Charged with GBH following RTA
Discussion
Panamax said:
While there is a specific offence of "causing death by dangerous driving" (essentially recklessness) with very heavy penalties there is no equivalent offence of "causing injury by dangerous driving".
Really?https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/secti...
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/secti...
Teddy Lop said:
Not me, someone I know. Charged after unavoidable collision with ped who ran out without looking. Is this a normal thing to occur? It all sounds pretty off to me; sorry I can't offer much more for obvious reasons.
As above, in theory you could be charged with GBH on the basis of reckless driving, in practice for it to be charged as GBB rather than a specific driving offence implies that it's being treated as deliberate, or at least a level of recklessness that goes way beyond "normal" bad driving. I suspect there's more to the story here than either you've been told, or than you're letting on.Aretnap said:
Really?
Thanks, it's an area where various offences overlap and carry different penalties. Typically the Road Traffic Act offences have a lighter burden of proof and less severe penalties.The Crown Prosecution service says, "where a vehicle has been used as a weapon to cause injury, assault charges contrary to section 18, section 20 or section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (such as GBH) should always be charged, rather than RTA offences".
Panamax said:
Canon_Fodder said:
quality lawyer required for the OPs friend as this prison if convicted is in jail
Hopefully the friend will have ticked the "add motor legal protection" box when arranging his car insurance, which should help pay for an appropriate level of legal representation.Teddy Lop said:
Not me, someone I know. Charged after unavoidable collision with ped who ran out without looking. Is this a normal thing to occur? It all sounds pretty off to me; sorry I can't offer much more for obvious reasons.
It's certainly not a normal thing to happen. If it genuinely was an unavoidable collision where the pedestrian has run out without looking then the driver shouldn't be getting charged with anything.Is it possible that this has been a very minor collision then an altercation after the event is what's resulted in the GBH charge?
siremoon said:
Canon_Fodder said:
quality lawyer required for the OPs friend as this prison if convicted is in jail
nothing more to be gained on here apert from recs for specialist law firms
OT. Ah yes, the beauty of the written word. I particularly enjoyed "as this prison if convicted is in jail"nothing more to be gained on here apert from recs for specialist law firms
I’d guess there’s a lot more to the story, perhaps a bump and the OPs friend getting a tad angry.
I'm looking for nothing more than thoughts as it all seems fishy. He already has a solicitor.
Harry Rule said:
It's certainly not a normal thing to happen. If it genuinely was an unavoidable collision where the pedestrian has run out without looking then the driver shouldn't be getting charged with anything.
Is it possible that this has been a very minor collision then an altercation after the event is what's resulted in the GBH charge?
Nope. There's a possibility he didn't do himself many favours in how he conducted himself around the fuzz but there's absolutely no way he did anything deliberate during or after. It's preposterous, but the manner of the police in how and when they interrogated him suggests they believe otherwise.Is it possible that this has been a very minor collision then an altercation after the event is what's resulted in the GBH charge?
Teddy Lop said:
I'm looking for nothing more than thoughts as it all seems fishy. He already has a solicitor.
It would be incredibly unusual for the police to charge someone with S18 Wounding without clear evidence to that effect. Did he perhaps make a statement that he deliberately caused the collision because of something the other driver did?Harry Rule said:
It's certainly not a normal thing to happen. If it genuinely was an unavoidable collision where the pedestrian has run out without looking then the driver shouldn't be getting charged with anything.
Is it possible that this has been a very minor collision then an altercation after the event is what's resulted in the GBH charge?
Nope. There's a possibility he didn't do himself many favours in how he conducted himself around the fuzz but there's absolutely no way he did anything deliberate during or after. It's preposterous, but the manner of the police in how and when they interrogated him suggests they believe otherwise.Is it possible that this has been a very minor collision then an altercation after the event is what's resulted in the GBH charge?
This reminds me of that 24 hours in police custody case where the guy drove after and chased two scumbags and ended up doing Bird.
Don't sound right to me though if it was an accident, are there any witnesses/evidence to prove otherwise at the moment?
Does he have previous? All things you've not told us OP.
Don't sound right to me though if it was an accident, are there any witnesses/evidence to prove otherwise at the moment?
Does he have previous? All things you've not told us OP.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff