Failing to Stop After An Accident

spen666

After reading of yet another FTS incident, I start to think that the maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment for this offence ( which is rarely given) is inadequate.

Especially now we have an offence of causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs which carries serious jail. If you are drink/drug driving and have an accident, it is worth your while to leave the scene as you reduce the max sentence from years to 6 months.

We need to make (IMHO) the maximum penalty for FTS the same as the maximum for causing death by dangerous driving ie 14 years


NB I am talking maximum sentences here- not calling for all those FTS to be given 14 years

graeme_s-2

A mate of mine was knocked off his bike in London a few months ago. The driver failed to stop, but two witnesses got his registration number. He was charged with driving without due care, and failing to stop. On Friday the case was thrown out with all charges dismissed. He claimed that he was unaware that a 6'2" man traveling at 15 mph on a bike had struck the rear wing of his car, and that's why he hadn't stopped. I don't drive, but I have a feeling it's the sort of thing I'd probably notice.

eternal_headwind

Aaarrrghhhhh!

Sorry about that, the red mist came down as I thought about the way cyclists are treated by the law.

Spen666 -you know we have a big problem with the execution of the law, even if your point is perfectly valid.

Graeme_S - Arrgghhhhh! Although I find a strange sense of irony in the drivers claim that not noticing several dozen kilos of human being bouncing off his car means he is innocent of the charge of 'driving without due care and attention'. Surely that's a confession?

slowfen

This may be wrong,

but I'm sure I heard that in the USA if a FTS occurs and the victem dies, because no assisstence was offered it is classed as manslaughter/murder.

Certainly the law needs stiffening up, but how to catch the drivers responsible??

markos1963

No matter what law is introduced the culture in this country means that the courts will do all in their power to dismiss/lessen or throw out(delete applicable) any case like this. Any of us that think otherwise are deluding ourselves.

spen666

markos1963 wrote:

No matter what law is introduced the culture in this country means that the courts will do all in their power to dismiss/lessen or throw out(delete applicable) any case like this. Any of us that think otherwise are deluding ourselves.

Alternatively- those who understand how the judicial system works would know your post is borne out of ignorance

The courts do not try to lessen or diminish anything. The courts are there to adjudicate and pass sentence where appropriate. It is the defence who seek to mitigate ( ie lessen) the results of criminal actions.

But hey- please don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.

We'll do absolutely nothing about any problem shall we as clearly that is what you appear to be advocating

Eat My Dust

spen666 wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

No matter what law is introduced the culture in this country means that the courts will do all in their power to dismiss/lessen or throw out(delete applicable) any case like this. Any of us that think otherwise are deluding ourselves.

Alternatively- those who understand how the judicial system works would know your post is borne out of ignorance

The courts do not try to lessen or diminish anything. The courts are there to adjudicate and pass sentence where appropriate. It is the defence who seek to mitigate ( ie lessen) the results of criminal actions.

But hey- please don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.

We'll do absolutely nothing about any problem shall we as clearly that is what you appear to be advocating

Maybe the post was borne out of frustration rather than ignorance. I think in some cases if you were to replace the above "courts" (in bold) with police, the statement would be closer to the truth.

Spen you really are turning out to be the post police of late.

Crapaud

spen666 wrote:

After reading of yet another FTS incident, I start to think that the maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment for this offence ( which is rarely given) is inadequate. ...

By this, do you mean that the maximum is rarely given or any term of imprisonment. If it's the latter then it's up to the courts to use their existing powers to impose longer sentences.

It'd probably be more of a deterrent to other drivers if the media reported sentences for failing to stop. I'd guess that most people, like me, are ignorant of the potential legal consequences of breaking most of our laws, or even what the laws are.

spen666

Eat My Dust wrote:

spen666 wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

No matter what law is introduced the culture in this country means that the courts will do all in their power to dismiss/lessen or throw out(delete applicable) any case like this. Any of us that think otherwise are deluding ourselves.

Alternatively- those who understand how the judicial system works would know your post is borne out of ignorance

The courts do not try to lessen or diminish anything. The courts are there to adjudicate and pass sentence where appropriate. It is the defence who seek to mitigate ( ie lessen) the results of criminal actions.

But hey- please don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.

We'll do absolutely nothing about any problem shall we as clearly that is what you appear to be advocating

Maybe the post was borne out of frustration rather than ignorance. I think in some cases if you were to replace the above "courts" (in bold) with police, the statement would be closer to the truth.

Spen you really are turning out to be the post police of late.

Well if the police are the ones he wants to blame, then that's what should be said.

Perhaps you will understand if instead of motorists, neighbours labour politicians etc, I blame you for things

The police are not the courts. They are unrelated organisations Why should the courts be blamed for things which are not their responsibility

PS I don't think it is the police to blame in the example here- at court it is nopt police downgrading things. Blame on the police lies with them for the lack of proactivity in investigating offences, not for the mitigation / sentences passed

spen666

Crapaud wrote:

spen666 wrote:

After reading of yet another FTS incident, I start to think that the maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment for this offence ( which is rarely given) is inadequate. ...

By this, do you mean that the maximum is rarely given or any term of imprisonment. If it's the latter then it's up to the courts to use their existing powers to impose longer sentences.

It'd probably be more of a deterrent to other drivers if the media reported sentences for failing to stop. I'd guess that most people, like me, are ignorant of the potential legal consequences of breaking most of our laws, or even what the laws are.

I mean both, its rare for custody to be imposed and even rarer for the maximum to be given


The maximum of 6 months is no deterrent when you could be facing 5 - 14 years if you stop at the scene. What would you choose 6 months or the risk of 14 years?

Eat My Dust

spen666 wrote:

Perhaps you will understand if instead of motorists, neighbours labour politicians etc, I blame you for things

lol, I don't mind, some of it is my fault.

markos1963

Ok here goes. by blame I mean the CPS usually. They have a remit to get a conviction and often to get a conviction they will lessen a charge after talking to the defence. The defence agrees to a guilty plea and everybody(with the execption of the wronged party) goes home happy.
Thats why when a car driver takes a risk(and they DO see cyclists) and then hits the biker its so often a careless driving charge instead of a dangerous one.
Now if someone goes walking around the streets with a loaded gun and the safety off then drops it on the floor killing a passer by, do we judge them to be careless or dangerous?
I know spen666 that you will now say its not the same thing but I am sorry it is. A car is a mass of metal and untold neutons of kinetic energy once moving and in my eyes a driver has the same responsibility as the loaded gun carrier.
Unfortunatly most car drivers have forgotten this responsibility and got caught up with drink driving,speeding and mobile phone issues. Thats why I say NO legislation is going to help until attitudes are changed, but the only people who are changing attitudes are the likes of Clarkson, Havers et al.

spen666

Eat My Dust wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Perhaps you will understand if instead of motorists, neighbours labour politicians etc, I blame you for things

lol, I don't mind, some of it is my fault.

With an attitude like that - you would never make a politician

spen666

markos1963 wrote:

Ok here goes. by blame I mean the CPS usually. They have a remit to get a conviction and often to get a conviction they will lessen a charge after talking to the defence. The defence agrees to a guilty plea and everybody(with the execption of the wronged party) goes home happy.
Thats why when a car driver takes a risk(and they DO see cyclists) and then hits the biker its so often a careless driving charge instead of a dangerous one.
Now if someone goes walking around the streets with a loaded gun and the safety off then drops it on the floor killing a passer by, do we judge them to be careless or dangerous?
I know spen666 that you will now say its not the same thing but I am sorry it is. A car is a mass of metal and untold neutons of kinetic energy once moving and in my eyes a driver has the same responsibility as the loaded gun carrier.
Unfortunatly most car drivers have forgotten this responsibility and got caught up with drink driving,speeding and mobile phone issues. Thats why I say NO legislation is going to help until attitudes are changed, but the only people who are changing attitudes are the likes of Clarkson, Havers et al.

The CPS do not have a remit to obtain a conviction.

Their role is to review the evidence gathered by the police and to present the same, where appropriate to the court.

The role of the Service is to prosecute cases firmly, fairly and effectively when there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and when it is in the public interest to do so

CPS Website
The Code for Crown prosecutors sets out the tests they need to apply. It is summarised as follows by the CPS

The evidential test
This is the first stage in the decision to prosecute. Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a “realistic prospect of conviction” against each defendant on each charge. They must consider whether the evidence can be used and is reliable. They must also consider what the defence case may be and how that is likely to affect the prosecution case. A “realistic prospect of conviction” is an objective test. It means that a jury or a bench of magistrates, properly directed in accordance with the law, will be more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. (This is a separate test from the one that criminal courts themselves must apply. A jury or magistrates’ court should only convict if it is sure of a defendant’s guilt.) If the case does not pass the evidential test, it must not go ahead, no matter how important or serious it may be.
The public interest test
If the case does pass the evidential test, Crown Prosecutors must then decide whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest. They must balance factors for and against prosecution carefully and fairly. Some factors may increase the need to prosecute but others may suggest that another course of action would be better. A prosecution will usually take place however, unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour. The CPS will only start or continue a prosecution if a case has passed both tests.
The CPS also provides liaison with other agencies and Government Departments to work together to achieve improvements in the criminal justice system and to meet new domestic, European and global challenges of crime.
The principles we follow and our commitment to high standards of service are further outlined in the following:
Our decisions will be independent of bias or discrimination but we will always consider the interests of others. We will act with integrity and objectivity and will exercise sound judgement with confidence.
In our dealings with each other and the public we will be open and honest. We will show sensitivity and understanding to victims and witnesses and treat all defendants fairly.
We are accountable to Parliament and to the public; we will work together with our colleagues to maintain public trust and to provide an efficient criminal justice system. In explaining our decisions we will be courteous and helpful.
In order to achieve these high standards, we will report on our performance and respond to criticism positively

CPS Website Again

The Code for Crown Prosecutors is available here.

CPS Website Yet Again


You are also very mistaken re the reasoning behind accepting pleas to careless driving rather than dangerous. You clearly do not know the tests to be applied in law in deciding if driving is careless or dangerous

The Road Traffic Act 1988 (as ammended) at S2A(1) defines DANGEROUS DRIVING as

a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if) -

(a) the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, AND
(b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous

This is a very low standard of driving. It is not just below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, but FAR below. Even when that limb has been met, there is the second limb that also must be met namely

it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous

The CPS want to convict more people of the more serious offence, but magistrates and juries (as appropriate) stubbornly refuse to find the dangerous driving charge made out.

eternal_headwind

That was a bit of a cutandpaste-athon.

There are infact two different approaches to change. The first (certainly from spen666's point of view) is to review and ammend the administrative structures in place for dealing with offenders.
For a given offence;
The other is to raise awareness of the decision making process.
Policeman: Should his be referred to cps?
CPS: should this be prosecuted?
Magistrate: should this be dealt with here or referred to crown?
Jury (crown): what is the offender guilty of? (an array of options is normally given)

Attempts at modifying both points are not mutually exclusive. We have all been to petitions.gov.uk at some point and maybe written to an mp or two, but how often do we write to local papers following an accident, demonstrate in public or take other direct peaceful action?
Perhaps a more 'in your face' attitude outside of cyberspace is needed.

markos1963

The CPS want to convict more people of the more serious offence, but magistrates and juries (as appropriate) stubbornly refuse to find the dangerous driving charge made out.[/quote]

I was starting to think I was wrong but then you finish with this statement which confirms what I said in the first place, that the courts dont want to convict drivers of these crimes!