Carol Boardman death - case sent for trial

[Bonefishblues]

Police are going to be busy enforcing that standard - both of them, I expect.

[MikeF]

From a BBC report in July:-

So how can it be careless?? Legal definitions I suppose.

It's not careless driving,it's dangerous driving and the proof is the death of Carol Boardman.

But it wasn't "Rosney, of Welland Drive, Connah’s Quay, admitted causing death by careless driving but denied a more serious charge of causing death by dangerous driving." It wasn't dangerous that Mr Rosney was making phone calls and not concentrating on driving, but merely careless of him.

This is really one of the issues that needs to be addressed in the Government safety review of roads. However the Government really doesn't want to do anything, judging by its response.

[thirdcrank]

I've been hoping that somebody who attended the trial might post about what were the facts presented by the prosecution this time round. eg The allegations about the mobile phone use were reported in connection with the first - discontinued - trial when the judge ruled there was insufficient evidence to proceed. There's been no hearing of witnesses this time because of the guilty plea.

[The utility cyclist]

IF they are found guilty of DD is there a possibility of a life sentence if the new tariffs are brought about before the trial starts? Or will it as per usual be downgraded to death by careless because the CPS and the system is so messed up beyond its purpose they'll get a slap on the wrist from the judge who already seems to be saying that perverting the course of justice is no big deal :twisted:

So I was right then, downgraded to careless despite being on the phone, disgraceful!

[yakdiver]

I think we should all know by now the the British justice system is rubbish as the criminal has more rights then the victim, but one of the main reasons IMO there are not enough prisons for our growing population and it is easier and cheaper to give lighter sentences.

[Cyril Haearn]

I've been hoping that somebody who attended the trial might post about what were the facts presented by the prosecution this time round. eg The allegations about the mobile phone use were reported in connection with the first - discontinued - trial when the judge ruled there was insufficient evidence to proceed. There's been no hearing of witnesses this time because of the guilty plea.

Is that allowed, reporting what was tansacted, or do you mean media coverage?

[alexnharvey]

Of course, we used to have court reporters!

Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done too

[The utility cyclist]

Careless driving is a potentially non dangerous driving error.
Dangerous driving is when the consequences of such driving are potentially or actually dangerous to others or the self,surely.

However the driver that killed Mrs Boardman I think is now being charged with careless driving.
There should not be a distinction between careless and dangerous driving. They should both be replaced with something like "driving that caused injury". There wouldn't then be "loopholes" or arguments whether it was careless or dangerous.

It has always been difficult to understand how any driving error that resulted in death could be considered anything other than dangerous.

Bingo, if the action has potential to cause serious harm or death and we already know that this is the case thousands of times over when human beings use motorvehicles, then logically and by definition it's dangerous.

The new law of dangerous cycling is clearly going to be massively skewed, it'll ignore the fact that the likelihood of absolutely anything a person on a bike does, even in the hands of those that are accused of being killers, is so rare to end in death that actually pedestrians/people on foot are according to government stats (which they tried to hide away because it showed something they didn't like to admit), more 'dangerous' and at fault when involved in an incident with these so called 'dangerous' cyclists.

That's how safe cycling is to the rest of the population, less dangerous to even those on foot than pedestrians are even to themselves! yet the new law will be used in a discriminatory manner and motorists and indeed pedestrians will continue to be absolved of their dangerous/reckless actions when a cyclist is involved.

CPS are a bunch of cretins, the system is ridiculously skewed in favour of those that harm with virtual impunity every single day!

[The utility cyclist]

I think we should all know by now the the British justice system is rubbish as the criminal has more rights then the victim, but one of the main reasons IMO there are not enough prisons for our growing population and it is easier and cheaper to give lighter sentences.

The civilised thing to do as well as the most cost effective is to bring back capital punishment for crimes like this (amongst others), it might actually change the thinking of some (not all obviously), it'll avoid having to spend billions on the prison service and remove serious/serial criminals from society, less harm to everybody and money spent elsewhere where it is needed far more, win/win situation.

[landsurfer]

And of all this killing and murdering of thousands of people instead of prison will not apply to your family of course.
Maybe you have been born out of your time .... 1930's Germany suit you better ?
Clickbait / troll .......?

[Bonefishblues]

I think we should all know by now the the British justice system is rubbish as the criminal has more rights then the victim, but one of the main reasons IMO there are not enough prisons for our growing population and it is easier and cheaper to give lighter sentences.

Population in 1982 = c56M. Prison population c44K.
Population in 2018 = c65M. Prison population c93K.

Seems to be more than keeping pace.

In what way do criminals have more rights than victims?

[Oldjohnw]

1. Prisoners do not have more rights than victims
2. Sentences are lengthier now, not lighter, crime for crime, than at any time in the last 3 decades.

[pete75]

And of all this killing and murdering of thousands of people instead of prison will not apply to your family of course.
Maybe you have been born out of your time .... 1930's Germany suit you better ?
Clickbait / troll .......?

And miscarriages of justice too.....

[youtube]_DrsVhzbLzU[/youtube]

[reohn2]

The civilised thing to do as well as the most cost effective is to bring back capital punishment for crimes like this (amongst others), it might actually change the thinking of some (not all obviously), it'll avoid having to spend billions on the prison service and remove serious/serial criminals from society, less harm to everybody and money spent elsewhere where it is needed far more, win/win situation.

Capital punishment is never civilised.

[The utility cyclist]

The civilised thing to do as well as the most cost effective is to bring back capital punishment for crimes like this (amongst others), it might actually change the thinking of some (not all obviously), it'll avoid having to spend billions on the prison service and remove serious/serial criminals from society, less harm to everybody and money spent elsewhere where it is needed far more, win/win situation.

Capital punishment is never civilised.

Please explain why?
Those who cause massive and wide reaching harm to a society and for years/whole lifetimes should be removed from society so that that society can live in a better way and feel less at threat of continuous harm. It's about best for the whole not pandering to sick and disgusting individuals who can't abide by the rules and destroy not just individuals lives but destroy the fabric of societies and have a massive negative effect on everyone!