On 24/09/2018 20:14, TMS320 wrote:

On 24/09/18 16:52, JNugent wrote:
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.""

Expressing sympathy and remorse. That's what TMS320 calls "grovelling"
(and treats it as an admission). If that view is widely shared, it can
be little wonder that insurance companies instruct their polcyholders
never to admit responsibility for collisions.

It's necessary to wonder how much his sentence was reduced by this
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.)

Alliston didn't express any remorse or sorrow. He even protested his own
"innocence" and thw victim's "guilt" on the internet.

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").

Grovelling does not require prostration. It is an adequate word for the
purpose.

But not for the expression of remorse.

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.

If running someone over that was visible ahead for 16 seconds isn't a
clear case of dangerous driving then the law needs more than a bit of
testing.

You obviously know the case far better than do the police, the CPS, the
trial judge and the jury.

Why don't you run round and tell them that they got it all wrong?

I'll wait here for your report of how you get on.

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?

Yes.

Not quite the right word, I suspect, though getting there...

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.

You're not agreeing with me. Let's hope the judge in Charlie Alliston's
case was more concerned about technical (as in science) matters than you
obsess about his personality.

The central focus in the Alliston trial was the innocent victim. That
and his deliberately dangerous behaviour (despite his assuarances to the
court that it wasn't dangerous at all to cycle without brakes).