|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Killer drivers to face longer jail terms?
See
http://www.bikebiz.com/daily-news/article.php?id=5210 "Thursday 3rd February 2005 Killer drivers to face longer jail terms Government proposals revealed today will see the probable creation of two new offences: causing death by careless driving and causing death while being disqualified or unlicensed. Both would carry five year jail terms." It'll be interesting to see if anything comes of this. Cheers, helen s -- -- www.ccbreckland.org.uk -- |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Helen C Simmons wrote:
See http://www.bikebiz.com/daily-news/article.php?id=5210 "Thursday 3rd February 2005 Killer drivers to face longer jail terms Government proposals revealed today will see the probable creation of two new offences: causing death by careless driving and causing death while being disqualified or unlicensed. Both would carry five year jail terms." It'll be interesting to see if anything comes of this. Given as how they already have an offence of causing death by dangerous driving, which is rarely used, I somehow doubt it... /cynic -- Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ World Domination? Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Larrington" writes:
Helen C Simmons wrote: See http://www.bikebiz.com/daily-news/article.php?id=5210 "Thursday 3rd February 2005 Killer drivers to face longer jail terms Government proposals revealed today will see the probable creation of two new offences: causing death by careless driving and causing death while being disqualified or unlicensed. Both would carry five year jail terms." It'll be interesting to see if anything comes of this. Given as how they already have an offence of causing death by dangerous driving, which is rarely used, I somehow doubt it... Part of the problem with "causing death by dangerous driving" is that you've got to convince a jury that someone was driving "dangerously". One might hope that these new offences (assuming they ever come into existence) will lead to rather more prosecutions since it's easier to show that someone was driving "carelessly" or without a licence. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Larrington" wrote in message ... Given as how they already have an offence of causing death by dangerous driving, which is rarely used, I somehow doubt it... /cynic Sadly, I think there's a high probability that you are correct. Cheers, helen s |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 13:08:07 -0000, "Helen C Simmons"
wrote in message : Killer drivers to face longer jail terms Killer drivers to face jail terms at all would be a good start... Guy -- "then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:51:13 GMT, Paul Rudin
wrote in message : Part of the problem with "causing death by dangerous driving" is that you've got to convince a jury that someone was driving "dangerously". And another part, as I understand it, is that the CPS have chosen to interpret an EU directive regarding clarity of charging as meaning that you can only prosecute for a single offence, rather than dangerous /and/ careless, letting the court decide whether the higher charge is proven - which means they go for the offence they are certain will stand, even if it has a lower maximum penalty. Guy -- "then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Brings back painful memories this posting. About 15 years ago one of the
best cyclists in Wales and a member of our club was wiped out by a woman racing a car on a dual carriageway. She overtook the car she was racing on the inside on the hard shoulder and killed one really nice human being out training on his bike - married, two young children and his whole life ahead of him. The c*** that killed him was fined, licence endorsed and banned from driving for a while - she never went to prison. I only wished she could have been there at the graveside when he was buried as all of us were in tears and feeling very bad. Nah, that's stupid she probably didn't give a damn in the end cos daddy was loaded and got her the best liar (sorry barrister) money could buy. Yea - it still hurts. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:51:13 GMT, Paul Rudin wrote in message : Part of the problem with "causing death by dangerous driving" is that you've got to convince a jury that someone was driving "dangerously". And another part, as I understand it, is that the CPS have chosen to interpret an EU directive regarding clarity of charging as meaning that you can only prosecute for a single offence, rather than dangerous /and/ careless, letting the court decide whether the higher charge is proven - which means they go for the offence they are certain will stand, even if it has a lower maximum penalty. This notion that the CPS must only prosecute for a single offence came up a while ago, without any authoritive citation of where it came from. One possibility that looks like it would fit your suggestion is that the CPS is interpreting the Human Rights Act 1998 that way. This enacts the European Convention. The Convention is a Schedule to the Act, and includes the right to a fair trial - Article 6. http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--d.htm#sch1 However, it does not explicitly say anything, AFAIK, about only prosecuting one offence. It might be that the Article 6(3)(a) is being onerously interpreted - 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; .... but I'm speculating. -- Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Part of the problem with "causing death by dangerous driving" is that you've got to convince a jury that someone was driving "dangerously". And another part, as I understand it, is that the CPS have chosen to interpret an EU directive regarding clarity of charging as meaning that you can only prosecute for a single offence, rather than dangerous /and/ careless, letting the court decide whether the higher charge is proven - which means they go for the offence they are certain will stand, even if it has a lower maximum penalty. Which seems reasonable. I don't think we want a situation where the charge is "whatever you can think of your honour". I don't know the specifics but I imagine a case charged as careless, proved, but deemed by the judge to be dangerous would attract the top penalty for careless. Do the penalties overlap at all? John |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Eatmorepies wrote:
Part of the problem with "causing death by dangerous driving" is that you've got to convince a jury that someone was driving "dangerously". And another part, as I understand it, is that the CPS have chosen to interpret an EU directive regarding clarity of charging as meaning that you can only prosecute for a single offence, rather than dangerous /and/ careless, letting the court decide whether the higher charge is proven - which means they go for the offence they are certain will stand, even if it has a lower maximum penalty. Which seems reasonable. I don't think we want a situation where the charge is "whatever you can think of your honour". I don't know the specifics but I imagine a case charged as careless, proved, but deemed by the judge to be dangerous would attract the top penalty for careless. Do the penalties overlap at all? Barely (in principle you could get a negligible sentence for DBDD, but rarely). But can you imagine a good reason why a clearly careless, borderline dangerous case should not be prosecuted on both charges? James -- If I have seen further than others, it is by treading on the toes of giants. http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/ |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bicyclist killed by SUV | Ben Kaufman | General | 59 | January 31st 05 11:17 PM |
Apparently Boyer is no longer in jail | Carl Sundquist | Racing | 28 | November 17th 04 04:31 AM |
Apparently Boyer is no longer in jail | Carl Sundquist | Racing | 0 | November 16th 04 02:50 AM |
Rec.Bicycles Frequently Asked Questions Posting Part 1/5 | Mike Iglesias | General | 4 | October 29th 04 07:11 AM |
Fame at last! [warning: contains 5m*th] | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 308 | March 29th 04 12:00 AM |