conviction they cannot include manslaughter to fall back on to. Lots of countries do allow this multiple offence at trial, the UK don't.
I don't think this is correct. Pretty sure manslaughter is frequently on the indictment as an alternative count to murder.
 
murder or manslaughter so long as its 25+ years in jail then its technical. Police have a hard job and have to make tough decisions every day but they seem to have an ever growing element of thugs in the force. For a policeman to kick a man in the head twice while lying on ground incapacitated is despicable. They are trained to know what the effects of tasering is and therefore know what kicks to the head can do.

Was it racially motivated?

Some parallels to George Floyd here but in this case AFAIK no crime had been committed and no drugs found in Atkinson's body.

Only the very minimal good that might come of this is that less police have tasers and are trained to the highest standards and every one of them should have retraining as of now
 
Some parallels to George Floyd here but in this case AFAIK no crime had been committed and no drugs found in Atkinson's body.

I am not quite sure what you are alluding to here, but as far as I am concerned, whether a person has committed a crime , or whether they have drugs in their system , is in no way justification for being tasered for 33 seconds and being kicked in the head twice and losing your life in the process.

If as a copper , you see the red mist, lose control, or panic and overreact, then quite simply you are in the wrong job, and are a threat and pose a grave danger to everyone around you, both civilian and other police officers.
 
Last edited:
Awful stuff and a disgrace it took 5 years to reach court. The general consensus is these coppers were shagging at the time and he lost a bit of face in front of his then girlfriend when trying to deal with the incident initially and DA's erratic behaviour so decided to take revenge.

Sounds like she was nearly as bad so hopefully suffers the same fate.

Scum. Thank goodness some of these numpty plods don't have actual guns like in America.
 
Awful stuff and a disgrace it took 5 years to reach court. The general consensus is these coppers were shagging at the time and he lost a bit of face in front of his then girlfriend when trying to deal with the incident initially and DA's erratic behaviour so decided to take revenge.

Sounds like she was nearly as bad so hopefully suffers the same fate.

Scum. Thank goodness some of these numpty plods don't have actual guns like in America.
Unfortunately delays like this are becoming common due to court closures and of course the pandemic backlog.
 
I am not quite sure what you are alluding to here, but as far as I am concerned, whether a person has committed a crime , or whether they have drugs in their system , is in no way justification for being tasered for 33 seconds and being kicked in the head twice and losing your life in the process.

If as a copper , you see the red mist, lose control, or panic and overreact, then quite simply you are in the wrong job, and are a threat and pose a grave danger to everyone around you, both civilian and other police officers.
No I didn't mean that. Both incidents dispicable and hopefully punished as severe as the law allows
 
Back
Top