Dalian Atkinson trial

[yammers]

I agree that a Police officer should, and I’m sure that will be an aggravating factor when it comes to sentencing.
As I said earlier I think that he will get double figures.

[Hopadop]

Kicks to the head will be enough for a murder charge, but rarely it seems enough for a jury to convict.  I've had three defendants (I think) acquitted of murder in those circumstances, whereas one who was convicted did a lot more besides.

It's not an exact science. The Preddie brothers who killed Damilola Taylor were only convicted of manslaughter, despite giving him a gash in his leg deep enough to sever an artery.  No evidence of an intention to kill, but to cause serious harm?  I'd have thought so, but they weren't even tried for murder.

[brontebilly]

Given the level of viciousness involved in the assault of a prone man, it's unlikely this was the first time this cop assaulted someone

[maidstonevillain]

It also has to be taken into account that Atkinson had underlying health conditions, and I understand was not far from death in any event. Whilst the "eggshell skull" rule will, I assume, come into play, a Judge will probably take this into consideration.

[dave.woodhall]

I'm no expert but a manslaughter verdict at least reduces the risk of him getting released on appeal.

[Drummond]

I very much doubt an intent to either kill Atkinson or cause him serious injury, rather debilitate him to the point of incapacity. You could of course argue that he'd have to cause injury in order to incapacitate but that's probably the line between murder and manslaughter.

[amfy]

I very much doubt an intent to either kill Atkinson or cause him serious injury, rather debilitate him to the point of incapacity. You could of course argue that he'd have to cause injury in order to incapacitate but that's probably the line between murder and manslaughter.

‘Intent’ is always difficult to prove because you can never know what someone thought, but when you kick someone in the head you are either intending to cause serious harm or you have ‘lost it’.

Is ‘losing it’ a defence against intent? I’m not sure. I’m not sure it should be or can be - otherwise every pissed up shithead would walk for anything they did. I’m not saying that the police were pissed up, I’m saying that I’m trying to picture this scenario at closing time at the pub with an ordinary bloke and his girlfriend trying to claim they didn’t mean to cause serious injury, when they have knocked someone down and kicked him so hard that their lace prints are in his head.

[kippaxvilla2]

Possibly Full of testosterone he had his girlfriend with him probably trying to impress her.

[Risso]

As a complete layman when it comes to the law, it seems to me that the difference between convicting for murder or manslaughter usually boils down to intent before the incident happened.  Did the policeman go to the address with the intention of killing Dalian? No, he was responding to a call out as part of his job. Did things then get seriously out of hand while he was there, and did he go too far in his response, clearly yes. Obviously there are degrees, if he'd arrived, pulled out a gun and shot somebody, then that would be clear murder, but I think all things considered here, manslaughter is probably the right decision.

[eamonn]

I very much doubt an intent to either kill Atkinson or cause him serious injury, rather debilitate him to the point of incapacity. You could of course argue that he'd have to cause injury in order to incapacitate but that's probably the line between murder and manslaughter.

‘Intent’ is always difficult to prove because you can never know what someone thought, but when you kick someone in the head you are either intending to cause serious harm or you have ‘lost it’.

Is ‘losing it’ a defence against intent? I’m not sure. I’m not sure it should be or can be - otherwise every pissed up shithead would walk for anything they did. I’m not saying that the police were pissed up, I’m saying that I’m trying to picture this scenario at closing time at the pub with an ordinary bloke and his girlfriend trying to claim they didn’t mean to cause serious injury, when they have knocked someone down and kicked him so hard that their lace prints are in his head.

Wasn't his defence that he was frightened that Dalian would attack him/them? After he had banged on his Dad's door threatening to do the same? Not defending the horrific actions in any way but I think it's a difficult, sad case to extract justice from.

[amfy]

I very much doubt an intent to either kill Atkinson or cause him serious injury, rather debilitate him to the point of incapacity. You could of course argue that he'd have to cause injury in order to incapacitate but that's probably the line between murder and manslaughter.

‘Intent’ is always difficult to prove because you can never know what someone thought, but when you kick someone in the head you are either intending to cause serious harm or you have ‘lost it’.

Is ‘losing it’ a defence against intent? I’m not sure. I’m not sure it should be or can be - otherwise every pissed up shithead would walk for anything they did. I’m not saying that the police were pissed up, I’m saying that I’m trying to picture this scenario at closing time at the pub with an ordinary bloke and his girlfriend trying to claim they didn’t mean to cause serious injury, when they have knocked someone down and kicked him so hard that their lace prints are in his head.

Wasn't his defence that he was frightened that Dalian would attack him/them? After he had banged on his Dad's door threatening to do the same? Not defending the horrific actions in any way but I think it's a difficult, sad case to extract justice from.

Was he still frightened when he was on the floor? Unconscious/semi-conscious? Policing is a tough job but the people who do it, choose it. If feeling threatened was a defence, the police would be allowed to kill people every day, because diffusing aggression is the job they are trained for.

None of us were there, and the jury having heard all the evidence have decided on manslaughter, & his sentence will hopefully reflect the severity of what happened. That’s OK - as I also said, it’s a fine line.

It does say something about the notion of defunding the police. If funding is redistributed so that mental health workers went out with police on calls like this, we may be able to prevent stuff like this happening, and have professional witnesses we can learn from.

I was out on a call when I was with the substance misuse services when a young lad I was working with was holding a lighter and threatening to set fire to himself (no petrol - just a shell suit!). I was really shocked when police took him down with a baton behind his knees and threw him over the bonnet to cuff him, but they came to me immediately afterwards and explained every step of their actions & I accepted that they acted in his best interests because they had to take him down quickly, and he was basically unhurt. I’m not sure I would feel the same if I’d been there when Dalian was brought down, but I do have to accept that it was explained to the jury, & this is what they got from it.

[kippaxvilla2]

As a complete layman when it comes to the law, it seems to me that the difference between convicting for murder or manslaughter usually boils down to intent before the incident happened.  Did the policeman go to the address with the intention of killing Dalian? No, he was responding to a call out as part of his job. Did things then get seriously out of hand while he was there, and did he go too far in his response, clearly yes. Obviously there are degrees, if he'd arrived, pulled out a gun and shot somebody, then that would be clear murder, but I think all things considered here, manslaughter is probably the right decision.

I agree - how many police officers go on duty with an intention to kill someone?  The call out went spectacularly wrong though.  And the degrees to restrain Dalian went way too far - hence he was negligent, which I assume means he can be convicted of manslaughter - but I might be completely wrong.

[brontebilly]

Hope they throw the book at the female copper too. That omerta in police forces around the world does them no favours.

[Richard E]

The intent to kill or seriously injure has to exist at the time the act causing the death occurs. It does not have to exist prior to that.

[Richard E]

The jury have been unable to reach a verdict on the female PC. CPS will now have to decide whether to ask for a retrial.