Rhyl verdict out



On Jun 29, 4:13 pm, The Luggage <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 29 Jun, 01:09, "AndyMorris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > David Martin wrote:
> > > I wouldn't want to regard the police as any less professional than the
> > > coroner, but the conspiracy theorists might get off on the driver
> > > being an ex police officer.
>
> > Well that never came out on the 10 o clock news.
>
> > Source?
>
> Google provides no relevant hits for '"robert harris" ex-police
> officer' so it appears unlikely to be true.

When did accuracy ever get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

...d
 
On Fri, 29 Jun, <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 28 Jun, 13:25, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Jun <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > if Harris is to be prosecuted for careless driving, then every one
> > > that skidded on the ice must also face a charge of careless
> > > driving...
> >
> > Everyone that was driving such that the skid resulted in them crossing
> > the road, bouncing off the wall beyond the opposite verge and ramming
> > the verge on the side they started on, yes. Absolutely.
> >
> > So that's just the one driver, who also killed four people on the
> > way.
>
> Doesn't work like that, if 4-5 cars skidded on the ice and they were
> fine as they didn't hit anything but the 6th did so he is the only bad
> guy?

Yes, absolutely. He's the only one driving in such a way as to risk a
catastrophic outcome. The others were evidently driving slowly
enough that they could recover from a skid, or slowly enough that
there was insufficient energy to cause great damage even if they
couldn't recover. We know this because they did not hit the wall.

> Not quite right is it?

It's completely right and proper. Everyone else was driving such that
even though they skidded, they did not go flying across the
carriageway and up the bank and hit the wall.

It's irrelevant whether the cyclists were in the way or not - no-one
but Harris lost control so catastrophically. Conversely, Harris did
and should be prosecuted severely, and should have been prosecuted
severely even if the cyclists had passed long before, or arrived long
after.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
David Martin wrote on 29/06/2007 19:11 +0100:
> On Jun 29, 4:13 pm, The Luggage <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 29 Jun, 01:09, "AndyMorris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> David Martin wrote:
>>>> I wouldn't want to regard the police as any less professional than the
>>>> coroner, but the conspiracy theorists might get off on the driver
>>>> being an ex police officer.
>>> Well that never came out on the 10 o clock news.
>>> Source?
>> Google provides no relevant hits for '"robert harris" ex-police
>> officer' so it appears unlikely to be true.
>
> When did accuracy ever get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
>

Indeed the police have clearly erased all references from the internet
in a cover up ;-)


--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
 
in message <[email protected]>, Helen Deborah Vecht
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Ian Smith <[email protected]>typed
>
>> It's irrelevant whether the cyclists were in the way or not - no-one
>> but Harris lost control so catastrophically. Conversely, Harris did
>> and should be prosecuted severely, and should have been prosecuted
>> severely even if the cyclists had passed long before, or arrived long
>> after.
>
> The CPS disagrees
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6249190.stm

Yes, but that is exactly what we need to change.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; 99% of browsers can't run ActiveX controls. Unfortunately
;; 99% of users are using the 1% of browsers that can...
[seen on /. 08:04:02]
 
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 23:03:41 +0100, Helen Deborah Vecht
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Ian Smith <[email protected]>typed
>
>
>
>> It's irrelevant whether the cyclists were in the way or not - no-one
>> but Harris lost control so catastrophically. Conversely, Harris did
>> and should be prosecuted severely, and should have been prosecuted
>> severely even if the cyclists had passed long before, or arrived long
>> after.
>
>
>
>The CPS disagrees
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6249190.stm

The coroner thought charges should have been laid; the CPS thought there
was " no realistic prospect" of a conviction. The police were
criticised for being unprofessional. It seems to me that the police
failed to gather the evidence the CPS needed.

The CPS is frustratingly coy about /why/ there were no realistic
prospects for a conviction -- what evidence was missing?
 
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:36:08 +0100, Marc Brett
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 23:03:41 +0100, Helen Deborah Vecht
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Ian Smith <[email protected]>typed
>>
>>
>>
>>> It's irrelevant whether the cyclists were in the way or not - no-one
>>> but Harris lost control so catastrophically. Conversely, Harris did
>>> and should be prosecuted severely, and should have been prosecuted
>>> severely even if the cyclists had passed long before, or arrived long
>>> after.
>>
>>
>>
>>The CPS disagrees
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6249190.stm
>
>The coroner thought charges should have been laid; the CPS thought there
>was " no realistic prospect" of a conviction. The police were
>criticised for being unprofessional. It seems to me that the police
>failed to gather the evidence the CPS needed.
>
>The CPS is frustratingly coy about /why/ there were no realistic
>prospects for a conviction -- what evidence was missing?

They're not being coy at all, and anyone who's familiar with the areas
of the RTAs that would have been concerned would probably understand
quite well.

The fact is that to be convicted of Causing Death by Dangerous
Driving, which is the only possible relevany offence, his or her
driving must saitisfy the following:

"A person is considered to drive dangerously when:

· The way he/ she drives falls far below what would be expected of a
competent and careful driver, AND

· It would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving
in that way would be dangerous"

I can't see how that could be applied in this case, so it seems to me
that the police/CPS have reached the only logicall conclusion.

And that the coroner hasn't a clue what he's talking about.
 
On 30/06/2007 10:47, Ace wrote:
> The fact is that to be convicted of Causing Death by Dangerous
> Driving, which is the only possible relevany offence, his or her
> driving must saitisfy the following:
>
> "A person is considered to drive dangerously when:
>
> · The way he/ she drives falls far below what would be expected of a
> competent and careful driver, AND
>
> · It would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving
> in that way would be dangerous"
>
> I can't see how that could be applied in this case, so it seems to me
> that the police/CPS have reached the only logicall conclusion.

How on Earth could they not be applied in this case? It should be
obvious to any competent and careful driver that the road is likely to
be icy in those conditions, therefore a competent and careful driver
would be expected to drive accordingly (and not to take bends at 50mph).

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2
 
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:47:20 +0200, Ace <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:36:08 +0100, Marc Brett
>>
>>The CPS is frustratingly coy about /why/ there were no realistic
>>prospects for a conviction -- what evidence was missing?
>
>They're not being coy at all, and anyone who's familiar with the areas
>of the RTAs that would have been concerned would probably understand
>quite well.
>
>The fact is that to be convicted of Causing Death by Dangerous
>Driving, which is the only possible relevany offence, his or her
>driving must saitisfy the following:

Careless Driving would have been a reasonable charge, with much lower
hurdles, but also with embarrassingly lenient sentences which is
frequently seen as a trivial and insulting charge, adding inslult to
injury and death.

Not bringing this charge can be viewed as a wise political decision in
such an emotionally charged case.

>"A person is considered to drive dangerously when:
>
>· The way he/ she drives falls far below what would be expected of a
>competent and careful driver, AND
>
>· It would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving
>in that way would be dangerous"
>
>I can't see how that could be applied in this case, so it seems to me
>that the police/CPS have reached the only logicall conclusion.

The police prejudiced the case when they announced publicly thet 50 mph
was not an unreasonable speed on such a road. And this with no forensic
evidence about the actual speed.

>And that the coroner hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

Like you do.
 
Ace wrote on 30/06/2007 10:47 +0100:
>
> The fact is that to be convicted of Causing Death by Dangerous
> Driving, which is the only possible relevany offence, his or her
> driving must saitisfy the following:
>
> "A person is considered to drive dangerously when:
>
> · The way he/ she drives falls far below what would be expected of a
> competent and careful driver, AND
>
> · It would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving
> in that way would be dangerous"
>
> I can't see how that could be applied in this case, so it seems to me
> that the police/CPS have reached the only logicall conclusion.
>
> And that the coroner hasn't a clue what he's talking about.
>

Either that or you don't.

"When a person is killed on the road one of the following offences may
have been committed:

· Careless driving or inconsiderate driving

· Causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink
or drugs

· Causing death by dangerous driving

· Manslaughter (used mainly where a person intends to cause some harm,
e.g. by deliberately driving into someone)"
CPS "Driving Offences involving Fatalities"

To bring a charge the CPS has to meet the evidential test and public
interest test. I think we can agree the public interest test as there
is clear public interest here. The evidential test requires that there
is a "realistic prospect of conviction" for which the CPS should consider:

· Whether a jury or bench of magistrates or judge would be more likely
than not to convict the defendant.

· Whether the evidence can be used and is reliable


Well these tests are clearly passed as the inquest jury reached the
conclusion that his driving fell below the necessary standards on
evidence that was presented. The case has therefore passed the
necessary tests for bringing a prosecution. This is all straight out of
the CPS's Code for Crown Prosecutors.

Tony




--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
 
in message <[email protected]>, Ace
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:36:08 +0100, Marc Brett
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 23:03:41 +0100, Helen Deborah Vecht
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Ian Smith <[email protected]>typed
>>>
>>>> It's irrelevant whether the cyclists were in the way or not - no-one
>>>> but Harris lost control so catastrophically. Conversely, Harris did
>>>> and should be prosecuted severely, and should have been prosecuted
>>>> severely even if the cyclists had passed long before, or arrived long
>>>> after.
>>>
>>>The CPS disagrees
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6249190.stm
>>
>>The coroner thought charges should have been laid; the CPS thought there
>>was " no realistic prospect" of a conviction. The police were
>>criticised for being unprofessional. It seems to me that the police
>>failed to gather the evidence the CPS needed.
>>
>>The CPS is frustratingly coy about /why/ there were no realistic
>>prospects for a conviction -- what evidence was missing?
>
> They're not being coy at all, and anyone who's familiar with the areas
> of the RTAs that would have been concerned would probably understand
> quite well.
>
> The fact is that to be convicted of Causing Death by Dangerous
> Driving, which is the only possible relevany offence, his or her
> driving must saitisfy the following:
>
> "A person is considered to drive dangerously when:
>
> · The way he/ she drives falls far below what would be expected of a
> competent and careful driver, AND
>
> · It would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving
> in that way would be dangerous"
>
> I can't see how that could be applied in this case, so it seems to me
> that the police/CPS have reached the only logicall conclusion.

Both of those things were very clearly proven in the evidence. A competent
and careful driver does not drive with three bald tyres, and a competend
and careful driver does not drive at 50mph on ice. Anyone - no matter how
careless or incompetent - can clearly see that both these things are very
dangerous.

And, in any case, you don't even need to own a car to be found guilty of
manslaughter.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I'd rather live in sybar-space
 
in message <[email protected]>, Marc Brett
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:47:20 +0200, Ace <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:36:08 +0100, Marc Brett
>>>
>>>The CPS is frustratingly coy about /why/ there were no realistic
>>>prospects for a conviction -- what evidence was missing?
>>
>>They're not being coy at all, and anyone who's familiar with the areas
>>of the RTAs that would have been concerned would probably understand
>>quite well.
>>
>>The fact is that to be convicted of Causing Death by Dangerous
>>Driving, which is the only possible relevany offence, his or her
>>driving must saitisfy the following:
>
> Careless Driving would have been a reasonable charge, with much lower
> hurdles, but also with embarrassingly lenient sentences which is
> frequently seen as a trivial and insulting charge, adding inslult to
> injury and death.

There was nothing remotely 'careless' about this. Either he knew his tyres
were bald and drove on them regardless, in which case 'manslaughter' is
the only reasonable charge, or he didn't know, in which case his
negligence is so gross than manslaughter is the only reasonable charge.

>>I can't see how that could be applied in this case, so it seems to me
>>that the police/CPS have reached the only logicall conclusion.
>
> The police prejudiced the case when they announced publicly thet 50 mph
> was not an unreasonable speed on such a road. And this with no forensic
> evidence about the actual speed.

That is the point.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Error 1109: There is no message for this error
 
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:12:35 +0100, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote:


<snip>

>To bring a charge the CPS has to meet the evidential test and public
>interest test. I think we can agree the public interest test as there
>is clear public interest here.

You misunderstand the phrase. It's not a question of whether the
public are interested, but whether anything would be gained by
bringins a prosecution. But it's a moot point anyway, as the CPS would
certainly have prosecuted if they thought they could.

>The evidential test requires that there
>is a "realistic prospect of conviction" for which the CPS should consider:
>
>· Whether a jury or bench of magistrates or judge would be more likely
>than not to convict the defendant.
>
>· Whether the evidence can be used and is reliable
>
>
>Well these tests are clearly passed as the inquest jury reached the
>conclusion that his driving fell below the necessary standards on
>evidence that was presented.

No, they were not making any such judgement. They wouldn't have been
given guidance of the exact nature of the criteria required for each
offence, nor would they have been presented with detailed enough
evidence to draw such a conclusion.

They _felt_, on balance, that the motorist must have been to blame,
but it was not an informed view, just as some of the "hang 'em high"
attitudes seen in this thread aren't. The CPS, on the other hand, have
a wealth of experience and detailed understanding of the requirements,
and I think they've taken a good enlightened view of events.
 
On Sat, 2007-06-30 at 11:36 +0100, Danny Colyer wrote:
> On 30/06/2007 10:47, Ace wrote:
> > The fact is that to be convicted of Causing Death by Dangerous
> > Driving, which is the only possible relevany offence, his or her
> > driving must saitisfy the following:
> >
> > "A person is considered to drive dangerously when:
> >
> > · The way he/ she drives falls far below what would be expected ofa
> > competent and careful driver, AND
> >
> > · It would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving
> > in that way would be dangerous"
> >
> > I can't see how that could be applied in this case, so it seems to me
> > that the police/CPS have reached the only logicall conclusion.
>
> How on Earth could they not be applied in this case? It should be
> obvious to any competent and careful driver that the road is likely to
> be icy in those conditions, therefore a competent and careful driver
> would be expected to drive accordingly (and not to take bends at 50mph).
>
Very simply: 'competent and careful driver' means 'doesn't mash the
throttle, overtake round blind bends, play loud music or wear a
shellsuit'.

I fail to see why this group can't apply the same level of common sense
on this issue as the general population does. (I would put a smiley
here, but I don't know which one accurately expresses bitter-cynical)
--
A
 
Ace wrote on 30/06/2007 13:55 +0100:
>
>> To bring a charge the CPS has to meet the evidential test and public
>> interest test. I think we can agree the public interest test as there
>> is clear public interest here.
>
> You misunderstand the phrase. It's not a question of whether the
> public are interested, but whether anything would be gained by
> bringins a prosecution. But it's a moot point anyway, as the CPS would
> certainly have prosecuted if they thought they could.

ROFLMAO! And I was using public interest in its correct sense.

>
>> The evidential test requires that there
>> is a "realistic prospect of conviction" for which the CPS should consider:
>>
>> · Whether a jury or bench of magistrates or judge would be more likely
>> than not to convict the defendant.
>>
>> · Whether the evidence can be used and is reliable
>>
>>
>> Well these tests are clearly passed as the inquest jury reached the
>> conclusion that his driving fell below the necessary standards on
>> evidence that was presented.
>
> No, they were not making any such judgement. They wouldn't have been
> given guidance of the exact nature of the criteria required for each
> offence, nor would they have been presented with detailed enough
> evidence to draw such a conclusion.
>
> They _felt_, on balance, that the motorist must have been to blame,
> but it was not an informed view, just as some of the "hang 'em high"
> attitudes seen in this thread aren't. The CPS, on the other hand, have
> a wealth of experience and detailed understanding of the requirements,
> and I think they've taken a good enlightened view of events.
>

Given the certainty with which their view was reached - they rejected
the Coroner's option of accidental death in favour of spelling out their
views - the balance of probability is more than met for the evidence
test. They clearly viewed his driving as below the standards they would
expect and that is all the offence requires unless you want to claim
some statistically distorted jury where they are all in the top quartile
of drivers.

But I don't expect you to agree, after all those pesky cyclists were
fully aware that they were encroaching on your Mr Toad driving space and
that they'd end up the losers.

Tony



--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
 
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:33:34 +0100, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote:

>But I don't expect you to agree, after all those pesky cyclists were
>fully aware that they were encroaching on your Mr Toad driving space and
>that they'd end up the losers.

If you actually read my posts you'd realise that I'm a cyclist too.
 
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:31:55 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>

>Both of those things were very clearly proven in the evidence.

It was a coroner's court, so they weren't there to 'prove' anything.

>A competent and careful driver does not drive with three bald tyres,

You've clearly not understood the difference between driving
dangerously and driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition. And you
also conveniently forget that the verdict agreed that the bald tyres
were not a factor in this case.

>and a competend and careful driver does not drive at 50mph on ice.

The problem being that it's far from certain that he _knowningly_ did
so. If he didn't realise it was icy he might be guilty of careless
driving, but nothing more.

>And, in any case, you don't even need to own a car to be found guilty of
>manslaughter.

You're clearly unable to even understand the rules applying to
dangerous driving - the burden of proof for manslaughter is _way_ more
onerous, and in the first place relies on an intention to do harm,
which is clearly not the case here, nor in 99.9% of road deaths.
 
Ace wrote on 30/06/2007 14:57 +0100:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:33:34 +0100, Tony Raven
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> But I don't expect you to agree, after all those pesky cyclists were
>> fully aware that they were encroaching on your Mr Toad driving space and
>> that they'd end up the losers.
>
> If you actually read my posts you'd realise that I'm a cyclist too.
>

I did and this is what I read:

"Pedestrians, being
aware of their own mortality, should be fully aware that if they
encroach on driving space they'll end up the losers, and should
therefore be responsible for their own safety if they do."

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
 
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:11:06 +0100, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Ace wrote on 30/06/2007 14:57 +0100:
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:33:34 +0100, Tony Raven
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> But I don't expect you to agree, after all those pesky cyclists were
>>> fully aware that they were encroaching on your Mr Toad driving space and
>>> that they'd end up the losers.
>>
>> If you actually read my posts you'd realise that I'm a cyclist too.
>>
>
>I did and this is what I read:
>
>"Pedestrians, being
>aware of their own mortality, should be fully aware that if they
>encroach on driving space they'll end up the losers, and should
>therefore be responsible for their own safety if they do."

Christ, you really do struggle with basic comprehension, don't you?
 
Ace wrote on 30/06/2007 15:13 +0100:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:11:06 +0100, Tony Raven
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ace wrote on 30/06/2007 14:57 +0100:
>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:33:34 +0100, Tony Raven
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But I don't expect you to agree, after all those pesky cyclists were
>>>> fully aware that they were encroaching on your Mr Toad driving space and
>>>> that they'd end up the losers.
>>> If you actually read my posts you'd realise that I'm a cyclist too.
>>>
>> I did and this is what I read:
>>
>> "Pedestrians, being
>> aware of their own mortality, should be fully aware that if they
>> encroach on driving space they'll end up the losers, and should
>> therefore be responsible for their own safety if they do."
>
> Christ, you really do struggle with basic comprehension, don't you?
>

Pray do help me by explaining what you think this "driving space" that
pedestrians "encroach"[1] on is.

[1] encroach

• verb(encroach on/upon) gradually intrude on (a person’s territory,
rights, etc.)
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/encroach

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Rhyl verdict tomorrow
Replies
9
Views
476
UK and Europe
Simon Brooke
S
T
Rhyl: CPS reaction later today
Replies
4
Views
384
UK and Europe
Tony Raven
T
H
Rhyl Inquest Continues...
Replies
64
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Helen Deborah Vecht
H
P
Rhyl CC families to receive compensation
Replies
0
Views
342
UK and Europe
Phil R
P
D
Item about Rhyl CC in Independent
Replies
3
Views
346
UK and Europe
Mark Thompson
M
Top Bottom Back