You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Vid https://twitter.com/trailhuntlies/status/1585356089826357248?s=20&t=Un4vMbkQAhVxCIIch6jsiA
'Woman arrested in connection with Knossington collision
Appeals
News
09:58 27/10/2022
A woman has been arrested following a collision in Knossington on Tuesday morning (25 October).
Police were called to Braunston Road shortly before midday following a report a woman in her 40s had been struck by a car – a grey Mercedes.
The victim was taken to hospital to be treated for injuries that were not life-threatening or life-changing. She has since been discharged and officers are in regular contact with her.
A 59-year-old woman, from Knossington, was arrested on suspicion of attempted wounding with intent yesterday evening (Wednesday). She has since been released under investigation.
The vehicle involved in the collision has also been recovered by police.
Detective Inspector Charles Edwards said: “Our investigation into the incident is continuing and we’ve spoken to a number of witnesses who were in the area at the time.
“I’m aware of the concern this incident has raised and we’ll provide further updates as our enquiries progress.”
You can pass on information by visiting https://www.leics.police.uk/ro/report/ocr/af/how-t... and quoting reference 22*623684.
Alternatively call 101.'
Sorry, am I missing something - where's the bit she knocks someone down? Admit I didn't have sound on as at work but camera doesn't show any evidence of anyone getting hit.
Put the sound on mate.
That's horrific.
You can hear a thud and someone being thrown to the left of the car
Doesn't look like contact was made - rather they dove out of the way. Regardless reckless & dangerous from the driver it appears.
edit. there does appear to be a sound of an impact. My speakers were doing there not working trick..
Ah, you've edited the original post to add more than a link.
The lady in the car had 2 kids in the back as well.
Jesus.
I find it hard to believe that these hunts where a fox never ever gets killed obviously* is still a "thing" in the 21st century.
*If only that were true!
Pretty sure I seen another (closer) angle of this that shows them bouncing off the bonnet. It's really bad. Not a gentle nudge by any means, but proper attempted murder.
arrested on suspicion of attempted wounding with intent
That carries a hefty charge..
Not a gentle nudge by any means, but proper attempted murder.
That carries a hefty charge..
Did you two not see the three pointed star on the car.... 🙄
The perp is rich establishment. Vanishingly small chance that she'll face any sort of justice 🙁
The mere fact that they use the term " collision" kinda vindicates that view.
Seen worse on the school run in the morning 😂
Happens all the time. Back in the day as a sab I lost count of the number of times they drove cars or landrovers at me at speed. Luckily I always managed to get out of the way.
That carries a hefty charge..
She'll get away with it. They always do.
Can we crowdfund a proper prosecution?
The perp is rich establishment.
I can't and won't defend what she did but really?? Looks like the sort of car regularly seen on the school run at any school in the country that no one would blink an eye at under any other circumstances.
OK, after the second video i've not seen that on the school run 😲
Attempted murder surely?!
Holy shit that was awful. there is no way, with footage like that they cannot be charged
dawson
Full Member
Attempted murder surely?!
With the current government i'd expect the injured party to be charged with criminal damage!
Can we crowdfund a proper prosecution?
Probably unnecessary. If she's not charged and convicted then the sabs will know who she is. One way or the other she'll end up regretting her actions.
Thats ****ing awful. Hope she gets banged up.
But I have a mercedes and I'm certainly not rich establishment. In fact I'm not even sure I earn national average salary...
Holy f@“k.
I’m not someone to be prone to jumping to heavy sentences, but how can that not be seen as attempted murder?
I fully expect the driver to say they felt threatened so drove away hastily and accidentally hit someone.
Jesus, that second video is bad. 😧
I suppose if blood had been drawn, she’d have doused the kids with it…that’s the kind of thing they do isn’t it?
"I was frightened for my life, so i drove away to protect myself and my kids."
I'd put a small wager on that being the gist of the defence... If it even gets to trial.
Can we crowdfund a proper prosecution?
Can think of other things worth crowd funding to stop the hunts.... Probably illegal, mind.
Being hit from behind by a speeding car in broad daylight on a straight road with clear line of sight. Got to be charged with some motoring offence at least, if not something more serious.
Can't see any way that's anything but attemped murder.
Hopefully she's put away fir a long time and this mobilises more people against these scum.
That's horrific!
Think in cases when people use cars as weapons they should be crushed & the driver given a lifetime ban.
“I was frightened for my life, so i drove away to protect myself and my kids.”
I’d put a small wager on that being the gist of the defence… If it even gets to trial.
The first video where she's calmly getting into her car and then driving off at speed won't help that argument!
That last video above, jesus that's horrifying! Not even attempt to avoid a person who was moving out of the way. That should/has to be a custodial sentence.
*Speechless* This'll be happening to Just Stop Oil protestors before long, won't it. 🙁
This country is screwed.
Aside from how utterly shocking that second video is...
The victim was taken to hospital to be treated for injuries that were not life-threatening or life-changing
Exactly how many shredded wheat does that woman have for breakfast?
Seriously deranged driver there, especially with kids in the car. Should be banged up for sure
It won't be charged as attempted murder because there needs to be a demonstration of intent. In this case it looks like they can demonstrate intent to assault - driving into someone in broad daylight on a straight road at speed and then f***ing off, but how do you prove she intended to kill the protester?
There will probably be additional charges, if her kids were in the car then there may be some reckless endangerment charges
Think in cases when people use cars as weapons they should be crushed
FTFY
🙂
Awful. I'm sure the defence will be "I feared for my life and was protecting my kids" or similar.
Can we crowdfund a proper prosecution?
Eh? There's already a publically funded prosecution service, who appear to be progressing this why would you want to add confusion by crowd funding?
The perp is rich establishment. Vanishingly small chance that she’ll face any sort of justice 🙁
The driver will almost certainly face the judicial system. You may or may not see that as "justice" but that system is really not set up to let people off scot-free because of who they are. I'm confident that this sort of case will not be brushed under the carpet, in a modern everything is on youtube before the police have even responded to the 999 call its very hard to bury a case. But of course, if the driver pleads not guilty it will take years because the entire justice system is massively underfunded because it only exists to punish the poor/stupid/disadvantaged/etc so is an easy target for budget cuts.
The mere fact that they use the term ” collision” kinda vindicates that view.
Or its carefully worded so as not to give any defence solicitor a claim that the media prejudiced any prosecution?
She’ll get away with it. They always do.
I doubt it - there's rather a lot of video evidence and eyewitnesses who if they stick to the facts will be credible and reliable witnesses. Now, assuming it proceeds to conviction she may well appear to get off lightly because your justice system likes a suspended sentence, which your media likes to describe as walking free; and any driving ban has less impact on people who are well off than those who are not.
That second video.
Holy sh*t, she is lucky to not be seriously injured or dead.
How do the courts view the following when comparing this to the Harry Dunn case.
Intent but does not result in death vs no intent but results in death?
It won’t be charged as attempted murder because there needs to be a demonstration of intent. In this case it looks like they can demonstrate intent to assault – driving into someone in broad daylight on a straight road at speed and then f***ing off, but how do you prove she intended to kill the protester?
I'm not sure you have to - not sure on attempted vs 'successful' but if the intent is to cause GBH but you overcook it and the victim dies that is still murder, not manslaughter.
Can driving a car at speed at someone meet the definition of intending murder, by parallel to the above the fact it didn't maim or kill shouldn't lessen the offense in my eyes - anyone can see what the result could have been whatever the actual intent
Not life changing injuries? I think I'd be mentally changed for life if that happened to me.
A hunt master, a chief constable and a judge walk into a golf club...
The perp is rich establishment. Vanishingly small chance that she’ll face any sort of justice
Yup, dont expect this to amount to anything other than a small fine.
Defence with say - driver was scared of the saboteur was frightening her kids, or something that pushes the blame towards the protestors, or lost control due to the mud. But either way and while we can be assured it was a deliberate act, the driver will walk away scot free.
