Barry Meyer trial. (Title edited)

[glenn forger]

In the legal meaning of the word it is careless driving - in this case.

.

No, it is not.

 

[Pale Rider]

No, it is not.

The senior CPS lawyer who laid the charge would give you an argument.

 

[glenn forger]

Of course he would. That has nothing to do with the legal definition.

 

[Pale Rider]

Of course he would. That has nothing to do with the legal definition.

That is all he is applying.

Even if the CPS had tried for death by dangerous, it would never reach a jury because the defence barrister would get it chucked out before the case started.

 

[Pale Rider]

I read that, unusually, this driver's 'bad character' in having been banned five times was permitted to be mentioned in court. I'm sure Pale Rider will argue that he didn't get a fair trial as a result.

There was no trial, he pleaded guilty.

Following changes to the law a few years ago, the defendant's bad character can be put before a jury in certain circumstances.

There needs to be a pre-trial hearing about that.

Usually bad character is only allowed if it is similar offending.

Thus a burglar with previous convictions for burglary would likely have those convictions opened to the jury.

But if the previous was for say, drugs, those convictions would likely not be allowed.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

We appear to have lost sight of what constitutes a reasonable standard to expect from people.

Society is now so utterly completely and unconsciously motor-centric that the law bends over to protect people from the consequences of their own shite driving and brushes off the victims they kill and main as entirely acceptable casualties, collateral damage, to the cost of running UK plc. And they then spout bollox about the "war on the motorist".

 

[GrumpyGregry]

This is clearly a case where, given that he was driving uninsured, driving without the correct license, jumped a red light and caused a death, he should have been charged with causing death by dangerous driving.

You'd think so. But then the CPS would be faced by a jury of "there but for the grace of God"-ers.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

How did this miserable individual get a job as a driver if he was unlicensed at the time? Will there be any penalty on the company that employed him?

That's what I want to know.

 

[glenn forger]

That is all he is applying.

No, it is not. Your posts are getting so random and nonsensical you're going on ignore, you haven't got a single danny what you're banging on about.

 

[Pale Rider]

You do talk complete rubbish at times.

The definitions of dangerous driving and careless driving are clear. The CPS guidance is clear (and can be found h

You do talk complete rubbish at times.

The definitions of dangerous driving and careless driving are clear. The CPS guidance is clear (and can be found [URL='http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/']here

) around what should be charged and when.

This is clearly a case where, given that he was driving uninsured, driving without the correct license, jumped a red light and caused a death, he should have been charged with causing death by dangerous driving.

ere[/URL]) around what should be charged and when.

This is clearly a case where, given that he was driving uninsured, driving without the correct license, jumped a red light and caused a death, he should have been charged with causing death by dangerous driving.

Your links are for the sentencing guidelines.

They are not relevant to the charging decision.

 

[Pale Rider]

Pardon? You clearly have a problem with reading and comprehension.

Are you dibble by any chance?

This is a link to the charging guidelines:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/...ance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/#a30

Try this extract:

Factors that are not relevant in deciding whether an act is dangerous or careless
The following factors are not relevant when deciding whether an act of driving is dangerous or careless:

• the injury or death of one or more persons involved in a road traffic collision. Importantly, injury or death does not, by itself, turn a collision into careless driving or turn careless driving into dangerous driving. Multiple deaths are however an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes (Sentencing Guidelines Council: Causing Death by Driving Guideline, page 5, paragraph 19);
• the skill or lack of skill of the driver - R v Bannister [2009] EWCA Crim 1571
• the commission of other driving offences at the same time (such as driving whilst disqualified or driving without a certificate of insurance or a driving licence);
• the fact that the defendant has previous convictions for road traffic offences; and

• the mere disability of a driver caused by mental illness or by physical injury or illness, except where there is evidence that the disability adversely affected the manner of the driving.

Just to repeat, those are factors that are NOT relevant to deciding if it is careless or dangerous.

Among them are previous convictions and other offences committed at the same time.

This is what you posted earlier: "This is clearly a case where, given that he was driving uninsured, driving without the correct license, jumped a red light and caused a death, he should have been charged with causing death by dangerous driving."

That is plainly garbage.

You might still want the charge to be death by dangerous, but the law and the guidelines have been applied correctly to reach the decision of death by careless.

 

[Pale Rider]

As I said, you clearly have a problem with reading and comprehension.

The extract from the charging guidelines looks clear enough to me.

All the factors you said were relevant are not relevant to deciding whether it is death by dangerous or death by careless.

You made an error, just accept it and move on.

 

[Pale Rider]

What does the relevant law say constitutes careless and dangerous driving?

A CPS fact sheet is as good a reference as any.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_driving/

 

[stowie]

I have taken an interest in this case since the driver came from my area.

From the thread above, is it correct that, when charged, the CPS will only take into account the specific circumstances of the incident to determine the charge? Therefore the previous offences aren't considered at this point? If this is the case, I can kind of see (although absolutely don't agree) that careless driving may have been considered. The driver's story about following his mate and presumably then "missing" the change in light would probably allow some in a jury (of which at least some will be sympathetic to motorists in these instance) to consider that it might not be classed as "dangerous".

This seems a problem with the law as it stands. In my opinion, driving without a valid license is dangerous driving by definition. Otherwise why would we go through all the testing procedure in the first place. The other issue is that juries seem to be very reluctant to find anyone guilty of dangerous driving as can be seen on other threads. As someone else has mentioned, having a single charge of, say, "negligent driving" to cover both careless and dangerous would seem sensible with a judge then considering the actual sentence required, with a range from the bottom end of careless to top end of dangerous.

Finally, I assume the driver wasn't driving just for himself but had been contracted by a firm. WTF were the firm doing to check their drivers? A partial extension of health and safety regs applicable onsite to the public streets seems appropriate. A firm that can (deliberately or through lack of checks) employ a driver with no license or insurance and with a record such as his, should have their operation license removed and be taken out of business. This will be the only way to concentrate minds and remove these dangerous drivers, as the drivers themselves clearly have no care for the consequences. Maybe the prospect of a firm being taken out of business for not checking staff properly would be more effective.

 

[glenn forger]

CTC pushing for corporate manslaughter against whoever employed Meyer:

http://road.cc/content/news/147987-...anslaughter-prosecutions-after-alan-neve-case

I wouldn't let Barry Meyer be in charge of a shopping list, let alone a twenty ton lorry. Yet the construction industry allow any drunk, druggie or habitual criminal with no license or insurance drive around the capital.