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

jedster

spen,

I'm not sure that spouting off on internet forum can ever really deserve the description of "grave" but that aside, I take your point.

I guess the thing is that we ask two different parties to consider the gravity of the offence. The jury is asked is this careless or dangerous - a question of degree. The judge then makes a judgement about how careless of dangerous the offence was - equally a question of degree.

What I'm getting at is that the difference between the two offences (careless and dangerous) is not clear cut - it's shades of grey and it seems to me to be quite a technical question for which the jury could do with some more objective benchmarks.

Alternatively, you could replace the two offences with a single offence for which there are a range of possible sentences depending on how far below acceptable standards the driver's action was. You could also provide some objective markers for these graduations with corresponding recommended sentences. Isn't this what we do with speeding anyway?

spen666

jedster wrote:

...
What I'm getting at is that the difference between the two offences (careless and dangerous) is not clear cut - it's shades of grey and it seems to me to be quite a technical question for which the jury could do with some more objective benchmarks.

Definitely not a sensible idea. you cannot possibly define all situations. It is better to let the jury make up its own mind.

What we need to do is to raise the expectation of skill of a safe driver. That way the jury would also expect more

Alternatively, you could replace the two offences with a single offence for which there are a range of possible sentences depending on how far below acceptable standards the driver's action was. You could also provide some objective markers for these graduations with corresponding recommended sentences. Isn't this what we do with speeding anyway?

I am sure there is a good reason why this is not done, but I cannot think of it right now. It appears on the face of it to be a good idea- but Parliament haslegislated for 2 seperate offence both in past with careless/recklee and now with careless/dangerous

I cannot recall of the top of my head the reasoning behind this

painfully slow

In my limited experience, purchase of such a vehicle is the committed step. Once in possession, it is almost inconceivable that the driver will use the vehicle within the constraints of the law.

spen666

painfully slow wrote:

In my limited experience, purchase of such a vehicle is the committed step. Once in possession, it is almost inconceivable that the driver will use the vehicle within the constraints of the law.

Applying that logic, then it must be even more inconceivable that a houseowner uses his house within the constraints of the law as its purchase is even more of a committed step than that of a houseowner.

Nigel-YZ1

In my limited experience, purchase of such a vehicle is the committed step. Once in possession, it is almost inconceivable that the driver will use the vehicle within the constraints of the law.

A Renault Clio is just as dangerous in the hands of a thoughtless dimwit. There's a lot more of them than boxers in BMWs.

giant_man

Well I got popped quite a few years ago, going at 43mph in a 30mph area, and got my 3 points on my licence. Didn't hurt anybody doing it though, but I still got done.

So why did this guy get let off and I didn't? Oh silly me he's a 'celebrity', the judge was probably bribed and don't let me get started on the jury. Spen's idyllic view of this wonderful law system in this country doesn't hold water for me, it's far from perfect. There are flaws and they do exist.

I was involved in an accident on the North Circular about 15 years ago, where a manic Porsche driver tried to make a third lane out of two, my girlfriend and I got rammed up the arse. My foot was on the brake at the time of impact and the car was shunted 300 yards just to give you some idea of the speed this idiot was going. She was pregnant at the time, and had to be stretchered by helicopter to hospital.

When it came to court time, it was thrown out of court, due to some stupid technicality. He was on a charge of reckless driving but got off. He wasn't drinking which was a shame. Could have got the bastard on that.

We of course lost the baby because of the accident. Nothing was mentioned of that of course.

spen666

giant mancp wrote:

Well I got popped quite a few years ago, going at 43mph in a 30mph area, and got my 3 points on my licence. Didn't hurt anybody doing it though, but I still got done.

So why did this guy get let off and I didn't? Oh silly me he's a 'celebrity', the judge was probably bribed and don't let me get started on the jury. Spen's idyllic view of this wonderful law system in this country doesn't hold water for me, it's far from perfect. There are flaws and they do exist.

Erm where have I ever suggested the legal system is not flawed. pleased stop making things up.

I work daily within the criminal justice system and know the many failings within it.

however false accusations and misunderstandings about the law do nothing to help reasdoned debate or forwarding the issues

I was involved in an accident on the North Circular about 15 years ago, where a manic Porsche driver tried to make a third lane out of two, my girlfriend and I got rammed up the ars*. My foot was on the brake at the time of impact and the car was shunted 300 yards just to give you some idea of the speed this idiot was going. She was pregnant at the time, and had to be stretchered by helicopter to hospital.

When it came to court time, it was thrown out of court, due to some stupid technicality.

Technicality being he was not guilty

The fact you don't like it doesn't necessarily mean it is a stupid technicality, unless you regard someone being not guilty as a stupid technicality.


Remember everyone is innocent until PROVEN guilty and to be proven guilty you need admissible evidence.


I do not know what the issue was in your case, but obviously there was insufficient admissible evidence to convict

He was on a charge of reckless driving but got off. He wasn't drinking which was a shame. Could have got the bastard on that.

We of course lost the baby because of the accident. Nothing was mentioned of that of course.

if he was not guilty of reckless driving ( clearly a very old case as reckless driving was abolished some considerable time ago), then the fact your partner sadly lost her child is irrelevant.

Indeed it is irrelevant to the offence and the issue of guilt as it is the standard of driving that is looked at not the consequences in deciding guilt.

If driver had been convicted, then the loss of the baby would be a factor to be considered ( possibly) on sentencing

Pennyfarthing

How can running someone over on a crossing be anything else than dangerous driving.
Not even asked to resit his driving test.

spen666

Pennyfarthing wrote:

How can running someone over on a crossing be anything else than dangerous driving.
Not even asked to resit his driving test.

Try reading the thread and understanding what the law is.

Pennyfarthing

Sorry Spen, you can put as much legal terminology/spin on it as you want but to drive through a red traffic light and knock over a pedestrian IS dangerous driving as far as I am concerned.

spen666 wrote:

Pennyfarthing wrote:

How can running someone over on a crossing be anything else than dangerous driving.
Not even asked to resit his driving test.

Try reading the thread and understanding what the law is.

spen666

Pennyfarthing wrote:

Sorry Spen, you can put as much legal terminology/spin on it as you want but to drive through a red traffic light and knock over a pedestrian IS dangerous driving as far as I am concerned.

spen666 wrote:

Pennyfarthing wrote:

How can running someone over on a crossing be anything else than dangerous driving.
Not even asked to resit his driving test.

Try reading the thread and understanding what the law is.

There is no spin put on this

try reading the thread- then you will understand hopefully what the offence of dangerous driving is.

Khan was facing court for a criminal offence- hence there is a definition in law of what that offence requires.

You may (perhaps correctly)think the driving is dangerous by the dictionary meaning of dangerous, but that is not what the offence is and it is a criminal offence Khan was accused of

Cunobelin

Do not misunderstand Spen.

He always is open and honest about the procedures, and whilst it may not always be what we want to hear - it is always an interesting angle to view things from.

Pennyfarthing

I like Spens posts, they are informed and well thought out. There is no missunderstanding.
My post refered to the driving, as oposed to legal view point.