Lawyer types - A bit of advice for a fellow driver
Discussion
Maybe his plea of guilty was reasonable in light of the CCTV footage and witnesses to a prolonged 'bit of fun'/racing. But you are responsible for your own actions - the fiesta driver seems to have been driving badly with a flat tyre, no experience and paid the price. The sentence seems harsh IMO because lets face it, after giving a dieing 18 year old CPR in a ditch one rainy night he's not going to need any more reminders about this.
gone said:The Fiesta driver caused death by dangerous driving.
Death by Dangerous driving was the crime. Maximum 10 years imprisonment!
I would say he got off lightly
The Nissan driver, at the very worst, should only have been convicted of dangerous driving (unless he forcibly nudged the Fiesta into going too fast).
Gone, how about this:
What would be your stance if the Nissan driver had backed off to within the limit (and to an appropriate speed) several minutes before the Fiesta (retaining the same inappropriate speed) crashed into the tree?
smeggy said:
The Fiesta driver caused death by dangerous driving.
And without the input from the Nissan.....?
smeggy said:
The Nissan driver, at the very worst, should only have been convicted of dangerous driving (unless he forcibly nudged the Fiesta into going too fast).
But someone died! If he was convicted of dangerous driving, then it would be linked to the death of the Fiesta and consequently death by dangerous.
smeggy said:
Gone, how about this:
What would be your stance if the Nissan driver had backed off to within the limit (and to an appropriate speed) several minutes before the Fiesta (retaining the same inappropriate speed) crashed into the tree?
My stance is irrelevant.
The stance of the CPS and the Judge were what was important in these decisions.
The fact is the Nissan driver did not back off in whci case the Fiesta may not have crashed. Had he done so, he may not be in the pickle he is in now! Who knows? Life is full of 'what ifs'!
The benefit of hindsight eh
.gone said:Yeah, what if the Nissan driver had been home in bed and the car in the garage. Fiesta boy would/could still have gone down the road and stuffed himself and Nissan man would not have been there to help them as he did. But anyway, what do we know about what happened here anyway, all I know is from this forum, hardly empirical evidence one way or the other.
Life is full of 'what ifs'!
Terrible tragedy for all though.
gone said:
The Fiesta driver caused death by dangerous driving.
And without the input from the Nissan.....?
The Fiesta driver applied pressure to the loud pedal of the Fiesta (if there is such a thing), no-one else. If he didn’t, regardless of what the Nissan driver was doing (except for nudging or stealing his breaking distance) he would still be here today. gone said:Linked how? Was the Fiesta driver forced against his will? No: death was caused entirely by the Fiesta driver’s wilful actions (probably aggravated by the condition of his car).
The Nissan driver, at the very worst, should only have been convicted of dangerous driving (unless he forcibly nudged the Fiesta into going too fast).
gone said:You chose to post it
Gone, how about this:
What would be your stance if the Nissan driver had backed off to within the limit (and to an appropriate speed) several minutes before the Fiesta (retaining the same inappropriate speed) crashed into the tree?
I’m just varying the stimuli gone said:The ‘what ifs’ being the things that the judge clearly didn’t consider, bringing me full circle.
The stance of the CPS and the Judge were what was important in these decisions.
The fact is the Nissan driver did not back off in whci case the Fiesta may not have crashed. Had he done so, he may not be in the pickle he is in now! Who knows? Life is full of 'what ifs'!
smeggy 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.
lieber gone said:
The Fiesta driver caused death by dangerous driving.
And without the input from the Nissan.....?
But the Festa driver could have simply stopped racing.
It takes two to race - und presumably the judge took this into account mit the 5 years instead of 10 years....but the Festa driver also caused his own death by behaving like a twazak on road.
But we have some emotive journalsim und a an emotional pal as well. We have Nissan und Festa drivers both driving too fast for conditions und Festa driver over-estimating capablity of Festa und his own skill (und worse - he was twit who never checked tyres too) Und we have no proof that Nissan was 140 mph at time of accident either - that ist capability of vehicle und I rather think he would have also been colliding mit Festa if trying to brake in wet conditions aat that speed. Thus doubt he was 140 mph - but 90 mph as per article. Besides - he would have overtaken Festa long since had he been at 140 mph cruise....
lieber gone said:
The Nissan driver, at the very worst, should only have been convicted of dangerous driving (unless he forcibly nudged the Fiesta into going too fast).
But someone died! If he was convicted of dangerous driving, then it would be linked to the death of the Fiesta and consequently death by dangerous.
But Liebchen ... the Festa driver was also driving dangerously und caused his own death by doing so. So perhaps ...ist not such a safe conviction of Death by Dangerous on that basis. Nissan's driving was dangerous - but not the prime cause of this death - if the account of this story ist correct - but we do not know as journalists do twist facts....recent events in London und Birmingham being evidence of emotional over-reactions without much on facts.
(Und you know I fasten on the BiB bash ones
und you know how accurate those can be ) [/samll]
lieber gone said:
smeggy said: My stance is irrelevant. The stance of the CPS and the Judge were what was important in these decisions. |
But they have made mistakes in past....look at number of people convicted of murder und then released....when they found some opne else did it...or the expert witness was no expert after all....
In this case though - if story per newspaper ist correct in facts - then perhaps fair.
But we do not know for sure what happened - was a dual carriageway - thus Nissan had a lane to overtake the Festa...und could have overtaken at any time - so why did he not overtake und carry on mit journey?
lieber gone said:
The fact is the Nissan driver did not back off in whci case the Fiesta may not have crashed. Had he done so, he may not be in the pickle he is in now! Who knows? Life is full of 'what ifs'!
The benefit of hindsight eh
Ja - if the bloke who had the heart attack had stayed at home when he complained of feeling unwell...if the panda officer had stopped him when he swerved on way to motorway....he would not have hit me...
If the truck operator had serviced his fleet - Ferdl would alive today....
If Rudi had decided to fly to wherever on a different flight - he'd still be here.
Und if the Nissan driver had decided to choose a different way home or set off at a different time.... perhaps he would not have been on road where Festa tried to race him....
Thus - accidents - even these have element of combination of tragic events which occur at same time und tragedy results.
But Nissan driver has 5 years to reflect on whatever he did (or did not do - as jails are full of innocents - nicht? ) - und does his ban start after his 5 years in jail or does it expire whilst he ist inside?
Hello all,
I've finally got time to get back on here.
I am at a stage where I now am certain that some sort of drastic, dramatic episode is needed to change the workings of the system, and in particular the CPS and the judges involved in this kind of decision: something really spectacular that will make these people sit up and waken up to reality.
The principles here are almost identical to that of the Gary Hart trial: a total and utter lack of natural justice and the complete abscence of what the essence of the law is and how it should be implemented.
We have to take some of what we are told at face value because none of us was in the courtroom; but what is certain here is that this young man, who is now in jail serving a five year sentence, did not kill anyone.
There is absolutely no evidence that he caused the death of anyone by his driving; nor is there any evidence that he was involved in an accident or even a near miss with another vehicle.
Nor is there any correct and accurate evidence of his speed, a speed of course that would have to be accurately observed and related to being wholly disproportionate to the conditions and circumstances to merit a charge of careless driving let alone causing death by dangerous driving.
Any suggestion of his speed being excessive came from the almost unbelievable act of his confession; a confession advised by a totally and grossly incompetent Counsel: Richard Gray, apparently whilst defending this young man, talks about "acts of madness and immaturity whilst racing"
Was he aware he was acting for the defence and not the prosecution??!!
Why in the name of god did he tell this man to plead guilty?
How could he possibly be guilty of causing death by dangerous driving?
Was he in the Fiesta? No!
Was he driving it? No!
Was he responsible for the under inflated tyre? No!
Could you seriously believe that he had an emotional or physical affect on the Fiesta driver to the point where he had an accident? He didn't even overtake him!
This young man needs a first class brief NOW, to lodge an appeal and get him out of there.
At worst he was guilty of being slightly foolish; that's at absolute worst!
What seems to be totally ignored is that he was in complete control of his vehicle at all times, and when the other driver completely lost the plot, due to his OWN incompetence, not anyone else's, the lad did everything to try and save his life: so we lock him up!!!
Utter madness!
We have seriously wicked villains going up before the same judges in the same courts who are walking away with community service for opening someone's face with a bottle: WAKEN UP!!!!
I've finally got time to get back on here.
I am at a stage where I now am certain that some sort of drastic, dramatic episode is needed to change the workings of the system, and in particular the CPS and the judges involved in this kind of decision: something really spectacular that will make these people sit up and waken up to reality.
The principles here are almost identical to that of the Gary Hart trial: a total and utter lack of natural justice and the complete abscence of what the essence of the law is and how it should be implemented.
We have to take some of what we are told at face value because none of us was in the courtroom; but what is certain here is that this young man, who is now in jail serving a five year sentence, did not kill anyone.
There is absolutely no evidence that he caused the death of anyone by his driving; nor is there any evidence that he was involved in an accident or even a near miss with another vehicle.
Nor is there any correct and accurate evidence of his speed, a speed of course that would have to be accurately observed and related to being wholly disproportionate to the conditions and circumstances to merit a charge of careless driving let alone causing death by dangerous driving.
Any suggestion of his speed being excessive came from the almost unbelievable act of his confession; a confession advised by a totally and grossly incompetent Counsel: Richard Gray, apparently whilst defending this young man, talks about "acts of madness and immaturity whilst racing"
Was he aware he was acting for the defence and not the prosecution??!!
Why in the name of god did he tell this man to plead guilty?
How could he possibly be guilty of causing death by dangerous driving?
Was he in the Fiesta? No!
Was he driving it? No!
Was he responsible for the under inflated tyre? No!
Could you seriously believe that he had an emotional or physical affect on the Fiesta driver to the point where he had an accident? He didn't even overtake him!
This young man needs a first class brief NOW, to lodge an appeal and get him out of there.
At worst he was guilty of being slightly foolish; that's at absolute worst!
What seems to be totally ignored is that he was in complete control of his vehicle at all times, and when the other driver completely lost the plot, due to his OWN incompetence, not anyone else's, the lad did everything to try and save his life: so we lock him up!!!
Utter madness!
We have seriously wicked villains going up before the same judges in the same courts who are walking away with community service for opening someone's face with a bottle: WAKEN UP!!!!
gone 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!!!
And that is exactly why it is crazy.
Someone could make a trivial error of judgement, and 99.999999...% of the time it would cause no-one any harm and nothing happens. But if events conspire to cause injury or death then its a jail sentence, and who gains?
The problem is that people are human, and make normal human mistakes. Everyone. Even highly trained Police drivers.
Nice to see you back IOLAIRE after the break and full of arse biting powder courtesy of the US of A?
You mention that not in possession of full facts as not present in Court but then go on to berate the system on conjecture. Not like you that.
Sure within the posts and information given there are questions even to me but as you say I was not there. The fact that it was at Crown Court involving the "brains" of the legal profession on both sides and that the final verdict was made by 12 people like me and you, indicates to me that not all was wrong.
DVD
You mention that not in possession of full facts as not present in Court but then go on to berate the system on conjecture. Not like you that.
Sure within the posts and information given there are questions even to me but as you say I was not there. The fact that it was at Crown Court involving the "brains" of the legal profession on both sides and that the final verdict was made by 12 people like me and you, indicates to me that not all was wrong.
DVD
I have some sympathy with Iolaire here...while we do not know all the facts, a 5-year sentence for this is ludicrous given what other people in this country are virtually getting away with.
IF he was racing with the Fiesta, then he's immature, and a case for dangerous driving may well be justified. CAUSING death by such driving...well, hardly...in this country we are responsible for our own actions, the worst you could level at him is contributory negligence, as he owed the other road user a duty of care.
I would want to see more evidence before commenting further, but based on what's on here, I feel the sentence is excessive even for a worst-case scenario.
IF he was racing with the Fiesta, then he's immature, and a case for dangerous driving may well be justified. CAUSING death by such driving...well, hardly...in this country we are responsible for our own actions, the worst you could level at him is contributory negligence, as he owed the other road user a duty of care.
I would want to see more evidence before commenting further, but based on what's on here, I feel the sentence is excessive even for a worst-case scenario.
Dwight VanDriver said:
Nice to see you back IOLAIRE after the break and full of arse biting powder courtesy of the US of A?
You mention that not in possession of full facts as not present in Court but then go on to berate the system on conjecture. Not like you that.
Sure within the posts and information given there are questions even to me but as you say I was not there. The fact that it was at Crown Court involving the "brains" of the legal profession on both sides and that the final verdict was made by 12 people like me and you, indicates to me that not all was wrong.
DVD
Hi DVD - surely there won't have been a jury....he pleaded guilty didn't he?? And he also clearly didn't realise the consequences involved....there's no
ing way i would have pleaded guilty knowing that I could get up to 10 years for it....fight tooth and nail more like! The jury could've been his saviour. I know you can get a harsher sentence if found guilty, but surely it's gotta be worth the risk. Maybe his brief advised him that he'd probably get six months....Jesus knows how he must ave felt when the judge told him 5 years. Poor bugger. I feel very sorry for him, and do not agree that this was an appropriate sentence. Madness. J.Well said Iolaire
This sentence is madness, he was in full control of his own vehicle, end of story.
Coming at a time when a woman driving without a licence caused a crash which killed her own child and was not jailed, it just goes to show how far from justice our criminal 'justice' system has gone.
It has become an instrument for the persecution of the law abiding middle classes, while the very criminals the system is supposed to protect us against get very leniant sentences indeed.
>> Edited by JagLover on Monday 11th July 14:45
This sentence is madness, he was in full control of his own vehicle, end of story.
Coming at a time when a woman driving without a licence caused a crash which killed her own child and was not jailed, it just goes to show how far from justice our criminal 'justice' system has gone.
It has become an instrument for the persecution of the law abiding middle classes, while the very criminals the system is supposed to protect us against get very leniant sentences indeed.
>> Edited by JagLover on Monday 11th July 14:45
Two points spring to mind about this:
1. The sentence was supposed to be an example to other people who might drive in a similar way - but does it have that effect? Or does it simply make drivers paranoid that a mistake could land you in prison? And what effect does that have on their attitude to risk, speeding etc; if we all *feel* like we could get banged up for a minor transgression how will this affect our attitude towards something more major? Is it possible that we might be less cautious in future because of a "damned if we, damned if we don't" attitude to the laws of the road?
2. This guy was (according to the court) guilty of causing death, because of the cirumstances he created (participating in a race) rather than anything he directly did to the Fiesta driver. How is he any less culpable of murder than Tony Blair for the fate of the innocent Iraqis who died under allied bombing? I know this is a little facetious but surely morality (if not the law) should be consistent?
That's all,
Luke
1. The sentence was supposed to be an example to other people who might drive in a similar way - but does it have that effect? Or does it simply make drivers paranoid that a mistake could land you in prison? And what effect does that have on their attitude to risk, speeding etc; if we all *feel* like we could get banged up for a minor transgression how will this affect our attitude towards something more major? Is it possible that we might be less cautious in future because of a "damned if we, damned if we don't" attitude to the laws of the road?
2. This guy was (according to the court) guilty of causing death, because of the cirumstances he created (participating in a race) rather than anything he directly did to the Fiesta driver. How is he any less culpable of murder than Tony Blair for the fate of the innocent Iraqis who died under allied bombing? I know this is a little facetious but surely morality (if not the law) should be consistent?
That's all,
Luke
The cautionary tale here...
(although what we can do about it is dubious)
...is don't be having a blat with another car/bike around...even if they're a friend and you're not actually racing, just following...because if the worst does happen to that other car, you could wind up facing charges!
I know personally there are a number of times this year alone where I have either been following or been followed by another car while on a "spirited" run. Couldn't have cared less whether they were there or not, but that might not have helped...
(although what we can do about it is dubious)
...is don't be having a blat with another car/bike around...even if they're a friend and you're not actually racing, just following...because if the worst does happen to that other car, you could wind up facing charges!
I know personally there are a number of times this year alone where I have either been following or been followed by another car while on a "spirited" run. Couldn't have cared less whether they were there or not, but that might not have helped...
havoc said:
The cautionary tale here...
(although what we can do about it is dubious)
...is don't be having a blat with another car/bike around...even if they're a friend and you're not actually racing, just following...because if the worst does happen to that other car, you could wind up facing charges!
I know personally there are a number of times this year alone where I have either been following or been followed by another car while on a "spirited" run. Couldn't have cared less whether they were there or not, but that might not have helped...
Here’s the flip side: you are on a spirited run and someone behind is keeping up (regardless of whether they are tailgating or making progress with you). If you fall off the road, could you sue them on the grounds that they caused you to drive dangerously, even if your car isn’t roadworthy? (assuming you live)
smeggy said:
Here’s the flip side: you are on a spirited run and someone behind is keeping up (regardless of whether they are tailgating or making progress with you). If you fall off the road, could you sue them on the grounds that they caused you to drive dangerously, even if your car isn’t roadworthy? (assuming you live)
You can sue anyone but it's doubtful you would win - your passengers might have a case against the other driver, though.
Here's the University Lecturer I mentioned earlier (along with Gary Hart):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1490329.stm
Surely we’ve all done this, and got away with it. Victim’s relatives supported him, but that still didn’t help. Motor cars exaggerate the simplest of errors – there but for the grace of God go I (and the rest of us).
OK, he only got 90 days (although now, 4 yrs later he’d probably get longer) but the time is almost immaterial - once you've been in prison your whole life changes. Of course Stephen Jackson will only serve 2 yrs max out of his 5 yrs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1490329.stm
Surely we’ve all done this, and got away with it. Victim’s relatives supported him, but that still didn’t help. Motor cars exaggerate the simplest of errors – there but for the grace of God go I (and the rest of us).
OK, he only got 90 days (although now, 4 yrs later he’d probably get longer) but the time is almost immaterial - once you've been in prison your whole life changes. Of course Stephen Jackson will only serve 2 yrs max out of his 5 yrs.
deva link said:Both good points, the world has gone mad, quite mad I tell you.
Here’s the flip side: you are on a spirited run and someone behind is keeping up (regardless of whether they are tailgating or making progress with you). If you fall off the road, could you sue them on the grounds that they caused you to drive dangerously, even if your car isn’t roadworthy? (assuming you live)
You can sue anyone but it's doubtful you would win - your passengers might have a case against the other driver, though.
smeggy said:Frankly, don't care. I wouldn't want to.
Here’s the flip side: you are on a spirited run and someone behind is keeping up (regardless of whether they are tailgating or making progress with you). If you fall off the road, could you sue them on the grounds that they caused you to drive dangerously, even if your car isn’t roadworthy? (assuming you live)
I am responsible for my actions, and I expect others to be responsible for their actions...it's a simple concept, but one our current lawmakers seem to be having trouble with!!!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff