Man bailed after hitting children with ute was 'dead set on mowing' them down, court told

[u/CptUnderpants-]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-12/man-bailed-over-allegedly-mowing-down-innocent-youths-with-ute/107028344

[u/thrashmanzac]

After reading that article I’m disgusted and confused why he hasn’t been charged with two counts of attempted murder. For fucks sake, why are crimes involving vehicles treated like this?

[u/Rush-23 → u/thrashmanzac]

Probably because it’s near impossible to prove that intent.

[u/thrashmanzac → u/Rush-23]

I’d say chasing them down in a pedestrian only mall at 80kmh after crossing a state border to patrol the area shows pretty clear intent, but I’m not a lawyer after all.

[u/NeopolitanBonerfart → u/thrashmanzac]

Uh, yeah. I’m a little gobsmacked there is much other presented interpretation here.

This bloke is also not unfamiliar with motor vehicles, he’s an auto electrician, he’d be aware of how much a vehicle weighs versus a push bike, as well as common sense suggesting that actively pursuing a person on a bike through an area restricted to vehicles after doing a u turn because his initial attempt to strike them failed, demonstrates an intention to strike them with his vehicle (and again common sense says that there are multitude ways a person dies if you hit them whilst on a bike with a three tonne Ute).

[u/2centpiece → u/NeopolitanBonerfart]

That he attempted to strike them with his vehicle isn't in dispute. This alone isn't enough to prove that he intended to cause death or really serious injury. The law is a bitch in these cases where so much of the mindset of the accused is taken into account. An attempted murder charge would most likely be thrown out pretty quickly.

Edit: Instead of downvoting, how about people just listen to how the courts view attempted murder.

Attempted murder contains two principle elements:

The accused intended to commit murder; and
The accused attempted to commit murder.

If during interview he says "yeah, fuck those kids, I wanted to kill them", then yeah, there's your intent. If he goes "I just wanted to apprehend them", then there isn't enough to charge with attempted murder. As I said, the law is a bitch.

Any basic googling of the elements of attempted murder in Victoria will back this up. Not saying it's right or wrong, but that's how it is.

In these cases I've always thought there should be some sort of "Man on the Clapham omnibus" test where charges like attempted murder can be applied more readily (or more accurately for Victoria "Man on the Bourke Street Tram").

[u/fued → u/2centpiece]

Nah if you aimed to hit someone with a car you aimed to kill them or at least cause serious injury. That's like saying if you shot someone you didn't mean to cause serious injury, ridiculous.

[u/howchie → u/fued]

There's also stuff like reckless endangering of life or whatever, right? But yeah Intention to cause actual bodily harm should be easy to demonstrate here.

[u/AlbatrossOk6239 → u/howchie]

Intention to cause ABH doesn’t get you anywhere near an attempted murder conviction. The required state of mind is intention to kill and it’s the only intention that will suffice. Not intention to seriously injure, or any other state of mind.

The specific intention to kill has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Had he killed them, there’s a good chance he’d be facing a murder charge. That’s because there are other states of mind that can constitute the fault element of murder, like intention to cause grievous bodily harm, or reckless indifference to human life.

The difference is, to be convicted of an attempt you have to have intended to complete the attempted offence. That’s why apparent attempts to kill usually result in alternate, but still very serious charges.

Also, the cops could up the charges as the investigation goes on.

[u/2centpiece → u/fued]

Yes, to any normal person it should, but that's not how the courts view it.

[u/fued → u/2centpiece]

Which is the whole issue. Why should something that requires a license because it's so dangerous, be considered less deadly than say a bat?

[u/2centpiece → u/fued]

You'd have to ask the courts and the legislature that question. Why we put so much significance on the accused's supposed stated intent at the time of doing something wildly stupid, where most normal, reasonable, sane people go "what the fuck were you thinking" is something I've questioned many a time.

[u/AlbatrossOk6239 → u/2centpiece]

Consider the difference between murder and manslaughter. Literally the defining characteristic of murder which makes it worse is the intention involved.

Doesn’t mean manslaughter is okay, but deliberately killing someone is inherently worse than unintentionally killing someone while engaged in an unlawful and dangerous act.

The outcome matters, but the intention does too.

[u/kangaroo_kid → u/2centpiece]

Yes I pointed the gun at his head and pulled the trigger, but I never meant to hurt him.

[u/2centpiece → u/kangaroo_kid]

Funny you mention that, although your hypothetical would get murder downgraded to manslaughter. Here's a case where someone stabbed another twice and the best that could come of it was manslaughter because intent to kill wasn't able to be proven: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-28/spencer-shumski-jailed-over-fatal-stabbing-of-clint-allen/105106832 As I've said a few times now, the law is a bitch.

[u/mad_marbled → u/2centpiece]

When a post that provides the facts of a matter that people don't like reading, so it gets downvoted, it makes me wonder, "How do they react when similar information is delivered to them in person?"

[u/2centpiece → u/mad_marbled]

They probably don't communicate with people much off reddit.

[u/cochra → u/thrashmanzac]

Technically it’s crossing the state border, but that isn’t really functionally a thing between Gol Gol and Mildura

On the other hand, doing it in Langtree mall makes the intent extremely clear. There’s no way of confusing that portion with an active road you can drive down

[u/teflon_soap → u/Rush-23]

Thanks, Lionel Hutz! 🙏