Not Guilty Plea in Case Where Bus Driver caused "'odyssey of destruction'

angelfire9

I think this is a bit mad:
A former bus driver has gone on trial for causing the death of a 62-year-old mother when he rampaged through west Dublin in a private bus he took without authority from his employer's depot two years ago.

Mr Clarke, of Kiltalown Court, Tallaght has pleaded not guilty to 28 charges, including manslaughter through dangerous driving, criminal damage and reckless endangerment.

Peter Clarke (aged 38) collided with numerous vehicles on May 07, 2006 in what prosecution counsel, Ms Pauline Walley SC, described at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court as "an odyssey of destruction" resulting in Ms Marie Buckley's death.

i remember this, was actually in Dublin on the day, think its a bit mental that he's pleading not guilty unless he intends to go the insanity route

More info here:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhgbeygbmhgb/

Maximilian

He takes a bus, crashes into a load of cars, kills an old biddy & threatens the cops with an axe. Not exactly the actions of a sane man. Insanity seems like an appropriate defense.

McCrack

Have a little bit of respect. I'm refering to the 'old biddy' part in case you are unsure.

Maximilian

No. That's how I choose to write & conduct myself. The "no" refers to your suggestion above, in case you thought it a reference to Nitrous Oxide.

Please restrict your comments to the topic at hand rather than complaining about the nomenclature of others.

McCrack

Maximilian wrote: »

No. That's how I choose to write & conduct myself. The "no" refers to your suggestion above, in case you thought it a reference to Nitrous Oxide.

Please restrict your comments to the topic at hand rather than complaining about the nomenclature of others.

This is legal discussion public forum as you’re well aware so expect responses if you decide to make comments public in it that are offensive and unnecessary and do not in any way contribute or relate to the original posting which was to do with the defendants plea entered.

The arrogant and flippant tone doesn’t suit you either but I don’t expect you to see that.

End.

Maximilian

McCrack wrote: »

Have a little bit of respect. I'm refering to the 'old biddy' part in case you are unsure.

You're entitled to your opinion of course. What I object to (and stupidly responded to) is the patronising tone of your post, suggesting an inability on my part to understand what exactly you found offensive.

"Attack the post, not the poster" is the golden rule around here. I suggest you abide by that. As I should have for that matter. If you have any further grievance, by all means take it to pm but any more of this off-topic argument on this thread gets deleted.

NoQuarter

the plea is guilty but insane...

pirelli

Maximilian wrote: »

He takes a bus, crashes into a load of cars, kills an old biddy & threatens the cops with an axe. Not exactly the actions of a sane man. Insanity seems like an appropriate defense.

Heck thump

McCrack wrote: »

This is legal discussion public forum as you’re well aware so expect responses if you decide to make comments public in it that are offensive and unnecessary and do not in any way contribute or relate to the original posting which was to do with the defendants plea entered.

The arrogant and flippant tone doesn’t suit you either but I don’t expect you to see that.

End.

ooh slap

Maximilian wrote: »

No. That's how I choose to write & conduct myself. The "no" refers to your suggestion above, in case you thought it a reference to Nitrous Oxide.

Please restrict your comments to the topic at hand rather than complaining about the nomenclature of others.

PFT

McCrack wrote: »

Have a little bit of respect. I'm refering to the 'old biddy' part in case you are unsure.

Kapoww

Maximilian wrote: »

You're entitled to your opinion of course. What I object to (and stupidly responded to) is the patronising tone of your post, suggesting an inability on my part to understand what exactly you found offensive.

"Attack the post, not the poster" is the golden rule around here. I suggest you abide by that. As I should have for that matter. If you have any further grievance, by all means take it to pm but any more of this off-topic argument on this thread gets deleted.

Kick below belt Urmph

It's good to be a moderator when...... your fighting a losing argument.

king-stew wrote: »

the plea is guilty but insane...

I found an article (not the one below) quoting his counsel pleading not guilty to all 28 charges.

A consultant forensic psychiatrist has told the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court that a bus driver who hit a woman on the Naas Road more than two years ago was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bus-rampage--driver-had-delusions-about-pursuers-from-mi5-1399585.html

NoQuarter

not guilty by way of insanity is the plea, im not sure if thats in relation to the death itself or the other charges...

pirelli

king-stew wrote: »

not guilty by way of insanity is the plea, im not sure if thats in relation to the death itself or the other charges...

Back in my law lecture days (yah). The lecturer gave the opinion that the law should be changed that should you be found insane after trial, that you should receive a sentence to be served when you recover your sanity. I wasn't sure that was fair and would expect it would require a very flexible legislation.

Hobart

pirelli wrote: »

Back in my law lecture days (yah). The lecturer gave the opinion that the law should be changed that should you be found insane after trial, that you should receive a sentence to be served when you recover your sanity. I wasn't sure that was fair and would expect it would require a very flexible legislation.

If memory serves me right there used to be a verdict of "Guilty but Insane" which is more or less what you were alluding to. Although the sentence was served after the verdict and not upon recovery.