Pedestrian fatality 42 in a 30 - Speed Kills
Discussion
carinaman said:
Could the family attempt a private prosecution?
Yes. carinaman said:
Is there sufficient evidence there to suggest they may be successful if they went down that path?
It appears not. The CPS will stop a PP if they judge the full test code isn't met. Given the CPS initially, and upon appeal, concluded it not to be, then it'd seem likely they'd halt a PP.
ghe13rte said:
The IDR records can be corroborated by examination. All forms of corroboration do not need to be from a second device or reading. The nature of the records allows corroboration after the event. So there is corroboration if it is sought.
That's not corroboration. La Liga said:
Sa Calobra said:
As for the no comments, where's honesty, integrity and transparency.
That has nothing to do with it. If you want a full ‘fact finding’ approach, then remove the risk of prosecution. Whilst that exists, then it’s perectly reasonable to expect the officer to do what is best for them in the interview.
Again, except this time it isn’t tongue in check, no double standards when it comes to a suspect’s rights.
Sheepshanks said:
La Liga said:
Sa Calobra said:
As for the no comments, where's honesty, integrity and transparency.
That has nothing to do with it. If you want a full ‘fact finding’ approach, then remove the risk of prosecution. Whilst that exists, then it’s perectly reasonable to expect the officer to do what is best for them in the interview.
Again, except this time it isn’t tongue in check, no double standards when it comes to a suspect’s rights.
vonhosen said:
ghe13rte said:
vonhosen said:
ghe13rte said:
vonhosen said:
They have no corroboration for speeding, only one source that isn't an approved device for speed measurement.
Exceeding the limit itself isn't sufficient for careless driving, it has to be speed excessive for the circumstances.
The witnesses testify that the speed didn't appear excessive for the circumstances.
Where is it laid down that a speednmeasurement MUST come from an approved device or indeed that only approved devices may be used?Exceeding the limit itself isn't sufficient for careless driving, it has to be speed excessive for the circumstances.
The witnesses testify that the speed didn't appear excessive for the circumstances.
If you find that let us all know. I don’t believe you will though.
It could equally be one officer & an uncalibrated speedo.
The important thing there is corroboration, there isn't anything to corroborate the IDR data.
If the video had been working there would have been, what it wasn't.
The passenger might have corroborated it, but she couldn't because she didn't see it.
That's only really important for a potential speeding charge.
It wouldn't be the major deciding factor for a death by careless charge.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 22 July 11:20
(again this only really matters if you want to pursue a speeding charge, it's not necessary for a death by careless)
JimSuperSix said:
If the device in the vehicle shows he was speeding, and has been proven to be accurate, why would they not prosecute for death by careless / dangerous driving? I really cannot see how they think there is "no chance" of a successful prosecution.
Because exceeding the speed limit != careless driving.How much time and effort do the CPS need to go to for an SP30?
JimSuperSix said:
If the device in the vehicle shows he was speeding, and has been proven to be accurate, why would they not prosecute for death by careless / dangerous driving? I really cannot see how they think there is "no chance" of a successful prosecution.
Because exceeding the limit isn't automatically careless/dangerous driving.If it were considered so there'd never have been a need for the separate offence of exceeding the speed limit.
You have to look at that speed relative to the circumstances & the witnesses available said they didn't think he was driving too fast.
The IDR doesn't look at the conditions/circumstances, the other evidence provided does take that in to consideration.
Sheepshanks said:
That's understandable as far as prosecution is concerned, but he seems to have got off very lightly on the disciplinary - especially when your hear of Officers complaining about how harshly they can be treated.
At the misconduct level they need to decide whether it's a breach of standards of professional behaviour, or breach so serious that it'd lead to dismissal (misconduct vs gross misconduct). What are we left with at the misconduct stage? Put the death aside, would a 42 in a 30 usually amount to or be dealt with as due care? Of course not. A low-level excess speeding matter that can be dealt with via a Speed Awareness Course.
So it's only ever going to remain within the arena of misconduct after the CPS decision. The question is then how to deal with it from there. The tone of misconduct was changed when it was reformed a few years ago. It went from 'punishment and discipline' to 'learning and development'. His driving wasn't good enough so give him advice and a course to improve it.
It's worth noting the final conclusion of the IOPC investigator was that it being treated as misconduct was the correct thing to do (5 and 6): https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/sites/default/fil...
vonhosen said:
I think they've removed a lot of the 'middle ground' sanctions that are/were available discipline wise.
They did indeed. The available outcomes at a misconduct meeting are:-Management advice
-Written warning
-Final written warning.
The available outcomes at a misconduct hearing are:
-Management advice
-Written warning
-Final written warning
-Dismissal with notice
-Dismissal without notice.
JimSuperSix said:
If the device in the vehicle shows he was speeding, and has been proven to be accurate, why would they not prosecute for death by careless / dangerous driving? I really cannot see how they think there is "no chance" of a successful prosecution.
They don't say there's 'no chance', they say there's not a 'realistic chance'. How often is 41 in a 30 treated as due care?
TooMany2cvs said:
Because exceeding the speed limit != careless driving.
How often are minor excess speeding offences treated as due care? TooMany2cvs said:
How much time and effort do the CPS need to go to for an SP30?
I assume you're not talking about this case. La Liga said:
How often is 41 in a 30 treated as due care?
Virtually never.TooMany2cvs said:
Because exceeding the speed limit != careless driving.
How often are minor excess speeding offences treated as due care? La Liga said:
TooMany2cvs said:
How much time and effort do the CPS need to go to for an SP30?
I assume you're not talking about this case. There may or may not be proof of him exceeding the speed limit - so a prosecution resulting in an SP30 on his licence would be feasible. Woo.
Is there proof that he was driving in a manner that fell below the standard expected of a competent driver? Or driving that did not show reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or pathways? Remember that most of the witnesses said they didn't see a great issue, and the IPCC said that he could not have seen the pedestrian before he started to cross against the lights. That's going to be a much harder sell in court.
TooMany2cvs said:
La Liga said:
How often is 41 in a 30 treated as due care?
Virtually never.TooMany2cvs said:
Because exceeding the speed limit != careless driving.
How often are minor excess speeding offences treated as due care? La Liga said:
TooMany2cvs said:
How much time and effort do the CPS need to go to for an SP30?
I assume you're not talking about this case. There may or may not be proof of him exceeding the speed limit - so a prosecution resulting in an SP30 on his licence would be feasible. Woo.
Is there proof that he was driving in a manner that fell below the standard expected of a competent driver? Or driving that did not show reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or pathways? Remember that most of the witnesses said they didn't see a great issue, and the IPCC said that he could not have seen the pedestrian before he started to cross against the lights. That's going to be a much harder sell in court.
vonhosen said:
JimSuperSix said:
If the device in the vehicle shows he was speeding, and has been proven to be accurate, why would they not prosecute for death by careless / dangerous driving? I really cannot see how they think there is "no chance" of a successful prosecution.
Because exceeding the limit isn't automatically careless/dangerous driving.If it were considered so there'd never have been a need for the separate offence of exceeding the speed limit.
You have to look at that speed relative to the circumstances & the witnesses available said they didn't think he was driving too fast.
The IDR doesn't look at the conditions/circumstances, the other evidence provided does take that in to consideration.
JimSuperSix said:
vonhosen said:
JimSuperSix said:
If the device in the vehicle shows he was speeding, and has been proven to be accurate, why would they not prosecute for death by careless / dangerous driving? I really cannot see how they think there is "no chance" of a successful prosecution.
Because exceeding the limit isn't automatically careless/dangerous driving.If it were considered so there'd never have been a need for the separate offence of exceeding the speed limit.
You have to look at that speed relative to the circumstances & the witnesses available said they didn't think he was driving too fast.
The IDR doesn't look at the conditions/circumstances, the other evidence provided does take that in to consideration.
It can't be ruled a careless/dangerous speed without reference to the circumstances.
The witnesses & other evidence deal with speed relative to the conditions/circumstances.
The recording says he was going faster than the number on the stick. (Important for speeding offence where you have enough permissible evidence to satisfy the court). The court won't accept it was careless/dangerous without reference to conditions/circumstances.
The witnesses say the speed they observed wasn't excessive for the circumstances observed. (Both being important for offence of careless/dangerous where it's alleged it was so because of the speed. It's not about either one, speed or conditions, alone.)
JimSuperSix said:
He still managed to kill someone by hitting them at a speed that was above the legal limit, which apparently could be proved due to the black box and subsequent testing of it, that's what seems odd.
Not in legal terms it doesn't.He could hit someone & kill them whilst travelling below the speed limit. That could amount to careless/dangerous or not, but it would depend on the conditions/circumstances.
Likewise he could do the same whilst travelling above the speed limit & it would depend on the conditions/circumstances.
It's not above or below the limit in isolation that determines whether the driving was careless/dangerous. It requires reference to the conditions/circumstances whether it was below or above the speed limit.
If you forget about the outcome (death) for a second.
