Cyclist who assaulted disabled driver jailed for 16 months

Quote:

Last Wednesday, September 14, solicitor Roberto Manini, defending, that witnesses had described Mr Johnstone about to hit MacMillan with his walking aid before MacMillan grabbed it.

He added: "This happened during the pandemic. It was almost as if Mr MacMillan was paranoid all the time. It's his perception of reality that's the problem."

Pretty shit defence solicitor. Calling his own client irrationally paranoid when independent witnesses stated it appeared that Mr Johnson did try to hit the cyclist first with the walking stick. Although it then appeared that MacMillan probably over reacted too much which is why he was charged with and accepted the guilty plea. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Quote:

Last Wednesday, September 14, solicitor Roberto Manini, defending, that witnesses had described Mr Johnstone about to hit MacMillan with his walking aid before MacMillan grabbed it.

He added: "This happened during the pandemic. It was almost as if Mr MacMillan was paranoid all the time. It's his perception of reality that's the problem."

Pretty shit defence solicitor. Calling his own client irrationally paranoid when independent witnesses stated it appeared that Mr Johnson did try to hit the cyclist first with the walking stick. Although it then appeared that MacMillan probably over reacted too much which is why he was charged with and accepted the guilty plea. 

I'd presumed that it was in reference to it being the height of Covid, and 'irrationally paranoid reaction' meant a cry of "Keep your distance from me!"

Roads are bad for mental health. Stay at home, folks!

Have to admit I thought that too.

"Something" happened which caused the motorist to have to stop suddenly; they hooted their horn (in anger?) and the cyclist lost his sh!t.

The motorist got out of his car and waved his walking aid (stick? zimmer frame?) at the cyclist.  I don't imagine that heated words were not exchanged.

They "wrestled" (?) and then the motorist got back in his car and drove it at the cyclist.

The cyclist took evasive action (no doubt still 'in the heat of the moment') and damaged the motorist's car.

If the motorist had not had a blue badge, then this would be a case of serious road rage with (probably) both parties at fault.  The motorist has been treated differently because he is "disabled".

Hang on - is that discrimination? 

I do remember a poster on here stating it would be ok to get your punch in first as it is self defence if you think you were going to be smacked first even if you hadn't been. Although there is obvious differences in Scottish and English/Welsh laws so maybe that explains it. 

an old friend of mine (retired senior scottish cop) once advised me, if you are going to hit them, hit them once very hard and make it count, as it is harder to claim self defence for multiple follow ups. I am sure he also reckoned that this could be first strike if you feared an assault was imminent.

I'm not in Scotland but I've seen a person die after being hit by a single -albeit very hard- blow.  Down immediately and never got up again.  Over where I am, the action has to be proportional to the threat and you would have an exceedingly hard time explaining such a first strike against an unarmed opponent. Case in point, the assaulter got a partially suspended custodial sentence and was very lucky that the judge (no jury trial) didn't dwell long on the testimony of a forensic expert who  talked about the tremendous force required to explain the injuries he found.  I was at the trial as a witness.

For the case discussed in the article, I'm not astonished that a judge took a very dim view of a 29-year old presumbly healthy cyclist throwing his bike in front of the car, then attacking an obviously 59- y/o  invalid, even when the latter is waving a cane.

Scotland does appear to have self-defence too: https://crime.scot/self-defence/

If you use physical force in self-defence it is not assault. The difference here is the accused pleaded guilty to assault. So it was just a matter of sentencing.

While our instincts and experience often encourage us to see the cyclists side, the pleading guilty bit is pretty important.  

Maybe on legal advice, but he accepted his guilt.  If so, I am not sure why I would want to defend him in these comments.

We also need to take 'in mitigation the defence said' as it is primarily a bit of spin.  Same in all the cases with drivers covered on this website and other news outlets.

Anyway often cycle through Sauchie, so will watch out for 'tooting' cars!

Pleaded guilty on "assault with provocation" which was accepted. I don't believe anyone is defending the cyclist, just wondering that with the reported* facts, how come the other party doesn't seem to be charged with anything. Surely driving your vehicle at the person instead of away from them is also "assault with provocation". 

*Obviously not all details from the actual case might have been reported in the same way it was presented. 

Sniffer wrote:

Maybe on legal advice, but he accepted his guilt.  If so, I am not sure why I would want to defend him in these comments.

The quotes from his defence lawyer would seem to suggest that he probably didn't get the best legal advice.

Same struck me, sounds like defendant was probably advised to plead guilty to effectively get off. (That worked!) Perhaps should have plead not guilty on grounds of self defence. Brief sounds like a half -wit.

Was it Lionel Hutz, perhaps...?