"but"?!
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
"Driver admits causing M8 death crash but faces trial"
(12 posts)-
Posted 8 years ago #
-
He admitted it therefore he should just be sentenced? Or not punished at all? Just a wild stab in the dark as to the "logic" of churnalism.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Interesting this:
The 29-year-old entered a guilty plea to a reduced charge, of causing the incident due to driving without due care and attention. But prosecutor Lynsey MacDonald told the High Court in Glasgow: “That plea is not acceptable.”
Are we seeing the start of a tougher approach to dangerous driving?
Posted 8 years ago # -
One can only hope so!
Means the headline does actually make sense too.
Posted 8 years ago # -
I assume that's pretty standard? If I'm charged for murder and plead guilty to manslaughter, the judge doesn't go "oh well fair enough then." Same for dangerous/careless driving. They've essentially just given a not guilty plea.
Posted 8 years ago # -
The charge pled to may have been to low if had gone for careless maybe would have been accept.
There is no starting point of a custodial for causing death by driving without due care and attention so could be to avoid a custodial as careless carries a starting point of a custodial. Oddly enough there is a driving with no insurance causing death, which seems not safety related in its self , there is no stiffer sentence for no (Updated )Vehicle Excise Duty for example.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"I assume that's pretty standard? If I'm charged for murder and plead guilty to manslaughter, the judge doesn't go "oh well fair enough then.""
Nope, that's pretty much what can happen.
This is before trial anyway, you appear to plead initially, or can even submit a guilty plea without appearing, and that can be accepted so you go straight to sentencing. Part of the theory is not taking up court time, balances on likelihood of conviction (essentially down to the fiscal on whether they accept) etc etc.
And in most cases the guilty plea will be accepted. So definitely not standard to plead guilty to a lower charge and not have that plea accepted.
Posted 8 years ago # -
" If I'm charged for murder and plead guilty to manslaughter"
Though in this case I suspect there would be more likelihood of still going for murder rather than
manslaughterculpable homicide (manslaughter in England, slightly different offence), though again if the evidence for murder was ropey it may still be accepted.In Scotland at least the court has the option of finding someone not guilty of the higher offence, but instead substituting the lower (as long as the PF has noted that in the initial charge I think), so it is odd sometimes that they don't just carry on. But I suspect economies of time and money play their part in simply thinking, 'well we've got him for something if he's plead guilty at least'.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"...there is no stiffer sentence for no road fund duty for example."
Possibly because that doesn't exist.... ;)
Posted 8 years ago # -
Oh I read "prosecutor" as "judge". Fair enough, that makes more sense then. I didn't think a judge could decide that without at least consulting with the prosecution.
Posted 8 years ago # -
What is bizarre about this case is the mindless spin (probably unintentionally, hence mindless) put on it by the journalist and headline writer. The "..but will still stand trial" implies an unreasonableness on the part of the fiscal/court - "he's pled guilty to something, why not just accept that?"
I expect the pre-trial plea bargaining is rather standard if the defence thinks the case would be touch and go, but equally if the fiscal thinks there is a likelihood of conviction on a more serious case, I would expect them reject that bargain and go to trial. The headline should just be, Driver accused of causing death by dangerous driving goes to trial, or similar.
Let's hope it is the start of a more rigorous approach on the part of police and prosecutors.
Posted 8 years ago # -
It may be the those evolved relate better to the situation anyone could be caught in this situation of being rear ended on a motor way (They may consider) a cyclist has chosen to absorb risk through danger activity Contributory negligence.
Those evolved may relate better to the driver killed than a cyclist killed. In respect to Contributory negligence in a sense cycling its self may be seen by many, if someone does not wear a helmet or hi vis compensation may be reduced, as proportional blame.
Although contributory negligence may relate to compensation similar thinking would apply. In this case, possibly like a cyclist not wearing hi vis, it may be argued the driver of the car contributed the accidence through not leaving a sufficient gap if gaps were left its unlikely that could hit the car in front. The driver at the end of que most likely did not leave a gap from car in front the next car also not a gap,. And neither was possibly looking in the right direction in backward,. If you stop on the motorway you leave a large gap with hand break of and hazards on
I don’t think such an argument would be put forward by the defence it would be seen as unkind, and those decision making would see as a cheap shot as they would relate to the driver killed, however in a cycling case lack of hi viz would be put forward as decision maker would relate to the driver not the cyclist.
Posted 8 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
