growingvegetables
Guru
- Location
- Leeds
Sickening. Feeling absolutely gutted for the cyclist's family.
There is no loophole in the law.
The Construction and Use regulations cover many offences. Offences such as driving with worn tyres, defective steering or brakes are covered by this legislation. So is driving with excessively tinted windows.
I think this ^^^ is important.'Beyond reasonable doubt' makes conviction a real challenge when there is any doubt. I have sat on trials on the jury and can guarantee you that during deliberations it is very difficult to claim that the decision you make is beyond reasonable doubt.
, but maybe I just don't understand the concept clearly enough...
?
The same for death by dangerous driving. Very few heavy convictions and families of victims have been campaigning for years with no effect.
What ever peoples views they aren't gonna change the laws and they are very rarely going to get high tarriff convictions.
But the charge of manslaughter exists exactly for these circumstances. If someone performs an illegal act that results in someone else's death, even if they didn't mean any harm, they have committed manslaughter.It was not intended. It was an accident. I don't contest that it should go unpunished but i do not think the driver should end up with a guilty sentence for manslaughter.
More than that, if you try to cycle there and ignore the red cycle lane to stay out of the door zone, drivers get really upset with you and start to present a different sort of danger to you. Its a question of either finding the right balance between being doored or being hit or find another route (which in this case if difficult).
Yes of course, and in this case involuntary manslaughter through reckless behaviour. It is though very unlikely that the accused would ever be convicted of manslaughter in these circumstances.But the charge of manslaughter exists exactly for these circumstances. If someone performs an illegal act that results in someone else's death, even if they didn't mean any harm, they have committed manslaughter.
You've been watching too much TV. No judge would give instruction to a jury using the words "beyond reasonable doubt".
You've been watching too much TV. No judge would give instruction to a jury using the words "beyond reasonable doubt".
I sat on four juries during a single brief stint of jury service.
In one we were directed to give a Not Guilty. In the other three the judge was explicit (as were the defence counsels) in outlining the necessity for a guilty verdict to be reached only if the evidence presented supported that view beyond reasonable doubt. The phrase was used several times by the judge and its meaning was explained. The meanings of other expressions were explained too, as was the exact nature of what we were being asked to decide.
This was in 1990. Have things changed since then?
At an earlier stage in the trial, the judge ruled that the jury could not consider a charge of manslaughter by an unlawful act - but said the driver should still face a charge of manslaughter caused by gross negligence.