Yann trial over

[tomfl]

Link here

At the end of deposition hearing, the prosecution asked for a minimum of 6 months suspended sentence against the skipper, along with a fine of 20 000 euros and publication the conviction in the press.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by tomfl

Link here

At the end of deposition hearing, the prosecution asked for a minimum of 6 months suspended sentence against the skipper, along with a fine of 20 000 euros and publication the conviction in the press.

Very unusual for the courts to get involved in any race

[StuM]

Your subject heading appears to be inaccurate.

"The prosecution asked for ......"

The defence has asked for acquittal. There is no indicate that the trial is over.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by StuM

Your subject heading appears to be inaccurate.

"The prosecution asked for ......"

The defence has asked for acquittal. There is no indicate that the trial is over.

No, the OP has recorded it accurately. The 'prosecution' have called for it.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Very unusual for the courts to get involved in any race

There was grievous bodily harm involved - person lost a leg. On the contrary, he should have been locked up.

Sent from my D6633 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

There was grievous bodily harm involved - person lost a leg. On the contrary, he should have been locked up.

Sent from my D6633 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

"Grievous bodily harm" you say so you are claiming he deliberately did took this action which resulted in her injury?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

No, the OP has recorded it accurately. The 'prosecution' have called for it.

It was a Deposition Hearing.

"The judgment was reserved."

i.e. The case has not yet been decided.
So the trial is NOT over.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

"Grievous bodily harm" you say so you are claiming he deliberately did took this action which resulted in her injury?

"Grievous bodily harm" does not include any element of intent. It simply means that the action he took resulted in serious injury, whether that action was deliberate or not. You can cause GBH by negligence as well as by intent.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by StuM

It was a Deposition Hearing.

"The judgment was reserved."

i.e. The case has not yet been decided.
So the trial is NOT over.

Yes, I know this and so does the OP. He said nothing suggesting otherwise.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by StuM

"Grievous bodily harm" does not include any element of intent. It simply means that the action he took resulted in serious injury, whether that action was deliberate or not. You can cause GBH by negligence as well as by intent.

I did not mention 'intent', I mentioned a deliberate action. In most parts of the world 'gbh' requires that the 'action' that led to the harm was deliberate.

And it's certainly more than negligence.

Though 🤔 'Intent' is also usually required in a criminal trial too.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by StuM

Your subject heading appears to be inaccurate.

"The prosecution asked for ......"

The defence has asked for acquittal. There is no indicate that the trial is over.

I've just realised why you are saying this. The 'OP's heading 'trial over'. Your correct, the 'heading' is misleading.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I did not mention 'intent', I mentioned a deliberate action. In most parts of the world 'gbh' requires that the 'action' that led to the harm was deliberate.

And it's certainly more than negligence.

I stand corrected. You didn't say intent - that was my error in confusing "intent" with "deliberate". I should have been more careful with my interpretation.

However both "negligently: and "recklessly" are legal terms frequently attached to offences involving GBH. That can include situations without any specific intent or deliberate action.

I guess the court may have reserved its judgement partly on the question of whether this was the result of negligence or recklessness.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by StuM

I stand corrected. You didn't say intent - that was my error in confusing "intent" with "deliberate". I should have been more careful with my interpretation.

However both "negligently: and "recklessly" are legal terms frequently attached to offences involving GBH. That can include situations without any specific intent or deliberate action.

I guess the court may have reserved its judgement partly on the question of whether this was the result of negligence or recklessness.

This is not correct in either the Britain or Australia. I'm supposing it might be different there.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

"Grievous bodily harm" you say so you are claiming he deliberately did took this action which resulted in her injury?

I'm not claiming anything -- I'm not the prosecutor.

But the facts, from what we can see, look quite bad for the skipper -- quite reckless and aggressive behavior, which resulted in a person losing a leg.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I did not mention 'intent', I mentioned a deliberate action. In most parts of the world 'gbh' requires that the 'action' that led to the harm was deliberate.

And it's certainly more than negligence.

Though �� 'Intent' is also usually required in a criminal trial too.

Rustic is correct. Rustic is an ex-cop and knows I'm an ex-lawyer. He was just showing off that he remembers this stuff

The mens rea required for GBH is complicated and interesting. In layman's terms, however, recklessness is generally enough.