First one of these I've come across.
Driver admits rare charge of being involved in a fatal collision while banned.
The interesting point is the standard of his driving is not in question, albeit he has a bad record of previous motoring offences.
It was conceded the accident was more or less the dead guy's fault, yet the other driver gets prosecuted and is looking at a short stretch.
tinyurl.com/23agn4k
|
I don't have much sympathy. If he'd been a decent driver he would not have been banned in the first place (perhaps?). If he had obeyed the ban, rather than avoiding it in a systematic (false licence) rather than opportunistic way he wouldn't have been there for the crash to happen.
You knowingly take a chance, sometimes it works out badly for you.
|
...don't have much sympathy...
SO,
I agree, the sympathy vote falls on his driving record.
But in theory, you or I could forget to renew our insurance today, be blamelessly involved in a fatal smash tomorrow, and be hit with the same charge as this lorry driver the day after.
Last edited by: Iffy on Tue 14 Sep 10 at 10:06
|
Tough. If he had not been driving, then the other driver might still be alive.
People who drive when banned will get the sympathy they deserve from me.
And he was a persistent and deliberate law breaker .. which is totally different from inadvertent breaches due to memory as the law recognises.
Last edited by: madf on Tue 14 Sep 10 at 10:07
|
how can he be done for causing the death, when he didnt cause the death.
I would have pleaded not guilty.
Of course he should get jail anyway for driving while disqual, and fraud for the license he used.
|
|
The 35 previous convictions for disqualified driving may be a factor !
|
Agreed but can you be done for "causing" when you didnt?
Clearly his legal advice thinks he can or he wouldnt have pleaded guilty.
|
|
The facts do not seem to have been examined, as the matter of guilt was not tested. Certainly the source given is scant on detail. It would be unusual for there to be no fault by each party, I'd suggest.
|
|
Reporting possibly - wonder if the Sunderland Echo has more ? Can't access the page.
|
|
Iffy - no, you wouldn't get the same charge if you'd forgot to renew your insurance. You wouldn't be disqualified from driving just because you forgot to renew your insurance. These are wholly different things. Since he's entered a guilty plea it is perhaps fair to assume that his legal representative doesn't think he/she can show that the defendant did not 'cause' the death. If the prosecution (CPS in this case) didn't think they could prove the 'cause' point, they'd likely have charged driving whilst disqualified and careless driving separately, if appropriate. He could still be jailed for the relatively straightforward 'driving whilst disqualified' offence on its own.
|
...Iffy - no, you wouldn't get the same charge if you'd forgot to renew your insurance...
Yes you would.
The offence is made out if you are driving while disqualified, or driving while having no insurance, and you are involved in a fatal accident.
The standard of your driving and your previous convictions are irrelevant to the offence, although they may be relevant in mitigation.
It has accepted in this case the lorry driver was not driving at all badly, and if the accident was anybody's fault, it was the other guy who was killed.
Details of the offence from a CPS website:
tinyurl.com/2vz3fer
Note the phrase: "The standard of driving is irrelevant'.
Funny old world, aint it?
|
The standard of driving is irrelevant; it need only be proved that someones death was caused by virtue of the vehicle being driven on a road (without insurance etc.). Causing in section 3ZB does not have the same meaning as causation in homicide or the other RTA offences. The defendant need not be culpable in any way for the death. But Parliament has decided that where a person has committed the mischief of driving, while at the same time being unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured, and someone dies, that person is criminally liable for that death. So, in a case where a pedestrian runs out in front of a car and is killed by the car driver who could not have done anything to prevent the collision, provided that the driver was unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured, the driver may be convicted of a section 3ZB offence. (It is arguable that causing here is analogous to the section 170 RTA test of owing to the presence on a road.).
In the normal course of events, where there is sufficient evidence for a section 3ZB offence, a prosecution for the full offence should follow; any consideration of culpability is for the court when deciding on sentence.
Note that parliament decided to rewrite english
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 14 Sep 10 at 13:00
|
|
That'll teach me! I stand corrected and should've put my head in the books. I've no sympathy for the disqualified driver however. It's nothing more than a fingers up to teh court when a banned person chooses to drive. I think the court would view an unintentional lapse in insurance as being somewhat different and punish accordingly. If you had, for example, a clean driving record you'd be a totally different character to this person. The court would see that.
|
...I think the court would view an unintentional lapse in insurance as being somewhat different and punish accordingly...
Woodster,
I've no idea how things work your end, if you came across a case at the roadside involving an otherwise law-abiding driver whose forgotten to renew his insurance, are you bound to report it?
And if so, presumably you could at least suggest to the CPS the appropriate charge might be a simple 'no insurance', rather than this nastier version.
I've posted further down the thread about CPS guidelines which suggest they should use some judgment in deciding if they charge the 'causing death while disqualified/uninsured' offence or not.
|
|
I'm afraid my time out on the road is extremely limited, and then only to attend the most serious incidents. My days of reporting drivers for such offences are past, hence my error in the legislation - not my area of interest or day to day work. But is an officer 'bound' to report the matter?. Hmmm. I don't know that we could say they are duty bound to report, but a dim view would be taken of failure to report something of the level of 'no insurance'. As for what the CPS decide to charge, I couldn't pretend to understand the machinations of said authority, however, in their defence I also see some eminently sensible decisions from them on a regular basis. It's perhaps not the role of the police to suggest what the CPS charge - they are the authority for that - but they do take account of officer's views providing the officer makes those views clear. I haven't read the press reports in this case or your further posts (time doesn't permit) but is it clear that the driver didn't 'cause' the accident? How do we know the answer to this question? All too frequently press reports lack the essential detail that is available to prosecutors. Certainly in my experience the CPS will not charge serious offences without a considerable weight of evidence. To do so is costly and time consuming, both for themselves and the courts, not to mention witnessess. A high acquital rate (through inappropriate charging) also does nothing for their performance figures and apparent professionalism, nor anything for victims. I find that I am gradually coming to the view that they are somewhat better at their work than many would have us believe. regards,
|
There seems to be a difference in the meaning of the word "causing" as used legally and in ordinary use.
For example, there is an offence of "Causing death by driving: unlicensed, uninsured or disqualified" which appears to have nothing to do with whether the driving "caused" in the ordinary sense the death, but is committed merely by virtue of
1) a death having occured
2) someone involved being unlicensed or uninsured.
It sounds crazy - have we a lawyer who could explain this for us?
|
|
I doubt a lawyer could explain. It's the result of politics driven by tabloid headlines.
|
...There seems to be a difference in the meaning of the word "causing" as used legally and in ordinary use...
Correct.
Even Jamie Adams, a skilled and experienced practitioner, was struck by this.
He told the court: "Only by an amazing stretch of the use of English is this offence made out."
|
>> Driver admits rare charge of being involved in a fatal collision while banned.
>>
>> The interesting point is the standard of his driving is not in question, albeit he
>> has a bad record of previous motoring offences.
In the article you refer to, it plainly says:
"A LORRY driver from the North is facing jail after admitting causing the death of another motorist whilst driving when banned."
He admitted causing the death. How is it then "not his fault"?
|
because it was the other drivers fault?
as in
Jamie Adams, representing Bate, said his driving “was not the cause of Mr Paterson’s death.”
so the question is, why did he admit to causing death, when he didnt.
|
"Jamie Adams, representing Bate, said"
That's only part of the story. More information is required, I think, to come to a proper conclusion. Perhaps it will appear as people trawl the 'net.
|
E.g. www.durham.police.uk/press/news.php?id=1288
Perhaps something in the legalese, as previously mentioned.
|
I think it's semantics really - these additional offences were added to the statute book as there was or were a number of drivers coming before Courts who were disqualified, had no insurance and or impaired through drink/drugs and were charged with relatively minor offences. In response to concerns from various groups the additional offences were brought in to ensure that the penalties imposed reflected the seriousness of the circumstances of the collision. So basically what the law is saying if you drive and you disregard being disqualified, insured etc..and are involved in a fatal collision you will face more serious charges. I think that the use "cause" in this case is bad and is typical of the poorly written bits of law brought in in recent years, words that cause ambiguity and confusion when used. It should be something like drove and was involved in a collision that caused the death of another.
On another point the Police press release is a paragon of clarity - shame that some journos chose to muddy the waters later on.
The driver was clearly an arrogant muppet who deserves all he gets.
Last edited by: Pugugly on Tue 14 Sep 10 at 13:15
|
>> I think it's semantics really - these additional offences were added to the statute book
>> as there was or were a number of drivers coming before Courts who were disqualified,
>> had no insurance and or impaired through drink/drugs and were charged with relatively minor offences.
>> In response to concerns from various groups the additional offences were brought in to ensure
>> that the penalties imposed reflected the seriousness of the circumstances of the collision.
No its not sematics. The seriousnes of the collision and its outcome was not changed by the accused driver having no insurance. If the deceased driver was deemed at fault his own insurance would have paid out.
You could use the argument that if the banned driver was not there it wouldnt have happened but thats just happenchance and not for legislation to decide blame for the accident.
Yes clearly the muppet deserves to be in jail, but he should be put there for the correct offence not for some legally trumped up charge to satisfy the outraged population.
|
The words "ass" and "law" spring to mind.
It's as if I witnessed a murder and was found to have an unlicenced gun in my pocket, was otherwise unconnected with the crime, but was charged with murder. But if the gun in my pocket was legal, I'd leave the court without a stain on my character. ? :)
|
I don't know. If he really was blameless in this particular incident then it does seem harsh, although I would be interested to know what the leeway in sentencing is in the circumstances?
On the other hand, there is near constant complaining on here that there is really no rational reason why you would not drive without insurance, given how small the penalties are. Perhaps this is a good reason to stay legal?
|
Leeway -
There is some leeway, depends on the personal circumstances of the offender, his offending record, his willingness to change - the last two seem a little iffy. None of the press reports I've read mention it, but I assume that there will be Pre Sentence Report written by probation. His brief will try to reduce any sentence saying that the driver was an all round good egg with a legion of kids he needs to provide for and that he promises not to be bad ever again.
No doubt some credit for a guilty plea to a made up offence.
Last edited by: Pugugly on Tue 14 Sep 10 at 14:03
|
Thats the point you see. It would be easy to send him down for multiple, concerted, planned and premeditated failure to abide by the insurance and license rules. Everyone would not wiseley and say "good job - bad man"
Send him down for causing death, where he didnt, raises the "blimey thats not fair or reasonable" train of thought.
|
|
New Labour's obsession with law making, obviously outsourced the writing to some third world country. You couldn't make some of it up.
|
Case off for probation reports, due to be sentenced mid-October.
As regards sentencing leeway, the judge said something about guidelines suggesting a short stretch, although anything from two years down to a community penalty is open to the court.
I've just had a look into my crown court crystal ball, and I reckon he will get a short jail sentence.
My guess is what will knack him is those 35 previous instances of driving while disqualified.
But we are in uncharted territory here, no one I've spoken to about the case has heard of one that's been dealt with before.
|
|
He won't have been the first disco driver to be involved in a non-blameworthy fatal, maybe it's something to do with him being a un-reconstructed recidivist
|
The powers that be have to be very careful how they draft, word and legislate laws.
Those who have to enforce them can only do so by the goodwill of the majority of he law abiding. Loose that and you might as well pack up the whole legal system.
There are many cases of laws being unenforceable due to mass non compliance of them.
|
...Those who have to enforce them can only do so by the goodwill of the majority of he law abiding...
The guidance to the CPS for this offence says there are some circumstances where it is not in the public interest to charge.
I would like to think these include my example of an otherwise blameless driver who forgets to renew his insurance.
But I wouldn't want to have to rely on the common sense of a lawyer, particularly a CPS one.
|
"common sense of a lawyer"
Best joke of the day so far..
|
|
Oh so it's the criminal justice system's fault - send them to prison then !
|
>> Oh so it's the criminal justice system's fault - send them to prison then !
why not? call it work experience.
|
He can meet George Michael in the shower who has been given 8 weeks and a 5 year ban for driving unfer the influence of drugs.
|
Facing jail for a fatal smash not his fault - Statistical Outlier
