Barry Meyer trial. (Title edited)
- Thread starter glenn forger
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
Thanks for the link, I was about to ask the same question as @Tim Hall .
However I still don't understand the benefit of this procedure or how it is 'particularly useful'. Useful for what/whom?
GC
OP
OP
glenn forger
Guest
The lorry firm was not named in court. It is understood police have decided not to prosecute - which caused concern from the judge.
"Heaven knows why the lorry owners let you drive that vehicle without checking and seeing whether you had a proper HGV licence," he said.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...iled-for-three-and-a-half-years-10250978.html
"Heaven knows why the lorry owners let you drive that vehicle without checking and seeing whether you had a proper HGV licence," he said.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...iled-for-three-and-a-half-years-10250978.html
jefmcg
Guru
My guess would be this allows them to let the lesser charges go without dropping them entirely or finding him not guilty. I guess they could bring them back into play if he appeals.
Origamist
Legendary Member
I reckon the company name will become public knowledge very soon...
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
Letter from LCC to the Traffic Commissioner asking for action to be taken against the vehicle operator/transport manager. They supply what they believe is the operator's licence number (OK1046680).
GC
GC
classic33
Leg End Member
If that number is correct, then its already been suspended.
Might explain why LCC only believe its that number.
OP
OP
glenn forger
Guest
The name was actually given in court, I dunno why it's not repeated but I'm not going to say it just in case. The vanity plate seems to be registered to a East London firm. Meyer seems to be a middle aged delinquent, the question is who sent a coke head out in that vehicle and why aren't they in the dock? We don't even know which vehicles to be extra careful around.
classic33
Leg End Member
You've answered your own questions there. All of them.
Pale Rider
Legendary Member
That's about it.
The unlicensed and uninsured offences will have been dealt with at sentencing as aggravating features of the main offence of death by careless.
Quite reasonably, you can't be dealt with twice for the same offences.
Had the case gone to trial, a jury may well have found him guilty of all offences.
In that outcome, it's likely the judge would have sentenced for death by careless, and ordered no separate penalty for the other two offences.
The driver only pleaded guilty to death by careless, so the other two offences are still 'live' and must be disposed of.
One might ask why the driver didn't plead guilty to the whole lot.
That's one for the defence barrister, but in general terms the barrister will advise the client to plead guilty to the least number of offences he can to get the overall case dealt with.
Letting the other two lie on the file in this case is 'particularly useful' to the prosecution as a means of finalising the case - the phrase comes from the CPS website advice to prosecutors.
The procedure is irrelevant to any concerned members of public who are trying to assess the overall justice of this case.
OP
OP
glenn forger
Guest
What question? If you have something to say then spit it out, please don't play silly games here, what are you trying to say?
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
As I understand it, he has not been convicted of those offences so how can they be used in determining the sentence for killing the cyclist?
And that would be fine but at least his record would accurately show he had convictions for those offences. This could make a difference should he be convicted of similar offences in the future (and he does appear to be a confirmed recidivist).
The 'particularly useful' phrase still baffles me. If the offences were not left to lie on file how would that be a disbenefit to the prosecution? He either had a licence or not, similarly with insurance. These don't seem to be particularly difficult things to prove.
GC
classic33
Leg End Member
Read your own post, in which you asked questions. The answers are there.
Pale Rider
Legendary Member
They are aggravating features of the main offence, so when the judge said this was one of the most serious cases he has come across, in his mind are all the circumstances, including the facts the driver was unlicensed and uninsured.
Those two matters are clearly minor in comparison to killing another road user, but they are in the mix when the sentence is calculated.
All of the offences have to be finalised for the case to be properly concluded.
Legally, the two less serious offences have to be dealt with in one way or another.
The prosecution - in this case - applied for the two offences to be left to lie on the file.
The judge allowed the application and made the order.
Strictly, it's the judge who made the decision.
But it's not a controversial one - the defence don't oppose it - so it really is only a matter of legal procedure.