Posted on by Stephen Tuck

A shotgun won’t help

Grabbing the front passenger seat in a car can be accompanied by a cry of “shotgun”.  Sometimes it’s followed by a police officer saying “busted”.

shotgun_300x300
Image from here

On 24 December 2017 a driver in Rosebud, Australia, was driving home after a few celebratory glasses of champagne.  He encountered a police checkpoint and, while waiting, swapped seats with his (sober) wife.  This was observed by police, who asked him to take a breath test.  He was found to have a blood alcohol concentration of 0.055 (the legal limit being 0.05).

The driver was charged with breaching §49(1)(b) of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic.).  He was dealt with in Dromana Magistrates Court.  It was noted that he had two prior drink-driving charges.  Lethbridge M noted that a fourth charge was likely to result in imprisonment.  On this occasion he was disqualified from driving for 12 months and fined $750.00.

Police v Raymond (2018), Mornington Peninsula Leader, 1 May 2018, p.5.

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Bringing a knife to a … dammit.

An old country song cautions against taking your guns to town.  That advice applies prudently to other weapons.

dont take guns
Image from here

On 11 June 2017 a man went to attend a rally by an Australian neo-Nazi group known as the True Blue Crew.  Victoria Police, anticipating conflict, had declared the area to be a “designated area”, giving them expanded search powers.  The Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic.), §10G(1) states that –

A police officer may, without a warrant, stop and search a person, and search any thing in the possession of or under the control of the person for weapons, if the person and, if applicable, the thing are in a public place that is within a designated area.

The accused’s car was searched, with a flick-knife and knuckledusters being found.  The report is slightly unclear but is appears he was charged with possessing a prohibited weapon in breach of §5AA of the Act.

The defendant pleaded guilty in the Dandenong Magistrates Court, claiming to have forgotten the weapons were in his vehicle.

Vandersteen M noted that the defendant suffered from a psychiatric condition, but also noted that he had a prior weapons conviction and was attending a rally by a racist organization.  The defendant was sentenced to a 12 month good behaviour bond with a condition that he continue to receive psychiatric treatment.

Police v Martin (2018), Endeavour Hills, Hallam and Doveton Star-Journal, 23 April 2018, p.3

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

You, sir, are an object lesson

The creators of South Park were quite right:

mackie
Image from here

On 18 March 2018 Mr Pearce’s vehicle was searched by police in Victoria, Australia.  The search turned up a cornucopia of drugs including cannabis, methamphetamine, cocaine and ecstasy.  It was found that he was already wanted for other driving and drug offences.

Mr Pearce was charged with a range of drug and driving offences, as well as a charge of breaching a community corrections order for still other drug offences.  His matter was dealt with in Frankston Magistrates Court.

At trial the defendant pleaded guilty and submitted that his life had “spiralled out of control” due to drug addiction and relationship failure.  Crisp M sentenced the defendant to 10 months imprisonment and imposed a fine of $2,200 and a five year  driving ban.

Police v Pearce (2018), Mornington Peninsula Leader, 24 April 2018, p.5.

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

The worst of ideas

A week or two ago I wrote about a case of manslaughter-by-neglect in Florida where the defendant was not imprisoned. A recent case out of Texas suggests that State will take a harsher view of failure to care for another person.

1525117864-cynthia-marie-randolph
Cynthia Randolph (Parker Co. Sheriffs Office)

On 26 May 2017 Cynthia Randolph of Fort Worth, Texas became angry with her two children (aged 1 and 2 years). They were playing in her car and refused to get out. She left them in the car to “teach them a lesson”. She returned to her house, watched televison, smoked some marijuana and napped for a few hours. It is estimated that in that time the temperature in the care reached 140F (60C). When she woke, the children were unresponsive.  They died shortly afterwards.

Randolph was charged with two counts of intentionally causing serious bodily injury to a child, punishable by up to 99 years imprisonment. The jury had the option of convicting her of (inter alia) recklessly causing serious injury. Texas Penal Code §22.04(a) states that –

A person commits an offense if he … recklessly… by act or … recklessly by omission, causes to a child…:
(1) serious bodily injury;
(2) serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury;  or
(3) bodily injury.

Randolph’s matter was heard in the 415th Texas District Court before Judge Quisenberry The jury opted to convict on the lesser charge, but imposed the maximum term of 20 years imprisonment in respect of each child.

State v Randolph (2018), Dallas Morning News, 1 May 2018; CBS News, 1 May 2018; Sacramento Bee, 1 May 2018; New York Post, 30 April 2018; KVUE, 30 April 2018

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

A castle is a castle

A man’s (mobile) home is his castle.

castle
Image from here

On 5 June 2016 Martin Keenan, a 20 year old resident of a caravan park in Dublin, came home to find two strangers in the bedroom of his mobile home.  One of the intruders was an unarmed 33 year old, Wesley Mooney.  There was a confrontation between the two men in which Mooney was stabbed with half of a pair of garden shears, sustaining fatal injuries.  Keenan was charged with murder.

Keenan was tried in Ireland’s Central Criminal Court before Butler J and a jury.  He relied on the Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Act 2011 (Ire.) §2(1) which states that –

it shall not be an offence for … a person who is a lawful occupant in a dwelling, to use force against another person … where … he or she believes the other person has entered …  the dwelling as a trespasser for the purpose of committing a criminal act, and … the force used is only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he … believes them to be … to protect himself … or another person present in the dwelling from injury, assault, detention or death caused by a criminal act

Butler J advised the jury that the 2011 Act had clarified that the homeowner was no longer obliged to retreat from confrontation.

The accused was acquitted by majority verdict.

DPP v Keenan (2018) Irish Times, 14 March 2018

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Crimes on the Rails (part 2)

A case out of Pennsylvania bookends with the case of R v Harding (2018) about which I wrote the other day.

Amtrak
Image from here

On 12 May 2015 Brandon Bostian was the engineer on a train from Washington to New York.  The train entered a bend in the line at 106 mph (170 kph).  This was more than double the speed limit.  The train derailed, injuring 150 passengers and killing eight.  A government investigation found that Bostian was not affected by alcohol or drugs and was not using a cellphone.  It concluded that he had lost his bearings while distracted by operational radio communications.

The family of one of the deceased brought a private prosecution against Bostian for (inter alia) involuntary manslaughter.  Pennsylvania law states that –

A person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter when as a direct result of … the doing of a lawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner, he causes the death of another person.

The charges were dismissed by the Philadelphia Municipal Court.  The Attorney-General appealed to the Court of Common Pleas.  On 6 February 2018 Lewis J reversed the Municipal Court’s decision, finding that there was sufficient evidence for Bostian to be presented for trial.  It appears a trial date has not yet been set.

Commonwealth v Bostian (2018), Philadelphia Inquirer, 6 February 2018 and Register Citizen (Torrington, CT), 6  February 2018.

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Crimes on the Rails (part 1)

An interesting case came out of Quebec earlier this year regarding a railway disaster.

Megantic
Image from here

On 6 July 2013 a train loaded with crude oil rolled out of control into the Quebec town of Lac-Megantic.  It derailed in the town. Its load of oil exploded.  Part of the town was destroyed and 47 people were killed.  The train’s engineer admitted that when he left the train that night he did not apply enough brakes to fix it in place on a sloping section of railway line.  He also admitted not having conducted a proper brake test.

The engineer was charged with criminal negligence causing death, as were the railway company’s traffic controller and manager of train operations.  Quebec Criminal Code §220 provides that –

Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable … to imprisonment for life.

The charges were heard in the Quebec Superior Court before Dumas J and a jury of twelve.  In January 2018 each of the defendants was acquitted.  One can infer that the defendants’ admitted carelessness was not considered to be the gross carelessness required by the criminal law.

The Queen v Harding, Labrie and Demaitre (2018), The Globe and Mail, 20 January 2018 and Kingston Whig-Standard, 19 January 2018.

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

You can run, but you can’t always hide

Lawyers are practical people. Most would consider the laws of war an obscure field far removed from daily practice. A recent Swedish case suggests familiarity with that area could be useful in countries with high refugee intakes from recent conflicts.

Bombed_out_vehicles_Aleppo
Aleppo, Syria, 2012 (Image from Voice of America)

Mohammad Abdullah entered Sweden as a refugee from Syria in 2014. Other Syrians in Sweden noticed a photograph on his Facebook page showing him posing in army fatigues with his boot on the body of a dead man.

 

Sweden invoked “universal jurisdiction” over the matter.  Proceedings were commenced in Stockholm District Court. Abdullah was charged with breaching Art. 3(1)(c) of the Third Geneva Convention –

In … armed conflict not of an international character … members of armed forces … placed hors de combat by … any … cause, shall … be treated humanely …. [T]he following acts are … prohibited: … outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.

Abdullah was convicted. Larsson J sentenced him to eight months imprisonment.

Attorps v Abdullah (2017), New York Times, 5 October 2017, p.A10

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Talk to them, madam

Suing emergency services for defective performance of their functions is difficult-to-impossible in most jurisdictions.  However, this does not exclude sanctions for criminally poor performance.

911 minion
Image from here

Crenshanda Williams was employed as a call taker by the Houston Emergency Centre. For reasons which are unclear, she hung up on thousands of 911 phone calls, including calls relating to robbery and illegal street racing. According to one report she dismissed a caller saying “ain’t nobody got time for this”. She was charged with interfering with emergency telephone calls.  Texas Penal Code §42.062(a) says –

An individual commits an offense if the individual knowingly prevents or interferes with another individual’s ability to place an emergency call or to request assistance, including a request for assistance using an electronic communications device, in an emergency from a law enforcement agency, medical facility, or other agency or entity the primary purpose of which is to provide for the safety of individuals.

This crime is punishable by up to a year’s imprisonment or a $4,000.00 fine.

Ms Williams was convicted by a jury in the Harris County Criminal Court. Clinton J sentenced her to 10 days imprisonment and 18 months probation.

An appeal has been lodged.

State v Williams (2018), Houston Chronicle, 18 April 2018

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Don’t treat her like that

The law has been aware of the problem of elder abuse for several years. A case from Florida suggests that this concern has not yet reached the Bench

Karen Passmore died on the afternoon of 6 August 2015. She was aged 57 years. She had been dependent on others to care for her since suffering a stroke in 1993. Her daughter, Jackie Passmore, had been responsible for her care following the death of Karen’s husband Bill in 2014.

J Passmore
Jackie Passmore (Image from here)

At the time of her death Karen weighed 58 pounds (about 26 kilos). According to the arrest record of Santa Rosa County Sherriff’s Office she was found in a room which –

smelled of trash and rotting flesh. There were gnats swarming through out the room around old food and bags of soiled adult diapers. The decedent, Karen Passmore, was found to be extremely emaciated, filthy, and having numerous pressureulcers (bed sores). The worst of the pressure ulcers were infected and gangrenous. One of the wounds appeared to have been dressed using disposable shop towels and painter’s tape. It was immediately apparent that the decedent had critically needed medical care.

The record notes that some of the pressure ulcers had eaten away to the underlying bone*.

Jackie Passmore was charged with aggravated manslaughter of a disabled adult –

A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence … commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree….

She was convicted by a jury in the Santa Rosa County Circuit Court. Despite a facing possible maximum term of imprisonment of thirty years, it appears she was not given a custodial sentence (although it seems she was detained while the charges were pending).

State v Passmore (2017), Northwest Florida Daily News, 4 August 2017

======================

* Readers in Commonwealth jurisdictions will note the parallels with R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] 1 QB 354.