Ultimate callousness

This cease merely follows the standard legal procedure for dealing with
road killings. Firstly the assumption must be made that the driver is
only minimally responsible for their own actions and usually not
responsible at all for the consequences of those actions. The following
scale is then applied, based on the available evidence.

If the driver is guilty of careless/dangerous driving, but no one has
actually been maimed or killed. No charge.

If the driver is guilty of careless/objectively dangerous driving and a
cyclist has been injured, usually no charge.

If the driver is guilty of dangerous driving as defined by the law and
a cyclist has been maimed or killed, but the driver is an 'upstanding
citizen' a charge of careless driving may be brought, if the police and
CPS can be bothered with the paperwork.

If the driver is guilty of objectively dangerous driving and someone
has actually been killed, prosecute for 'careless' driving. Driver will
usually get a small fine and if they plead that they 'need' their car
to visit their grandkids at the weekend, no driving ban as this would
unfairly penalise the aforesaid grandchildren.

In extreme cases where a 'manslaughter' charge would be justified, or
where the driver has caused death or injury and has also stolen the car
or otherwise can be shown to be a member of Britain's ever growing
'underclass' a 'dangerous driving' charge may be brought.

Almost no example of wantonly reckless behaviour will be held to
justify a 'manslaughter' charge, unless the driving has led to the
death of several police officers. Even it is usual to allow the driver
back on the road once they have served their sentence.

Bertie Wiggins said:

I am not quite sure what the deceased's sister is trying to say here.
A manslaughter charge cannot be levelled unless the victim is fatally
injured. You cannot possibly be more seriously injured, and any less
serious and a manslaughter charge cannot be brought.

Yes this does seem to be particularly clear, but I feel she was
referring to the fact that in damage to the car (and in turn the
injuries caused) were so severe that the driver could not honestly
claim that he thought the impact had only been a 'glancing blow'. As
such he must have known that serious injuries had almost certainly been
caused and cyclist might well die, if not because of any actions which
led to the crash occurring because his deliberate actions prevented the
cyclist from getting emergency care in that vital 'window' after a
crash has occurred.

Perhaps the 'legal reasons' the Judge referred to are similar to the
reasons why the act of driving off after a crash in order to avoid
detection is not held to be an 'act' in law, merely an 'omission'.
Perhaps you can only be charged for manslaughter for an act and not an
omission so the deliberate action of leaving someone to die on a
deserted road is not in UK law considered actually to be an act,
'merely' an omission. That said people have certainly been charged with
manslaughter for omitting to do such things as ensure safety procedures
were followed, fulfill their management duties to ensure the safety of
workers and so on. Given this the 'legal' reason might have more to do
with the fact that the victim was a cyclist and the courts are keen to
maintain the tradition of not finding drivers who are objectively
guilty of manslaughter guilty of anything more than 'careless' driving!

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:39:52 +0100 someone who may be "wafflycat"
<waffles*$*A**T*v21net$*££*D*O*T*co*D£$£*O*T*uk> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4335442.stm

Quoted message said:

The trial heard that Cottrell continued driving as he thought he had only
caught Mr Morris a glancing blow [snip]

Quoted message said:

The trial heard that Cottrell had his cracked windscreen replaced the
following day, which formed one charge of perverting the course of justice.
The second charge of perverting the course of justice, related to him having
the bodywork of the car repaired in a bid to cover up the accident.

So, this "glancing blow" cause the windscreen to crack and the
bodywork to be damaged.

Quoted message said:

Cottrell had told the trial that he had not reported the accident because he
did not want his ill partner Mary Browning to know it had occurred.

Sounds rather like a "justification" made after the event.

Quoted message said:

The trial judge ordered the jury to find the defendant not guilty of
manslaughter for legal reasons.

I do wish the BBC would say what these "reasons" are.

Quoted message said:

A further charge of careless driving was dismissed after the prosecution
offered no evidence.

And their "justification" for that is?

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Quoted message said:

One can but hope he does get put behind bars. But it would have been

fitting

Quoted message said:

for him to be put behind bars for killing someone and leaving the scene.

But he didn't kill someone and leave the scene. He left the scene after the
collison. The victim died later. Manslaughter is a very specific charge and
the circumstances of the collision and subsequent death did not fit the
criteria for a successful prosecution to take place.

vernon said:

Manslaughter is a very specific charge and
the circumstances of the collision and subsequent death did not fit the
criteria for a successful prosecution to take place.

I.e the British 'justice' system holds that manslaughter is not
actually manslaughter, even when all other circumstances indicate that
it IS manslaughter, as long as the person doing the killing is driving
a car!

This is largely because those who set the law are themselves car
drivers who feel they need to protect the 'interests' of both
themselves and 'fellow car drivers' as much as possible against the
possibility of prosecution for their actions. This attitude affects the
way the law is framed, the way road killings are investigated and
charges brought and perhaps most of all it affects the way juries think
when bringing in a verdict.

Not only my view. The following are the words of Commander Joe Kaye of
the Metropolitan Police, taken from the evidence he gave to the House
of Commons Transport Committee when it was compiling its report
'Traffic Law and its Enforcement', The Sixteenth Report of Session
2003-04.

'there seems to be a mental blockage in the criminal justice system
..... Manslaughter is charged but very, very rarely. The blockage seems
to be that because (like probably most people in this room) they have
driving licences, they are car drivers and they realise some of the
risk around it that there is some let-off point in it, instead of
saying, "With the right to drive your car and drive it along a road
there is a responsibility." There is a real mental blockage, we find,
from the prosecuting side, or let us say the investigating side, about
taking these things to the most serious level and some of them indeed
would, in the view of my highly skilled collision investigators, amount
to manslaughter.

"vernon" <[email hidden]> sd / msg
<[email hidden]> dtd Wed, 12 Oct 2005 20:23:40
+0100:

Quoted message said:

But he didn't kill someone and leave the scene. He left the scene after the
collison. The victim died later. Manslaughter is a very specific charge and
the circumstances of the collision and subsequent death did not fit the
criteria for a successful prosecution to take place.

As I understand it if there is grounds to believe that the victim
might have survived had he stopped and called for medical assistance,
then manslaughter would be the correct charge.

He could also probably be charged with GBH, perverting the course of
justice, leaving the scene, causing death through dangerous driving
and (if I had my way) driving under the influence of Jeremy Clarkson.

The reason we have these weasel-word offences - causing death through
dangerous driving and so on - is precisely because the courts (read: a
jury of twelve drivers presided over by a driver with a wig) would not
convict even when the more serious charges /were/ brought. In these
days where the CPS won't bring charges unless the defendant actually
pleads with them to go to court there is precious little chance of any
lethally bad driver being held properly to account.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

vernon said:

But he didn't kill someone and leave the scene. He left the scene after the
collison. The victim died later. Manslaughter is a very specific charge and
the circumstances of the collision and subsequent death did not fit the
criteria for a successful prosecution to take place.

OK, so a burglar goes into a house and is challenged by the occupier.
He did not enter the house with the intention of causing death or even
injury, (even though he was acting illegally) but in the struggle to
escape he hits the occupier and runs off. The occupier dies later of
his injuries after the burglar failed to ring the police to say there
might be an injured man in the house. The burglar if caught will almost
certainly face a manslaughter charge and may even be charged with
murder. He may face such a charge even if he does not even lay a finger
on the householder but the householder dies because he has a
pre-existing heart condition and the prosecution argue that the 'shock'
of the intrusion, in conjunction with this pre-existing, condition
caused the man to die.

Compare this with a case where a driver 'does not mean' to kill a
cyclist but non-the-less- acts in an illegal manner, for example by
speeding or driving without due care, and as a consequence knocks off a
cyclist causing them serious injury. The driver then compounds their
actions by making off and not even reporting the incident, leaving the
cyclists to die in the road. The cyclist dies despite being in perfect
health entirely because of the injuries sustained and the failure of
anyone to summon emergency care in that vital time immediately after
the injuries were sustained. In this case the most usual charges will
be sod-all or a small fine if it can be proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that the driver was responsible for the initial collision. (And
motorists by and large take full advantage of the old adage that 'dead
men tell no tales'😉

Why such a difference apart from in the second situation the killer was
in a car?

To quote from the recommendations of that Commons report:

'The penalties for road traffic offences must match the penalties for
other crimes against the person, and for crimes against property.
Offenders must not face lower sentences, simply because their crime
involved a car.'

Or to quote the CTC Gazette from October 1928

'There's one law for motorists and one for other folk' and 'Killing's
no murder if done by a motor' are commonly heard nowadays. And there is
no organised public protest against the slaughter and maiming that have
been going on for years... the sanctity of human life...is a law and an
ethic flouted everywhere and everyday on the public roads.

vernon said:

Quoted message said:

One can but hope he does get put behind bars. But it would have
been

fitting

Quoted message said:

for him to be put behind bars for killing someone and leaving the
scene.

But he didn't kill someone and leave the scene. He left the scene
after the collison. The victim died later. Manslaughter is a very
specific charge and the circumstances of the collision and subsequent
death did not fit the criteria for a successful prosecution to take
place.

And if he had been stabbed? Would they have to show he died before the
knife was pulled out to get a murder conviction? Who was it that pointed
out it's spelt mans laughter?

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Quoted message said:

From today's BBC news

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4335442.stm

The trial judge later published his explanation for ruling that the
jury find the defendant not guilty of manslaughter.

He explained that to prove a case of involuntary manslaughter the
prosecution would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
defendant's failure to report the accident as soon as was reasonably
practicable "did cause or accelerate the death of the victim".

In his ruling, the judge explained: "In other words, a manslaughter
charge can succeed only on proof beyond reasonable doubt that medical
aid, or prompt medical aid, would have saved the deceased."

He ruled that in evidence expert witnesses had failed to provide that
high standard of proof, adding: "There are very few cases where the
court has had to consider the question that arises in this case."

-------------

Part of the problem is that when it comes to motoring offences almost
any half- baked excuse on the part of the driver or the merest shadow
of doubt that can be thought up by the defence is usually enough to see
the driver escape without censure.

If shoplifters, for example, were given the same 'benefit of the doubt'
as those who kill whilst driving all they would have to say was 'Sorry,
I just forgot to pay, I would have come back later with the money when
I realised I hadn't paid for the goods' in order for them to be let off
with the Judge in all probability commiserating with them for the
'trauma' they had undoubtedly experienced as a consequence of appearing
in court!

Bertie Wiggins said:

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:39:52 +0100, "wafflycat"

waffles*$*A**T*v21net$*££*D*O*T*co*D£$£*O*T*uk said:

In a statement released by the sister of Mr Morris after the hearing, she
said: "I cannot believe the manslaughter charge will not hold up in a court.
"It seems that the more severely someone is injured by a hit-and-run driver
the less chance there is of a manslaughter conviction."

I am not quite sure what the deceased's sister is trying to say here.
A manslaughter charge cannot be levelled unless the victim is fatally
injured. You cannot possibly be more seriously injured, and any less
serious and a manslaughter charge cannot be brought.

per the judges reasons for directing a NG verdict:
Quote. to prove a case of involuntary manslaughter the
prosecution would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
defendant's failure to report the accident as soon as was reasonably
practicable "did cause or accelerate the death of the victim".

In his ruling, the judge explained: "In other words, a manslaughter
charge can succeed only on proof beyond reasonable doubt that medical
aid, or prompt medical aid, would have saved the deceased." Unquote.

The less severe the fatal injury is the easier it would be demonstate
that the failure to report caused or accelerated the death

best wishes
james

Simon Brooke wrote:
If the

Quoted message said:

legal definition of manslaughter has got to tight then it's about time
it got loosened again.

In the case in question, the judge seemed to suggest that the
prosecution could not prove that charge *beyond a reasonable doubt*. I
think that's only reasonable, however much I dislike its application in
this case; otherwise you're overturning centuries of legal precedent and
opening the door for all sorts of unpleasantness.

R.

email hidden said:

Quote. to prove a case of involuntary manslaughter the
prosecution would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
defendant's failure to report the accident as soon as was reasonably
practicable "did cause or accelerate the death of the victim".

In his ruling, the judge explained: "In other words, a manslaughter
charge can succeed only on proof beyond reasonable doubt that medical
aid, or prompt medical aid, would have saved the deceased." Unquote.

So this case the suggestion offered by the prosecution is that the
only offence committed by the driver was the failure to report, which
is why a manslaughter could not be brought, had there been another
driving offence, then the manslaughter could've been brought as it
would only have been needing to prove that the driving offence caused
or accellerated the death.

Does anyone have details of the accident?

Jim.

Quoted message said:

vernon said:

Manslaughter is a very specific charge and
the circumstances of the collision and subsequent death did not fit the
criteria for a successful prosecution to take place.

I.e the British 'justice' system holds that manslaughter is not
actually manslaughter, even when all other circumstances indicate that
it IS manslaughter, as long as the person doing the killing is driving
a car!

Before reading the next bit, please note that I in no way condone any
action or omission of the driver.

There is a real problem in this case. IIRC, the only surviving witness
to the incident is the driver. This makes it _very_ difficult to prove
a charge of causing death by dangerous driving. It is clear that the
collision caused the death of the cyclist. It is very difficult for the
prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the collision was
caused by the driver, not the cyclist.

The manslaughter charge related to the driver leaving the scene of the
incident, not the collision. It cannot be proved that the cyclist would
not have died if he had received prompt medical attention. Therefore it
cannot be proved that the driver leaving the scene caused the death of
the cyclist. Hence the sister's comment about it being more difficult
to get a manslaughter conviction if the victim is more seriously
injured.

Manslaughter could not be used for the original incident in the same
way that a CDBDD case would fall down. The CPS didn't even offer any
evidence for a dangerous driving charge, because of the lack of
witnesses.

The Luggage

The Luggage said:

There is a real problem in this case. IIRC, the only surviving witness
to the incident is the driver. This makes it _very_ difficult to prove
a charge of causing death by dangerous driving.

I am aware of this, however even when there are witnesses it is still
very difficult to prove a 'death by dangerous driving' charge, not
least because the law is framed so that most cases of objectively
dangerous driving are not held in law to be dangerous driving. For
example, until very recently hurtling around a street corner too fast
to be able to stop in the distance one could see to be clear and as a
result mowing down and killing a pedestrian who was crossing a side
road perfectly correctly was one specific example given of where only a
charge of 'careless' driving could be brought, even though such
behaviour is quite obviously dangerous!

Quoted message said:

The manslaughter charge related to the driver leaving the scene of the
incident, not the collision. It cannot be proved that the cyclist would
not have died if he had received prompt medical attention.

I am also aware of this but it often seems that in motoring cases
proving guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt' demands a much more stringent
test than in most other criminal cases. It seems that when drivers
have killed even a tiny degree of doubt is held to constitute
'reasonable doubt' whilst in many other cases people are in truth
convicted on the basis of the jury believing that the accused
'probably' committed the crime.

I certainly found this when doing jury service and I have little doubt
that often the individual prejudices, either in favour of the accused
(i.e. he is a fellow driver, there for the grace of God go I etc) or
against the accused or affected party (He looks a bit of a Chav so
probably is guilty, the victim was a cyclist and they shouldn't be
allowed on the road in the first place etc) have as much to do with the
verdict as does the evidence.

Richard said:

In the case in question, the judge seemed to suggest that the
prosecution could not prove that charge *beyond a reasonable doubt*. I
think that's only reasonable, however much I dislike its application in
this case; otherwise you're overturning centuries of legal precedent and
opening the door for all sorts of unpleasantness.

R.

Which is why we need a whole raft of new motoring offences which are
easier to prove beyond reasonable doubt. For example it should be made
a serious offence to leave the scene of a crash and/ or not to stop and
render aid as it is in France. (Our car-centric 'Government' has just
rejected a call for the act of leaving the scene of a crash to be
regarded as an act sufficient for a charge of perverting the course of
justice to be brought).

We might also redefine 'dangerous driving' to cover far more cases
where the driver is acting in an objectively dangerous manner, for
example, by including in the guidance examples such as 'being unable to
stop in the distance that could be seen to be clear' etc.

As J.S. Dean wrote in 1947

'.. the "less" offence of "careless driving"- introduced On the
insistence of the motor interests to provide a part-escape for
offenders- should be abolished: in the existing circumstances careless
driving is of course always also dangerous driving.'

We could also redraft the law so drivers who were acting illegally
automatically faced a more serious charge if their actions caused death
and serious injury. For example, when considering whether the driver
was guilty of 'careless' or 'dangerous' driving' we should consider
whether the the driver was also speeding or using a mobile phone and so
on. If they were acting illegally this should be enough to convict for
a more serious charge. This would reflect the fact that the driver had
quite deliberately and illegally taken risks with the safety of others.

One other important point here. Why on earth should the judge be
allowed to rule in favour of the accused as he did here? People might
go on about the importance of proving a case beyond all reasonable
doubt to a jury but here the jury wasn't even given the chance to give
a verdict on the evidence presented before them.

Perhaps the judge (doubtless a motorist) thought that the jury was
sympathetic to the victim and was determined to avoid to a precedent
being set which would affect other hit and run cases in the future...

Quoted message said:

We could also redraft the law so drivers who were acting illegally
automatically faced a more serious charge if their actions caused death
and serious injury. For example, when considering whether the driver
was guilty of 'careless' or 'dangerous' driving' we should consider
whether the the driver was also speeding or using a mobile phone and so
on. If they were acting illegally this should be enough to convict for
a more serious charge. This would reflect the fact that the driver had
quite deliberately and illegally taken risks with the safety of others.

It may be that I'm not understanding your first sentence quoted above;

As I understand it, the process in criminal cases is this:
1. An offence is allegedly committed.
2. The police make an arrest, based on a set of guidelines.
3. The CPS make a decision to charge, based on a set of guidelines,
including "likelihood of a conviction" (which is a function of many
variables, including number of witnesses).
4. The case appears before the courts, and the defendent is guilty
"beyond reasonable doubt", otherwise not guilty.

Now, if you change the guidelines for (3) such that under certain
circumstances drivers "automatically face a charge" *regardless of the
likelihood of conviction*, this is going to overload the courts and
increase the number of cases where the defendent is found not guilty.

However, your second sentence is an instruction to the jury, not to the
CPS.

And your third sentence is very legally dubious - I can't, offhand,
think of any "minor" offences that automatically result in a conviction
for a "greater" offence; it's against the principles of natural justice
to charge someone with two different charges for the same offence; this
would lead to multiple bites at the cherry ("OK, you've been acquitted
of murdering Joe Bloggs, now you're nicked for his manslaughter." <time
passes> "OK, you've been convicted of his manslaughter and served your
time. Today's your release date, but not s fast, matey, now you're
nicked for GBH on the late Joe Bloggs. You can keep the same cell."😉

(I have no problems with the other bits you wrote).

R.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From today's BBC news

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4335442.stm

The trial judge later published his explanation for ruling that the
jury find the defendant not guilty of manslaughter.

He explained that to prove a case of involuntary manslaughter the
prosecution would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
defendant's failure to report the accident as soon as was reasonably
practicable "did cause or accelerate the death of the victim".

In his ruling, the judge explained: "In other words, a manslaughter
charge can succeed only on proof beyond reasonable doubt that medical
aid, or prompt medical aid, would have saved the deceased."

Doesn't "or accelerate" mean that if it could be proved beyond doubt
that prompt medical aid would have delayed his death but possibly not
saved him, the charge could still be proved?

What boggles me is "A further charge of careless driving was dismissed
after the prosecution offered no evidence". He's hit the cyclist hard
enough to kill him, cracked his windscreen, torn his wing mirror off,
and his excuse for not stopping was "It didn't seem a very serious accident,
it just seemed a glancing blow".
How can mistaking that sort of impact for a glancing blow not be
evidence of careless driving?

On 13 Oct 2005 02:26:02 -0700 someone who may be "The Luggage"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

The manslaughter charge related to the driver leaving the scene of the
incident, not the collision. It cannot be proved that the cyclist would
not have died if he had received prompt medical attention. Therefore it
cannot be proved that the driver leaving the scene caused the death of
the cyclist.

Failing to get prompt medical attention for his victim, who might
have lived had he done so, is one of the reasons Mr Martin spent
some time in prison.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Richard said:

if you change the guidelines for (3) such that under certain
circumstances drivers "automatically face a charge" *regardless of the
likelihood of conviction*, this is going to overload the courts and
increase the number of cases where the defendent is found not guilty.

Yes, I would agree that 'automatic' charges would not work. However I
do not think that a concern about 'overloading' the courts should be
seen as a reason for not progressing cases. If the number of offences
is that great the system needs to be streamlined and/or the capacity
increased. I am well aware that the CPS is 'target led' and that as a
consequence many are currently denied justice because the CPS only
progresses those cases which have the greatest chance of conviction.

Quoted message said:

I can't, offhand,
think of any "minor" offences that automatically result in a conviction
for a "greater" offence; it's against the principles of natural justice
to charge someone with two different charges for the same offence;

There seems to be 2 issues here. I did not suggest that a driver should
face 2 charges, though I don't see why the shouldn't. As to a 'minor'
offence automatically leading to a conviction for a 'greater offence,
this is not what I was suggesting. What I was suggesting that the
guidelines which lay down when a 'higher' offence should be brought
would taken into consideration relevant factors such as whether or not
the driver was acting illegally in some contributory way. For example,
it seems nonsensical that charges for 'dangerous driving' have failed
even when a driver was doing in excess of 45 Mph in a 30 Mph zone and
as a consequence lost control and killed someone purely because the
defence was able to argue that doing 45 in a 30 did not amount to
behaviour which fell 'far below' that of a careful and competent
driver. The law should proceed from the position that 1) A driver's
actions have caused death or injury 2) That driver had quite willfully
broken the law in a way that made death or injury more likely and as
such could not put forward the defence that they had merely been 'in
error'.

To be honest I feel there would be good grounds for basing motoring law
on the know facts relating to the danger motor vehicle pose to
vulnerable road users. For example by accepting that at any speed over
20 Mph the risk of death resulting from any collision increases
greatly, setting a maximum limit of 20 Mph anywhere where vulnerable
road users are likely and then prosecuting any driver for manslaughter
who as a result of hitting someone whilst exceeding that speed limit
kills them. After all if they had not exceeded that limit the chances
would be that the person would still have survived. Of course such a
thing is not going to happen in our car-centric society and I guess
lawyers would try to argue that 'But he just might have died even if my
client was doing 20 Mph so the fact he was actually doing 40 mph should
be held to be irrelevant...