Lawyer types - A bit of advice for a fellow driver
Discussion
This was posted up on the SXOC its one of the members, I have no connection. It sounds to me this guy was either given poor legal advice or was not represented at all going by accounts & the end result.
Basically accused of "racing on the highway" he ended up pleading guilty (under what advice I don't know) & got 5 years :yikes:
Very concerning regards the outcome as this could apply to many of us who stop at the scene of an accident or are following when one happens. I get the impression the description posted below was used in the court as his defence, very stupid if it was.
More info here http://www.sxoc.co.uk/vbb/showthread.php?t=160122&highlight=Jack0
What one of his friends posted up
Stephen Jackson, Jack0
http://www.sxoc.com/vbb/member.php?u=6013
Steve is my friend please sign this online petition, spread the link around hopefully some good can come of it.
Read:http://www.petitiononline.com/333JACKO/petition.html
Sign: http://www.petitiononline.com/333JA...ition-sign.html
On the 4th July 2005 Stephen Jackson was sentenced for 5 years in prison and further 3 years ban for his part in a crash on the A500 in Stoke-on-Trent. Stephen originally pleaded not guilty but later changed his plea to guilty in order to receive light sentence, however the judge decided to penalise him with five year jail sentence.
We don't believe Stephen deserved this and we want you to help us get him out of jail.
Below are details of the night in question.
On the night of the incident with absolutely appallingly wet conditions Stephen left Festival Park in his Nissan 200SX and joined the A500 where Leon Hughes along with his two passengers John Hancock and Lee Scarlett were in a 'chipped' 1.6 Ford Fiesta Zetec S. Stephen has been accused of racing Mr Hughes along the A500, when in actual fact the Fiesta was no match for the 200SX that Stephen was in control of. I'll explain why the cars weren't a match a little further down.
The Fiesta with a under inflated rear tyre careered out of control as it hit a well known dip in the road in a speed excess of national speed limit. The driver Leon Hughes and his front seat passenger died on impact, Lee scarlett the third person in the car survived the crash. Stephen who was far enough behind to witness the Fiesta crash stopped at the scene, got his brother to call the emergency services for help on his phone, provided CPR to the survivor of the crash Lee Scarlett and flagged down on coming cars as the Fiesta was so far off road it barely visible to passing motorists.
For this brave act of helping the injured passenger Stephen now in Shrewsbury prison with a 5 year sentence sitting on his shoulders and 3 year driving ban awaits him when he finally get's out. Surely this passes on the wrong message to follow motorists. I know for a fact I would now think twice about stopping at a crash scene to help. I like my freedom like anyone else. If Stephen hadn't shown maturity and compassion he would surely be a free man right now.
It has been proven from video evidence and timing of a phone call that Stephens brother made, who was a passenger in the Nissan along with his fiancé Louise Johnson that the Nissan was travelling at an average speed of 90mph. Which is a valid point, however we are not disputing that both cars were speeding. We're disputing that both cars were racing. It's near impossible that a Fiesta with the weight of 3 people in, with around 75bhp less than the Nissan would be any match for the Nissan.
How could these two cars be truly racing? A Ford Fiesta Zetec S with around 115bhp would stand absolutely no chance on god's green earth of keeping up with the high powered 200SX pushing around 200bhp. The Nissan was even behind the Fiesta during the supposed race.
Stephen is accused of causing the deaths of the two young men that died. We don't believe that and we don't think you do either. Stephen is currently locked up 23 hours a day in Shrewsbury prison, he and his family are in despair and need your help. Please help us get our friend out of jail for an offence he did not commit by signing this petition.
If you would like to help further you can express your feelings and beliefs in a letter to the following address, please send it recorded delivery so it has to be signed for.
Paul Farrelly
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Thank you, any questions please reply and I will do my best to respond quickly.
Basically accused of "racing on the highway" he ended up pleading guilty (under what advice I don't know) & got 5 years :yikes:
Very concerning regards the outcome as this could apply to many of us who stop at the scene of an accident or are following when one happens. I get the impression the description posted below was used in the court as his defence, very stupid if it was.
More info here http://www.sxoc.co.uk/vbb/showthread.php?t=160122&highlight=Jack0
What one of his friends posted up
Stephen Jackson, Jack0
http://www.sxoc.com/vbb/member.php?u=6013
Steve is my friend please sign this online petition, spread the link around hopefully some good can come of it.
Read:http://www.petitiononline.com/333JACKO/petition.html
Sign: http://www.petitiononline.com/333JA...ition-sign.html
On the 4th July 2005 Stephen Jackson was sentenced for 5 years in prison and further 3 years ban for his part in a crash on the A500 in Stoke-on-Trent. Stephen originally pleaded not guilty but later changed his plea to guilty in order to receive light sentence, however the judge decided to penalise him with five year jail sentence.
We don't believe Stephen deserved this and we want you to help us get him out of jail.
Below are details of the night in question.
On the night of the incident with absolutely appallingly wet conditions Stephen left Festival Park in his Nissan 200SX and joined the A500 where Leon Hughes along with his two passengers John Hancock and Lee Scarlett were in a 'chipped' 1.6 Ford Fiesta Zetec S. Stephen has been accused of racing Mr Hughes along the A500, when in actual fact the Fiesta was no match for the 200SX that Stephen was in control of. I'll explain why the cars weren't a match a little further down.
The Fiesta with a under inflated rear tyre careered out of control as it hit a well known dip in the road in a speed excess of national speed limit. The driver Leon Hughes and his front seat passenger died on impact, Lee scarlett the third person in the car survived the crash. Stephen who was far enough behind to witness the Fiesta crash stopped at the scene, got his brother to call the emergency services for help on his phone, provided CPR to the survivor of the crash Lee Scarlett and flagged down on coming cars as the Fiesta was so far off road it barely visible to passing motorists.
For this brave act of helping the injured passenger Stephen now in Shrewsbury prison with a 5 year sentence sitting on his shoulders and 3 year driving ban awaits him when he finally get's out. Surely this passes on the wrong message to follow motorists. I know for a fact I would now think twice about stopping at a crash scene to help. I like my freedom like anyone else. If Stephen hadn't shown maturity and compassion he would surely be a free man right now.
It has been proven from video evidence and timing of a phone call that Stephens brother made, who was a passenger in the Nissan along with his fiancé Louise Johnson that the Nissan was travelling at an average speed of 90mph. Which is a valid point, however we are not disputing that both cars were speeding. We're disputing that both cars were racing. It's near impossible that a Fiesta with the weight of 3 people in, with around 75bhp less than the Nissan would be any match for the Nissan.
How could these two cars be truly racing? A Ford Fiesta Zetec S with around 115bhp would stand absolutely no chance on god's green earth of keeping up with the high powered 200SX pushing around 200bhp. The Nissan was even behind the Fiesta during the supposed race.
Stephen is accused of causing the deaths of the two young men that died. We don't believe that and we don't think you do either. Stephen is currently locked up 23 hours a day in Shrewsbury prison, he and his family are in despair and need your help. Please help us get our friend out of jail for an offence he did not commit by signing this petition.
If you would like to help further you can express your feelings and beliefs in a letter to the following address, please send it recorded delivery so it has to be signed for.
Paul Farrelly
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Thank you, any questions please reply and I will do my best to respond quickly.
Not a lawyer but will comment.
Just exactly was he charged with? Racing on a highway summary offence. Suspect causing death by dangerous driving.
From the account on line there does not seem to be any evidence to support a charge of racing on a highway and bearing in mind that for 5 years imprisonment the case must have been heard at Crown Court with a defending Barrister, who it would seem has gone into plea bargaining, so there must be some evidence somewhere. If the evidence was suspcet then at least the brief should be appealing.
Sorry, but that many questions that it would appear can only satisfy my mind by reading the procedings transcript.
DVD
Just exactly was he charged with? Racing on a highway summary offence. Suspect causing death by dangerous driving.
From the account on line there does not seem to be any evidence to support a charge of racing on a highway and bearing in mind that for 5 years imprisonment the case must have been heard at Crown Court with a defending Barrister, who it would seem has gone into plea bargaining, so there must be some evidence somewhere. If the evidence was suspcet then at least the brief should be appealing.
Sorry, but that many questions that it would appear can only satisfy my mind by reading the procedings transcript.
DVD
What the hell has the fact the two vehicles had different HP got to do with the fact they were racing?
Sounds like the author of that letter is grasping at straws!
It was a Judge who sentenced Stephen in Crown Court. Perhaps he had more evidence in front of him than is given in the letter
.
Sounds like the author of that letter is grasping at straws!
It was a Judge who sentenced Stephen in Crown Court. Perhaps he had more evidence in front of him than is given in the letter
.If he was averaging 90 mph then his speed must have been some way in excess of that in places. And if he was behind the other car and close enough to see it go off, either there's a remarkable coincidence that he caught them at exactly the right point, or they were doing a similar speed and he was chasing them.
Seems to me that the most likely explanation is that they were racing. It certainly isn't obvious that they weren't.
Incidentally, what's the general view on admitting guilt for something you didn't do - is it ever the right thing to do?
Seems to me that the most likely explanation is that they were racing. It certainly isn't obvious that they weren't.
Incidentally, what's the general view on admitting guilt for something you didn't do - is it ever the right thing to do?
A RACE TO THE DEATH
SENTINEL REPORTER
12:00 - 05 July 2005
A 21-year-old who caused the deaths of two teenagers by racing them at speeds of around 100mph along the A500 has been jailed for five years. Stephen Jackson had been racing 18-year-old Leon Hughes when the Burslem teenager lost control of his Ford Fiesta, hit a tree and died from head and neck injuries.
His 17-year-old front-seat passenger John Hancock, of Marshall Avenue, Brown Edge, also died in the smash in the early hours of August 18 - just two days after Jackson had been convicted of speeding.
Another passenger, Lee Scarlett, survived the crash.
Yesterday, Jackson, of Heathcote Road, Miles Green, near Newcastle, was jailed after admitting causing death by dangerous driving.
Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court heard how Jackson had been driving a new Nissan sports car capable of going from 0 to 60mph in six-and-a-half seconds, reaching a maximum of 140mph at the time of the accident.
Peter Carr, prosecuting, told the court that Jackson had picked up his brother Christopher and his brother's fiancee Louise at 3pm and driven to Festival Park. Between 12.25am and 12.45am, the Nissan and Fiesta were seen on CCTV driving around Festival Park together, and left for the A500 at 1.20am.
A taxi driver who saw part of the race told police they had been travelling at around 100mph.
Mr Carr said Mr Hughes's vehicle had a severely under-inflated rear tyre which, combined with the high speed race, contributed to his loss of control.
As his car started to spin, he is thought to have overcompensated when steering against it, and ended up hitting a tree.
A toxicology report showed neither Jackson nor Mr Hughes, of Wilson Street, Burslem, had been drinking or taking drugs beforehand.
Richard Gray, defending, said: "What we have here between two young and probably immature men is a moment of madness and certainly an equal degree of culpability in the race down the A500.
"The defendant at no time tried to overtake, but he accepts by his plea that he encouraged an excess of speed between the two."
Mr Gray added that Jackson had shown "maturity, compassion and presence of mind" to stop at the scene and encourage his brother to phone for an ambulance.
He said Jackson apologised "unreservedly" to the families of the dead teenagers.
Jailing Jackson and imposing a three-year driving ban, Judge Paul Glenn told him: "It was wet at the time and you knew the danger of this stretch of road, but despite this you raced against a smaller, less powerful car, encouraging Mr Hughes to drive faster when he had an under-inflated tyre.
"The plain and simple fact is that, had you not chosen to race him, he would not have driven as he did. I'm afraid that racing is a feature of high culpability in this case.
"The aftermath is that two men tragically lost their lives and no sentence a court can impose can compensate for that loss of life."
After the hearing, Mr Hughes's parents John and Mandy Hughes, spoke of their devastation.
Mrs Hughes, aged 42, said: "It's been a tragic loss of two lives and I wish somebody would learn from it. I'm devastated, it's a life sentence for both sets of families. We've been left with a void and we can only hope other young drivers will learn."
Sergeant Steve Kent, of Staffordshire Police, said young drivers should take more responsibility for their actions.
He said: "For five minutes of fun it is not worth it. The consequences of your driving can affect people for the rest of their lives."
Mr Scarlett, of Fairfield Avenue, Brown Edge, declined to comment about the accident which killed his friends.
Now you can see why he got five years.
SENTINEL REPORTER
12:00 - 05 July 2005
A 21-year-old who caused the deaths of two teenagers by racing them at speeds of around 100mph along the A500 has been jailed for five years. Stephen Jackson had been racing 18-year-old Leon Hughes when the Burslem teenager lost control of his Ford Fiesta, hit a tree and died from head and neck injuries.
His 17-year-old front-seat passenger John Hancock, of Marshall Avenue, Brown Edge, also died in the smash in the early hours of August 18 - just two days after Jackson had been convicted of speeding.
Another passenger, Lee Scarlett, survived the crash.
Yesterday, Jackson, of Heathcote Road, Miles Green, near Newcastle, was jailed after admitting causing death by dangerous driving.
Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court heard how Jackson had been driving a new Nissan sports car capable of going from 0 to 60mph in six-and-a-half seconds, reaching a maximum of 140mph at the time of the accident.
Peter Carr, prosecuting, told the court that Jackson had picked up his brother Christopher and his brother's fiancee Louise at 3pm and driven to Festival Park. Between 12.25am and 12.45am, the Nissan and Fiesta were seen on CCTV driving around Festival Park together, and left for the A500 at 1.20am.
A taxi driver who saw part of the race told police they had been travelling at around 100mph.
Mr Carr said Mr Hughes's vehicle had a severely under-inflated rear tyre which, combined with the high speed race, contributed to his loss of control.
As his car started to spin, he is thought to have overcompensated when steering against it, and ended up hitting a tree.
A toxicology report showed neither Jackson nor Mr Hughes, of Wilson Street, Burslem, had been drinking or taking drugs beforehand.
Richard Gray, defending, said: "What we have here between two young and probably immature men is a moment of madness and certainly an equal degree of culpability in the race down the A500.
"The defendant at no time tried to overtake, but he accepts by his plea that he encouraged an excess of speed between the two."
Mr Gray added that Jackson had shown "maturity, compassion and presence of mind" to stop at the scene and encourage his brother to phone for an ambulance.
He said Jackson apologised "unreservedly" to the families of the dead teenagers.
Jailing Jackson and imposing a three-year driving ban, Judge Paul Glenn told him: "It was wet at the time and you knew the danger of this stretch of road, but despite this you raced against a smaller, less powerful car, encouraging Mr Hughes to drive faster when he had an under-inflated tyre.
"The plain and simple fact is that, had you not chosen to race him, he would not have driven as he did. I'm afraid that racing is a feature of high culpability in this case.
"The aftermath is that two men tragically lost their lives and no sentence a court can impose can compensate for that loss of life."
After the hearing, Mr Hughes's parents John and Mandy Hughes, spoke of their devastation.
Mrs Hughes, aged 42, said: "It's been a tragic loss of two lives and I wish somebody would learn from it. I'm devastated, it's a life sentence for both sets of families. We've been left with a void and we can only hope other young drivers will learn."
Sergeant Steve Kent, of Staffordshire Police, said young drivers should take more responsibility for their actions.
He said: "For five minutes of fun it is not worth it. The consequences of your driving can affect people for the rest of their lives."
Mr Scarlett, of Fairfield Avenue, Brown Edge, declined to comment about the accident which killed his friends.
Now you can see why he got five years.
A500 S-o-T is an NSL dual carridgeway, a lot of it quite rural - like a motorway with a lane missing. 90 isn't exessive in normal conditions IMHO allthough in heavy rain.... maybe at the upper limits of whats OK.
Edited to add - Festival park is a well known local boy racer hangout. Maybe that had a bearing in the way this was persued?
>> Edited by aldi on Saturday 9th July 13:34
Edited to add - Festival park is a well known local boy racer hangout. Maybe that had a bearing in the way this was persued?
>> Edited by aldi on Saturday 9th July 13:34
parrot of doom said:
I'm not sure why somebody is being punished for the actions of another. The driver of the Fiesta is the one who took his chances and blew it.
IMO the driver of the Nissan should be charged with speeding (oops, no proof).
Had you been the chief prosecuting solicitor for the CPS in that area, you may have had the opportunity to decide
.parrot of doom said:
I'm not sure why somebody is being punished for the actions of another. The driver of the Fiesta is the one who took his chances and blew it.
The evidence seems to indicate that they were both racing and both driving at 3 figure speeds. The fact that one crashed doesn't mean the other is innocent. (He may have been driving safely, but it doesn't seem particularly likely under the circumstances. In any case he was still driving at double the speed limit and racing.)
I dunno. I am in the habit of tagging along behind someone who is making good progress, without any intention of racing them. Simply because they will see/encounter Police or cameras before me, giving me twice the chance to avoid problems.
Could this have not been the same thing? There seems no evidence that the Nissan driver tried to overtake, so whu was it considered racing?
Could this have not been the same thing? There seems no evidence that the Nissan driver tried to overtake, so whu was it considered racing?
voyds9 said:
Surely the sentence should be on the crime not the consequence of the crime.
CAUSING DEATH BY DANGEROUS DRIVING: PANEL PUBLISHES ADVICE TO COURT OF APPEAL ON SENTENCING GUIDELINES
PRESS NOTICE SAP 1/03
18 February 2003
The Sentencing Advisory Panel has today published a proposal that the Court of Appeal should issue a sentencing guideline on the offence of causing death by dangerous driving.
The Panel believes that this offence causes particular difficulty for sentencers. On the one hand, an offence involving a person’s death is always serious, and understandably leads to calls for severe sentences. On the other hand, an offender convicted of this offence did not deliberately cause death or serious injury. In some cases, the driver may have made a momentary error, but in the worst type of case he or she may be very much to blame, having driven for several miles with complete disregard for the safety of others.
In its proposal the Panel advises that, to mark the gravity of an offence resulting in death, the starting point for sentence should normally be imprisonment. The standard of the offender’s driving at the time of the offence should be the primary factor in determining the seriousness of an offence.
The Panel recommends:
a short custodial sentence for an offence arising from a momentary error of judgment or short period of bad driving, where there are no aggravating features;
a custodial sentence of 2-5 years when the standard of the offender’s driving is more highly dangerous, e.g. aggressive driving or greatly excessive speed, or when the offender has consumed alcohol or drugs;
a custodial sentence over 5 years, up to the maximum of 10 years, for the most serious offences, where the offender has driven with complete disregard for the safety of other road users and where other aggravating features are present.
Factors that would increase the seriousness of an offence include:
the death of more than one victim or serious injury to one or more victims in addition to the death;
failing to stop or falsely claiming that one of the victims was responsible for the crash; and
previous convictions for motoring offences, especially if they involved bad driving or the consumption of excessive alcohol before driving.
Death by Dangerous driving was the crime. Maximum 10 years imprisonment!
I would say he got off lightly
>> Edited by gone on Saturday 9th July 18:10
'a short custodial sentence for an offence arising from a momentary error of judgment'
This seems just plain crazy. My guess is that approx 100% of all drivers will have a momentary error of judgement at some time in their driving life.
What possible benefit could be gained by jailing someone for that?
This seems just plain crazy. My guess is that approx 100% of all drivers will have a momentary error of judgement at some time in their driving life.
What possible benefit could be gained by jailing someone for that?
s2art said:
'a short custodial sentence for an offence arising from a momentary error of judgment'
This seems just plain crazy. My guess is that approx 100% of all drivers will have a momentary error of judgement at some time in their driving life.
What possible benefit could be gained by jailing someone for that?
Just make sure when it happens, no one dies!!!
Now this I have a problem with:
errr, no. This is not a fact.
The driver of the Fiesta can choose to drive at those speeds (with the same horrific consequences), irrelevant of the fact that the Nissan driver may have been following, or even goading the other driver; therefore the judge has quite obviously declared a false correlation. This poor judgement directly resulting with the life of another young man needlessly ruined.
Here is a classic analogy. A criminal (driving a stolen car for example), who had previously been driving within the limits, spots a police car behind which is giving chase. The criminal then chooses to accelerate hard in an attempt to lose the pursuit car. As a consequence of the crim technically trying to 'race' away, he drives into a tree and dies.
Is the police driver held responsible for the crim's death? Of course not, that would be plain stupid. So what is the difference?
Crock of shite!
edited for my English, or rather the lack of
>> Edited by smeggy on Saturday 9th July 18:40
Judge Paul Glenn said:
"The plain and simple fact is that, had you not chosen to race him, he would not have driven as he did.
errr, no. This is not a fact.
The driver of the Fiesta can choose to drive at those speeds (with the same horrific consequences), irrelevant of the fact that the Nissan driver may have been following, or even goading the other driver; therefore the judge has quite obviously declared a false correlation. This poor judgement directly resulting with the life of another young man needlessly ruined.
Here is a classic analogy. A criminal (driving a stolen car for example), who had previously been driving within the limits, spots a police car behind which is giving chase. The criminal then chooses to accelerate hard in an attempt to lose the pursuit car. As a consequence of the crim technically trying to 'race' away, he drives into a tree and dies.
Is the police driver held responsible for the crim's death? Of course not, that would be plain stupid. So what is the difference?
Crock of shite!
edited for my English, or rather the lack of
>> Edited by smeggy on Saturday 9th July 18:40
smeggy said:
Here is a classic analogy. A criminal (driving a stolen car for example), who had previously been driving within the limits, spots a police car behind giving chase. The criminal then chooses to accelerate hard in an attempt to lost the pursuit car. As a consequence of the crim technically trying to 'race' away, he drives into a tree and dies.
Is the police driver held responsible for the crim's death? Of course not, that would be plain stupid. So what is the difference?
Crock of shite!
The analogy is useless. It is two completely different situations.
A stolen car being pursued by police is an attempt to apprehend a criminal and to recover stolen property.
A stolen vehicle crashing and killing any occupants whilst in the presence of a police vehicle will be investigated on the basis that the police vehicle was a contributory factor in the collision and the death.
If the Police vehicle was not driven impeccably, after the scrutiny of investigators and lawyers months later, the police driver may be subject to the same charge as the subject of this thread!
The race between these two unfortunate characters was purely that and nothing more
OK PH bib, what would be your take on this then?
Earlier on this week I was 'pressing on' on a bit of country road that I know well, although I was working and on my way back to the office from a call, I was enjoying myself and the car. As it happens, a white chavved up Astra latched onto me, its appearance was of no relevance to me whatsoever, and I carried on moderating my driving neither one way or the other, by no means pushing myself or the car and at no time did anything get a little ragged, at least not for me. Anyway, I noticed in my rear view mirror that the Astra driver lost it on one of the bends and went off, he got it back again, no harm done, but he threw up a little dirt and grass. WTF has that got to do with me? and what if there was any oncoming traffic for him to collide with? I consider myself to be no more responsible for the other driver simply because I happened to be in the vicinity, than if I wasnt anywhere near there at all. For all I know, he may have just answered his phone and lost it.
Also, if the roles were reversed and it was me who was trying to keep up, and I fell off, the last thing I would be thinking of is that it was the other cars fault, it just wouldnt enter my mind in my wildest dreams to come up with such a ridiculously irrational and illogical assumption.
>> Edited by Balmoral Green on Saturday 9th July 19:21
Earlier on this week I was 'pressing on' on a bit of country road that I know well, although I was working and on my way back to the office from a call, I was enjoying myself and the car. As it happens, a white chavved up Astra latched onto me, its appearance was of no relevance to me whatsoever, and I carried on moderating my driving neither one way or the other, by no means pushing myself or the car and at no time did anything get a little ragged, at least not for me. Anyway, I noticed in my rear view mirror that the Astra driver lost it on one of the bends and went off, he got it back again, no harm done, but he threw up a little dirt and grass. WTF has that got to do with me? and what if there was any oncoming traffic for him to collide with? I consider myself to be no more responsible for the other driver simply because I happened to be in the vicinity, than if I wasnt anywhere near there at all. For all I know, he may have just answered his phone and lost it.
Also, if the roles were reversed and it was me who was trying to keep up, and I fell off, the last thing I would be thinking of is that it was the other cars fault, it just wouldnt enter my mind in my wildest dreams to come up with such a ridiculously irrational and illogical assumption.
>> Edited by Balmoral Green on Saturday 9th July 19:21
gone said:So in one situation, the driver makes the decision to drive inappropriately fast, and the other….
Here is a classic analogy..........
The analogy is useless. It is two completely different situations.
gone said:Irrelevant. In the example, the criminal would not have died if the police did not give chase.
A stolen car being pursued by police is an attempt to apprehend a criminal and to recover stolen property.
(note: I’m not saying the police should not give chase
) gone said:Who is to say that the Nissan driver didn’t drive impeccably? By definition, the judge’s correlation is false if it is possible that the Nissan driver could also have driven impeccably.
A stolen vehicle crashing and killing any occupants whilst in the presence of a police vehicle will be investigated on the basis that the police vehicle was a contributory factor in the collision and the death.
If the Police vehicle was not driven impeccably, after the scrutiny of investigators and lawyers months later, the police driver may be subject to the same charge as the subject of this thread!
gone said:Irrelevant as it is, you made an assumption that the 2 were racing. The Nissan driver could have simply been keeping up (as per s2art’s post).
The race between these two unfortunate characters was purely that and nothing more
cptsideways said:
On the night of the incident with absolutely appallingly wet conditions
Yet he was doing 90-100MPH?
I know the A500 - it turns into a river in heavy, never mind appalling, rain.
I like this bit:
monster1 said:
A RACE TO THE DEATH
SENTINEL REPORTER
Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court heard how Jackson had been driving a new Nissan sports car capable of going from 0 to 60mph in six-and-a-half seconds, reaching a maximum of 140mph at the time of the accident.
Makes it sound like he'd accelerated to 60 in 6.5 secs and driven at 140MPH. Very emotive journalism.
I don't think he got caught because he stopped - with a fatal like this no stone is left unturned and he'd already been seen by others and on CCTV. He ought to have some credit for stopping though (even if it's a sad reflection on society that we're pleased someone stopped these days).
Sometimes simple mistakes or errors of judgement have big consequences - the University lecturer who got jailed for killing someone while getting a sweet out of a bag. Gary Hart's Land Rover crash.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff