thirdcrank wrote:I've explained the statutory duties of the CPS before. Step 1 is the evidential test, and only if that criterion is met does the public interest test apply. ie If there's insufficient evidence to prosecute, there's cannot be any question of a prosecution, whatever the public interest.
It took a long time for the relationship between the police and CPS to settle down. In the early days, a lot of cases were dropped for insufficient evidence when there were easy steps which could have been taken had the CPS requested action. They've had 35 years to get it right between them.
Although the police are only indirectly affected by the CPS tests, they must obviously take them into account. I get the impression the rather grandiose expression "not in the public interest" is used by some police to mean it's not worth the resources to investigate something to gather the evidence. ie no point gathering evidence for something that's not going anywhere.
Leaving aside the bias and personal agendas...
In many similar accidents the penalty is a ban and a small fine (if any censure)
Surrendering the licence achieves his without the expense, and happens in many cases
Unless of course it is more about the individual than the offence
The unproven claims of special treatment and an exception made are like most conspiracy theories... more about personal bias than the reality
It looks as if the second of your examples was still prosecuted and pleaded guilty. So your argument doesn't hold good in his case. He ended up paying the same penalty as any other driver would in a similar situation.
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity. Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments... --- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
The unproven claims of special treatment and an exception made are like most conspiracy theories... more about personal bias than the reality
It looks as if the second of your examples was still prosecuted and pleaded guilty. So your argument doesn't hold good in his case. He ended up paying the same penalty as any other driver would in a similar situation.
What's wrong with that, treat people as adults, I've been told
The unproven claims of special treatment and an exception made are like most conspiracy theories... more about personal bias than the reality
It looks as if the second of your examples was still prosecuted and pleaded guilty. So your argument doesn't hold good in his case. He ended up paying the same penalty as any other driver would in a similar situation.
There was a reason ... one that you have overlooked
The one who was prosecuted DID NOT surrender their licence. The one who was not prosecuted DID surrender their licence (and received - a minor fine)
So the proof is that surrendering your licence can be and is an option for John Smith of your local Council Estate
A distinction conveniently ignored who seem to want the death penalty because it is a particular person and then erroneously claiming special treatment has been given
He has been treated like so many others for what is seen as a trivial offence, it was assessed like any other. There is no proof of special treatment
Sounds like she's refused to say who was driving her car when it was snapped by a speed camera? One law for the duke (arguably causes crash, not prosecuted), another for the plebs (car snapped by speed camera, prosecuted)?
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Emma Fairweather is accused of two driving offences relating to separate incidents in October last year. ...
... Since then it has emerged Ms Fairweather is accused of two charges of failing to provide the identity of a driver and two charges of speeding relating to incidents in October last year.
Two separate incidents in one month seems like Lady Bracknell territory again. What's the answer, in these days of court diversion? Adult literacy courses as well as speed awareness courses? =========================================================================== I thought the defendant in this latest case was a passenger in the vehicle which was "in collision with HRH"
Emma Fairweather is accused of two driving offences relating to separate incidents in October last year. ...
... Since then it has emerged Ms Fairweather is accused of two charges of failing to provide the identity of a driver and two charges of speeding relating to incidents in October last year.
Two separate incidents in one month seems like Lady Bracknell territory again. What's the answer, in these days of court diversion? Adult literacy courses as well as speed awareness courses? =========================================================================== I thought the defendant in this latest case was a passenger in the vehicle which was "in collision with HRH"
Emma Fairweather is accused of two driving offences relating to separate incidents in October last year. ...
... Since then it has emerged Ms Fairweather is accused of two charges of failing to provide the identity of a driver and two charges of speeding relating to incidents in October last year.
Two separate incidents in one month seems like Lady Bracknell territory again. What's the answer, in these days of court diversion? Adult literacy courses as well as speed awareness courses? =========================================================================== I thought the defendant in this latest case was a passenger in the vehicle which was "in collision with HRH"
Indeed she was
Which should mean that she gets off all charges of speeding (or withholding who the driver is) for the rest of her life. Only then can charges of persecution be avoided.
thirdcrank wrote: Two separate incidents in one month seems like Lady Bracknell territory again. What's the answer, in these days of court diversion? Adult literacy courses as well as speed awareness courses? =========================================================================== I thought the defendant in this latest case was a passenger in the vehicle which was "in collision with HRH"
Indeed she was
Which should mean that she gets off all charges of speeding (or withholding who the driver is) for the rest of her life. Only then can charges of persecution be avoided.
MIAS L5.1 instructor - advanded road and off road skills, FAST aid and casualty care, defensive tactics, SAR skills, nav, group riding, maintenance, ride and group leader qual'd. Cytec 2 - exponent of hammer applied brute force.
Sounds like she's refused to say who was driving her car when it was snapped by a speed camera? One law for the duke (arguably causes crash, not prosecuted), another for the plebs (car snapped by speed camera, prosecuted)?
I’m no fan of the Royals (far from it) but I’m not sure you have this right.
I don’t think any 97yo who was involved in a crash but subsequently voluntarily gave up their licence would be prosecuted.
Equally, I don’t think anyone snapped by a speed camera would avoid prosecution.
We've seen the effects of media interest all round here.
HRH is a high profile person in more than one sense and his conduct will always attract public interest. Emma Fairweather obliged the media with some quotable quotes after the crash and so became of interest to the media, or parts of it. It may say something about the dwindling of local newspapers that this has taken so long to come to light. ========================================================================
I agree with roubaixtuesday except that many offenders detected by cameras are offered alternatives to prosecution, such as speed awareness courses. This can never be the case with registered keepers who fail to identify the driver at the time of an alleged offence. (They may have a defence in that they genuinely cannot identify the driver, but a defence is a defence, not a court diversion.)
