Ultimate callousness

Quoted message said:

. However I
do not think that a concern about 'overloading' the courts should be
seen as a reason for not progressing cases.

Not per se. However, there are some unpleasant knock-on effects (eg,
innocent people spending longer on remand and conversely guilty people
released on bail for longer periods, longer time periods between offence
and trial leading to fuzzier recollections by witnesses, etc) that need
to be thought about when discussing court workloads. There's no point
in trying every offence if it results in a 10 year delay before it gets
to court.

Increasing the court capacity costs money, which comes from taxes, so
either you reduce expenditure elsewhere or bump up taxes. Not a
votewinner, really...

Quoted message said:

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...

Sadly, I concur.

R.

Alan Braggins said:

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?

Because misjudging the damage caused by an impact is not part of the
definition of careless driving.

It is true that his excuse is pathetic, though.

R.

Quoted message said:

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...

12mph shirley. It's been proven.

Colin

Colin Blackburn said:

12mph shirley. It's been proven.

Colin

I don't think that going so far would be that productive. For one thing
traffic does need to move around and 20 Mph would seem to offer a good
compromise between mobility and safety. In fact it has been known for
at least 70 years that at 20 Mph is the speed when the risks to
vulnerable road users start to increase sharply. A 30 Mph limit rather
than a 20 Mph limit was adopted in 1934 purely because the 'motor
interests' promised a campaign of mass civil disobedience if a 20 Mph
limit were brought in.

Quoted message said:

Which is why we need a whole raft of new motoring offences which are
easier to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Agreed. A charge of vehicular manslaughter or vehicular homicide as
they have elsewhere in the world would be a good start.

--
Tony

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

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:07:05 +0100, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Which is why we need a whole raft of new motoring offences which are
easier to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Agreed. A charge of vehicular manslaughter or vehicular homicide as
they have elsewhere in the world would be a good start.

Yet, the case we're talking about the CPS offered _no evidence_ to a
case of even careless driving. The problem here is the CPS, or there
was no evidence, and the accident was not his fault, we wasn't driving
even carelessly.

Jim.

Jim Ley said:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:07:05 +0100, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Which is why we need a whole raft of new motoring offences which are
easier to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Agreed. A charge of vehicular manslaughter or vehicular homicide as
they have elsewhere in the world would be a good start.

Yet, the case we're talking about the CPS offered _no evidence_ to a
case of even careless driving. The problem here is the CPS, or there
was no evidence, and the accident was not his fault, we wasn't driving
even carelessly.

but if the judge directed a NG verdict wrt Manslaughter then such a
charge must have been brought. It could be that the CPS did not
anticipate this failing and so didn't prepare a case on the lesser
charge

Quoted message said:

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

Am I missing something here? What you seem to be saying is that if I
smash into a cyclist at 60mph and he dies instantly then since nothing
I could have done after the accident (but failed to do) would have
saved him then I can't be charged with manslaughter.

Andrew

Quoted message said:

Colin Blackburn said:

12mph shirley. It's been proven.

Colin

I don't think that going so far would be that productive.

Colin is referring to a well known net.loon who used to sometimes
appear in this group, who claimed to have "proved" that you could
drop the speed limit to 12mph and make no difference, so long as you
made some stupid assuptions making the whole calculation pointless.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/12mph.html
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/SafeSpeed

(If you Google for past references, note that some posters will refer
to P**l S**th or similar to reduce the risk of him being encouraged to
return when Googling for himself. If Guy's page hadn't been called
SafeSpeed I might have avoided a direct link for similar reasons.)

Never mind the driver being up for perverting ther course of justice. I
would still like to know what gives people in wigs the right to
'pervert the course of justice' by denying the jury the opportunity to
consider the evidence and reach their own verdict. Why not just get rid
of juries altogether if this sort of thing is allowed...

in message <[email hidden]>,

Andrew (') said:

Quoted message said:

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

Am I missing something here? What you seem to be saying is that if I
smash into a cyclist at 60mph and he dies instantly then since nothing
I could have done after the accident (but failed to do) would have
saved him then I can't be charged with manslaughter.

That seems to be what the judge is saying, yes. Clearly it's an act of
God if you mow down a cyclist with a car - nothing to do with you at
all.

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

;; ... exposing the violence incoherent in the system...

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

Quoted message said:

Which is why we need a whole raft of new motoring offences which are
easier to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Agreed. A charge of vehicular manslaughter or vehicular homicide as
they have elsewhere in the world would be a good start.

We have far too much legislation, and far too many specific offences, as
it is. What is needed is a clearer (and broader) definition of what is
meant by (for example) manslaughter.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
.::;===r==\
/ /___||___\____
//==\- ||- | /__\( MS Windows IS an operating environment.
//____\__||___|_// \|: C++ IS an object oriented programming language.
\__/ ~~~~~~~~~ \__/ Citroen 2cv6 IS a four door family saloon.

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

Colin Blackburn said:

12mph shirley. It's been proven.

Colin

I don't think that going so far would be that productive. For one thing
traffic does need to move around and 20 Mph would seem to offer a good
compromise between mobility and safety.

Drivers are (and should be) required to drive no faster than is safe
given the circumstances. So just because the limit says 30mph doesn't
mean you're entitled to to 30mph unless it is safe to do so; it only
means you can't do more than 30mph even if you think it is safe to do
so.

If you have any sort of collision while your car is in motion that must
be proof positive that it wasn't safe to drive at the speed you were
going at, because if it had been safe you could not have had the
collision (except possibly if you are hit from behind).

Of course, this applies to cyclists too.

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

;; Woz: 'All the best people in life seem to like LINUX.'
;; <URL:http://www.woz.org/woz/cresponses/response03.html>

Quoted message said:

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...

I'm not certain in this case but the jury can disregard the Judge's
advice.

When the Judge has said that the jury must acquit then there is
absolutely no point the jury disregarding him because their verdict will
be overturned at appeal.

But if the Judge directs that the jury must find the defendent guilty
the jury can still acquit. This is a "perverse verdict" and is the way
"bad laws" can get repealed.

Clive Ponting is probably the most famous example of this.

Removing trial by jury would prevent this critical oversight of parliament.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

Simon Brooke said:

If you have any sort of collision while your car is in motion that must
be proof positive that it wasn't safe to drive at the speed you were
going at, because if it had been safe you could not have had the
collision (except possibly if you are hit from behind).

Or from the side - there are many places where 0 would be the only
speed that completely rules out the chance of a collision - you can't
see around corners, so no the "any sort of collision while your car is
in motion" is not proof that it wasn't safe to drive at the speed at
all.

Jim.

email hidden said:

Jim Ley said:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:07:05 +0100, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:

>
> Which is why we need a whole raft of new motoring offences which are
> easier to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Agreed. A charge of vehicular manslaughter or vehicular homicide as
they have elsewhere in the world would be a good start.

Yet, the case we're talking about the CPS offered _no evidence_ to a
case of even careless driving. The problem here is the CPS, or there
was no evidence, and the accident was not his fault, we wasn't driving
even carelessly.

but if the judge directed a NG verdict wrt Manslaughter then such a
charge must have been brought.

no the manslaughter evidence given by the prosecution was about how
the leaving the scene contributed to the death, not the careless
driving, this is what was discounted by the judge.

Jim.

On 13 Oct 2005 09:33:39 -0700, "Andrew" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Am I missing something here? What you seem to be saying is that if I
smash into a cyclist at 60mph and he dies instantly then since nothing
I could have done after the accident (but failed to do) would have
saved him then I can't be charged with manslaughter.

No, you can still be charged with manslaughter for what you do before
the event if it was your fault. The case here is that the prosecution
claimed that the only offence the driver committed was the leaving the
scene of the accident and attempting to hide it, both of these were
after the accident, and did not contribute to the death.

The prosecution presumably believed that the accident was either
no-ones fault, or it was the dead cyclists fault, so didn't consider
bring any charges related to the accident.

In your scenario, where you committed driving offences that caused the
accident, then a manslaughter charge would still stand.

Jim.

Jim Ley said:

The prosecution presumably believed that the accident was either
no-ones fault, or it was the dead cyclists fault, so didn't consider
bring any charges related to the accident.

Or rather there wasn't the evidence to prove anything either way, which
is not the same thing as believing 'the accident was either no-ones
fault, or it was the dead cyclists fault'.

As they say, dead men can't tell tales and drivers who kill often take
full advantage of this. I used to work in a road safety/ traffic
management team and read many of the reports of crashes where cyclists
had been killed and there were no other witnesses. To say that many of
the reports stretched my incredulity was an understatement... You can
guess the sort of thing, it seems no driver ever goes down a narrow
country lane in the dark at more than 30 Mph, cyclists ride in
perfectly straight lines, so encouraging the driver to think it is safe
to overtake, then veer to the opposite side of the road for no reason,
drivers claim they thought they 'hit a rabbit' despite the car being
virtually undrivable afterwards etc. etc.

Jim Ley <[email hidden]> whizzed past me shouting

Quoted message said:

The prosecution presumably believed that the accident was either
no-ones fault, or it was the dead cyclists fault, so didn't consider
bring any charges related to the accident.

That doesn't follow.
He couldn't be prosecuted for dangerous driving unless there was enough
evidence. He was charged, but it looks as if they couldn't get the
evidence to support their case. His behaviour after the crash would
lead almost anyone to assume it was his fault.

In fact, if anyone deserves running down next time he crosses the
street, it's him. He had no reason to think he'd "only caught the
cyclist a glancing blow" - that broke his windscreen? What a liar!

--
Sue ]🙁🙂

La verite ne rend pas libre, elle rend seulement impopulaire.

Jim Ley said:

The prosecution presumably believed that the accident was either
no-ones fault, or it was the dead cyclists fault, so didn't consider
bring any charges related to the accident.

Or possibly they couldn't reach a suitable burden of proof to get any
charges related to the crash to be likely to stand.

Quoted message said:

In your scenario, where you committed driving offences that caused the
accident, then a manslaughter charge would still stand.

As long as there were witnesses or forensics that allowed the conviction.
--
Ambrose