Disgusting scum - Miller
In the local news up here in the NE. Two teenagers in a stolen car ploughed into a pensioner waiting at a bus stop, killing him. Both occupants of the car said eachother was driving, with no witnesses to confirm who the driver was both get off scott free.

Both scumbags shown on TV giving V signs to awaiting cameras outside of court after the verdict (whilst covering their faces to avoid ID)

British justice. Blair hang your head in shame (tough on crime......etc.....).

I give up.
Disgusting scum - 8 ball
I'm afraid so have I. I've also given up on the police and the CPS & the courts.
Beam me up, Scotty.
Vehicular Homicide - lezebre
It was also reported they turned up late each day of the hearing, making everybody wait, including the bereaved relatives. Unbelievable.
Vehicular Homicide - AlanGowdy
This is one case where the expression "hanging's too good for them" would probably be justifiable.
Vehicular Homicide - Andrew-T
Since each had shopped the other, any beak with common sense and decency would have banged them both up.
Coroner's courts - Flat in Fifth
Just a couple of thoughts.

Let us say this whole scenario had taken place in a certain island placed middle of the Irish Sea.

Considering their behaviour, both in terms of the motoring offences and attitude to the coroner's court, in the IoM wouldn't this have earned them a painful interview with Mr Birch?

I don't think they've actually been up before the beak but the coroner.

I for one am not too sure about this but is it a case that coroners cannot bang people up, or that in theory they can[1] but don't usually do so in practice.

[1] eg maybe for specific offences eg contempt of court.

Interested to hear the specifics.
Vehicular Homicide - Armitage Shanks{P}
I read that and was appalled, like you! Without trivialising this in any way, I have to wonder how it is that the powers of the law, which can 'force' 2 people driving in a speeding car to say which one was driving, cannot make a move in this very much more serious case. Perhaps one of our legal gentlemen will post a clarification on this?
Disgusting scum - NitroBurner
You & I go past a speed camera @ 37mph+ a few times & face loss of DL & all that goes with it...

Allways the middlemen that get it isn't it?
Disgusting scum - Cliff Pope
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?
Common purpose? - Ian (Cape Town)
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.
Common purpose? - Sooty Tailpipes
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.
Disgusting scum - andymc {P}
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.
Disgusting scum - Cliff Pope
The car was stolen, so the driver's insurance won't come into

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?
Disgusting scum - andymc {P}
Sorry - was going on the basis of the opening post of the thread.
Disgusting scum - clariman
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.

Give it time ......

Disgusting scum - clariman
Courtesy of the Beeb .......


"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". "

Disgusting scum - Dwight Van Driver
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?

Disgusting scum - frostbite
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.
Disgusting scum - Pugugly {P}
I may be corrected on this but the case has been sent to the CPS.
I think we should avoid discussion.
Disgusting scum - No Do$h
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.



Value my car