Would they be satisfied they had a careless driving in those conditions/circumstances if there had been no death?
If not they haven't despite there being a death.
Sheepshanks said:
vonhosen said:
Not in legal terms it doesn't.
He could hit someone & kill them whilst travelling below the speed limit. That could amount to careless/dangerous or not, but it would depend on the conditions/circumstances.
Speed generally seems to be critical in these things though - in another case near me a guy drove a van around a blind bend at 50MPH (the speed limit for the van) and T-boned a car pulling out of a junction with 30 metres visibility, killing the driver. At the inquest the police accident investigator said no blame could be attached to the van driver as he wasn't exceeding the speed limit.He could hit someone & kill them whilst travelling below the speed limit. That could amount to careless/dangerous or not, but it would depend on the conditions/circumstances.
And to go back to the Penrith case I linked to earlier, the lad must have admitted (he must have volunteered, but that detail isn't there) he was doing 30 in a 20 and he got 12 mths inside.
I've commented before in other threads that they way punishment varies on the outcome seems somewhat unfair to me. The lad doing 30 in a 20 (who hasn't done that, and more, as 20 limits become more common?) gets 12mths inside because a pedestrian unfortunately happened to stray in front of him. I don't see that the cop shouldn't be in exactly the same position.
Sorry - I'd deleted my post above while editing it.
You do seem to very focused on the witnesses, though - aren't witnesses notoriously unreliable? It's been shown the vehicle was doing 42 in a 30 yet they still think it wasn't going too fast. OK, it won't have looked shockingly fast, but how much did they see anyway, it was dark after all? And it's a biggish vehicle so that tends to mask speed a bit.
You do seem to very focused on the witnesses, though - aren't witnesses notoriously unreliable? It's been shown the vehicle was doing 42 in a 30 yet they still think it wasn't going too fast. OK, it won't have looked shockingly fast, but how much did they see anyway, it was dark after all? And it's a biggish vehicle so that tends to mask speed a bit.
Sheepshanks said:
You do seem to very focused on the witnesses, though - aren't witnesses notoriously unreliable? It's been shown the vehicle was doing 42 in a 30 yet they still think it wasn't going too fast. OK, it won't have looked shockingly fast, but how much did they see anyway, it was dark after all? And it's a biggish vehicle so that tends to mask speed a bit.
Sheepshanks said:
Sorry - I'd deleted my post above while editing it.
You do seem to very focused on the witnesses, though - aren't witnesses notoriously unreliable? It's been shown the vehicle was doing 42 in a 30 yet they still think it wasn't going too fast. OK, it won't have looked shockingly fast, but how much did they see anyway, it was dark after all? And it's a biggish vehicle so that tends to mask speed a bit.
Because the witnesses are likely a deciding factor for the CPS. You do seem to very focused on the witnesses, though - aren't witnesses notoriously unreliable? It's been shown the vehicle was doing 42 in a 30 yet they still think it wasn't going too fast. OK, it won't have looked shockingly fast, but how much did they see anyway, it was dark after all? And it's a biggish vehicle so that tends to mask speed a bit.
The prosecution have the measured speed, have a speed limit & the fact the driver didn't avoid a collision in the circumstances.
They have no witnesses to both the speed & the circumstances prevailing that say it was too fast.
Undermining it they have a reconstruction that says doing 42 or 30, with the clothing the pedestrian was wearing & acting as he did, the driver would no more likely have have seen him at 30 than 42.
They also have more than one independent witness who don't believe the vehicle was travelling too fast for the circumstances.
It's hard to see how the CPS could believe they have a realistic chance of a conviction given that.
A court would not convict for careless driving for 42 in a 30 without something extra in relation to circumstances. All they have extra is that a collision took place, whilst there is rather more undermining it.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 22 July 15:07
The IOPC report doesn't provide us with the question/s which prompted these answers:
These are also two pertinent lines from their statements. What else did they say in their statements that may have undermined a successful prosecution?
Witness said:
Mr C confirmed the traffic lights were green, in favour of the police car, at the time of the collision and he did not consider the police car to have been travelling at excessive speed.
Witness Mrs E said:
She did not consider the police car was travelling “too fast” and recalled it was not displaying its blue lights or sirens.
Were they purely asking for a judgement of speed relative to the limit? If so then the witnesses are wrong vs the scientific data. Or were the answers asking about the speed in the circumstances? A much more subjective question and more relevant when looking at driving standard offences. These are also two pertinent lines from their statements. What else did they say in their statements that may have undermined a successful prosecution?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff