Woman crushes neighbour's car

Tom Crispin gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

Only if the evidence showed him to be negligent.

Surely that would be for a jury to decide.

There has to be sufficient evidence to indicate that the offence had
been committed for the prosecution authorities to even take the case to
court.

Like killing four people while driving with defective tyres?

Even if an inquest decides that the tyres weren't contributory?

On 18 Jan, 20:18, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:13:41 -0000, "Brimstone"





wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:42:01 +0000, Marc
wrote:

Well I'm a cyclist, with an interest in environmental matters, and I
find Dughs posts not only embarrarising but counter productive;
anyone else?

I would put him on a par with Troll B, but his posts are marginally
better than Troll J's diatribe.

The Daily Wail's photo of the Mercedes mounting the Chrysler was very
amusing, though I put it down to an unfortunate mishap rather than
evidence of an incompetent motorist.

Doug also has some valid points.

Motorists who kill should face manslaughter charges. �It defies all
sense of justice that a motorist with four bald tyres who killed four
cyclists was fined for having bald tyres, and the killed effectively
ignored.

Can you imagine a scaffolder whose scaffolding collapsed killing four
pedestrians facing a fine for having faulty scaffolding, and the
killing ignored? �No - the scaffolder would face charges of criminal
negligence and manslaughter.

Only if the evidence showed him to be negligent.

Surely that would be for a jury to decide.

The evidence has to show that the defendant was grossly negligent -
it's a higher standard than ordinary negligence. The CPS will decide
whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution before it
gets before a jury.

On 18 Jan, 21:31, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:27:56 -0000, "Brimstone"

wrote:
Only if the evidence showed him to be negligent.

Surely that would be for a jury to decide.

There has to be sufficient evidence to indicate that the offence had been
committed for the prosecution authorities to even take the case to court.

Like killing four people while driving with defective tyres?

The CPS would need to be satisfied that a jury is likely to find that
the actions constituted gross negligence. The reluctance of juries to
convict on manslaughter charges is, I understand, the main reason why
causing death by reckless driving (now causing death by dangerous
driving) was introduced onto the statute book. Given that this crime
carries a 14 year maximum sentence, it is difficult to see why the CPS
would ever bother with a manslaughter charge for a death by driving
offence.

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:27:56 -0000, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Only if the evidence showed him to be negligent.

Surely that would be for a jury to decide.

There has to be sufficient evidence to indicate that the offence had
been committed for the prosecution authorities to even take the case
to court.

Like killing four people while driving with defective tyres?

Have you any evidence that the tyres which you allege were defective were
directly responsible for causing these deaths that you refer to?

On 18 Jan 2009 21:35:46 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Tom Crispin gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

Only if the evidence showed him to be negligent.

Surely that would be for a jury to decide.

There has to be sufficient evidence to indicate that the offence had
been committed for the prosecution authorities to even take the case to
court.

Like killing four people while driving with defective tyres?

Even if an inquest decides that the tyres weren't contributory?

Following the directions given by the judge to the jury in the inquest
into the death of a Brazilian electrician shot in the head by police
officers, I have little faith in the findings of inquests.

The judge in the de Menezes even told jurors that the inconsistency of
evidence over a verbal warning (the police say they shouted an "armed
police" warning, the passengers on the train say they didn't) should
be seen as evidence of the stress and pressure they were under
following the fatal shooting. I would call this evidence of perjury.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:54:31 -0000, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:27:56 -0000, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Only if the evidence showed him to be negligent.

Surely that would be for a jury to decide.

There has to be sufficient evidence to indicate that the offence had
been committed for the prosecution authorities to even take the case
to court.

Like killing four people while driving with defective tyres?

Have you any evidence that the tyres which you allege were defective were
directly responsible for causing these deaths that you refer to?

Indirectly responsible will do. The vehicle should not have been on
the road.

Tom Crispin gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

Only if the evidence showed him to be negligent.

Surely that would be for a jury to decide.

There has to be sufficient evidence to indicate that the offence had
been committed for the prosecution authorities to even take the case
to court.

Like killing four people while driving with defective tyres?

Even if an inquest decides that the tyres weren't contributory?

Following the directions given by the judge to the jury in the inquest
into the death of a Brazilian electrician shot in the head by police
officers, I have little faith in the findings of inquests.

Ah, of course. The "I'll strongly support legal action, but only when it
suits with me, otherwise it's an oppressive police state" approach. I
believe Duhg's a big fan of that one, too.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:28:24 +0000, Tony Dragon
wrote:

There are decisions before a case goes to court, you can not take every
accident to court.

It would be trivial to prosecute for manslaughter or murder every
fatal killing where a motorist has killed an innocent party.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:46:51 -0800 (PST), BrianW
wrote:

The evidence has to show that the defendant was grossly negligent -
it's a higher standard than ordinary negligence. The CPS will decide
whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution before it
gets before a jury.

Perhaps ordinary negligence should suffice, especially if it makes
drivers take more care.

Tom Crispin gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

The evidence has to show that the defendant was grossly negligent - it's
a higher standard than ordinary negligence. The CPS will decide whether
there is sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution before it gets
before a jury.

Perhaps ordinary negligence should suffice, especially if it makes
drivers take more care.

Ah, cool. So you're planning on re-writing the law pertaining to
manslaughter?