Interesting news story...

[gar]

Thanks for this local and probably accurate reply.
I shall do another search in answer to your question
re charges, Eldon.

Re conspiracy theory NO. It is a police force
and was a public prosecution. Polloi(gr)= many=public=police.(both originating from the greek word polloi meaning many)
You could hardly conspire with Many ... could you?!!! It would be a complete contradiction of language.
I have a high opinion of the contribution you are making. Thank you Eldon.

Re Irresponsible NO.

Gareth Howell

http://www. garethhowell.net/gareth.html

[gar]

www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=270

Eldon I refer you to this excellent site Brake the road safety charity. Which charge would you have chosen given the list on the hyper link here.It certainly would not have been the one you suggest would it?
Charges are very carefully graded and Brake has reproduced them conscientiously.

If you are studying for police xams or law soc or something it would not go down very well!!
mine is www.garethhowell.net/gareth.html

[gar]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/4351294.stm

[gar]

This is my choice Eldon, and would have brought a certain conviction, and Criminal Injuries compensation.

‘Causing Death by Dangerous Driving’ – Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (amended 1991) – can be brought when a driver’s driving ‘fell FAR below the standard of a careful and competent driver’. It is brought when a driver’s driving is deemed to be obviously dangerous and a death has occurred. The charge is only brought when there are clear aggravating factors, such as excessive speeding above the posted limit that can be proven at the time of the crash, or a situation such as overtaking on a blind bend. The maximum sentence is 14 years in prison, but in most cases the sentence meted out by the courts is a fraction of this, usually ranging between a few months up to four or five years in exceptional cases. A similar charge – ‘causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs’ – section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1991 – carries the same maximum penalty of 14 years.

[gar]

He was probably under the influence and that would have been his main reason for not stopping.
Everybody knows that the charge is far more serious if breathalysed and found over the limit.

He made himself scarce until such a time as he would have been sober. that is oine way of looking at the failure to stop.

THE golden rule when somebody is injured possibly by you, To STAY WITH the injured person. He did not; such a fine man. Acquitted Scot free.

[eldon]

Interesting site Brake.

I notice that there is no charge for a 'hit and run' accident resulting in death. Presumably that is why the manslaughter charge was based on the amount of time taken for medical assistance to reach the victim, and not purely the fact that Mr Cottrell left the scene. If a charge does not exist, then we have to accept that, there are many examples of holes in the British legal system.

I can't see how you come to your choice of Causing death by dangerous driving, the definition is quite clear, there has to be proof that the manor of driving directly lead to the victims death, which could not be proven in this case. Leaving the scene cannot automatically lead to the assumption of a driving offence having been committed.

Equally, stating that the driver was under the influence as being the reason he left the scene is rather presumptuous. There must be many reasons that someone would do this. I admit that trying protect ones self from prosecution is one reason, but not wanting to face the consequences of ones actions and panic are others. Punishment for all of these reasons is clearly desirable, but does a long prison sentence apply to all of them equally?

A lot of the argument for a long prison sentence in this forum is based on the assumption that a driving offence lead to the victims death, but there does not appear to be any evidence of this from what I have seen. Do we not have to balance our opinion and look at this from the point of view that an accident caused the injuries leading to death, not the negligence of either party.

Let us take a hypothetical scenario for a moment. The victim was driving a car on a narrow lane, unsighted by either driver they hit head on around a blind bend, both below the speed limit and as far to their side of the road as space allows. The victim dies, and the other driver being in shock and unable to face what he has just witnessed, panics and leaves the scene.

Now you could say that neither driver was cautious enough approaching the blind bend, but does that mean that the surviving driver should face a serious charge or long prison sentence?

This is why I think the charges of failing to stop and failing to report are more relevant to this case.

Scott free? We have yet to see.

[gar]

Hm! Yes that remark is presumptuous, but he was on his way to a pub bowls match (which may be how the address of the White Hart comes into the picture) and going on your local knowledge.

The judge's remarks about unsafe verdict above is the key to it all. I went over it in my mind's eye, and felt that it was a safe verdict given all the evidence that I knew Judge Tugendhat had.

I have known a good many appeal court lawyers
and crown court judges over the years and they are all fallible men. They do their best not to be
When a judge is sworn in to the Job he has to swear as follows,in part:

I MAY DO WRONG.

In this case it may be that judge Tugendhat did
do wrong in acquitting the accused. His directions as to verdict still stand.

[gar]

there has to be proof that the manor of driving directly lead to the victims death, which could not be proven in this case. Leaving the scene cannot automatically lead to the assumption of a driving offence having been committed.

Even going on the evidence I have read at 51st hand I should have though it was well and truly proven beyond all reasonable doubt, even by his own admission.

Still an acquaintance copper says "Masonic lodge your honour". Oh for the monkey's paw and the third degree!"

[gar]

The only way to verify the wisdom of the judge's
decision (and he may have done wrong) would be to have a view of the coroner's report and the report of forensic examination of the corpse.

Going by the Accused evidence and all circumstances, it was proved beyond reasonable doubt, but the judge had a view of the report of collison injuries and debris.. scattered everywhere.....

If it was only the wing mirror Mr Morris may have died from falling into a coma at the side of the road, unable to move through a broken limb.
If Cottrell were speeding along a back lane,
then Mr. Morris may have been thrown from the bike and the impact/collision with the ground or tree or whatever would have caused his injuries rather than the glancing collision with the car.
Everything would depend on the level of the
wing mirror compared with that of the cyclist.

It might have snapped his femur near the top
going on the complete loss of wing mirror(?)
and if so that would have been sufficient to
cause coma resulting in death from the trauma
AND loss of blood BECAUSE COTTRELL DID NOT STOP

Why bother with Perversions?

You happy with that Eldon?

[m davey]

To Eldon

Your hypothetical case is not the situation here!

The man failed to stop. Now here's a hypothesis for you - on the ground is your son, daughter, mother or father - has your view changed? I'll bet it has.

[DMG]

I've been trying to make sense of the judge's ruling as reported on the hampshire echo site. Are the collision and the failure to summon medical aid being considered as two seperate events? The Brake site says that manslaughter charges are usually only brought if a vehicle has been driven at the victim. Does the manslaughter charge therefore only relate to the failure to summon? The ruling that the expert evidence leaves a reasonable doubt that Mr Morris would have survived even with immediate aid and hence a conviction is unsafe becomes more understandable. It ignores the involvement of the defendant in the collision of course. Are charges relating to the collision still possible therefore? I, like other posters, cannot understand why at least a charge for failure to stop, a serious offence, hasn't been made.

[gar]

The Brake site says that manslaughter charges are usually only brought if a vehicle has been driven at the victim.

Interesting comment.I think the answer is probably "Yes". The legal dictum is "Was it Mens Rhea?"
Was it deliberately driven at the victim? If the answer is no then he has to look at the obvious deliberation of not stopping when he knew he had knocked somebody off.... fear...

"Mens rhea" is one of the mosr frequently raised questions in a court of law. Was it deliberate?

The ruling that the expert evidence leaves a reasonable doubt that Mr Morris would have survived even with immediate aid
That would help US to understand, but we do not have that information. I don't know whether it becomes available. Most people would not be interested. An autopsy, path lab report.

What is the max/min sentence for a failure to Stop?

[DMG]

The evidence must have been presented at the trial. Hampshire Echo site report of the hearing says, The Judge "... ruled the evidence of expert witnesses had failed to (do) this".

[gar]

I wonder whether it was discussed in court though
or merely read by the Judge Tugendhat in his chambers?

It may merely have been presented as a report.

[gar]

If he acquitted because it was not "mens rhea"
(deliberate) then the report of expert witnesses would have been academic, except to establish whether it WAS mens rhea.