View Single Post
  #27  
Old September 24th 18, 04:52 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 350
Default Cycle box death judge gets it right for once

On 24/09/2018 08:54, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/18 23:53, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2018 19:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/18 17:23, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2018 16:34, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/18 11:23, wrote:
Road.cc highlights a very salient piece of CCTV evidence in its
piece.

https://road.cc/content/news/248771-...ed-karla-roman


"Northcott’s barrister, Harry Bentley, said the coach driver was
"desperately sorry" for Roman's death “and at times he has
considered ending his own life because of it.""

It's necessary to wonder how much his sentence was reduced by this
Â*grovelling. (Compared to 18 months for Charlie Alliston for not
grovelling - and the court seeming to accept that it was the victim
Â*that hadn't paid attention.)

Pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity (that is, once the
charges and evidence have been made available and the strength of the
Â*prosecution case thereby known) and saving the Crown the expense of
a trial is always taken into account as a mitigating factor.

When did Alliston plead guilty?

By any chance do you put posts you read through an English to Scouse
translator, compose your replies in Scouse and translate them back to
English before posting? If you came clean it would explain a great deal.

a) The question I raised was about grovelling, not about admission of
guilt.


The "grovelling" you referred to was as effective an admission of
guilt (in the form of a fairly extreme expression of remorse as well
as an admission that he broke the rules on stop lines at traffic
lights) as anyone could wish for, and certainly not designed as an
effective line of defence.

But did you think the driver literally prostrated himself in court,
with his arms outstretched begging for mercy?


Why would I?


Because you used the word "grovelling" as opposed to "expressing
remorse" (which is not "grovelling").

Who knows... you might have had more evidence than was reported.

b) The coach driver pleaded not guilty but was found guilty by a jury.
Accord'n ter de Daily Mail.


After he had effectively admitted the offence in his own evidence.


I assume it was through cross-examination. If there is anything to
"admit", is not possible for a defendant to simply change plea during
the proceedings?


Some offences are obvious and the defendant knows whether he is guilty
(eg, burglary, assault, murder, cycling along a footway). Others (such
as "causing death by careless driving" are not so obvious or
well-defined and it in the interest of a defendant to at least allow the
prosecution to prove the facts and how the law applies to them.

This is particularly so with relatively new offences whose meaning is
not something with which all members of the public are familiar. The
inportant thing is to give truthful evidence and not to behave in court
like the accused rider of a defective bicycle.

(And how come his legal team failed to anticipate the prosecution line
of questioning? Do they lose their fee?)


I doubt they did fail to anticipate it. They may well have advised the
NG plea and letting the Crown establish a case under relatively new and
uncharted law.

By way of contrast, the "young gentleman" on the brakeless bike blamed
the victim and completely exonerated himself, praising his own skills
to the skies and contrasting them sharply with the lack of skill on
the part of the woman he killed.


Some part says he was probably right.


Are you such a part?

Although your precis is bound to
be as accurate as the way you always reply to a poster with a question
using an unrelated collection of words.

There's the difference, even if you don't want, and will refuse, to
see and acknowledge it (which I confidently predict).


I thought the courts were supposed to punish actions not opinions.


The judge ran perilously close to judging the driver's opinions i the
reported remarks. It was his carelessness (or otherwise) within the
meaning of the law which was at issue.
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home