Beverley Cousins, 26, had to have her right leg amputated after Luke Julius, 25, mounted the pavement and hit her in the horrific accident in Bedminster, Bristol.
It was
no accident:
Just after 1pm, Miss Davies and Julius argued on the pavement outside the Robert Fitzharding pub.
Julius then threw his pint over Miss Davies and punched her in the face, the court was told.
Mr Ranklyn intervened and hit Julius - his friend of 15 years - before pushing him away from the rest of the group.
A furious Julius stormed out of the pub, and was overheard saying, 'I’m going to get the car and run the c*** over.'
Minutes later, the drunken man returned in his Peugeot 205 and mounted the pavement, driving straight at his friends.
Unless there was something mechanically wrong with the car, how can that possibly be ‘an accident’?
Julius sped off and abandoned his car in a nearby street, before being arrested a short time later by the police.
Where it became clear this was definitely not an accident:
After Julius’s arrest a blood test revealed a blood alcohol reading of 191mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood. The legal limit is 80mg - meaning he was nearly two-and-a-half times the drink drive limit.
They also found coke in his blood. No, not ‘The Real Thing’ either!
At an earlier hearing Julius, of Bedminster, Bristol, admitted causing grievous bodily harm with intent against Miss Cousins, dangerous driving, drink driving and assaulting Lisa-Marie Davies.
A plea of not guilty to the more serious charge of attempted murder was accepted by the Crown.
Mind boggling. Especially given his record…
The court heard Julius has previous convictions for violence. In 2004 he appeared before the juvenile court for assaulting a police officer and received an absolute discharge.
In June 2005 Julius faced Bristol Crown Court accused of robbery at knife-point and was sent to a young offenders’ institution for 30 months.
The following November he was sentenced to 12 weeks in custody by magistrates in Bristol for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
And in December 2007 he received a community order after being convicted of using threatening words or behaviour.
I can only assume they thought his drunken state would make it hard to push the attempted murder charge. But seriously, how can deliberately driving a car at someone
not be attempted murder?
5 comments:
Difficult this one. Merely going to "run the c*** over" is not in itself murderous.
Yes, he was pissed, drugged, deranged and a danger to everyone. Yes the car is a weapon, especially in the wrong hands, and yes, accidents are usually things no one intended to happen.
Still, a charming young man who deserves a second/third.fourth chance and one hopes would not suffer in any way for his error of judgement, etc.
Though you can but hope...
"In June 2005 Julius faced Bristol Crown Court accused of robbery at knife-point and was sent to a young offenders’ institution for 30 months.
The following November he was sentenced to 12 weeks in custody by magistrates in Bristol for assault occasioning actual bodily harm."
Unless he was done for an offence committed in the nick, I guess that shows he served a lot less than 30 months....
XX A plea of not guilty to the more serious charge of attempted murder was accepted by the Crown.XX
This is part of the reason why it was very rare to see any one done for "causing death by dangerous driving", or "furious driving", etc. The evidence needed of what constituted "dangerous"/"furious" was virtually unprovable, as it rested on the opinion of the observer and could be torn to shreds by a defence solicitor / barrister.
Similar goes here for murder. Mens rea. Guilty intent. None was shown/provable.
Although, I would hang him any way. So the point is moot.
I got as far as "Julius" and guessed the remainder ..
A quick look at the article confirmed my suspicions ..
"Albert ... got a little job for you in Bristol, mate" ... ;)
"Still, a charming young man who deserves a second/third.fourth chance.."
Luckily for us all, his luck seems to have run out.
"Unless he was done for an offence committed in the nick, I guess that shows he served a lot less than 30 months...."
No-one EVER seems to serve their full term. Someone should do the justice system under the Trades Description Act.
" The evidence needed of what constituted "dangerous"/"furious" was virtually unprovable, as it rested on the opinion of the observer and could be torn to shreds by a defence solicitor / barrister."
It's long past time this was overhauled.
"I got as far as "Julius" and guessed the remainder .."
;)
Post a Comment