Awful. I’m sure the defence will be “I feared for my life and was protecting my kids” or similar.
Even if it was Michael Myers you'd make some attempt to drive around him. I can't see any justifiable defence here.
Max sentence of life. My thoughts are if guilty it could be between 6-10yrs. Much water to go under the bridge before then mind.
Ooooof-2nd video.
"blinded by the sun"
"Injured person was wearing all black clothing"
"felt like car went into a pothole"
"that bodywork damage? - hit a deer last night"
Etc etc
Hasn't the poor driver suffered enough with all this bad press?
Let's move on.
# she's the real victim#
Thoughts and prayers
There's another video from further back giving a bit more context.
Be aware this is quite horrid to watch> https://twitter.com/trailhuntlies/status/1585356089826357248?s=20&t=Un4vMbkQAhVxCIIch6jsiA < Regarding the brake lights just before impact, somebody on pistonheads noted that the brakes come on automatically on this car as a pedestrian safety feature. Guess it couldn't stop in time due to the loose surface
Can’t see any way that’s anything but attemped murder.
Ditto. It couldn't be clearer cut, surely.
I feel a bit sick. Jesus.
The perp is rich establishment. Vanishingly small chance that she’ll face any sort of justice
Yup, dont expect this to amount to anything other than a small fine.
She'll get convicted for this IMO, but I do wonder whether the sentence will seen as fitting the crime.
Even if it was Michael Myers you’d make some attempt to drive around him.
Unless you'd just seen the third Austin Powers movie, perhaps?
In an ideal world I think 'Causing Serious Injury By Dangerous Driving' should be the charge: Section 143 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
and a successful prosecution would depend on whether or not it can be argued that the victim suffered equivalent of GBH and that a 'competent and careful driver' could have foresaw the result of driving in the way the arrested woman did, as per section 2A of the Road Traffic Act 1998. Level 5 fine, 2 year ban and extensive retest plus up to 6 months imprisonment at a Magistrates Court, or up to 5 years imprisonment at Crown Court.
Realistically I'd expect 'Causing Serious Injury By Careless Driving' (penalties as above but only up to 2 years imprisonment by CC) and I'm assuming a Merc-driving hunt enthusiast can afford the smarmy, slimy 'finds a technicality' kind of legal representation so wouldn't be surprised if it was argued down to a basic careless/inconsiderate driving charge.
Can driving a car at speed at someone meet the definition of intending murder, by parallel to the above the fact it didn’t maim or kill shouldn’t lessen the offense in my eyes – anyone can see what the result could have been whatever the actual intent
How can driving a car at speed towards a person not be classed as attempted murder? You’re using the car as a weapon FFS. That video is horrendous. The metaphorical book should well and truly be thrown at her, preferably overhand
That is utterly horrific 😳
Imagine stabbing someone then arguing that you didn't mean to kill them, you only meant to maim them
I presume that if she’s arguing it wasn’t intentional, then surely failing to stop after blatantly running someone over somewhat undermines that line of defence?
Either way, get her banged up, crush the car and make her suffer.
I was going to post similar @northwind. It seems that because it’s a car the rules are different. It’s insane to think that shouldn’t result in an attempted murder charge.
The track was narrow. The vehicle appeared to be driving at an unsafe speed in a straight line.
Jury has to be swayed to on purpose. This :could' potentially be argued away as an accident.
Crushing the car is a waste of resources, confiscation and auctioning off would be better.
Failing that, the other crime here is that Nitromors is nothing like as effective as it used to be.
Speaking personally, attending a hunt as a member or supporter - means that in some way you are a member or enabler of the establishment. Driving a Mercedes doesn’t.
Clearly the driver intended to seriously injure the woman at the very least. Hateful act by the driver.
The track was narrow. The vehicle appeared to be driving at an unsafe speed in a straight line.
And it hadn't travelled far - that's a heavy right foot from a standstill down a narrow track that clearly has pedestrians on it.
tuboflard
Full MemberI presume that if she’s arguing it wasn’t intentional, then surely failing to stop after blatantly running someone over somewhat undermines that line of defence?
Either way, get her banged up, crush the car and make her suffer.
Well her defence could be "I feared for my life and hit them by accident when I was trying to get away. I was too scared to stop."
That's why the second vid I posted (now locked it seems) is important, it shows that she calmly got into the car and was not in immediate danger.
Her defence is likely to be "I was watching my rearview mirror to make sure I wasn't being followed/having anything thrown at my car, and I just didn't see her. I thought the noise was something being thrown at the car"
Northwind
Full Member
Imagine stabbing someone then arguing that you didn’t mean to kill them, you only meant to maim them
IANAShadyDefenceBarrister
Imagine waving a knife at someone to intimidate them, etc.
That would be manslaughter (no intent)?
So if they didn't die it would be ABH/GBH?
So in a car can it be argued down to some level of dangerous driving (it's beyond careless at least surely)?
How can driving a car at speed towards a person not be classed as attempted murder?
Because the law says to be found guilty of attempted murder you must have intended to kill them. That's rather difficult to prove. "I didn't intend to hit them at all, I only meant to scare them", "I knew I was unlikely to kill them but accepted I was likely to injure them", etc. Its a somewhat artificial legal debate though because the offence she has been arrested under could carry the same sentence anyway.
Causing Serious Injury By Dangerous Driving
I think if the reports on the injuries are accurate it might not meet the test. Sentencing under the offences against the person act are likely to be higher anyway as the working assumption with Death/Injury by Driving offences is that there was no intent of harm and the culpability is therefore lower.
Even if it was Michael Myers you’d make some attempt to drive around him. I can’t see any justifiable defence here.
Your honour, I was simply scared witless due to the threats and intimidation I was suffering whilst conducting my totally legal* hobby. I had my child with me and also feared for their safety. As I drove away I did swerve around the unpredictable and aggressive person but a pothole caused me to unfortunately clip them. I then didn’t stop for fear of more aggression.
*legal is somewhat subjective given what actually happens on a hunt, but on paper it is legal. (The dog accidentally grabbed the fox)
It all stinks more than a dog rolling in fox shit, but a blind man on a galloping horse can see the way this will play out in court.
Either way, get her banged up, crush the car and make her suffer.
Doubt it'll happen through official channels. They turn a blind eye every time. If past precedent is anything to go by, if she gets any comeback it'll be from the sabs themselves. Back in the 90s an 18 year old sab from Liverpool was killed after being run over and the perpetrator had to go into hiding after his house was trashed. A lot of people went to prison for that and the driver of the vehicle was never prosecuted. The violence meted out against sabs is horrific and it doesn't seem like much has changed since 30 years ago.
https://thecitro.substack.com/p/remembering-mike-hill-remembering
Cynically, I'm not sure it really matters what she's charged with, the defence will be a whole mix of "hardworking mother", "didn't mean to hit/cause harm", "does a lot for the community", "in fear of her life" and so on.
Sab probably portrayed as the exact opposite.
And some high up police/judiciary who just happen to know the huntmaster or own land upon which they ride or are connected in some other way.
Same in motorist/cyclist cases where it's a poor hardworking motorist and a deviant RLJing troublemaker cyclist who can't afford to get a proper mode of transport.
🙁
Edit: exactly as @oldschool says above
Regarding the brake lights just before impact, somebody on pistonheads noted that the brakes come on automatically on this car as a pedestrian safety feature. Guess it couldn’t stop in time due to the loose surface
They're designed to stop people who aren't paying attention, not those who are deliberately trying to hit someone.
TBH, the fact that it doesn't seem to slow at all, despite the brake lights triggering, is probably something for the prosecution to look at.
You *really* need to be mashing the pedal to override pedestrian safety braking functional stuff. Depending on how old it is/how it's set up.
mert
TBH, the fact that it doesn’t seem to slow at all, despite the brake lights triggering, is probably something for the prosecution to look at.
You *really* need to be mashing the pedal to override pedestrian safety braking functional stuff. Depending on how old it is/how it’s set up.
Yeah possibly, she was absolutely hoofing it, but I still think it's just heavy car, wide tyres, loose surface.
I think if the reports on the injuries are accurate it might not meet the test.
This makes no sense to me personally, that the punishment is driven by the outcome ... any fule can see that hitting someone with a car could / is likely to kill or life-changing type injure them. The fact it didn't has no bearing in my mind.
We do this at work - our H&S folks don't like the culture of 'near miss' being somehow less serious. If a roof isn't maintained and a slate falls off and no-one's under it, well that's 'OK'. It it slices someone's skull open...... prosecution and corporate manslaughter.
The cause is identical, you didn't maintain the roof / drove a car at someone. The rest is luck.
There's a thread over on pistonheads where I first heard of this. The footage of the actual hit is terrifying and shows that the driver (believed to be the landowner and hunt organiser) just drove straight at the woman, no deviation and at speed.
Horrifying and if it doesn't end up in a serious charge there will be outcry.
That is quite horrific bit if they are establishment then I'm quite sure some completely legal and logical sounding fiddle will be found. The world really is a bit shit
arrested on suspicion of attempted wounding with intent
That carries a hefty charge..
On a wider point, this is potentially really interesting, in terms of how drivers are dealt with in traffic incidents involving pedestrians and cyclists. If you hit someone in those circumstances, that would be an interesting precedent for charging*. The second video makes it very clear how horrific that kind of action is, and the potential consequences. If I was the person who was hit, I'd have bought a lottery ticket while my luck was clearly in.
*On a side note, if it's a wounding with intent conviction, can a driving ban be imposed as it's not a driving offence?
I watched the original twitter video (but can't see it now for some reason - access seems to have been restricted) and she seemed to get into her car without much fuss but I was at work so didn't have sound on. Was she ranting and raving and threatening folk before driving off?
I don't really follow how she can go from not looking too narked to going mental that she then deliberately drives at someone 10 seconds or so later without any further provocation. Especially when she was openly being filmed. Lunatic.
I watched the original twitter video (but can’t see it now for some reason – access seems to have been restricted)
Not just me then.
Should the driver feel the full weight of the law? Yes. Will they? Doubt it.
The number plate M411ARD [MALLARD] is going to be quite distinctive around those parts; I'd imagine she'll be changing that pretty smartish. She certainly won't be parking it in any public car parks for the foreseeable.
Jesus, poor lass.
Should these vids not be pulled to avoid the trial by meeja defence?
On some cars when the abs /anti skid / asc operates the brake lights come on automatically
Could be the abs, but could be tcs as its a loose surface, maybe potholes road. Gear change under load and the asc detected an imbalance and feathers the brakes.
Either way, she will get away with a pathetic fine, few points on her licence and carry on as if nothing happened. Because she will have a top lawyer, the crown wont. She will have mitigating circumstances, there is no benefit to the public for a custodial sentence. The cps will do a deal for a guilty plea to a lower charge to get it cleared off the books
*On a side note, if it’s a wounding with intent conviction, can a driving ban be imposed as it’s not a driving offence?
Yes, there is a general (but often forgotten) power of the courts to disqualify anyone from driving even if the prosecution is not under the road traffic act (e.g. someone nicking fuel from petrol stations) https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/ancillary-orders/9-disqualification-from-driving-general-power/
I think it is very likely that there would be some road traffic charges on the list too (like failing to stop, failing to report etc) anyway.
Should these vids not be pulled to avoid the trial by meeja defence?
A valid point, given the way the thread has gone.
Back in the 90s an 18 year old sab from Liverpool was killed after being run over and the perpetrator had to go into hiding after his house was trashed
I'm no fan of hunts, and I'm well aware the way sabs have been treated by hunt supporters and the law has been disgraceful, but some of you need to have a look at yourselves with the relish you seem to have for vigilante style revenge.
I've cycled past sabs gathering to protest at a hunt, and I was ****ing scared by the anger and distrust shown to me just as a passing cyclist.