A place to record lenient sentencing for motorvehicle....

[reohn2]

Words fail me.

[Manc33]

"killed two pedestrians while driving his parents’ powerful Audi A5 after smoking cannabis with friends"

Why do they think smoking cannabis would have anything to do with how irresponsible someone's driving is?

This certainly applies to drinking, but not to cannabis.

It was shown years ago that if anything, people drove more carefully after smoking it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZyDoMqReLQ

It's about time they legalized it, perhaps we wouldn't have as many alcoholics.

Later on in the same article it says "taking cannabis" - are these people living in 1950 or what.

[Vorpal]

"killed two pedestrians while driving his parents’ powerful Audi A5 after smoking cannabis with friends"

Why do they think smoking cannabis would have anything to do with how irresponsible someone's driving is?

This certainly applies to drinking, but not to cannabis.

It was shown years ago that if anything, people drove more carefully after smoking it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZyDoMqReLQ

It's about time they legalized it, perhaps we wouldn't have as many alcoholics.

Later on in the same article it says "taking cannabis" - are these people living in 1950 or what.

Stoned drivers are more careful because they are aware they are impaired. They are generally lower risk drivers than those who are alcohol impaired, but that doesn't mean that they are lower risk than unimpaired drivers.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/
https://www.verywellmind.com/how-does-m ... ving-63533

[fastpedaller]

Local Newspaper report nobody to face charges - Cyclist basically run down by car and no action taken, tragic for the family and made all the worse by lack of action. Police don't care IMHO.

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/deva ... -1-6698918

[Cyril Haearn]

The cops should have to explain why they are doing nothing

[Bonefishblues]

The police have investigated. Presumably the CPS wouldn't take the case forward, they being the decision-makers in that regard.

That is how our system works, yet it's the Police who don't care and who have to explain themselves, seemingly.

[fastpedaller]

The police have investigated. Presumably the CPS wouldn't take the case forward, they being the decision-makers in that regard.

That is how our system works, yet it's the Police who don't care and who have to explain themselves, seemingly.

The article mentions Police but no mention of CPS, but I see the point you are making. Either way the legal system is failing cyclists

[Jdsk]

Either way the legal system is failing cyclists

What's your estimate of the chance of a successful conviction with the burden of proof being "beyond reasonable doubt", please?

Thanks

Jonathan

[fastpedaller]

Either way the legal system is failing cyclists

What's your estimate of the chance of a successful conviction with the burden of proof being "beyond reasonable doubt", please?

Thanks

Jonathan

One or both of the cars killed him, or do you think he was struck by lightning or something?

[mikeymo]

Either way the legal system is failing cyclists

What's your estimate of the chance of a successful conviction with the burden of proof being "beyond reasonable doubt", please?

Thanks

Jonathan

I don't think that is how judges direct juries any more. It wasn't in 2010 what I sat on three juries. "The prosecution must prove its case. They do that by making you sure of it". Or something like that, was what they said. I think it was an appeal court case that brought about the change in wording. Let me have a look:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/2563.html

But the meaning is the same, apparently:

https://thecritic.co.uk/no-the-burden-of-proof-has-not-been-changed/

I don't know if you've ever been on a jury, but I found the approaches of some of my fellow jurors bizarre, to be honest. And the phrase "beyond all reasonable doubt" would have been a lot more useful than "making you sure".

[mikeymo]

The police have investigated. Presumably the CPS wouldn't take the case forward, they being the decision-makers in that regard.

That is how our system works, yet it's the Police who don't care and who have to explain themselves, seemingly.

I don't know any police officers well, but I get the impression that many are just as frustrated at the unwillingness of the CPS to take cases forward. Especially as it will be the visible, uniformed Police who get the blame, rather than the anonymous CPS.

I've given a few witness statements, and it's hugely time consuming for the officers. To then have the case turned down by the CPS must be dispiriting. So it might be that officers, or their senior officers, decide early on not to investigate further, because they think that after hours of preparation the case will only get rejected by the CPS. Not good, I agree, but easy to see how, with limited resources, that would happen.

[fastpedaller]

The one time I've been on a jury (6 years ago) it became apparent that Police had missed several opportunities in evidence gathering. the outcome was that we (the Jury) were unable to reach a decision on 3 of the 6 charges the defendant faced. Frustrating that we couldn't (with the evidence available) reach 'certainty' about those 3 charges, and we had to conclude NG on those 3. We were sensible (In that we as a group weren't 'trying to convict' but were trying to get at the truth). It was a low level assault case, and one of the 'witnesses' was involved in the fight - we wondered if he was also facing charges at a later date, because he appeared to us to be guilty of at least some wrongdoing - had the Police 'ignored' some evidence which would have implicated him more than the accused? we'll never know. It brought it home to many of us that the 'Jury job' wasn't easy, and to be on a more involved/serious outcome case would be very difficult indeed.

[mikeymo]

The one time I've been on a jury (6 years ago) it became apparent that Police had missed several opportunities in evidence gathering. the outcome was that we (the Jury) were unable to reach a decision on 3 of the 6 charges the defendant faced. Frustrating that we couldn't (with the evidence available) reach 'certainty' about those 3 charges, and we had to conclude NG on those 3. We were sensible (In that we as a group weren't 'trying to convict' but were trying to get at the truth). It was a low level assault case, and one of the 'witnesses' was involved in the fight - we wondered if he was also facing charges at a later date, because he appeared to us to be guilty of at least some wrongdoing - had the Police 'ignored' some evidence which would have implicated him more than the accused? we'll never know. It brought it home to many of us that the 'Jury job' wasn't easy, and to be on a more involved/serious outcome case would be very difficult indeed.

My experience was the complete opposite. In one of the cases I was astonished at the steps the police officers took to collect evidence.

[Jdsk]

Either way the legal system is failing cyclists

What's your estimate of the chance of a successful conviction with the burden of proof being "beyond reasonable doubt", please?

Thanks

Jonathan

I don't think that is how judges direct juries any more. It wasn't in 2010 what I sat on three juries. "The prosecution must prove its case. They do that by making you sure of it". Or something like that, was what they said. I think it was an appeal court case that brought about the change in wording. Let me have a look:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/2563.html

But the meaning is the same, apparently:

https://thecritic.co.uk/no-the-burden-of-proof-has-not-been-changed/

I don't know if you've ever been on a jury, but I found the approaches of some of my fellow jurors bizarre, to be honest. And the phrase "beyond all reasonable doubt" would have been a lot more useful than "making you sure".

Yes. The threshold hasn't changed but the direction commonly given has.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

Hit-and-run drunk driver who left victim for dead is spared jail... after offering to pay him £10,000

An engineer who left a father-to-be for dead in a hit-and-run crash after drinking lager and whisky with friends has been spared jail after he offered to pay the victim £10,000 damages. ... Andrews – who mentors British Aerospace recruits – had drunk three pints of lager and lemonade plus whisky before ploughing into Mr Ulhaq’s VW Passat while overtaking at up to 50mph. But he was given a 16-month sentence, suspended for two years, after Judge Graeme Smith said he posed ‘no risk’ to the public. .... (Andrews) hid at a friend’s house before contacting police 12 hours later. He handed himself in four days after the smash – thereby avoiding a breath test. The father-of-two – who had a previous conviction for drink-driving – admitted drinking in the run-up to the crash.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... 0-000.html