I read this report and the coroner's comments in the Telegraph, and found it hard to believe.
I would have thought that quite a lot could be done.
Surely the owner/registered keeper of a car is presumed to be the driver unless he can prove otherwise? It is in speeding cases. As his only witness has already 'confirmed' that his friend was driving, he would surely be unable to prove that he wasn't?
Did the driver have insurance? If he denies driving, and the other does too, then he won't be able to file an accident report and claim, so presumably the insurance company will refuse to pay, so he will be left with a personal bill of millions for the rest of his life?
What about a private prosecution or action for damages? Aren't the rules on presumption/evidence slightly different then?
Weren't there any finger prints on the wheel, gearlever, door catch, etc? Whose prints were on top? Or did they carefully wipe everything clean before running off?
Have we a lawyer on the forum?
|
This is a bit of a nightmare/minefield, but in the past, the government of this country used to apply the law of 'common purpose' - ie, if a mob went out WITH INTENT to lynch somebody, they were ALL guilty, not just the blokes who pulled the trigger/threw the petrol bomb.
Now, not wanting to turn the thread into a political rant, let's get back to motoring...
The common purpose law was also applied in a few driving cases, so that, in one example I recall, a group of lads had gone out on the ale, all had consumed a copious amount, and afterwards had piled into a car, and driven off. En route to their next port-of-call, driver A dribing 'b's car, had 'head-on'-ed another car, severely injuring the driver, as well as himself, and two of his drinking companions.
[Innocent] Driver successfully claimed from drunkard AND his mates, as they had willfully and knowingly been drunk in thcar [common purpose # 1], while drunk passenger 'B' was unsuccesful in his claim for injuries against A, as he was 'willfully and knowingly' in the car, in that state, and had allowed 'A', to use his vehicle, despite the fact that obviously A was bladdered.
Hopefully Pug or HisHonour, m'learned friends, can add some clarity.
|
|
Ohhh you facsist right wing extremists, these lads are the most vulnerable members of the community and need to be engendered with a sense of worthiness and supported through a wholistic approach.
|
|
|
|
The car was stolen, so the driver's insurance won't come into it. I wonder if they went through a speed camera or two at some stage. If the owner received an NIP through the post the photographic evidence might have shown who was driving.
andymc
|
The car was stolen, so the driver's insurance won't come into it.
The Telegraph said he had bought it for £100.
I still think finger prints ought to be the obvious way forward. Surely one person's prints superimpose on a previous set? So who was the last person to touch the steering wheel, gearlever, etc? Isn't that routine crime-scene stuff?
|
Sorry - was going on the basis of the opening post of the thread.
andymc
|
The fact that these two treated the legal process with derision as well as walked away should be worrying our politically correct leaders whose leadership has led to a situation where bad law is enforced and good law isn't. That is not a way to command respect for the law. In many parts of the world, including parts of Europe, members of the population would have dealt with the matter in a manner they though appropriate, regardless of the law. HJ
Give it time ......
Hopefully.
|
Courtesy of the Beeb .......
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/3269775.stm
"Jimmy Mulligan, 73, was killed when he was hit by a car while waiting at a bus stop in Gateshead in May 2002.
No-one has been prosecuted over his death, because neither Christopher Eade nor Robert Webber, who were in the car that hit him, would admit to being the driver.
A coroner ruled Mr Mulligan had been unlawfully killed."
"During the inquest in South Shields, the coroner reprimanded Mr Eade and Mr Webber, saying they had shown a complete lack of regard for Mr Mulligan throughout the hearing.
Mr Carney described their behaviour as "contemptible". "
|
Whilst I appreciate that "Driver" has to be proved in the offence of causing death by dangerous driving and in this case neither would admit being the driver. But as this was a joint venture involving great negligence to both and a fatal outcome most likely, I would like to hear the views of H.H. and P.U. as to why both could not have been charged with Joint Manslaughter. Who was driving not material.
Death by negligent motoring accidents in the very early days were charged as Manslaughter were they not, but then someone dreamt up the offence of Death by Dangerous driving in the 30's?
DVD
|
Since our beloved government are so fond of creating 'tsars' for all manner of reasons, perhaps they should consider one of the legal variety, or a 'tsar for common sense', able to step in and make a ruling in cases like this or, e.g. the recent ambulance driver case.
Then, at least, justice might be seen to be done, even if the fine detail of the law had to be modified in a particular instance to achieve that end.
|
I may be corrected on this but the case has been sent to the CPS.
I think we should avoid discussion.
|
Thanks for that tip PU, this thread read only for the moment; not because we disagree with any of the sentiments expressed here but because the case may yet go to court.
Cheers,
ND
|
|
|
|
