Woman crushes neighbour's car

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

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.

Indeed it would.

It would also be utterly counter-productive, since the prosecutions would
undoubtedly be thrown out of court - with the side-effect that the driver
couldn't be then prosecuted for a different offence which there would be
a good chance of securing a conviction on.

With such sparkling insight, are you sure you're not a legal professional?

Tom Crispin wrote:
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.

Not in a court of law it won't.

The vehicle should not have been on
the road.

That's beside the point. The fact is that it was. Now, answer the question,
"Have you any evidence that the tyres which you allege were defective were
directly responsible for causing these deaths that you refer to?"

Tom Crispin wrote:
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.

Does your use of the word "drivers" include those who are driving al types
of road vehicle?

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:05:47 +0000, 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.


Now, now - that was not very nice was it?

Did you encourage the kids in the photo to wear their helmets?

I guess you must have done so - well done - and keep up the good work.


judith

--


Compulsory helmet wearing is a 'safety measure' whose costs fall
entirely on the cyclist; no government is spending required. It is an
attractive quick fix. Guy Chapman

On 18 Jan 2009 22:22:40 GMT, Adrian wrote:

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

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.

Indeed it would.

It would also be utterly counter-productive, since the prosecutions would
undoubtedly be thrown out of court - with the side-effect that the driver
couldn't be then prosecuted for a different offence which there would be
a good chance of securing a conviction on.

With such sparkling insight, are you sure you're not a legal professional?

I have never claimed to be in the legal profession - but I do have a
sense of right and wrong.

Take this case.

==========

A restaurant owner who admitted causing the death of a cyclist in
Greenwich Park by dangerous driving was fined £2,500 and banned from
driving for five years at Woolwich Crown Court on Wednesday.

The crown prosecution said Voong’s Honda had negotiated the roundabout
at the top of The Avenue in the park at around 4.45 pm on June 26 and
was heading downhill.

“There are no road markings at this point, the road is about six
metres wide, and the defendant would have had a clear view down the
hill. A taxi driver who was coming up the hill saw the Honda alter
course, in a brisk movement, and collide with the cyclist,” the
prosecutor said. The police accident investigation unit had concluded
it was impossible to establish the exact speed of impact, but
witnesses put the speed of the car at about 30 mph – the legal limit.
Police also stated that the car’s windscreen appeared to have
shattered at the moment of impact with the cyclist, and not before, as
the defendant’s evidence that his windscreen suddenly “went white” had
suggested.

==========

A man was killed because of dangerous driving by another. The driver
was fined £2,500 and banned from driving for 5 years. That is wrong.

On 18 Jan 2009 22:20:34 GMT, Adrian wrote:

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?

I think that a review, especially with respect to killing while
driving, would be a good thing.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:25:12 -0000, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
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.

Does your use of the word "drivers" include those who are driving al types
of road vehicle?

I would have no problem with a cyclist who killed while cycling being
charged with manslaughter.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:30:09 +0000,
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:05:47 +0000, 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.


Now, now - that was not very nice was it?

The truth can be painful.

Did you encourage the kids in the photo to wear their helmets?

No.

I guess you must have done so - well done - and keep up the good work.

Wrong. It is a school rule, rather like some schools have ridiculous
rules about uniforms.


Hehehehehe.
Please don't stop posting your diatribe. It always raises a smile on
my face when you manage to get so much wrong.

On 18 Jan, 22:16, Tom Crispin
wrote:
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.

Really? You appear to know more than the CPS. Perhaps you should
offer your services to them.

On 18 Jan, 22:18, Tom Crispin
wrote:
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.

Really? So you'd be in favour of applying the civil law definition of
negligence (failure to take reasonable care towards a person to whom
you owe a duty of care) to all killings. Gosh, the jails will fill up
rather quickly.

Or perhaps you are only in favour of such a move in respect of killer
drivers? If so, I offer you "causing death by dangerous driving" and
"causing death by careless driving".

Are you another of these people, like Doug, who likes to criticise
things without bothering to find out anything about it? It would seem
so ...