Horses On The Roads - What's the Law?
Discussion
10 Pence Short said:
What I don't see in this case, is a suggestion that the independent witness is not independent.
Then perhaps that suggestion should have been made. But in any case we don't know what her evidence amounted to or how much weight was given to it. It may well be that she heard the car, that she heard the shouting, and that she heard the wheelspin, but as far as I know these things are not in dispute. So it may well be that whether she was independent or not, her evidence made no difference.Does anyone have access to a transcription of the trial?
10 Pence Short said:
Regarding the 'local' post above- I live in a very rural area. I have seen first hand, only last month, where people will give false statements to protect someone they know. In this instance, however, there was no evidence given to suggest the independent witness was lying.
I'm not suggesting she was (although it is a possiblity). But, from what we can gather, she didn't visually witness any of the event. She heard it from her garden, and it's easy to imagine that the most of what she heard was a noisy TVR (that probably sounded like it was doing 100mph to her), driving along, decelerating, we don't know for sure if she heard the verbal exchange or not, and then the noisy car speeding off again. She might well have an axe to grind about speeding motorists racing past 'her' corner, and that might have been enough for her to support the horse riders.Pretty much all witnesses to everything are biased in some way - purely because it's nature to form an opinion based on something they saw. That's why the police like to interview them as quickly as possible and get their initial statements before they've had too much time to think about/reflect on what they witnessed.
singlecoil said:
Well, is anyone claiming anything to the contrary? If he says she wasn't there (and certainly from the description of the events that we have been given, she wasn't, but was in fact some distance away) and no-one is saying that she was there, then perhaps it's safe to assume that she wasn't there?
But even if she was there, she wouldn't necessarily be independent. An independent witness is someone who has no interest in the outcome, and if she lives in a quiet country area, and the OP's son is in the habit of driving a noisy car past her house, then she will most definitely have an interest in the outcome. I'm not suggesting for a moment that she might have lied, just that a memory of an even, and a subsequent description of it will always have something of the attitude of the person in it.
Once again you keep repeating the same old stuff. But even if she was there, she wouldn't necessarily be independent. An independent witness is someone who has no interest in the outcome, and if she lives in a quiet country area, and the OP's son is in the habit of driving a noisy car past her house, then she will most definitely have an interest in the outcome. I'm not suggesting for a moment that she might have lied, just that a memory of an even, and a subsequent description of it will always have something of the attitude of the person in it.
I think the police will have asked her if she saw it, so will the defence, so will the prosecution and the. Out also believed her. The only person saying she wasn't there is the OP and he wasn't there either. How many times do we have to go over this?
As to the bit about having an interest. I don't like kiddy fiddlers or rapists or murderers or drunk drivers does that mean I can never be a witness in a case relating to those crimes ?
singlecoil said:
Then perhaps that suggestion should have been made. But in any case we don't know what her evidence amounted to or how much weight was given to it. It may well be that she heard the car, that she heard the shouting, and that she heard the wheelspin, but as far as I knowT these things are not in dispute. So it may well be that whether she was independent or not, her evidence made no difference.
Does anyone have access to a transcription of the trial?
The things you've described her as hearing are the actions that caused him to be found guilty. So now you're saying that the witness gave a true account and he was rightly convicted. Does anyone have access to a transcription of the trial?
This has gone beyond bordering on farcical and has now firmly landed in lab lab land.
singlecoil said:
.......The fact that the same sequence of events can be recalled differently by different people is an established fact, in situations where no-one has anything to gain from lying. ......
Very true. I have delivered presentations on how to conduct investigations and obviously accurate recording and interpretation of events is important. Sometimes I asked a colleague to walk in and either give me a verbal message or pass me something.Later, I would ask delegates to write down if anything unusual had happened and to describe the event in detail. People often recalled the wrong message or items, got the hair colour or clothing completely wrong. Bear in mind the audience were professional investigators of various types, so they knew the importance of accuracy.
Most people asked to give statements would not know they were about to witness an incident, nor would they be trained to be observant. Combine that with the possibility that they may be concerned or emotional about the incident (or about the process of being interviewed and providing a statement) and there is no wonder accounts vary. Also, there may be a delay before statements are taken, that can have an impact.
In fact, when I used to read cases for submission I was sometimes more concerned if statements were too similar!
singlecoil said:
No they are not. It's the interpretations of those things, plus the evidence given by the riders, that caused him to be found guilty.
He was found guilty. That is a matter of record. There was a fair trial where. Oth sides gave their version of events. If KF feels his son is the victim of a miscarriage of justice then he can appeal. You are making far too big a deal over KFs view that the witness made it all up.
You commented earlier on my ability to sit impartially on a jury. I would equally question yours if this is the thought process you go through.
Leaving aside the, no doubt pivotal, evidence of the independent witness, even the boy's father reluctantly acknowledges the nature and substance of the complaint.
Much of his argument centres on what he perceives as his son being wrongly accused of breaking the King Fisher Laws of Physics rather than being noisy, offensive and disruptive.
You're not King Fisher's dad by any chance? Defending the son who defends the son....
Much of his argument centres on what he perceives as his son being wrongly accused of breaking the King Fisher Laws of Physics rather than being noisy, offensive and disruptive.
You're not King Fisher's dad by any chance? Defending the son who defends the son....
I was reminded of this specific thread whilst out for a drive this morning - on a single track road and came up behind a group of 3 horses and riders heading in the same direction as me. They obviously heard me as they stopped at the side of the road, as did I until they waved me past and I went by in second gear, on the clutch and was given a cheery wave of appreciation. I was pretty careful not to accelerate away too harshly once I had gone by in case the horses got spooked.
Then saw another group about half a mile down the road, this time heading towards me so I stopped, turned the engine off and waved for them to come past. Again, I got a wave, a smile and a 'Thanks'.
It's really not that difficult for cars and horses to co-exist on narrow roads - I think they were grateful and it didn't inconvenience me in the slightest.
Then saw another group about half a mile down the road, this time heading towards me so I stopped, turned the engine off and waved for them to come past. Again, I got a wave, a smile and a 'Thanks'.
It's really not that difficult for cars and horses to co-exist on narrow roads - I think they were grateful and it didn't inconvenience me in the slightest.
LoonR1 said:
You are making far too big a deal over KFs view that the witness made it all up.
I didn't say that. It's going to be difficult to discuss this properly if you persist in exaggerating my position. It would be easy enough for me to exaggerate yours, but that's not the way I like to conduct an argument.I note that you are not responding to those posters who have also commented on well-documented witness unreliabilty.
Courts have to deal on a daily basis with the human witnesses and with all the imperfections of human memory. Do you suppose that magistrates are not aware that witnesses may be mistaken, or dishonest, or influenced by conscious or unconscious bias, or may have shared a story before giving evidence, or all or any of those things? All of those factors and possibilities are weighed when a court assesses evidence. The court in this case heard the evidence and was persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that the TVR driver was guilty of a public order offence. That's good enough for me, absent some compelling reason to doubt the decision. The trial process is fluid, organic, and unpredictable. It's not perfect, but almost nothing that involves humans is.
Breadvan72 said:
Courts have to deal on a daily basis with the human witnesses and with all the imperfections of human memory. Do you suppose that magistrates are not aware that witnesses may be mistaken, or dishonest, or influenced by conscious or unconscious bias, or may have shared a story before giving evidence, or all or any of those things? All of those factors and possibilities are weighed when a court assesses evidence. The court in this case heard the evidence and was persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that the TVR driver was guilty of a public order offence. That's good enough for me, absent some compelling reason to doubt the decision. The trial process is fluid, organic, and unpredictable. It's not perfect, but almost nothing that involves humans is.
I'm glad to hear it. I'm also glad to hear that you acknowledge that the process is not perfect. Some here seem to feel that the process is perfect, especially if it conviently supports a previously held attitude toward the OP and his son.What do you suggest: computerised courts? Having been a trial lawyer for over two decades, I observe that the trial process, itself the product of centuries of development, gets it right most of the time. I don't think that anyone here says that the process is perfect, but most of us are prepared to accept the decision of a court that heard the evidence and the arguments on the day. I gather that the TVR driver was represented at court, so his case was presumably put to the magistrates, and the evidence was tested by cross examination. The court preferred the prosecution case.
I am still curious to hear from the OP how his son's appeal might be going.
I am still curious to hear from the OP how his son's appeal might be going.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 22 April 14:43
Breadvan72 said:
What do you suggest: computerised courts? Having been a trial lawyer for over two decades, I observe that the trial process, itself the product of centuries of development, gets it right most of the time.
Not at all. I am suggesting that some of the more virulent posters here accept that although it's unlikely that the verdict was wrong, it's not impossible.It's not impossible, but it's far more likely that the verdict was the right verdict. The whole saga sounds trivial and ludicrous, and has wasted more than enough public and private resources. I wonder if the driver has is prepared to accept the decision and move on, or if he is he still intent on pursuing the case to the UN and back.
Breadvan72 said:
It's not impossible, but it's far more likely that the verdict was the right verdict.
Pretty much what I said. I've never claimed he was innocent. If I had been there I would know one way or the other, but I wasn't, so I don't. Neither does anybody else who wasn't there.singlecoil said:
Not at all. I am suggesting that some of the more virulent posters here accept that although it's unlikely that the verdict was wrong, it's not impossible.
I'm not debating with everyone primarily because I'm on an iPhone with a crap signal. Do I believe the courts are infallible? Of course not. Do I think they were mistaken here? Absolutely not.
Your point wasnt that originally though. It was that the OPs son had been badly treated and you've done nothing to convince me of that stance.
LoonR1 said:
Your point wasnt that originally though. It was that the OPs son had been badly treated and you've done nothing to convince me of that stance.
Show me where I said that. If you can't, it would suggest that you are making this argument up, both your and my sides, as you go along.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff