in the UK it's first and second which are essentially identical to the US law, manslaughter which is also identical to the US definition but we don't have a 3rd degree murder. In that case in the UK you can be charged and 90% of the time are charged with GBH, grevious bodily harm.
But you can also be found guilty of murder. The CPS doesn't have to prove an intent to kill to get a murder conviction, only an intent to cause serious harm. You wouldn't be charged with GBH if the person dies. You're also thinking of GBH with intent.
Yeah, but that would be a case by case basis and the level of planning and intent and the method of the harm. Like I think someone planning to smash someones face in with a hammer for an insult, going about it and then "accidentally" killing them in the process is certainly a case of murder. But two people planning a fight and in the process one of them falls, bangs their head and dies. Is it murder, manslaughter or GBH? Technically you intended to hurt them, you battered them and they died, but the circumstances are completely different.
Of course it's a case by case basis. Why wouldn't it be ffs. Regardless, your definitions of murder all included an intent to kill which simply isn't true under UK law. The CPS don't need to prove an intent to kill to get a murder conviction.
If anyone's wondering why I'm so certain on this btw it's because I literally heard it come out of a crown court judges mouth while he directed a jury during the murder trial of the bloke who killed one of my best friends.
For me it's murder, regardless of the law - and we are all forgetting the new standard set by Keir Starmer, we will find you, we will arrest you, have you up before the court the next day, we will imprison you and we will name you.
Fair enough, but on the CPS's own website they include "intent" as a key element of a murder charge. Doesn't cover every single conviction in the UK, but it's reasonable that most people when listing what they consider a murder would include intent as something they believe needs to be proven.
What people believe is irrelevant. The fact remains that under UK law there is no requirement to prove an intent to kill to gain a murder conviction. The CPS website actually states this: with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (in contrast to the offence of attempted murder, where only intent to kill will suffice) So despite you saying you came cos people were chatting **** about what constitutes murder, it was actually you chatting **** and you used the laws of a different country to try and make your point.
and all that's happened so far and will continue to happen is moves made to frustrate the system, as always happens, as Solid highlighted earlier with some other cases. For example this inquiry, seven fooking years, now at least another two years before any thought of an individual being charged, and it will just be one thing after another, until the culprits are so old the public will be asked to take pity on them, the killers in their dying days. We all know how this shhite works. The standards that Starmer sets are only for us paupers.
Intent was the major sticking point that people kept saying isn't needed. Even if the UK definition of murder included GBH, intent is still a key element of the conviction. Intent is key, be it intent to behead someone or intent to bash their face in. Intent, resulting in a death.
Yeah, those top end lawyers will be finding every single method to delay, confuse and everything in between knowing that public interest will be key. They will as you say drag it along until people lose any and all interest, hoping that lowers a chance of a proper conviction. Someone at the involved company may be thrown under the bus, but it won't be someone top end, it will be a few rungs under who will be a old man by the time it happens.
