Justice or not?
Discussion
Would you have found her guilty of DD or the alternative of Driving without due care, if you were on a jury.
Sherrilyn Speid
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/range-rover-mum-driving...
I am surprised this did not go to Crown Court with a jury.
Sherrilyn Speid
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/range-rover-mum-driving...
I am surprised this did not go to Crown Court with a jury.
k road protesters.WonkeyDonkey said:
A car should never be used as a weapon, or even threatened to be used as one.
The roads are not yours, if someone is lying there you don't have the right to force them out the way because your self importance comes first!
The roads are for driving on,wether that's by motor vehicle,bike or horse.The pavements are for pedestrians.The roads are not yours, if someone is lying there you don't have the right to force them out the way because your self importance comes first!
Nothing to do with self importance,these protestors should be removed for causing an obstruction,instead we pander to them
V8covin said:
The roads are for driving on,wether that's by motor vehicle,bike or horse.The pavements are for pedestrians.
Nothing to do with self importance,these protestors should be removed for causing an obstruction,instead we pander to them
But that isn't down to the public to do in their cars is it? Nothing to do with self importance,these protestors should be removed for causing an obstruction,instead we pander to them
LosingGrip said:
Yes (from what I've seen). She's used her car to move someone. Quite clearly dangerous driving.
+1If you consider that the difference between her running those people over (especially in a Range Rover) or not is the deftness of her touch on the accelerator pedal, the verdict feels appropriate.
Also on a purely practical level she pleaded guilty (either under advisement or otherwise) to Dangerous Driving, so a ban was guaranteed as it's mandatory upon conviction.
Edited by Durzel on Monday 9th May 17:24
The way I see it is she's chosen to drive into someone who is very clearly in the way. If she's blaming this on some combination of meds or mental health conditions then I'd say she may not be fit to drive. What if she gets irritated with an errant child playing in the road, or a recovery driver blocking her path? I don't agree in any way about peoples protest blocking roads (I thought peaceful protest was allowed but have no idea what constitutes "peaceful") but you can't just shuffle someone with your car in the way she did. I agree she deserves some manner of punishment and maybe a ban allows her to get the help she needs while not in control of a vehicle. I also think the protesters deserve some form of punishment for their actions. Being ran over not one of those options though.
LosingGrip said:
Yes (from what I've seen). She's used her car to move someone. Quite clearly dangerous driving.
But did it meet the legal criteria:The offence of dangerous driving under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is committed when the defendant’s driving FALLS FAR BELLOW the standard expected of a competent and careful driver.
It was controled nudging forward and in complete control of the vehicle.
There would have been a right old battle in the Jury room. A jury may have come back with the lesser due care, but the legal team did not run it!
RazerSauber said:
The way I see it is she's chosen to drive into someone who is very clearly in the way. If she's blaming this on some combination of meds or mental health conditions then I'd say she may not be fit to drive. What if she gets irritated with an errant child playing in the road, or a recovery driver blocking her path? I don't agree in any way about peoples protest blocking roads (I thought peaceful protest was allowed but have no idea what constitutes "peaceful") but you can't just shuffle someone with your car in the way she did. I agree she deserves some manner of punishment and maybe a ban allows her to get the help she needs while not in control of a vehicle. I also think the protesters deserve some form of punishment for their actions. Being ran over not one of those options though.
But the facts are she did not run them over. She should be delt with for what she did nothing else.What planet are you on that you feel that using your car in such a manner, deliberately and recklessly, does NOT fall far below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver?
Incidentally, just because she didn't run any of them over, doesn't mean what she did wasn't dangerous. She would not have seen, for example, where any of them were from behind the wheel. What if one of them had led down and/or repositioned themselves?
It is utter madness to suggest that people using their cars in such a way is anything other than textbook dangerous driving.
EDIT: And don't give me this "its what happened that counts". otherwise we might as well not bother prosecuting drink drivers if they happen to make it home unscathed.
Incidentally, just because she didn't run any of them over, doesn't mean what she did wasn't dangerous. She would not have seen, for example, where any of them were from behind the wheel. What if one of them had led down and/or repositioned themselves?
It is utter madness to suggest that people using their cars in such a way is anything other than textbook dangerous driving.
EDIT: And don't give me this "its what happened that counts". otherwise we might as well not bother prosecuting drink drivers if they happen to make it home unscathed.
kestral said:
LosingGrip said:
Yes (from what I've seen). She's used her car to move someone. Quite clearly dangerous driving.
But did it meet the legal criteria:The offence of dangerous driving under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is committed when the defendant’s driving FALLS FAR BELLOW the standard expected of a competent and careful driver.
It was controled nudging forward and in complete control of the vehicle.
There would have been a right old battle in the Jury room. A jury may have come back with the lesser due care, but the legal team did not run it!
She couldn't see the women in front of her bumper. She moved forward and they started calling out in pain. She then moved forward again with no idea what was happening in front of the car.
The Range Rover could have easily gone over the top of the women if they didn't get pushed forward.
I'm not sure how anyone could say it wasn't dangerous.
V8covin said:
WonkeyDonkey said:
A car should never be used as a weapon, or even threatened to be used as one.
The roads are not yours, if someone is lying there you don't have the right to force them out the way because your self importance comes first!
The roads are for driving on,wether that's by motor vehicle,bike or horse.The pavements are for pedestrians.The roads are not yours, if someone is lying there you don't have the right to force them out the way because your self importance comes first!
Nothing to do with self importance,these protestors should be removed for causing an obstruction,instead we pander to them
Round here the locals walk on the lanes as there are no pavements. They have every right to be there.
And pedestrians crossing the road, likewise.
Should she have 'nudged' the protestors- absolutely no - and that is why she was charged.
But where were the police and why did they allow the protestors to commit an offence and then due to their inaction chase after the woman?
If the police actually responded and acted as the law requires there would be no need for vigilante action.
But it is so much easier to go after people who are generally law abiding, have a registration number etc, than a group of people determined to resist.
To quote the local police sergeant " Yes they are breaking the law, but if we go in the they will attack us, so talk to the council, maybe they can move them on...... of course no body did anything!
But where were the police and why did they allow the protestors to commit an offence and then due to their inaction chase after the woman?
If the police actually responded and acted as the law requires there would be no need for vigilante action.
But it is so much easier to go after people who are generally law abiding, have a registration number etc, than a group of people determined to resist.
To quote the local police sergeant " Yes they are breaking the law, but if we go in the they will attack us, so talk to the council, maybe they can move them on...... of course no body did anything!
Pete54 said:
Should she have 'nudged' the protestors- absolutely no - and that is why she was charged.
But where were the police and why did they allow the protestors to commit an offence and then due to their inaction chase after the woman?
If the police actually responded and acted as the law requires there would be no need for vigilante action.
But it is so much easier to go after people who are generally law abiding, have a registration number etc, than a group of people determined to resist.
To quote the local police sergeant " Yes they are breaking the law, but if we go in the they will attack us, so talk to the council, maybe they can move them on...... of course no body did anything!
Did he really say that ? That's patheticBut where were the police and why did they allow the protestors to commit an offence and then due to their inaction chase after the woman?
If the police actually responded and acted as the law requires there would be no need for vigilante action.
But it is so much easier to go after people who are generally law abiding, have a registration number etc, than a group of people determined to resist.
To quote the local police sergeant " Yes they are breaking the law, but if we go in the they will attack us, so talk to the council, maybe they can move them on...... of course no body did anything!
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff