|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge
In today's Times 2 a short piece by Humfrey Hunter
From The Times March 14, 2007 "Did you know? Can I get a witness? It is a bright spring afternoon and a young man almost runs over a courier in Covent Garden, before getting out of his car and attacking him. A flurry of punches and a headbutt leave the cyclist's nose broken. More than a dozen witnesses, me among them, offer statements to the police. Not a single person pretends to look the other way. Fast forward ten months to trial day, earlier this week. Ten witnesses turn up and the motorist, knowing that he cannot fight such a weight of evidence, pleads guilty. He is convicted of ABH (assault, occasioning actual bodily harm) and careless driving. But why only careless driving? After all, he nearly ran over the courier. What happened to the more serious offence charge of dangerous driving? Ah, says the policeman supervising us, bit of a problem there. The courier did not turn up to court and prosecution is a bit tricky without your main witness. This one was still in bed at 2pm when the trial began. What? We ten, who have never met him before, give up our days on his behalf and he doesn't bother to show up? I am angry because so much about this case was right. The public pitched in unreservedly and the two policemen involved were a credit to the Met. But how disappointing - and how frustrating- that the victim was the only one who failed to do his bit. " http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle1509771.ece |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge
But how disappointing - and how frustrating- that the victim was the
only one who failed to do his bit. " People like that should be run over and given a broken nose. Nice of the people to help out thobut - and southerners too. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge
"Mark Thompson" pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_t o_reply*.com wrote in message . 1.4... But how disappointing - and how frustrating- that the victim was the only one who failed to do his bit. " People like that should be run over and given a broken nose. How did the writer of the article know why he wasn't there? Accusing someone of being in bed at 2pm with what appears to be no proof whatsoever doesn't appear to be the behaviour of what I would call a reliable witness. He could have been in hospital. He could be from another country and went home six months ago. There are any number of perfectly valid reasons for his non-appearance. Conclusion very firmly jumped to. In fact, the more I think about it, the less likely this story seems. A dozen witnesses? All of whom are prepared to give their details? All of who were prepared to turn up at court? All of whom would be called by the prosecution when a couple would have been quite sufficient? hmmmmmm. Possible, just very, very unlikely. Perhaps that's the explanation. The courier realised the odds of this happening, invested in a lottery ticket as it was obviously the luckiest day of his life, and now he's lounging on a tropical island, with dusky maidens bringing cool drinks! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 902 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter for free now! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge
Toby Sleigh wrote:
In today's Times 2 a short piece by Humfrey Hunter Fast forward ten months to trial day, earlier this week. Ten witnesses turn up and the motorist, knowing that he cannot fight such a weight of evidence, pleads guilty. He is convicted of ABH (assault, occasioning actual bodily harm) and careless driving. But why only careless driving? After all, he nearly ran over the courier. What happened to the more serious offence charge of dangerous driving? I fear a lot of people get confused over 'careless' and 'dangerous' driving. You could kill 10 people in a bus queue and if it was 'agreed' that this was because your foot slipped off the brake onto the accelerator it would be careless driving. But if you drive in an aggressive manner witnessed by a number of people but only squash a fly that would still be dangerous driving. The charge should be on the nature of the driving not the consequences of your actions or missactions Discuss Jim Chisholm |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:07:45 +0000, J. Chisholm wrote:
The charge should be on the nature of the driving not the consequences of your actions or missactions Discuss OK. No it shouldn't. In H&S sentencing guidleines the penalty takes into account the outcome of teh offence. This would be more appropriate and would encourage more care. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge
J. Chisholm wrote:
The charge should be on the nature of the driving not the consequences of your actions or missactions Discuss I tend to agree. Neither the law though, nor justice, is based on that simple logic. Emotions, the victims' need for retribution, deterrence, punishment and public (the tabloid press) mob-rule instincts and tendencies are taken into account. Attempted murder is another obvious anomaly. The charge only results if the victim, whom the assailant fully intended to kill, and left the scene convinced he had achieved his objective, as a result of some fluke of circumstances - a lucky encounter with a passing paramedic, the concrete block chained to his leg hasn't cured and dissolves off, or whatever, somehow survives and makes a miraculous recovery. Manslaughter is another. There was either an intention to kill, or there wasn't. Recklessness, negligence, or some other failure to exercise full care as to whether someone is killed or injured or not, should not be treated less seriously because, by some lucky chance, no-one was hurt. Using a car reckless as to the consequences, past a school, or wherever should always be treated the same, and under the same law as using anything else (chainsaw, shotgun, fists, ...) - as if all those who could have been killed or injured were killed or injured. -- Matt B |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge
in message , J. Chisholm
') wrote: Toby Sleigh wrote: In today's Times 2 a short piece by Humfrey Hunter Fast forward ten months to trial day, earlier this week. Ten witnesses turn up and the motorist, knowing that he cannot fight such a weight of evidence, pleads guilty. He is convicted of ABH (assault, occasioning actual bodily harm) and careless driving. But why only careless driving? After all, he nearly ran over the courier. What happened to the more serious offence charge of dangerous driving? I fear a lot of people get confused over 'careless' and 'dangerous' driving. You could kill 10 people in a bus queue and if it was 'agreed' that this was because your foot slipped off the brake onto the accelerator it would be careless driving. But if you drive in an aggressive manner witnessed by a number of people but only squash a fly that would still be dangerous driving. While I would agree that this /is/ the state of the law, it seems to me pure common sense that if your driving was so careless that you actually killed someone, that is in itself sufficient evidence that your driving was dangerous. -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ :: Wisdom is better than weapons of war :: :: Ecclesiastes 9:18 :: |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge
Simon Brooke twisted the electrons to say:
While I would agree that this /is/ the state of the law, it seems to me pure common sense that if your driving was so careless that you actually killed someone, that is in itself sufficient evidence that your driving was dangerous. Whilst I don't like the idea of making the law even more complicated, and there's also the issue that juries might not convict on two of these options, perhaps there should be 4 offences? [1] Careless Driving [2] Careless Driving leading to harm [3] Dangerous Driving [4] Dangerous Driving leading to harm (Substitute whatever phrase you prefer for "leading to harm"!) -- These opinions might not even be mine ... Let alone connected with my employer ... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge
Alistair Gunn wrote on 17/03/2007 01:32 +0100:
Whilst I don't like the idea of making the law even more complicated, and there's also the issue that juries might not convict on two of these options, perhaps there should be 4 offences? [1] Careless Driving [2] Careless Driving leading to harm [3] Dangerous Driving [4] Dangerous Driving leading to harm (Substitute whatever phrase you prefer for "leading to harm"!) If you substitute death for harm then by later this year that will describe the law. -- Tony "...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate..." Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dangerous Driving - RTA | Sniper8052(L96A1) | UK | 15 | March 9th 07 12:14 AM |
Cyclict killed in Oxford, no question of dangerous driving | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 26 | March 23rd 06 06:43 PM |
Test your driving Skill at http://driving-test.friendsrus.net | [email protected] | UK | 5 | November 17th 05 07:47 PM |
Dangerous driving | LSMike | UK | 2 | May 28th 05 04:48 PM |