Amir Khan let off...........

Bronzie

..............or should that be "farts in the face of reason".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manc ... 058736.stm

Boxer Amir Khan has been cleared of dangerous driving after he went through a red light and injured a pedestrian. The Commonwealth lightweight champion was driving his BMW convertible in Bradshawgate, Bolton, when he struck Geoffrey Hatton on a pelican crossing. Mr Hutton, 55, suffered a broken leg in the incident on 2 March which was captured on CCTV cameras. A jury at Bolton Crown Court cleared Khan, 20, who admitted his driving was careless, of dangerous driving. The court heard Khan's high-performance BMW 6 series car reached 47mph as he overtook vehicles in the wrong lane just before traffic lights.

I'm baffled..............how does driving at 50% over the speed limit and going through a red light at a pedestrian crossing not constitute dangerous driving :?:

aurelio_-_banned

Bronzie wrote:

. I'm baffled..............how does driving at 50% over the speed limit and going through a red light at a pedestrian crossing not constitute dangerous driving :?:

Of course it does. But "12 motorists all overseen by another motorist in a wig" may well not be willing to admit it...

To quote from J.S. Dean's classic 1947 treatise on road safety 'Murder Most Foul: a study of the road deaths problem' (Now reprinted by Roadpeace and available for just £6 per copy, including postage: Tel 020 8838 5102 or e-mail info@roadpeace.org):

"the "less" offence of "careless driving"- introduced on the insistence of the motor interests to provide a part-escape for offenders- should be abolished: in the existing circumstances careless driving is of course always also dangerous driving.'

cabledonuts

Oh but he was fined £1000. That'll teach him won't it.

spen666

Dangerous driving in law has a different definition to what you may think.

The standard of his driving has to be shown to be far below that of a reasonably competent driver

Eat My Dust

spen666 wrote:

Dangerous driving in law has a different definition to what you may think.

The standard of his driving has to be shown to be far below that of a reasonably competent driver

well I though it clearly was. The "reasonably competent" drivers were all stopped at the lights, they were the one he overtook before he hit the ped!!

jedster

The standard of his driving has to be shown to be far below that of a reasonably competent driver

How can anyone claim that his driving was not FAR BELOW that of a reasonably competent driver? Let's recap - 47mph in a 30mph zone, overtaking cars that were stopped for a ped crossing (I wonder why they were stopped?!). If that wasn't far below, what would be? Would he have had to been wearing a blindfold or playing his playstation portable?

The jury basically said "it's just one of those things - could have happened to any of us when we were a little distracted". Absolute cobblers.

J

spen666

jedster wrote:

The standard of his driving has to be shown to be far below that of a reasonably competent driver

How can anyone claim that his driving was not FAR BELOW that of a reasonably competent driver? Let's recap - 47mph in a 30mph zone, overtaking cars that were stopped for a ped crossing (I wonder why they were stopped?!). If that wasn't far below, what would be? Would he have had to been wearing a blindfold or playing his playstation portable?

The jury basically said "it's just one of those things - could have happened to any of us when we were a little distracted". Absolute cobblers.

J

How can anyone claim that his driving was not FAR BELOW that of a reasonably competent driver?
Well lets see now the defendant made the claim, and the 12 members of the public who formed the jury and who heard all the evidence agreed with him.
Seems like someone is basing his views on what you are reading of the selective reporting in the media.

It may suprise you to know that the media do not necessarily present the whole of the evidence and do not present eveidence in an unbiased way.


Were you on the Jury? Have you discussed the case with the jurors? [ if either of these apply you have committed a criminal offence in disclosing what happened in the jury room]
Or are you just basing your rant on the partial facts in the media, which has its own agenda?

NFMC

Do you not think that the judge and the jury considered all this?

We can hardly make a decision on someone's guilt or innocence based on a few headlines and stories in the tabloids.

spen666

Eat My Dust wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Dangerous driving in law has a different definition to what you may think.

The standard of his driving has to be shown to be far below that of a reasonably competent driver

well I though it clearly was. The "reasonably competent" drivers were all stopped at the lights, they were the one he overtook before he hit the ped!!

That may be the case ( I do not know why they were stopped - I was not there) but even if it is correct, it is not the whole offence made out.

jedster

fair point about not having the full evidence. But on the other hand, I really struggle to see what circumstances could justify this not being seen as "far below".

I just thin people, by and large, are far to tolerant of this kind of thing. If someone had used a legally held shotgun equally poorly, I think the sanctions would have been more serious (e.g. used it too close to a public road and shot someone obscured by a hedge).

spen666

jedster wrote:

fair point about not having the full evidence. But on the other hand, I really struggle to see what circumstances could justify this not being seen as "far below".

this is why we have trials by jurys not by TV phone in votes. The jury have heard whatever evidence it is.

It is easy to spin a story to make things sound worse than they are.

It isn't really in media interest to say AK had a minor bump and a witness thought he might have been going over the speed limit, but that cannot be proved.

I just thin people, by and large, are far to tolerant of this kind of thing. If someone had used a legally held shotgun equally poorly, I think the sanctions would have been more serious (e.g. used it too close to a public road and shot someone obscured by a hedge).

Its not just thin people! I don't think body shape / weight matters much! :twisted:


Sadly shotgun/ motor car analogy does not seem to be one accepted by society - which is a shame

Anonymous

Anybody who stops at a red light in Bradshawgate Bolton at a certain time of day on a Friday is very likely to get mugged or at least verbally abused.
The jury would know this and so did Khan.
Hence the decision.
The unfortunate pedestrian was probably running away from some yob at the time.

piedwagtail91

he's been told he'll be arrested if he doesn't go to court next week (after missing one appointment) to face charges of driving at 140 mph on the M62.
obviously has trouble with numbers.
there's cctv footage of the incident here http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... es?rss=yes

jedster

spen,

watch that video - he was driving 47mph through a town centre with cars and pedestrians all over the shop

what a complete twunt

I wonder of the 140mph incident was before or after that accident?

J

jedster

just found out
ped crossing was march 06
M62 was last NY's eve

so he drove like a complete freakin idiot and badly injured a ped and then a few months later was arrested dong 140mph on the M62.

Does anyone think this guy is tempramentally qualified to be in charge of a car?

J

spen666

jedster wrote:

spen,

watch that video - he was driving 47mph through a town centre with cars and pedestrians all over the shop

what a complete twunt

I wonder of the 140mph incident was before or after that accident?

J

Watching the video or not- this is not the whole evidence

As I said before- fortunately we have trials by judge and jury who hear all th evidence- not just parts of it

Its a criminal case, not motorist idol

slowfen

But the jury represent society,

and however much the forumites (who have self selected),might disagree with the verdict, it is the one we have got.

If it is not liked, then societie's view has to be changed, as well as the law involved.

spen666

slowfen wrote:

But the jury represent society,

and however much the forumites (who have self selected),might disagree with the verdict, it is the one we have got.

If it is not liked, then societie's view has to be changed, as well as the law involved.

Exactly


Remember the Tony Martin murder case- again it was a jury who heard ALL the evidence presented who convicted him of murder- not the judges/cps/police etc

In fact Court of Appeal reduced conviction from murder to manslaughter

jedster

Indeed.

I understand the issue. The law should not be the problem - "far below the standard of an average driver" seems a perfectly reasonable test. My issue with the verdict is the jury's interpretation of "far below" and/or "standard of an average driver".

I don't think that the jury is particularly out of touch with general public opinion - in general people are amazingly tolerant of drivers playing fast and loose with other people's lives. You compare this with the attitute to, say rail companies. The rail industry has an incredible (good!) safety record but in the rare event of an accident people bay for the blood of the executives.

Personally, I would be tempted to legislate for a presumption of guilt when people speed through pedestrian crossings at more than 10mph above the limit.

J

spen666

jedster wrote:

Indeed.

I understand the issue. The law should not be the problem - "far below the standard of an average driver" seems a perfectly reasonable test. My issue with the verdict is the jury's interpretation of "far below" and/or "standard of an average driver".

I don't think that the jury is particularly out of touch with general public opinion - in general people are amazingly tolerant of drivers playing fast and loose with other people's lives. You compare this with the attitute to, say rail companies. The rail industry has an incredible (good!) safety record but in the rare event of an accident people bay for the blood of the executives.

Personally, I would be tempted to legislate for a presumption of guilt when people speed through pedestrian crossings at more than 10mph above the limit.

J

NEVER - that is a stupid think to consider.

Whatever happened to the most basic right ie the innocent until proven guilty


Once you introduce such a presumption for this, it will gradually spread to other areas, and then we are all presumed guilty unless we can prove innocence- yes you've just called for a police state

jedster

Hold on a moment - its not presumption of guilt of any offence, just the severity of the offence, Prosecution would still have to prove that the driver had infact driven the car through the crossing at 10mph greater than the speed limit.

