Offence? Your opinion.
Discussion
OK so your sat at your CPS desk and a file presenting the following facts is in your In Tray awaiting a decision :
A is driving his vehicle on a Motorway at NSL. Feeling a tad thirsty he takes his hand off the steering wheel, reaches for and starts drinking from
a bottle of juice.
In this action he loses control, attempts to correct, overdoes it and vehicle goes out of control towards the nearside, crashes through a fence into a field.
A horse in the field is spooked (frightened), runs out of the field through the accident gap in the fence and starts running along the carriageway of the M way. The horse is then hit by a car, the driver of which sustains injury and dies later in hospital.
Opine on what charge against A.
Any Geordie, Macam or Tyke having knowledge of such an accident please refrain from posting.
(Inf of Mods case has been dealt with)
DVD
A is driving his vehicle on a Motorway at NSL. Feeling a tad thirsty he takes his hand off the steering wheel, reaches for and starts drinking from
a bottle of juice.
In this action he loses control, attempts to correct, overdoes it and vehicle goes out of control towards the nearside, crashes through a fence into a field.
A horse in the field is spooked (frightened), runs out of the field through the accident gap in the fence and starts running along the carriageway of the M way. The horse is then hit by a car, the driver of which sustains injury and dies later in hospital.
Opine on what charge against A.
Any Geordie, Macam or Tyke having knowledge of such an accident please refrain from posting.
(Inf of Mods case has been dealt with)
DVD
My guess is undue care and attention for the first driver plus he has to compensate the owner of the fence.
The second motorist is automatically at fault for hitting a horse as there are laws protecting horses. Whether he died or not, it's his own fault. He should compensate the farmer for any injuries to the horse or subsequent losses.
Can I claim a prize
Boosted.
The second motorist is automatically at fault for hitting a horse as there are laws protecting horses. Whether he died or not, it's his own fault. He should compensate the farmer for any injuries to the horse or subsequent losses.
Can I claim a prize
Boosted.
This is distinctly spooky for me DVD.
In the late 70s a great deal of my work was Jaguar restoration and I was carrying out an engine rebuild for a female and was asked if I could lend her one of my vehicles for the weekend as she was stuck for transport.
I gave her a Cortina 1600E that I had in stock which was absolutely pristine and I was assured would be looked after; I used it to tow a ski boat up and down to Loch Lomond.
Having heard nothing from her by the following Wednesday, I was getting increasingly concerned that something had gone wrong.
No sooner had I thought it than one of my customers who was the local bobby turned up to ask if I'd seen the morning papers.
This delighfully stupid woman had taken my car, hooked an enormous double axle horsebox on the back, drove all the way down to Birmingham and collected her prize stallion, which happened to be of Arab stock and very expensive.
She got on to the start of the M6 and a part of the tow hitch on the horse box broke, jumped over the hitch, through the rear panel and into the fuel tank, igniting it, I would imagine, with a substantial bang.
She locked up the brakes and the horse box was driven over the top of the Cortina and over on it's side.
Fortunately enough for the poor animal it burst open on impact, allowing the horse to escape; but it bolted straight up the motorway causing a few swerves and bumps, none of which were serious.
According to the papers and the evidence that was led in the ensuing court action against this woman, it took 5 or 6 patrol cars to stop this beast mainly because it was a trained racehorse and could really do it's thing when required.
Believe it or not, she not only got away with that, she refused to pay me for the car because the insurance company refused to pay out on her claim due to the fact that she didn't tell them she was going to tow a horse box and, even if she had, the trailer weight was way to heavy for that vehicle.
That horse ended up with the racing name of "Motorway M6" and made her a bloody fortune!!
I lost my car and hundreds to a lawyer trying to recoup the losses.
The parallels are there DVD, the only consolation about my case is that no one was hurt, only my pocket.
In the late 70s a great deal of my work was Jaguar restoration and I was carrying out an engine rebuild for a female and was asked if I could lend her one of my vehicles for the weekend as she was stuck for transport.
I gave her a Cortina 1600E that I had in stock which was absolutely pristine and I was assured would be looked after; I used it to tow a ski boat up and down to Loch Lomond.
Having heard nothing from her by the following Wednesday, I was getting increasingly concerned that something had gone wrong.
No sooner had I thought it than one of my customers who was the local bobby turned up to ask if I'd seen the morning papers.
This delighfully stupid woman had taken my car, hooked an enormous double axle horsebox on the back, drove all the way down to Birmingham and collected her prize stallion, which happened to be of Arab stock and very expensive.
She got on to the start of the M6 and a part of the tow hitch on the horse box broke, jumped over the hitch, through the rear panel and into the fuel tank, igniting it, I would imagine, with a substantial bang.
She locked up the brakes and the horse box was driven over the top of the Cortina and over on it's side.
Fortunately enough for the poor animal it burst open on impact, allowing the horse to escape; but it bolted straight up the motorway causing a few swerves and bumps, none of which were serious.
According to the papers and the evidence that was led in the ensuing court action against this woman, it took 5 or 6 patrol cars to stop this beast mainly because it was a trained racehorse and could really do it's thing when required.
Believe it or not, she not only got away with that, she refused to pay me for the car because the insurance company refused to pay out on her claim due to the fact that she didn't tell them she was going to tow a horse box and, even if she had, the trailer weight was way to heavy for that vehicle.
That horse ended up with the racing name of "Motorway M6" and made her a bloody fortune!!
I lost my car and hundreds to a lawyer trying to recoup the losses.
The parallels are there DVD, the only consolation about my case is that no one was hurt, only my pocket.
vu!Without due care is a it of an easy one - a 'careful and competent' motorist would not lose control while driving at NSL on a motorway. The question is whether the CPS would consider running a death by dangerous (The dangerous driving doesn't have to be the sole cause of death, but it must be a factor in it). Unless someone did some 'creative writing' in the CPS file to argue that the standard of driving fell far below that required, then I can't imagine them running it.
By God your a knowledgeable lot..
OK then here it comes:
CPS would question was the driving of A such that it fell FAR BELOW what would have been expected of a competent driver AND it would be obvious to a competent careful driver that driving in that was would be dangerous,
AND
the driving of A was a cause of the death of another person. This must be a cause but need not be the sole one,
THEN
they would mark up the offence of causing death by dangerous driving.
BUT
if A's driving was such that it fell far below the standard of a reasonable prudent and competent driver in the circumstances of the case
THEN
they would mark up as careless driving.
The original post is a true account of an accident which resulted in A being aligned before a local Crown Court charged with causing death by dangerous driving/ careless driving.
I think this indicates the fairness of the British justice system as the Jury found A Not Guilty of causing death etc, but guilty of careless driving. He was fined 500 pounds and disqualified for 6 months. In his summing up the Judge stated " It is unfortunate that the consequences from what happened was out of proportion to the error".
Just wonder if current public concern on deaths caused by accidents led to CPS running the death by dangerous. They can claim that they tried for the conviction and the Courts made the final decision. Justice not only done but seen to be done?
A most unusual case?
....as for Dibble's NFA, a little bird told me they call him Colman (keen as mustard) so would have expected a reference about sheeting the owner of the horse for allowing it to stray on a Highway............... Only joking D, only joking...........
DVD
OK then here it comes:
CPS would question was the driving of A such that it fell FAR BELOW what would have been expected of a competent driver AND it would be obvious to a competent careful driver that driving in that was would be dangerous,
AND
the driving of A was a cause of the death of another person. This must be a cause but need not be the sole one,
THEN
they would mark up the offence of causing death by dangerous driving.
BUT
if A's driving was such that it fell far below the standard of a reasonable prudent and competent driver in the circumstances of the case
THEN
they would mark up as careless driving.
The original post is a true account of an accident which resulted in A being aligned before a local Crown Court charged with causing death by dangerous driving/ careless driving.
I think this indicates the fairness of the British justice system as the Jury found A Not Guilty of causing death etc, but guilty of careless driving. He was fined 500 pounds and disqualified for 6 months. In his summing up the Judge stated " It is unfortunate that the consequences from what happened was out of proportion to the error".
Just wonder if current public concern on deaths caused by accidents led to CPS running the death by dangerous. They can claim that they tried for the conviction and the Courts made the final decision. Justice not only done but seen to be done?
A most unusual case?
....as for Dibble's NFA, a little bird told me they call him Colman (keen as mustard) so would have expected a reference about sheeting the owner of the horse for allowing it to stray on a Highway............... Only joking D, only joking...........
DVD
Interesting post DVD, the analysis you gave regarding CPS decisions and public sentiment reflect a less dramatic but equally tragic accident local to me. Mods, this case has also concluded but I'll still keep it as general as I can. This is how witnesses had it:
A motorist stopped at a T junction early morning on way to work.
Looked, but didn't see cyclist approaching.
Driver emerged from junction quite sedately and hit cyclist a glancing blow.
Cyclist, no helmet, nutted the road and sustained ultimately fatal injuries.
Driver fined £200 and got seven points for due care. Newspaper reports had the police (may have been a CPS rep?) saying that the standard of driving was under scrutiny not the outcome of the resulting accident. Plod actually stated in the media that this was at the low end of the poor driving scale. As you might expect the grieving family were/are baying for blood and will be exerting pressure, as is already happening, for the charge & sentence on conviction to reflect the outcome not the standard of driving.
As there is nothing by way of a 'simple' accident - in my illustration, what if the cyclist was wearing a helmet, or had anticipated the car might pull out and slowed down? - this would be a tragic betrayal of the principles of natural justice.
To look at the other side of this coin, as speed is relative, should a pedestrian step out inside the thinking distance in front of a car travelling legally at 40mph, they could be thought of as hurling a lethal weapon (their body) through the windscreen. Should they be charged posthumously for causing death of a car passenger by being a prat?
>> Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 5th December 16:14
A motorist stopped at a T junction early morning on way to work.
Looked, but didn't see cyclist approaching.
Driver emerged from junction quite sedately and hit cyclist a glancing blow.
Cyclist, no helmet, nutted the road and sustained ultimately fatal injuries.
Driver fined £200 and got seven points for due care. Newspaper reports had the police (may have been a CPS rep?) saying that the standard of driving was under scrutiny not the outcome of the resulting accident. Plod actually stated in the media that this was at the low end of the poor driving scale. As you might expect the grieving family were/are baying for blood and will be exerting pressure, as is already happening, for the charge & sentence on conviction to reflect the outcome not the standard of driving.
As there is nothing by way of a 'simple' accident - in my illustration, what if the cyclist was wearing a helmet, or had anticipated the car might pull out and slowed down? - this would be a tragic betrayal of the principles of natural justice.
To look at the other side of this coin, as speed is relative, should a pedestrian step out inside the thinking distance in front of a car travelling legally at 40mph, they could be thought of as hurling a lethal weapon (their body) through the windscreen. Should they be charged posthumously for causing death of a car passenger by being a prat?
>> Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 5th December 16:14
IOLAIRE said:
That horse ended up with the racing name of "Motorway M6" and made her a bloody fortune!!
I lost my car and hundreds to a lawyer trying to recoup the losses.
The parallels are there DVD, the only consolation about my case is that no one was hurt, only my pocket.
Let me guess - you were forced to give her her Jag engine back as well?
Or had you already done that before the state of play with the insurance became evident?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff