Unbebl00dylievable
Discussion
Family in talks to bring car killer to justice
Aug 19 2002
By The Evening Chronicle
Hit and run victim James Mulligan's son today demanded his killer be put on trial.
The Chronicle revealed how two men arrested after the pensioner was mown down will not be charged.
But Keith Mulligan, 50, of Greenbourne Gardens, Gateshead,
said he was holding talks with the Crown Prosecution Service over why no action has been taken over his father's death on May 1.
A private prosecution is also being considered by the family.
Mr Mulligan said: "This has been 15 weeks of agony for my family and now it is about time somebody explained why there will be no justice for my dad."
James Mulligan, 73, died when a car mounted the pavement as he stood at a bus stop in Albion Street just yards from his home in Millbrook, High Heworth, Gateshead.
His friend and neighbour Ivy Clark, 84, also suffered a head injury and multiple bruises but made a recovery after hospital treatment.
The occupants of the silver Ford Sierra involved in the accident fled the scene afterwards.
Two men aged 18 and 20 were arrested and questioned on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.
But although both admitted being in the car, neither admitted to being the driver and no witnesses could be traced.
Mr Mulligan added: "Our family are devastated. The criminal justice system just gives people the right to do what was done to my dad.
"Because the two men were blaming each other, the CPS do not have enough evidence and they have got off scot-free.
"If neither of them will admit it, why can't they both be charged?"
An inquest into Mr Mulligan's death is likely to be held in November, when the two suspects could be called to give evidence.
The CPS said a charge of causing death by dangerous driving required proof of who was driving.
A spokesman said: "Either of the two men in the car could have been driving. Neither would say who was driving.
"We know they were in the car and we know that the car was being driven dangerously.
"But we can't prove who was driving and there are no ndependent witnesses. Having been in the car is not a criminal offence."
The CPS has also ruled out prosecuting one or both men for
perverting the course of justice.
Mr Mulligan's daughters, Caroline and Tracey, were left stunned by the news that the two men would not be charged.
The latter said: "I'm really, really angry. It's as if they've just knocked a cat over - it's just nothing. But he was our dad and I'm going to miss him."
The pensioner, a widower for 25 years, spent most of his working life as a driver at the Monkton cokeworks in South Tyneside.
Aug 19 2002
By The Evening Chronicle
Hit and run victim James Mulligan's son today demanded his killer be put on trial.
The Chronicle revealed how two men arrested after the pensioner was mown down will not be charged.
But Keith Mulligan, 50, of Greenbourne Gardens, Gateshead,
said he was holding talks with the Crown Prosecution Service over why no action has been taken over his father's death on May 1.
A private prosecution is also being considered by the family.
Mr Mulligan said: "This has been 15 weeks of agony for my family and now it is about time somebody explained why there will be no justice for my dad."
James Mulligan, 73, died when a car mounted the pavement as he stood at a bus stop in Albion Street just yards from his home in Millbrook, High Heworth, Gateshead.
His friend and neighbour Ivy Clark, 84, also suffered a head injury and multiple bruises but made a recovery after hospital treatment.
The occupants of the silver Ford Sierra involved in the accident fled the scene afterwards.
Two men aged 18 and 20 were arrested and questioned on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.
But although both admitted being in the car, neither admitted to being the driver and no witnesses could be traced.
Mr Mulligan added: "Our family are devastated. The criminal justice system just gives people the right to do what was done to my dad.
"Because the two men were blaming each other, the CPS do not have enough evidence and they have got off scot-free.
"If neither of them will admit it, why can't they both be charged?"
An inquest into Mr Mulligan's death is likely to be held in November, when the two suspects could be called to give evidence.
The CPS said a charge of causing death by dangerous driving required proof of who was driving.
A spokesman said: "Either of the two men in the car could have been driving. Neither would say who was driving.
"We know they were in the car and we know that the car was being driven dangerously.
"But we can't prove who was driving and there are no ndependent witnesses. Having been in the car is not a criminal offence."
The CPS has also ruled out prosecuting one or both men for
perverting the course of justice.
Mr Mulligan's daughters, Caroline and Tracey, were left stunned by the news that the two men would not be charged.
The latter said: "I'm really, really angry. It's as if they've just knocked a cat over - it's just nothing. But he was our dad and I'm going to miss him."
The pensioner, a widower for 25 years, spent most of his working life as a driver at the Monkton cokeworks in South Tyneside.
Well, you can only charge em if you have enough evidence to reasonably assume you can get a result.
The defence briefs would run rings round the "well one of you must have done it!" arguement. Since they can't prove the driver identity, they can't even charge the other one as an accessory.
Thats justice for you. And I mean that in a positive way. The law is clear, it's the police/prosecution who have to provide the evidence and if they cannot well it's tough. Likewise the defence has to do it's best to defend - it's their duty. (although when this rule was made I don't think the powers fully appreciated the impact that "scumbag" type lawyers would have on the workings of the system)
The problem lies in society as a whole, since any legal system relys upon basic respect for the law by the majority of the populace.
For a huge number of reasons most people feel alienated from the legal process today - this case and the reaction to it is a classic example of that malaise.
The risk is we will end up with society becoming more angry, bypassing the courts and preparing to meet out its own justice via Bertie Baseball bat (or worse)
Rahter simplistically (perhaps) I blame 40 years of bleading heart, hand wringing, whineing, anti hanging, anti establishment, anti victim, pro perpatator, mealy mouthed, excuse proffering, do gooder type liberals, (accelerated greatly over the past 5 years)
It seams to me that EVERYONE know about their "RIGHTS" in society today, but precious few are prepared to live up to the "RESPOSIBILITIES" to society that should go hand in glove with those "rights".
IMHO of course!
Andy 400se
The defence briefs would run rings round the "well one of you must have done it!" arguement. Since they can't prove the driver identity, they can't even charge the other one as an accessory.
Thats justice for you. And I mean that in a positive way. The law is clear, it's the police/prosecution who have to provide the evidence and if they cannot well it's tough. Likewise the defence has to do it's best to defend - it's their duty. (although when this rule was made I don't think the powers fully appreciated the impact that "scumbag" type lawyers would have on the workings of the system)
The problem lies in society as a whole, since any legal system relys upon basic respect for the law by the majority of the populace.
For a huge number of reasons most people feel alienated from the legal process today - this case and the reaction to it is a classic example of that malaise.
The risk is we will end up with society becoming more angry, bypassing the courts and preparing to meet out its own justice via Bertie Baseball bat (or worse)
Rahter simplistically (perhaps) I blame 40 years of bleading heart, hand wringing, whineing, anti hanging, anti establishment, anti victim, pro perpatator, mealy mouthed, excuse proffering, do gooder type liberals, (accelerated greatly over the past 5 years)
It seams to me that EVERYONE know about their "RIGHTS" in society today, but precious few are prepared to live up to the "RESPOSIBILITIES" to society that should go hand in glove with those "rights".
IMHO of course!
Andy 400se
I think its bloody outrageous to think that these scroates get away with murder simply because the courts can't proove who was driving .... If they cant make up their minds then they are already commiting purgery(sp)FFS, BUT, speed and they charge the owner of the car in cases of unknown driver!
Not murder, but another example.
Was woken up by the sound of thunder, which turned out to be three lads on a building plot pushing over the 2nd story walls of a large house being built close to us.
The 7 bedroomed house was being built by the same guys that built the Emmerdale set and the stonework didn't come cheap. Called the police and the scrotes were arrested (this was the statisfying bit). In court, only one guy turned up - (they pleaded guilty and got a telling off cause they were 'underage') - respectable parents in tow, his brief got him off by pleading 'he might have been there but didn't take part in the destruction' (est, £70,000). He too got away scott free. Surely trespass? - nope he walked away...
Little Fu
even laughed and stuck a finger up at the prosecution as he left.
Was woken up by the sound of thunder, which turned out to be three lads on a building plot pushing over the 2nd story walls of a large house being built close to us.
The 7 bedroomed house was being built by the same guys that built the Emmerdale set and the stonework didn't come cheap. Called the police and the scrotes were arrested (this was the statisfying bit). In court, only one guy turned up - (they pleaded guilty and got a telling off cause they were 'underage') - respectable parents in tow, his brief got him off by pleading 'he might have been there but didn't take part in the destruction' (est, £70,000). He too got away scott free. Surely trespass? - nope he walked away...
Little Fu
even laughed and stuck a finger up at the prosecution as he left.quote:
Well, you can only charge em if you have enough evidence to reasonably assume you can get a result.
Another point which I think is valid - the law cannot, for the purposes of this prosecution, force one of them to admit he was driving. If however the car had passed through a speed camera and triggered it . . . .
In which case do you think it would be in society's interests to ignore the Human Rights Act? Astonishingly, not the one where someone has died. Summat not right here.
This sort of event is deeply irritating. Yes I am devastated that the guilty party is getting away with manslaughter...and has caused untold grief and suffering to the man's family.
But I am hugely cheesed that its possible for these scrotes to use the old "Right to Silence" and someone getting caught on a Speed Camera can't.
Unfcukingbelievable.
I am so sorry for the poor man and his family...
But I am hugely cheesed that its possible for these scrotes to use the old "Right to Silence" and someone getting caught on a Speed Camera can't.
Unfcukingbelievable.
I am so sorry for the poor man and his family...
Another point which I think is valid - the law cannot, for the purposes of this prosecution, force one of them to admit he was driving. If however the car had passed through a speed camera and triggered it . . . .
So, the fact that the car mounted the pavement and killed a man and seriously injured another person is not enough evidence to liken "triggering the camera" I dont buy that!
Excuse my ignorance and simple mindedness but I think there is anough of a crime here to have prosecuted them under some law, maybe not murder, Manslaugter .. reckless endangerment, Illegal parking ... the list is endless, NOTHING?????????????
If anyone could think of a crime that had been committed by BOTH PEOPLE IN THE CAR, then I'm sure the CPS would be bringing a prosecution. The whole point is that ONLY ONE OF THEM was (a) driving wrecklessly (b) committed murder/manslaughter (c) would be committing perjury during a trial (d) trying to pervert the course of justice.
The passenger in the car is not doing any of these things.
The CPS can't prove who was driving, therefore there is no point bring a case. If anyone can suggest how this could be otherwise without a credible independent witness, then this incedent doesn't have any implications at all for the justice system.
The passenger in the car is not doing any of these things.
The CPS can't prove who was driving, therefore there is no point bring a case. If anyone can suggest how this could be otherwise without a credible independent witness, then this incedent doesn't have any implications at all for the justice system.
I agree that there should be something.... rather than it just being left as it is, but imagine this.
You're slightly dodgy mate asks for a go in your car. You hesitantly agree, it's only an old Sierra after all. He drives like a scrote, the result being a hit and run resulting in a fatality. You make the mistake of panicking and running. You're caught and realising your stupidity make every attempt to assist the police and promptly let them know it was your dodgy ex-mate driving. Too late he's done the same and the fingers been pointed at you. Now you've got the situation here. As the owner who mistakenly let his friend drive, and then panicked, should you go to prison for manslaughter?
What do the courts do? Try an innocent man? Try the registered owner? In this case still an innocent man.
The facts as reported I think indicate that both most likely deserve to go to prison, but can you be sure.
It all seems to depend what risk of a sentencing mistake you're happy to live with in society. I guess in the case of a speed camera the injustice of the registered owner being incorrectly hit for a speeding ticket is considered OK to live with. Whereas being sentenced for dangerous driving and/or manslaughter isn't.
Can't see an easy solution myself, and it still leaves a disgusting aftertaste... but what realistically could you do?
I'd hate to think that that kind of trial could occur. What if you're wife was cheating on you. You have a big row in the car and as a result she runs someone over. It's your car, but she's insured. She hates you and wants to run off with the new man. So she says you were driving. Would you want to go to prison for manslaughter because you were both in the car and your soon to be ex-wife hates you. Hardly fair yet that would be the outcome if we did blanket prosecute both of these scrotes.
Maybe they should be undergo lie-detector testing, hynoptic interrogation, torture(!!) until one admits...
P.S. Sorry to go on a bit...
>> Edited by phil1 on Thursday 29th August 12:34
You're slightly dodgy mate asks for a go in your car. You hesitantly agree, it's only an old Sierra after all. He drives like a scrote, the result being a hit and run resulting in a fatality. You make the mistake of panicking and running. You're caught and realising your stupidity make every attempt to assist the police and promptly let them know it was your dodgy ex-mate driving. Too late he's done the same and the fingers been pointed at you. Now you've got the situation here. As the owner who mistakenly let his friend drive, and then panicked, should you go to prison for manslaughter?
What do the courts do? Try an innocent man? Try the registered owner? In this case still an innocent man.
The facts as reported I think indicate that both most likely deserve to go to prison, but can you be sure.
It all seems to depend what risk of a sentencing mistake you're happy to live with in society. I guess in the case of a speed camera the injustice of the registered owner being incorrectly hit for a speeding ticket is considered OK to live with. Whereas being sentenced for dangerous driving and/or manslaughter isn't.
Can't see an easy solution myself, and it still leaves a disgusting aftertaste... but what realistically could you do?
I'd hate to think that that kind of trial could occur. What if you're wife was cheating on you. You have a big row in the car and as a result she runs someone over. It's your car, but she's insured. She hates you and wants to run off with the new man. So she says you were driving. Would you want to go to prison for manslaughter because you were both in the car and your soon to be ex-wife hates you. Hardly fair yet that would be the outcome if we did blanket prosecute both of these scrotes.
Maybe they should be undergo lie-detector testing, hynoptic interrogation, torture(!!) until one admits...
P.S. Sorry to go on a bit...
>> Edited by phil1 on Thursday 29th August 12:34
quote:
Another point which I think is valid - the law cannot, for the purposes of this prosecution, force one of them to admit he was driving. If however the car had passed through a speed camera and triggered it . . . .
In which case do you think it would be in society's interests to ignore the Human Rights Act? Astonishingly, not the one where someone has died. Summat not right here.
Is there not a right-minded lawyer in the land who likes his motors who couldn't have a field day with this one?
It is surely a CLASSIC example of 'the system' appearing to work against an aghast majority...
Still, if they're in Gateshead, there's enough local 'talent' to trace the driver and give him a brief lesson in the relationship 'twixt human bouyancy, some missing concrete and the Tyne estuary.
I first saw this on GMTV this morning - they said there was a witness who saw which one was driving 90 seconds earlier, but the CPS decided they could have theoretically changed drivers before hitting the old man. The paper doesn't mention this, maybe the witness was not independent enuf (such as a friend/relative of the deceased's family).
quote
Still, if they're in Gateshead, there's enough local 'talent' to trace the driver and give him a brief lesson in the relationship 'twixt human bouyancy, some missing concrete and the Tyne estuary.
Derestrictor,.. I agree with you 100%!...
This is the only way any sort of justice can be done. The CPS are in the tricky situation of only being able to put cases up for trial that they think they can win. If they spend wads of money on this case and loose, then the funding will not be available for the next worthy case to come along.
All down to money again,... makes you sick.
Still, if they're in Gateshead, there's enough local 'talent' to trace the driver and give him a brief lesson in the relationship 'twixt human bouyancy, some missing concrete and the Tyne estuary.
Derestrictor,.. I agree with you 100%!...
This is the only way any sort of justice can be done. The CPS are in the tricky situation of only being able to put cases up for trial that they think they can win. If they spend wads of money on this case and loose, then the funding will not be available for the next worthy case to come along.
All down to money again,... makes you sick.
So now the mob is going to go out and beat-up/kill one guilty man and just for good measure one innocent man. Regardless of whether they're scrotes how can you justify your intent to commit murder?
There must be some way of generating a reasonable level of belief about which was driving. Interrogation, earlier witnesses, etc. It's just then a case of whether that is enough, without concrete proof.
I say accept reasonable level of belief, rather than requiring absolute proof of who was driving in this case.
There must be some way of generating a reasonable level of belief about which was driving. Interrogation, earlier witnesses, etc. It's just then a case of whether that is enough, without concrete proof.
I say accept reasonable level of belief, rather than requiring absolute proof of who was driving in this case.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff