news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/775909...m
I can only read the above report but I do not understand what Lord Ahmed's solicitor Steve Smith is saying.
Can anyone explian things?
|
my take is:
that he's pleaded guilty to dangerous driving for driving whilst texting, which they've established by checking his phone records and examining CCTV/ANPR etc..but... was not texting at the time of the accident ...(or they can't prove that)... so he's not admitting causing the accident
if they could prove he was texting at the time of the accident, presumably the charge would be 'death by dangerous driving'...not....'dangerous driving'
|
|
|
Isn't the implication that Lord Ahmed was not to blame because the other car had stopped in the outside lane of the motorway?
One would want to know whether the stopped car was showing any lights, whether the road was straight or curved at that point and what the traffic density was like at the time. I have to say though that a stationary vehicle, or any large stationary object, in the outside lane of a motorway is a very dangerous hazard and should count at least as a mitigating circumstance.
Although it is theoretically possible for a car to develop a fault making it impossible for the driver not to come to a halt in the outside lane of a motorway, it must be extremely rare. On the other hand some drivers are so half-witted that they wouldn't hesitate to stop there, as they don't hesitate to stop with all four wheels on the carriageway on a bend in a narrow A road when they could quite easily stop on the grass verge or continue until the visibility was better.
|
Just wondering, how can they prove that he was texting (unless there is video evidence)?
He has passengers in his car - they might do the texting?
|
ml,
i'd imagine they'd interview all the occupants, even just verbally to start with...and if the story didn't seem right, remind each one of the penalty for telling 'pork pies' in that situation i.e. Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice
the other thing is in incidents like that, shock can kick in and people are far less quick to get a story together...it's only afterwards that the yarns appear
|
|
|
Westpig:
I agree with you. Unfortunate timing for the driver of the other car, Martyn Gombar, who apparently had only just gone back to his Audi for some reason, having previously taken refuge behind the armco.
movilogo: I do not understand what you are getting at.Just wondering how can they prove that he was texting (unless there is video evidence)? >> >> He has passengers in his car - they might do the texting? >>
Are you alleging/suggesting that Lord Ahmed has taken the blame, when it was a passenger who was texting on Lord Ahmed's phone, and therefore the Lord and his passengers [assuming there were passengers] have lied?
Edited by jbif on 01/12/2008 at 17:52
|
I read that report thus: he has pleaded guilty to dangerous driving( texting while driving ) but he has not been charged with causing death by dangerous driving. (presumably because they cant prove by timings he was texting at the TIME of the crash.)
|
>>he has pleaded guilty to dangerous driving( texting while driving )...
Interesting. Why not just plead guilty to using a mobile phone whilst driving (£60, 3 points or whatever)?
|
sounds like a plea bargain.
|
>>plea bargain.
Do we have those in the UK? I do hope not; a very bad way for the prosecutor to get a conviction by getting the defendant to agree to something he didn't do, on the grounds that the risk of conviction for the greater charge for something he didn't do is significant. Ugh.
|
Things are a little clearer now having read the following press report.
""
Sheffield Magistrates' Court heard there were no lights on the stretch of motorway and one motorist had already clipped Mr Gombar's vehicle. Another ended up hitting the central reservation barrier after swerving to avoid the car.
David Scutt, prosecuting, said there had been a "long and thorough" investigation into the circumstances surrounding the smash and there was no evidence to suggest Lord Ahmed was "using or distracted by his mobile phone" at the time of the collision.
""
So others avoided a "smash" but the lord did not.
|
Can't understand how anyone can text while driving. Seems insane to me.
But a stationary car in the outside lane of a motorway is a virtual guarantee of a crash.
Edited by Lud on 02/12/2008 at 00:37
|
|
|
|
We had at least one form of the "plea bargain" 30 years ago
I was involved in a multiple shunt M1/M6 junction, won't go into the details now.
Prosecution notice which I and at least 2 others received was either driving without due care or reckless driving, option as explained by the solicitor was if I pleaded (pled?) guilty to the lesser charge the other one would be dropped.
don't know if that approach continues.
|
Defendants in criminal cases routinely offer to plead guilty to a lesser charge and the offer is often accepted.
So 'plea bargaining' does go on, but not in the formal way it does in America.
The 'bargain' in the UK is between the prosecution and defence - sentencing is not usually involved in the deal.
It's not so common in motoring cases because there are fewer steps of lesser charges, so there is less charge of a deal being struck.
Defendants also often plead guilty "on a written basis".
An example might be a defendant charged with affray pleads guilty to affray on the basis he did not kick the victim.
Offers are often accepted by the Crown Prosecution Service which would rather secure a conviction to a lesser offence than risk losing the case completely at trial.
|
|
|
don't know if that approach continues.
It is called "making an offer you cannot refuse".
|
Plea bargain:
...it's effectively what happens when you get offered a fixed penalty for speeding etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texting + Driving + accident on motorway - Lord Ahmed sent to Crown Court for sentencing.
A youngman died in a motorway accident - Lord Ahmed charged after accident -
Sending up from Magistrates court to Crown Court.
What does this mean for the accused?
|
|
He's "admitted one charge of dangerous driving in connection with sending and receiving text messages while driving", although this was not, apparently, connected with his crash. That's what he seems to be "up" for. One might conjecture that another text was being prepared after the last one sent - however, he's not "up" for that.
|
There was already a thread on this so merging them... some other interesting points in the other thread. Location of the car, no lighting, etc.
Crown Court now involved probably due to the sentence to be considered? Perhaps we should not speculate too much.
|
|
|
|