There's an anlogy I think, if you stab someone and they die, there is a presumption that it's murder (a reasonable person would know that there was a substantial risk of causing death therefore its deemed a diliberate killing) - the defence would have to show that it was self defence or that the accused really could not have expected to kill. If you accompany an armed robber who kills then you are deemed to be guilty by association unless the defence can show that you really didnt know that your accomplice was carrying a weapon etc. In all cases the prosecution still has to show that you were there and were involved in the incident.

I don't see that any of this alters the basic right to be considered innnocent until proven guilty.

But you're the lawyer
J

spen666

jedster wrote:

Hold on a moment - its not presumption of guilt of any offence, just the severity of the offence, Prosecution would still have to prove that the driver had infact driven the car through the crossing at 10mph greater than the speed limit.

There's an anlogy I think, if you stab someone and they die, there is a presumption that it's murder (a reasonable person would know that there was a substantial risk of causing death therefore its deemed a diliberate killing) - the defence would have to show that it was self defence or that the accused really could not have expected to kill. If you accompany an armed robber who kills then you are deemed to be guilty by association unless the defence can show that you really didnt know that your accomplice was carrying a weapon etc. In all cases the prosecution still has to show that you were there and were involved in the incident.

I don't see that any of this alters the basic right to be considered innnocent until proven guilty.

But you're the lawyer
J

Are you unable to remember what you wrote?

You wrote on 29th October the following

jedster Posted: 29 Oct 2007 13:14 Post subject:

---

Indeed.

I understand the issue. The law should not be the problem - "far below the standard of an average driver" seems a perfectly reasonable test. My issue with the verdict is the jury's interpretation of "far below" and/or "standard of an average driver".

I don't think that the jury is particularly out of touch with general public opinion - in general people are amazingly tolerant of drivers playing fast and loose with other people's lives. You compare this with the attitute to, say rail companies. The rail industry has an incredible (good!) safety record but in the rare event of an accident people bay for the blood of the executives.

Personally, I would be tempted to legislate for a presumption of guilt when people speed through pedestrian crossings at more than 10mph above the limit.

Now look at the last line which I highlighted for you.

a presumption of guilt

Now which part of your presumption of guilt is not a presumption of guilt?

There's an anlogy I think, if you stab someone and they die, there is a presumption that it's murder (a reasonable person would know that there was a substantial risk of causing death therefore its deemed a diliberate killing) - the defence would have to show that it was self defence or that the accused really could not have expected to kill.

Erm I'm afraid you are wrong here.

Firstly there is no such presumption that its murder
Secondly it is not for the defence to show it was self defence, it is for the Crown to disprove it. All the defence have to do is raise sufficient evidence to put self defence as an issue in the case

Jon G

It's a forum, not a court or an English lesson. It seemed obvious to me, and I suspect to many other readers, that even if Jedster's post was not perfectly worded, he meant that if a driver who was proved to have failed to stop at a red light or zebra crossing was also proved to have been driving at more than 10mph over the applicable speed limit at the time then this should normally be sufficient to establish that the offence of dangerous as opposed to careless driving had been committed. I agree - that is certainly a long way below an acceptable standard of driving.

IMO the careless driving offence should apply only when the worst reasonably predictable outcome of the act would be damage or inconvenience, or where there has been a very brief aberation by an otherwise competent driver.

Jon

spen666

Jon G wrote:

It's a forum, not a court or an English lesson. It seemed obvious to me, and I suspect to many other readers, that even if Jedster's post was not perfectly worded, he meant that if a driver who was proved to have failed to stop at a red light or zebra crossing was also proved to have been driving at more than 10mph over the applicable speed limit at the time then this should normally be sufficient to establish that the offence of dangerous as opposed to careless driving had been committed. I agree - that is certainly a long way below an acceptable standard of driving.

IMO the careless driving offence should apply only when the worst reasonably predictable outcome of the act would be damage or inconvenience, or where there has been a very brief aberation by an otherwise competent driver.

Jon

So a presumption of guilt isn't supposed to be a presumption of guilt and because its a forum we are meant to understand that are we?

spen666

Jon G wrote:

It's a forum, not a court or an English lesson. It seemed obvious to me, and I suspect to many other readers, that even if Jedster's post was not perfectly worded, he meant that if a driver who was proved to have failed to stop at a red light or zebra crossing was also proved to have been driving at more than 10mph over the applicable speed limit at the time then this should normally be sufficient to establish that the offence of dangerous as opposed to careless driving had been committed. I agree - that is certainly a long way below an acceptable standard of driving.

IMO the careless driving offence should apply only when the worst reasonably predictable outcome of the act would be damage or inconvenience, or where there has been a very brief aberation by an otherwise competent driver.
Jon

Which if you understood (or read anything on this subject,) you would realise is the test

Jon G

spen666 wrote:

Jon G wrote:

It's a forum, not a court or an English lesson. It seemed obvious to me, and I suspect to many other readers, that even if Jedster's post was not perfectly worded, he meant that if a driver who was proved to have failed to stop at a red light or zebra crossing was also proved to have been driving at more than 10mph over the applicable speed limit at the time then this should normally be sufficient to establish that the offence of dangerous as opposed to careless driving had been committed. I agree - that is certainly a long way below an acceptable standard of driving.

IMO the careless driving offence should apply only when the worst reasonably predictable outcome of the act would be damage or inconvenience, or where there has been a very brief aberation by an otherwise competent driver.

Jon

So a presumption of guilt isn't supposed to be a presumption of guilt and because its a forum we are meant to understand that are we?

I understood what Jedster meant. Did others?

spen666

Jon G wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Jon G wrote:

It's a forum, not a court or an English lesson. It seemed obvious to me, and I suspect to many other readers, that even if Jedster's post was not perfectly worded, he meant that if a driver who was proved to have failed to stop at a red light or zebra crossing was also proved to have been driving at more than 10mph over the applicable speed limit at the time then this should normally be sufficient to establish that the offence of dangerous as opposed to careless driving had been committed. I agree - that is certainly a long way below an acceptable standard of driving.

IMO the careless driving offence should apply only when the worst reasonably predictable outcome of the act would be damage or inconvenience, or where there has been a very brief aberation by an otherwise competent driver.

Jon

So a presumption of guilt isn't supposed to be a presumption of guilt and because its a forum we are meant to understand that are we?

I understood what Jedster meant. Did others?

I understand a presumption of guilt to mean exactly that - ie a presumption of guilt.

Cunobelin

Just to be cheeky.........

Perhaps the wording is suspect?

Was his driving actually below that of the average driver or actually typical of the average driver?

Eat My Dust

Cunobelin wrote:

Was his driving actually below that of the average driver or actually typical of the average driver?

Sadly probably more towards typical, seeing as there were nearly 2 million speeding tickets handed out last year.

jedster

Spen,

you are right, my wording was poor.
That said, I suspect you knew what I was getting at (which is exactly what Jon G said).

As I understand it, there are already speeds above which the presumption is that you will receive more points or a suspension - it's up to the defence to argue why a more lenient punishment would be appropriate. I don't see why it would be unjust to have a similar sentencing policy on driving through pedestrian crossings.

another thing:

where there has been a very brief aberation by an otherwise competent driver.

how do you get to 47mph in a 30 mph area (let alone across a ped crossing) in a "brief aberation" -it's nearly 60% above the limit and it's got to take a couple of seconds of hard accelerating to get from 30 to 47 - this is not a instantaneous failure.

My point in all of this is that juries may need some guidance on what standards we SHOULD expect from people in control of potentially lethal objects. If we give juries clear guidance, then we could also make it clearer to drivers.

J

spen666

jedster wrote:

Spen,

you are right, my wording was poor.
That said, I suspect you knew what I was getting at (which is exactly what Jon G said).

As I understand it, there are already speeds above which the presumption is that you will receive more points or a suspension - it's up to the defence to argue why a more lenient punishment would be appropriate. I don't see why it would be unjust to have a similar sentencing policy on driving through pedestrian crossings.

You are making a very grave error here. You are mistaking sentencing ( which only happens after a finding of guilt) with the finding of guilt.

What happens on sentencing bears no correlation with the procedure for finding someone guilty.

another thing:

where there has been a very brief aberation by an otherwise competent driver.

how do you get to 47mph in a 30 mph area (let alone across a ped crossing) in a "brief aberation" -it's nearly 60% above the limit and it's got to take a couple of seconds of hard accelerating to get from 30 to 47 - this is not a instantaneous failure.

My point in all of this is that juries may need some guidance on what standards we SHOULD expect from people in control of potentially lethal objects. If we give juries clear guidance, then we could also make it clearer to drivers.

J