Posted on 01/24/2020 9:44:59 PM PST by Cronos
Muhammad Rodwan, 56, launched a ferocious assault on PC Stuart Outten, 29, hacking at him with a 2ft-long rusty blade last August after the officer stopped his passing van because it was not insured.
Shocking footage from the officers body-worn camera shows him fighting for his life after Rodwan leapt on him, stabbing him repeatedly and fracturing his skull.
The PC, later nicknamed Britains bravest policeman, only managed to survive by firing his Taser twice as he fell to the ground with Rodwan coming in for the kill, jurors were told.
Yesterday, there was fury as Rodwan was cleared of attempted murder and only convicted of wounding after it emerged that jurors were not told of his violent past.
It can now be revealed that he is a convicted rapist who has previously been jailed for carrying out an unprovoked machete attack on two other men
The handyman who was previously known as Rodney Reid and lived in his van was jailed for nine years in 1997 for wounding two men in his flat in east London.
Both victims needed surgery following the attack in 1996, with one having almost had his hand chopped off.
In addition, Rodwan had previously been jailed for three years for rape in 1983.
But jurors at the Old Bailey were not told about what prosecutor Jonathan Rees QC described as the strikingly similar machete attack, which he said demonstrated Rodwans propensity for gratuitous violence.
Mrs Justice Carr ruled his past offending was inadmissible due to the passage of time, despite jurors asking if he had previous convictions.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I bet every other juror was named Mohammed too.
Put a bullet in his head.
Put a bullet in his head.
Great Britain is lost. It is civilized no more.
Embrace diversity.
“The handyman who was previously known as Rodney Reid”
Richard “The shoe bomber” Reid’s brother?
Even lefty John Cleese realized this, and it caused an uproar when he told the truth.
John Cleese criticised for saying London is 'no longer an English city'
John Cleese was part of the Monty Python gang that made a fortune ridiculing, lambasting, and vilifying traditional British culture and sensibilities. He was more responsible than most for giving voice to the self-hating British left. I wonder at what point he decided he didn’t like the new Britain that he had created for his countrymen. There has to be a special place in hell for traitorous SOBs like him,
And this country has an awful lot of POSs just like him.
Well, I guess it is just sucks to be the UK
Mrs Justice Carr ruled...
All I needed to know. We have forgotten the wisdom of our ancestors.
Ah the joy of diversity and the murder of UK citizens while the perps are protected by the government you elected. Its here in the US already
And here I thought US “justice” was oft crazy. The death wish of the West continueth.
Why the judge? It was the jury, not the judge, who found him not guilty of the more serious crime. The judge had no choice but to accept the verdict. As it was, he got the maximum sentence for the offence on which he was convicted.
Sure looks like attempted murder, regardless of his past history.
Back in 2001, John Cleese confessed that he hadn’t had a good idea in 25 years. I figured “Fawlty Towers” was the last good idea he was thinking of.
And the UN is behind them in declaring the world should have open borders to make their invasion...I mean “migration” so much easier.
I have no sympathy for Jamoaks like that, I hope that COP gave him the full charge and left it there.
Because
Mrs Justice Carr ruled his past offending was inadmissible due to the passage of time, despite jurors asking if he had previous convictions.
Even still, seeing as the rapist was about to assault the PO with a deadly weapon, it certainly would seems that murder was attempted, but perhaps more is required to determine intent to kill.
Yes, I see that. It may not be well known across the pond that evidence of past convictions has only been admissible in a criminal trial since the 2003 Criminal Justice Act. Before that, the principle had been that a jury could only hear evidence directly related to the offence under trial, and that anything else was prejudicial. Even now, it’s admissible only under certain conditions and at the discretion of the judge. Whether or not the judge in this case got it wrong is a matter of, ah, judgement which I think it’s very difficult to make on the basis of selective press reports and without seeing a full transcript.
The change to partial admissibility remains very controversial in legal circles, with claims of a number of consequent unsafe acquittals as well as unsafe convictions.
However, in politics what a conservative allegedly did 40 years ago counts as if he did it 40 days ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.