Another failure of the judicial system

[benb]

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpres...er-cyclist-death-another-scandalous-sentence/

Just horrible.

 

[downfader]

http://aseasyasridin...alous-sentence/

Just horrible.

You get more for fly tipping! You get more for throwing a fire extinguisher at Police, despite it (thankfully) not hurting anyone! You get more for breaches of H&S! You get more for breaching the obligations of being a juror...

None of these are acceptable and all deserve a period in prison imvho. However to kill, maim or radically alter someone's life must surely mean prison. This case is sad, I read about it before the sentencing, the guy just wasnt anything other than a responsible rider with a keen interest in sport.

Very sad.

 

[TheDoctor]

The worst thing is that this doesn't surprise me at all.

Certainly were I minded to kill someone, I'd just run them over.
Chances are I'd not even lose any time off work.

 

[StuartG]

The issue here is that most of us drive. All of us make mistakes. Few of us regard ourselves as criminals.

Bad luck, there by the grace of god ... is going to be the natural reaction of the magistrate/judge/jury. Hence the tendency to lenient sentences.

Trying to further criminalise and jail people we may identify with is unlikely to work very well.

A shift in attitude to regarding driving rather like piloting an airliner. We all would be horrified if our airline pilot acted as we we drive. Racing another plane to the runway, neglecting to obey ATC instructions, having a fag ... and how are high standards enforced here? Rarely jail or fines. If you are unsafe you lose your licence, hence job. Period.

Indeed fining folks is irrelevant. As we have seen points are what count. Or not, if it is inconvenient. But most people don't get to 12 so the deterrent is not really there. Bit easier if 3 points meant an immediate 3 week ban (with car being deposited at a compound). Then double if you had three points in the last 3 years and so on. Most would get a real taste of being deprived of our prize asset. Three moving vehicle incidents in 3 years and a re-test?

Driving while banned means it goes permanent and custodial. That's not about driving that's about contempt of court.

The norm is to regard anti-social driving as being unprofessional, inconvenient and shame making rather than criminal. Pilots delight in their skill. Why should drivers be different?

Maybe we could get together and get the CTC to lend banned drivers a bike for the period. Helpful & instructive

 

[benb]

Bit easier if 3 points meant an immediate 3 week ban (with car being deposited at a compound). Then double if you had three points in the last 3 years and so on. Most would get a real taste of being deprived of our prize asset. Three moving vehicle incidents in 3 years and a re-test?

Driving while banned means it goes permanent and custodial. That's not about driving that's about contempt of court.

The norm is to regard anti-social driving as being unprofessional, inconvenient and shame making rather than criminal. Pilots delight in their skill. Why should drivers be different?

I like it. A utopian dream, perhaps, but certainly a positive way to approach the problem.
I do think that causing death or serious injury should always mean a jail sentence though.

 

[yello]

An excellent post Stuart.

Trying to further criminalise and jail people we may identify with is unlikely to work very well.

You're right.

It's far too easy for people to think 'it could have been me falling asleep' rather than seeing the tragedy of a loss of life. They see it as just an accident, can happen to anyone can't it?

That's the attitude that needs to change. I seem to recall the attitudes to drink and driving changed in the 80s, so it can happen.

 

[petecworld]

This is unfortunately another case of lawyers getting people off the hook, a few years ago a family friend who was also a policeman was killed whilst out riding by a driver who drove his van into the back of the bike at between 65mph and 75mph in a cycle lane, he then left the scene and was caught 3 days later .... and yes you guessed it the sentence was a non custodial one a pathetic fine 200 hours community service and a 3 year driving ban...well at least the driver can return home to his family and loved ones..... R.I.P Gary you are dearly missed

 

[numbnuts]

sadly this is all to common now, life seems to be very cheap these days RIP

 

[dellzeqq]

thanks for that, Greg.

 

[spen666]

Regarding the conviction ( & the offence) excluding sentence



It is not surprising the driver was not charged with manslaughter or even death by dangerous driving.

There was a distinct lack of EVIDENCE. The driver's employer saying it was "probable" he fell asleep is woefully short of being sufficient evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt.
also there is insufficient evidence to meet the legal standard of DANGEROUS DRIVING - which is driving that falls FAR BELOW the standard of the competent driver.


The lack of evidence is the problem rather than a failure of the judicial system.

 

[Tommi]

The lack of evidence is the problem rather than a failure of the judicial system.

So... if I claim "I must've fallen asleep" if I'm found next to a gunshot victim with a gun in my hand I can only be charged with possession of firearm (or whatever) rather than manslaughter? You know, due to lack of evidence. (Then again, as I understood it possession of firearm results in real penalties unlike possession of lethal car so people don't actually carry guns around here.)

While it may not be a failure of the judicial system it sounds very much a failure of either the legislation or the interpretation of it.

 

[spen666]

So... if I claim "I must've fallen asleep" if I'm found next to a gunshot victim with a gun in my hand I can only be charged with possession of firearm (or whatever) rather than manslaughter? You know, due to lack of evidence. (Then again, as I understood it possession of firearm results in real penalties unlike possession of lethal car so people don't actually carry guns around here.)

While it may not be a failure of the judicial system it sounds very much a failure of either the legislation or the interpretation of it.

In this case - there is no evidence driver fell asleep - probable is not sufficient in a criminal case



Other than that, we have a collision that took place, but little evidence as to cause of collision.



Despite your kneee jerk reaction to want to lynch someone, fortunately we are in this country innocent until PROVEN guilty.

There is insufficient evidence to prove manslaughter or even dangerous driving so the driver cannot be convicted of that.



Would you prefer people to be guilty until proven innocent? If so you are the most stupid of stupid people.



Innocent until proven guilty means that some people who are alleged to have committed heinious crimes ( & indeed may have done so) go free to protect the innocent

 

[downfader]

With respect to Spen...
The "falling asleep" part is a get-out-of-jail-free card, played by the driver and is not the most important part.

The most important part is how the driver
a) lied to others
b) left the scene
c) was more concerned about the damage to the van (either because it would ruin the cosmetic look or might drop him in it) and left a man to die in the road.

These are the most important parts to raise with the Director/MPs/APC Club.

 

[spen666]

With respect to Spen...
The "falling asleep" part is a get-out-of-jail-free card, played by the driver and is not the most important part.

The most important part is how the driver
a) lied to others
b) left the scene
c) was more concerned about the damage to the van (either because it would ruin the cosmetic look or might drop him in it) and left a man to die in the road.

These are the most important parts to raise with the Director/MPs/APC Club.

With respect to you, you've completely missed the point



The claim to have fallen asleep" the lies etc are all irrelevant in that they do not prove what appened.



There simply is no evidence to prove manslaughter or dangerous driving.



The prosecution have to prove the suspect is guilty, not the other way round.



The lies may show suspect is dishonest and untrustworthy and for want of a better phrase "scum" BUT they do not prove he drove dangerously or that he is guilty of manslaughter. The lies come after the accident so cannot prove the cause of the accident.



fortunately in this country you are innocent until proven guilty and you are not punished by the courts if you are not proven guilty.



Don't let the tragic death in an accident blind you from the lack of evidence to prove the suspect is guilty.

 

[spen666]

But why was insufficient evidence put before the court? From the quote the man pretty much condemned himself out of his own mouth. There must have been physical evidence. One way or another we have been let down.

Where was the evidence?

Without evidence you cannot convict someone?

Plenty of crimes are commmitted every hour that do not result in people being convicted owing to a lack of evidence. Are they all letting us down, or is it us letting each other down?

How do the police "get" sufficient evidence?