CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

More (fatal) legal weirdness

(7 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. Dave
    Member

    From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-11489626

    A (literally) blind man drove into a pensioner, who died. But the jury declined to find him guilty of death by dangerous driving - as a result "although there has been a fatality, the jury has determined that the dangerous driving which they have established did not cause the death of Mrs Findlay, whatever else may have done that...

    as the verdict meant there was "no victim" he would be unable to present victim impact statements to the court from Mrs Findlay's family."

    Here is a prime example of where the jury is not benefiting society- quite the reverse in fact. They should simply have to decide whether the case that person X was driving when the crash occurred is proven or not - once proven, the judge could then determine a sentence based on factors like, did somebody die.

    "Legally, there is no victim as the jury decided the death was not caused by the crash" - bizarre or what?

    Posted 13 years ago #

  2. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    It is a bit of an anomaly. I suspect the chap was charged with a couple of possible offences (which I think is possible, I've sent an email to my ex-Fiscal better half) - one will have been causing death by dangerous driving, the other simply dangerous driving. The jury will have found him innocent of the former and guilty of the latter (which they are entitled to do when there are two charges).

    It does strike as remarkably odd because there is no doubt whatsoever that the death was caused by the dangerous driving. But the judge's hands are now tied in terms of passing down a sentence, something imposed on him by the jury decision (indeed Lord Mackay seems as nonplussed at the decision as anyone else).

    Given it's the High Court there's no chance of appeal either.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  3. SRD
    Moderator

    not fatal - but you have to wonder about this reporting and/or what was going on in the courtroom:

    Property developer fined for drink driving

    Published Date: 07 October 2010
    A PROPERTY developer was today fined £500 for drink driving.....they found he was more than double the limit. He gave a reading of 85mg in 100ml of breath - the limit is 35mg in 100ml.

    Defence agent Robert More said Woodrow had intended to leave his car in town for the night but had been injured in an incident and decided to take his car home. Mr More said Woodrow was the owner of a property development company which takes his name and earned £1,000 per month. The lawyer also said a ban from driving would affect him as he needs to drive for work and also has three children, all in private education.

    Sheriff Frank Crowe told Woodrow: "It was not a good idea leaving a Porsche lying about the centre of Edinburgh anyway. You had so much to drink your decision making was poor."..........

    Posted 13 years ago #

  4. kaputnik
    Moderator

    What does it matter how much he earned and what sort of car he has? I wonder if he'd have got off so lightly if he'd been the unemployed driver of a 20 year old VW polo? And what does it matter that he "needs" to drive for his work. He's clearly unfit to hold a licence and should seek alternate employment. Or get a bike!

    And who can afford a Porsche and to put 3 children in private education if they are on £1k a month = £12k a year?

    Posted 13 years ago #

  5. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Yep, there's something seriously odd there. I presume they're not including 'profits' from the business, and the £1000 a year is the basic salary he pays himself. Tax fiddle? Hmmm?

    This whole thing about people NEEDING their car for work blah blah blah annoys me. If it's that important they should be even more careful!

    There was a case down south last year that I wrote about. A woman had 9 points on her licence, was done for speeding, and so would lose her licence. It was stated in court that she needed her car for business and also to take her two (teenage) children to school. So she got 2 points instead of the usual 3, with a warning that the possibility of losing her licence with only one more point needed should act as a deterrent.

    Erm, shouldn't knowing you'd lose it for just one more speeding offence when on 9 points not have done the same thing?!?!? He compounded it by stating that if she got into trouble again she might lose her licence. Not will but might.

    I despair.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  6. wingpig
    Member

    Think there must have been either a "(for accounting and taxation purposes)" or a couple of extra zeroes after that £1k figure.

    Seeing as that recent anti-drink-driving campaign featuring the multi-voiced Capaldi-a-like barman stressed the "losing your job" potential of being done for drink driving it's a little weird that "needing" to drive to/for work is used as a mitigating factor.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  7. kaputnik
    Moderator

    I was watching Total Wipeout for some harmless entertainment and they were making great capital out of a woman from Stirling who proudly announced she "must be fast" because she had 9 points on her licence, which that silly floppy-haired commentator also made light of like it was some sort of achievement.

    Posted 13 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin