Incriminating Evidence
Discussion
esselte said:
10 Pence Short said:
esselte said:
How do they prove it was actually you who posted on the forum?
I presumed they asked some of the other guys on the drive, who arrived on the scene after the accident, as they had stickers on their side windows with the forum address on it. In interview I was asked about the forum and I saw no point in lying to the Police about it. Considering they had the printouts amongst the papers on their desk, it would have been a very foolish move indeed.
I would imagine most forums have the ability to trace IPs now, too. It wouldn't take much for them to lean on the forum then the ISP to track down who's making posts on forums, not to mention the power to seize computers if they wanted to.
Considering, like most people on motoring forums, I didn't think I'd ever said anything actually incriminating on a forum, I didn't think I had much to hide, either.
I appreciate that IP adresses can be traced but surely there is no hard eveidence that it was actually you who made the postings.
Its the same thinking that makes the Operation Ore arrests the same thing as a Guilty verdict in a court of law. You know, your IP address, must have been you.
Plotloss said:
Mr Whippy raises an interesting point.
There should be some sort of roadside checklist for forum run incidents.
Whats his login then?
Vonhosen I think
and his?
That could be Vonhosen as well
and that fella
Yep, definately could be Vonhosen.
There should be some sort of roadside checklist for forum run incidents.
Whats his login then?
Vonhosen I think
and his?
That could be Vonhosen as well
and that fella
Yep, definately could be Vonhosen.
No, no. I'M Von Hosen!!
And so's my wife
Quinny said:
Maybe the police should print this thread off as well.
It probably shows a whole different side to your character, more in keeping with the real you.
It probably shows a whole different side to your character, more in keeping with the real you.
This is the thing though.
How many threads could you print showing one side, then the other, then another.
Heaven forbid if you had a bloody blog website. Is it really relevant? A court case could last years covering the posts of some of the members on here defining their road manners and sensibilities while driving!
I'm sorry, I think this whole using forum threads to suggest a persons character is pathetic. Imagine having EVERY conversation you ever had brought under specific scrutiny with no regard for the tone or setting for the said conversation.
As said, any decent law person SHOULD be putting across the point that using this information is about as valid as using your teenage school report to suggest your real life persona.
The issue should ONLY be the conditions of the accident at the time.
Ultimately we've all said something on here that can be taken out of context. Is it right that in the event of any RTA our "accident" because of unforseen prevailing conditions becomes dangerous driving because we perhaps in jest mentioned something slightly unsavoury with respect to driving, which leads a court to assume we drive dangerously and hence any accident was because of that?
Dave
sorry to dig this back up but just to put everything in perspective.. . . . . .
10 pence, got 12 months in prison and a 3 year ban, on friday just gone.
I found this out from a friend on another forum.
also from another forum a post about a uninsured driver who killed a 3 year old girl, the guy stole a car and had no license, this was not 10 pence before anyone asks . . . . . just to put UK law into perspective. how they work out the sentence you deserve.
first case
12 week sentence for hit-and-run killer
Mohammed Hussain, 26, was jailed for 12 weeks following a hit-and-run crash which killed three-year-old Levi Bleasdale.
Levi was hit by a stolen VW Golf, driven by Hussain, as she crossed the road with her mother in Burnley.
Hussain, admitted careless driving, having no licence or insurance, failing to stop and failing to report an accident.
The car was found on the road where Hussain lived and he handed himself in five days later. In addition to the driving offences, Hussain admitted handling stolen goods when he appeared at Burnley Magistrates’ Court. It emerged he was out of prison on parole after being convicted of wounding in 2001. He was sentenced to four weeks for the handling charge and 12 weeks each for the fail to stop and fail to report charges, to run concurrently. He was also banned from driving for five years.
so a known scum of the earth killer gets 12 weeks, this was 10 pences first offence, he got 3 year driving ban and 12 months in the nick.
is it anywonder people have no faith in the CPS and the police?
10 pence, got 12 months in prison and a 3 year ban, on friday just gone.
I found this out from a friend on another forum.
also from another forum a post about a uninsured driver who killed a 3 year old girl, the guy stole a car and had no license, this was not 10 pence before anyone asks . . . . . just to put UK law into perspective. how they work out the sentence you deserve.
post on other forum said:
first case
12 week sentence for hit-and-run killer
Mohammed Hussain, 26, was jailed for 12 weeks following a hit-and-run crash which killed three-year-old Levi Bleasdale.
Levi was hit by a stolen VW Golf, driven by Hussain, as she crossed the road with her mother in Burnley.
Hussain, admitted careless driving, having no licence or insurance, failing to stop and failing to report an accident.
The car was found on the road where Hussain lived and he handed himself in five days later. In addition to the driving offences, Hussain admitted handling stolen goods when he appeared at Burnley Magistrates’ Court. It emerged he was out of prison on parole after being convicted of wounding in 2001. He was sentenced to four weeks for the handling charge and 12 weeks each for the fail to stop and fail to report charges, to run concurrently. He was also banned from driving for five years.
so a known scum of the earth killer gets 12 weeks, this was 10 pences first offence, he got 3 year driving ban and 12 months in the nick.
is it anywonder people have no faith in the CPS and the police?
Edited by DucatiGary on Sunday 22 April 21:21
Edited by DucatiGary on Sunday 22 April 21:22
This is also being discussed o another thread:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=367781&p=3
However neither thread titles are particularly relevant, I wonder if a new thread to discuss 10 pences sentance might be useful? I am sure this deserves a wider audience.
Jim
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=367781&p=3
However neither thread titles are particularly relevant, I wonder if a new thread to discuss 10 pences sentance might be useful? I am sure this deserves a wider audience.
Jim
randlemarcus said:
Not at all sure it would stand up in court, but isnt the wisest of ideas, thus the extensive use of leptons as a stand-in for kph. It was kph, shurely?
I thought a lepton was approximately several dozen furlongs per fortnight, at least for medium values of several.
I could well be wrong though.
DucatiGary said:
sorry to dig this back up but just to put everything in perspective.. . . . . .
10 pence, got 12 months in prison and a 3 year ban, on friday just gone.
I found this out from a friend on another forum.
also from another forum a post about a uninsured driver who killed a 3 year old girl, the guy stole a car and had no license, this was not 10 pence before anyone asks . . . . . just to put UK law into perspective. how they work out the sentence you deserve.
first case
12 week sentence for hit-and-run killer
Mohammed Hussain, 26, was jailed for 12 weeks following a hit-and-run crash which killed three-year-old Levi Bleasdale.
Levi was hit by a stolen VW Golf, driven by Hussain, as she crossed the road with her mother in Burnley.
Hussain, admitted careless driving, having no licence or insurance, failing to stop and failing to report an accident.
The car was found on the road where Hussain lived and he handed himself in five days later. In addition to the driving offences, Hussain admitted handling stolen goods when he appeared at Burnley Magistrates’ Court. It emerged he was out of prison on parole after being convicted of wounding in 2001. He was sentenced to four weeks for the handling charge and 12 weeks each for the fail to stop and fail to report charges, to run concurrently. He was also banned from driving for five years.
so a known scum of the earth killer gets 12 weeks, this was 10 pences first offence, he got 3 year driving ban and 12 months in the nick.
is it anywonder people have no faith in the CPS and the police?
10 pence, got 12 months in prison and a 3 year ban, on friday just gone.
I found this out from a friend on another forum.
also from another forum a post about a uninsured driver who killed a 3 year old girl, the guy stole a car and had no license, this was not 10 pence before anyone asks . . . . . just to put UK law into perspective. how they work out the sentence you deserve.
post on other forum said:
first case
12 week sentence for hit-and-run killer
Mohammed Hussain, 26, was jailed for 12 weeks following a hit-and-run crash which killed three-year-old Levi Bleasdale.
Levi was hit by a stolen VW Golf, driven by Hussain, as she crossed the road with her mother in Burnley.
Hussain, admitted careless driving, having no licence or insurance, failing to stop and failing to report an accident.
The car was found on the road where Hussain lived and he handed himself in five days later. In addition to the driving offences, Hussain admitted handling stolen goods when he appeared at Burnley Magistrates’ Court. It emerged he was out of prison on parole after being convicted of wounding in 2001. He was sentenced to four weeks for the handling charge and 12 weeks each for the fail to stop and fail to report charges, to run concurrently. He was also banned from driving for five years.
so a known scum of the earth killer gets 12 weeks, this was 10 pences first offence, he got 3 year driving ban and 12 months in the nick.
is it anywonder people have no faith in the CPS and the police?
I was the officer in the case for the Levi Bleasdale fatal, so I think I'm better placed than most to put some perspective on the case. It's also no longer subject to subjudice, so I can discuss it openly.
It was nowhere near as simple as the press made out at the time (surprise surprise). Believe me, my colleagues and I worked our proverbial nuts off to secure a charge of causing death by dangerous driving against Hussain, but the evidence simply wasn't there. Yes, he was an unlicenced, uninsured driver in a stolen car who failed to stop after killing a child. In itself, this sounds bad enough, but we truly, desperately wanted to charge him with the most serious offence - causing death by dangerous driving. To bring such a charge, we had to prove that Hussain's driving was dangerous, and that there was a causal link between that dangerous driving and the child's death.
We had plenty of witnesses who were on foot nearby at the time of the accident. Their view was almost universally the same - they saw a black car set off up that road, and that it was making a loud noise. This isn't surprising as the Golf had a loud aftermarket exhaust fitted to it, so it would be loud even at 30MPH. There were no tyre marks at the scene, because Hussain hadn't braked hard enough to either lock the wheels or to activate the ABS. The only evidence the Accident Investigator had to work with was a very small amount of damage to the front of the Golf.
We also had some CCTV footage of the Golf as it entered the road, and some further footage of it stationary at the scene. This footage did not show the manner of driving, but the Accident investigator was able to stage a reconstruction, using the accident vehicle.
Despite all these efforts, the fastest speed that was calculated for the Golf was in the mid-30s. The speed limit on that road was 30MPH, so we could only prove that he was marginally over the speed limit.
When we'd finally arrested Hussain and I got the opportunity to interview him, there was no way that he would admit driving dangerously on the day. He admitted everything else - that he was driving, that he failed to stop, etc, etc, but he wouldn't admit driving dangerously. Just to give you a little insight into the mindset of people like Hussain, I asked him if he had a licence, and he said that he used to have a provisional, but he lost it several years ago. I asked him if he'd ever taken a driving test and he said that no, he hadn't. I then asked him if he thought he was a good driver (an essential point in dangerous driving cases), to which he replied that, yes, he thought he was a good driver - this was because, when he had some lessons about 5 years previously, his instructor told him he was ready for his test.
Combine this lack of evidence with CCTV footage which showed that the child's mother hadn't really taken sufficient care of the child on her journey out of town, and that she was around 10 yards behind her mother as they crossed the road, and you can see that we were starting to struggle.
We went to the senior Crown Prosecutor with a very detailed file, but some fairly flimsy evidence (despite our best efforts), and their decision was that there was insufficient evidence to support a charge of causing death by dangerous driving, for the simple reason that we couldn't prove that his driving was dangerous.
Believe me, a decision like that isn't taken lightly, and after all the work we'd done, it wasn't one we were happy with, but I did understand the reasoning behind it. He was charged with the less serious offence of careless driving (there is still no offence of causing death by careless driving), together with no driving licence, no insurance, failing to stop after an accident and handling stolen goods (the car).
He pleaded guilty to all offences at his first appearance, and as is the law, the bench had to give him credit for an early guilty plea, hence the almost laughable 12 week prison sentence he recieved. This was, in reality, the maximum sentence that the bench could pass - they actually apologised to the child's family in court, but that was it - the most they could sentence him to was 12 weeks.
The press, however, decided immediately that it was the fault of the Police and the CPS. This really wasn't the case - we can only ever go with the evidence we've got and in this case, it didn't support the more serious offence of causing death by dangerous driving. If he had been charged with that offence, I'm in no doubt that a jury would have aquitted him.
Two little asides to the story which might interest you though.
Firstly, Hussain had only recently been released from a substantial prison sentance, on licence. The first thing we did was to have his licence revoked, and so, despite the 12 week sentence for the accident, he actually went back inside for another 18 months - he only got out a few weeks ago.
Secondly, at the scene of the accident, a little shrine appeared - you know the type of thing - flowers, teddies and sympathy cards left near to the scene. Now, one of the local low-lifes was arrested a few days later after he had stolen a teddy from this little shrine. His sentence? 4 months in prison - 4 weeks longer than the driver who killed the child.
R_U_LOCAL said:
I was the officer in the case for the Levi Bleasdale fatal, so I think I'm better placed than most to put some perspective on the case. It's also no longer subject to subjudice, so I can discuss it openly.
It was nowhere near as simple as the press made out at the time (surprise surprise). Believe me, my colleagues and I worked our proverbial nuts off to secure a charge of causing death by dangerous driving against Hussain, but the evidence simply wasn't there. Yes, he was an unlicenced, uninsured driver in a stolen car who failed to stop after killing a child. In itself, this sounds bad enough, but we truly, desperately wanted to charge him with the most serious offence - causing death by dangerous driving. To bring such a charge, we had to prove that Hussain's driving was dangerous, and that there was a causal link between that dangerous driving and the child's death.
We had plenty of witnesses who were on foot nearby at the time of the accident. Their view was almost universally the same - they saw a black car set off up that road, and that it was making a loud noise. This isn't surprising as the Golf had a loud aftermarket exhaust fitted to it, so it would be loud even at 30MPH. There were no tyre marks at the scene, because Hussain hadn't braked hard enough to either lock the wheels or to activate the ABS. The only evidence the Accident Investigator had to work with was a very small amount of damage to the front of the Golf.
We also had some CCTV footage of the Golf as it entered the road, and some further footage of it stationary at the scene. This footage did not show the manner of driving, but the Accident investigator was able to stage a reconstruction, using the accident vehicle.
Despite all these efforts, the fastest speed that was calculated for the Golf was in the mid-30s. The speed limit on that road was 30MPH, so we could only prove that he was marginally over the speed limit.
When we'd finally arrested Hussain and I got the opportunity to interview him, there was no way that he would admit driving dangerously on the day. He admitted everything else - that he was driving, that he failed to stop, etc, etc, but he wouldn't admit driving dangerously. Just to give you a little insight into the mindset of people like Hussain, I asked him if he had a licence, and he said that he used to have a provisional, but he lost it several years ago. I asked him if he'd ever taken a driving test and he said that no, he hadn't. I then asked him if he thought he was a good driver (an essential point in dangerous driving cases), to which he replied that, yes, he thought he was a good driver - this was because, when he had some lessons about 5 years previously, his instructor told him he was ready for his test.
Combine this lack of evidence with CCTV footage which showed that the child's mother hadn't really taken sufficient care of the child on her journey out of town, and that she was around 10 yards behind her mother as they crossed the road, and you can see that we were starting to struggle.
We went to the senior Crown Prosecutor with a very detailed file, but some fairly flimsy evidence (despite our best efforts), and their decision was that there was insufficient evidence to support a charge of causing death by dangerous driving, for the simple reason that we couldn't prove that his driving was dangerous.
Believe me, a decision like that isn't taken lightly, and after all the work we'd done, it wasn't one we were happy with, but I did understand the reasoning behind it. He was charged with the less serious offence of careless driving (there is still no offence of causing death by careless driving), together with no driving licence, no insurance, failing to stop after an accident and handling stolen goods (the car).
He pleaded guilty to all offences at his first appearance, and as is the law, the bench had to give him credit for an early guilty plea, hence the almost laughable 12 week prison sentence he recieved. This was, in reality, the maximum sentence that the bench could pass - they actually apologised to the child's family in court, but that was it - the most they could sentence him to was 12 weeks.
The press, however, decided immediately that it was the fault of the Police and the CPS. This really wasn't the case - we can only ever go with the evidence we've got and in this case, it didn't support the more serious offence of causing death by dangerous driving. If he had been charged with that offence, I'm in no doubt that a jury would have aquitted him.
Two little asides to the story which might interest you though.
Firstly, Hussain had only recently been released from a substantial prison sentance, on licence. The first thing we did was to have his licence revoked, and so, despite the 12 week sentence for the accident, he actually went back inside for another 18 months - he only got out a few weeks ago.
Secondly, at the scene of the accident, a little shrine appeared - you know the type of thing - flowers, teddies and sympathy cards left near to the scene. Now, one of the local low-lifes was arrested a few days later after he had stolen a teddy from this little shrine. His sentence? 4 months in prison - 4 weeks longer than the driver who killed the child.
R U, id like to thankyou for showing the heart and compassion you have above, its a credit to you, as much as it is an utter damnation of this countries outmoded legal system. Its good to know that folk in your job care as much as you clearly do. I wont make a snide aside by suggesting that its a shame there arent more of you, im just thankful that i now consider there to be one more decent worthwhile influence in an otherwise seemingly draconian force.
10 pence, i have no idea if you can read this, or if you are able to receive mails, but if you can please feel free to drop me a mail at any time, id be happy to help you with anything i can in any way, even if its just a bit of rubbish email company from time to time. im sure that plenty of phers feel the same way.
were all here for you and were all thinking of you mate: youre a good person whose suffered bad luck, never allow yourself to think otherwise because of the sharp contrast that our ridiculous law allocates.
stay strong, friend.
I do think it's pretty shocking the difference between those two sentences... R U Local, thanks for sharing, it's interesting to know more information.
Anyone got any idea how long 10 pence short will end up serving, I'm guessing it'll be nothing like 12 months? Hope if you can read this you're doing okay, could have happened to a lot of us!
Anyone got any idea how long 10 pence short will end up serving, I'm guessing it'll be nothing like 12 months? Hope if you can read this you're doing okay, could have happened to a lot of us!
angrys3owner said:
I do think it's pretty shocking the difference between those two sentences... R U Local, thanks for sharing, it's interesting to know more information.
Anyone got any idea how long 10 pence short will end up serving, I'm guessing it'll be nothing like 12 months? Hope if you can read this you're doing okay, could have happened to a lot of us!
Anyone got any idea how long 10 pence short will end up serving, I'm guessing it'll be nothing like 12 months? Hope if you can read this you're doing okay, could have happened to a lot of us!
Probably 3 - 4 months, then a period of a couple of months on home detention, followed by 6 months on licence.
R_U_LOCAL said:
angrys3owner said:
I do think it's pretty shocking the difference between those two sentences... R U Local, thanks for sharing, it's interesting to know more information.
Anyone got any idea how long 10 pence short will end up serving, I'm guessing it'll be nothing like 12 months? Hope if you can read this you're doing okay, could have happened to a lot of us!
Anyone got any idea how long 10 pence short will end up serving, I'm guessing it'll be nothing like 12 months? Hope if you can read this you're doing okay, could have happened to a lot of us!
Probably 3 - 4 months, then a period of a couple of months on home detention, followed by 6 months on licence.
i should think most of the damage will have been done by then. that'll learn him for making a mistake.
plus, its saves us keeping the beds free for killers. this way, we can justify washing the sheets without having to worry about having the wrong sort of people on them.
I'm quite surprised at some of the comments on this thread.
Tine and time again, I read comments from people who are fervently anti-speed camera, who think that the Police shouldn't be wasting their time prosecuting people for minor motoring offences, and that they should, instead, be putting more effort into catching and convicting the most serious road offenders.
In this case, a driver has been convicted of the second most serious offence in the road traffic act, but because he's a member of our "club", and an enthusiast, then it's disgusting that he's been gaoled, and an appalling waste of time.
Get a grip people.
10 Pence Short has actually posted far more sense on the subject than a lot of people who have commented. He's accepted his mistake and taken it on the chin.
I think some of the "it's not right" commentators on this thread should have a serious think about what action they expect to be taken after a serious accident.
Tine and time again, I read comments from people who are fervently anti-speed camera, who think that the Police shouldn't be wasting their time prosecuting people for minor motoring offences, and that they should, instead, be putting more effort into catching and convicting the most serious road offenders.
In this case, a driver has been convicted of the second most serious offence in the road traffic act, but because he's a member of our "club", and an enthusiast, then it's disgusting that he's been gaoled, and an appalling waste of time.
Get a grip people.
10 Pence Short has actually posted far more sense on the subject than a lot of people who have commented. He's accepted his mistake and taken it on the chin.
I think some of the "it's not right" commentators on this thread should have a serious think about what action they expect to be taken after a serious accident.
R_U_LOCAL said:
I'm quite surprised at some of the comments on this thread.
Tine and time again, I read comments from people who are fervently anti-speed camera, who think that the Police shouldn't be wasting their time prosecuting people for minor motoring offences, and that they should, instead, be putting more effort into catching and convicting the most serious road offenders.
In this case, a driver has been convicted of the second most serious offence in the road traffic act, but because he's a member of our "club", and an enthusiast, then it's disgusting that he's been gaoled, and an appalling waste of time.
Get a grip people.
10 Pence Short has actually posted far more sense on the subject than a lot of people who have commented. He's accepted his mistake and taken it on the chin.
I think some of the "it's not right" commentators on this thread should have a serious think about what action they expect to be taken after a serious accident.
Tine and time again, I read comments from people who are fervently anti-speed camera, who think that the Police shouldn't be wasting their time prosecuting people for minor motoring offences, and that they should, instead, be putting more effort into catching and convicting the most serious road offenders.
In this case, a driver has been convicted of the second most serious offence in the road traffic act, but because he's a member of our "club", and an enthusiast, then it's disgusting that he's been gaoled, and an appalling waste of time.
Get a grip people.
10 Pence Short has actually posted far more sense on the subject than a lot of people who have commented. He's accepted his mistake and taken it on the chin.
I think some of the "it's not right" commentators on this thread should have a serious think about what action they expect to be taken after a serious accident.
i dont think thats it at all R U, i think its more the huge disparity between 'crime' and 'punishment' in differing cases. for me, the worst sentences shouldnt be handed out to those that can be easiest proven.
again, i commend you for your integrity and dedication, and im confident that you feel as wretched that someone who clearly has an utter disregard for others safety can get less of a sentence than someone who made a mistake as 'we' do.
but, this doesnt make it any easier to stomach.
Edited by nervous on Sunday 22 April 23:43
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff