Barry Meyer trial. (Title edited)

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Origamist

Legendary Member
The charging guidelines use the same definitions.

Put simply, dangerous is 'far below' a competent standard, careless is 'below' a competent standard.

That's the choice the prosecutor has, the death is effectively irrelevant in making that choice because it is met by both charges.

Running a red light at a relatively slow speed is careless driving.

Although, if a car runs a red light at a relatively slow speed, say 8 mph, and hits a vulnerable road user, the chances of survival are very good. If a HGV runs a red light at a similar speed and hits a vulnerable road user the chances of survival are vastly diminished.
 
They've left a massive hole in the law:

death%20by%20driving%20prosecutions.png



The offence of causing death by careless driving was introduced in 2008. As the graph shows, the number of prosecutions for causing death by dangerous driving has roughly halved since then.

An excellent graph showing a clear problem.

The problem is (as normal) the way CPS have their 'success' measured. The offense of 'death by careless' was, IMO, needed. There were some drivers getting away scot free with killing (no change there then) because they could successfully argue that their driving wasn't dangerous as per the law stated. They are the gap in that graph between the blue lines before 2008.

If applied correctly, death by careless being introduced in 2008 should have had little to no effect on the blue dotted line (dangerous convictions), and should have just lowered the blue solid line to meet it.

However as can clearly be seen, CPS have seized the chance to have an 'easy option' and are routinely prosecuting lower offences when they should have been continuing with dangerous. If they would have charged with dangerous before 2008, charge with it now. If they wouldn't, that is the only point you should be considering careless.

Shame we don't have some sort of democracy based system where we can get something done about this.
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
Most people, when driving, are highly critical of other drivers not forgiving at all.
Most people, when driving, though highly critical of others are entirely insulated from the vast majority of the consequences of their own poor driving and that of others. Physics is a harsh mistress but modern motor vehicle design mitigates a lot of her cruelty towards the occupants of vehicles.
 

classic33

Leg End Member
The truck was a very clean & new vehicle and it seems unlikely that Meyer was the owner of it. Thus there is an operator, with an operators licence who has handed Meyer the tool with which he killed Alan Neve.
O Licences are issued to those who are required to prove and maintain good repute and diligence in operating their fleet legally and honestly. This is regulated by the Traffic Commissioner - for Met & SE this is Nick Denton. He is charged with being the independent overseer for commercial operations which exploit the use of the roads to make a profit, to ensure such operations are legally delivered, and accountable.
The Commissioner can impose a variety of sanctions on drivers (holders of vocational C D and E licences) and operators.
It is not clear what sort of O licence was held by the operator nor have we an operators name and operating base address - does anyone have this?
A photo of the truck cab should reveal if the O Licence was a UK standard national (blue) or a restricted licence (orange) (for carrying only the licence holder's goods)
Depending on the O licence category the operator may have a Transport Manager whose duties include maintaining a record of drivers and their qualification to drive
What is the Traffic Commissioner doing about this operator?
The issue tracks back further to the principal client who should have done due diligence on reviewing the contracts and monitoring performance with regard to the balance that naturally determines the outcomes in terms of price and safety
_68734650_crash1.jpg
 
OP
OP
glenn forger

glenn forger

Guest
An O licence holder has by law to verify their drivers are competent to drive the vehicles provided, and can be called to a dicsiplinary hearing by the Traffic Commissioner. If there is a good picture of the front of the truck it may be possible to establish whether the operator held a Natonal or restricted O Licence.

Unfortuinately if there is a likely hearing, many operators surrender their exiting licences and apply for a new licence as a different company. This avoids ending up in the traffic comissioners' court.

http://lcc.org.uk/articles/driver-p...after-court-hears-of-shocking-driving-history
 

benb

Evidence based cyclist
Location
Epsom
Anyone who thinks that driving a vehicle through a red light with obscured visibility is only "below" and not "far below" the standard we would expect from a competent and careful driver is an idiot.
 

glasgowcyclist

Charming but somewhat feckless
Location
Scotland
 

glasgowcyclist

Charming but somewhat feckless
Location
Scotland
36 months in prison (discounted from 42 months) and 10-year disqualification.

The judge told him, "You have a sustained history of driving offences showing wretched disregard for the safety of road users"


GC
 
OP
OP
glenn forger

glenn forger

Guest
"The degree of your carelessness was in my judgement about as high as the court may ever have to deal with for this offence for causing death by careless driving, as opposed to causing death by dangerous driving.

"You have a sustained history of driving offences showing wretched disregard for the safety of road users."

At the original hearing, he told Meyer that he had a “shocking driving history,” with the lorry driver only changing his plea once the judge said that his past record would be disclosed to the jury.
 
Top Bottom