More Judicial Madness !!

[fizzwheel]

I thought that it was upto a maximum fine of £1000 per tyre for a bald / defective tyre.

I dont even think the fine is big enough let alone anything else. That just sends out a mesage of ah well dont bother with basic maintenance on your vehicle if you loose control of it a kill somebody it doesnt matter.

I to think that the CPS have gone for what they know they'll be able to make stick in court.

I remember this accident on the news. It made no mention of speed being a factor in the accident. Just that the car driver had lost control on black ice.

Tim Wilky wrote:

the guys PROVABLE offence was simply defective tyres and he was punished for that offence.

I take the liberty of inserting a word that I feel is crucial in this instance.

Black ice or not, it is not normal for a car suddenly to veer off in all kinds of directions unless...certain inputs were applied? We are never going to know as I am assuming the car hit the cyclists from behind. If it had come from the other direction surviving witnesses would have been able to pass comment regarding speed and actions of the driver.

[Red ones]

I suspect (as I don't think any of us have the facts) that it looks like the CPS pressed the wrong charge.

It happened to an old friend of mine. The old friend held a gun in his hand, his next door neighbour (who had been a twit over a very long time) annoyed him. The friend shot his gun. The neighbour was killed instantly.


Verdict?


Friend not guilty of murder.



At no time did my friend deny killing the man.





Friend then says that he did not intend to kill him.


The case was one of murder. You cannot be tried for the same offence twice, he cannot be tried for manslaughter and is, therefore an innocent man.


Somewhere there is a family that is greatly aggrieved by an injustice. Somewhere there is a man who is very grateful of the CPS and their incompetence!

Originally Posted by fizzwheel

I thought that it was upto a maximum fine of £1000 per tyre for a bald / defective tyre.

Originally Posted by Sky News

a police investigation had revealed Harris's defective tyres were not the cause of the crash

Sounds like he would have lost control even with great tyres. Would a £1000 fine not have been disproportionate?

The chances of making any driving charges "stick" will have been slim; without the tyres there would have been no charges at all.



Something still doesn't "feel" right about it, I admit, but I'm struggling to think what.

Red Ones good point, also the condition report of his car though in one way providing incriminating evidence against him.......has also provided the technicality which his defence have used to gain the result detailed.

Just one other point, although perhaps not entirely pertinent........I for one cannot imagine how the driver must be feeling.


We're assuming he must be some kind of arrogant, insentitive, uncaring ****. Perhaps he didn't attend Court because he's having trouble dealing with the consequences of the incident? He could be suffering all sorts of mental turmoil over it.

[Supervox]

Originally Posted by timwilky

Not judical madness, but a good example of justice applied fairly and impartially

Are not the CPS part of the judiciary ?

I am well aware that Magistrates & Judge's can only follow government guidelines - my point is that the WRONG charge was levelled. How on earth can speeding (with no accident resulting) be considered a crime deserving of a greater punishment than that of killing 4 innocent cyclists ?

[Spiderman]

Originally Posted by Jabba-the-Hutt

Sounds like he would have lost control even with great tyres. Would a £1000 fine not have been disproportionate?

The chances of making any driving charges "stick" will have been slim; without the tyres there would have been no charges at all.



Something still doesn't "feel" right about it, I admit, but I'm struggling to think what.

I think this then goes back to my earlier post. if the weather was moist enough and cold enough for black ice to form then the driver should have been driving in a manner that would have been "safer" in the event of a loss of control.
I remember sliding down a hill in Hampstead during very heavy snow many years ago when i first started driving.
After hitting the curb and bouncing off and glancing against the car in front i remember thinking "thank god i left a realy big gap between me and the guy in front"
Its the responsibility of the driver to drive according to road and weather conditions isnt it? I know if i was going to overtake a group of cyclists my aim would be to be as far away as possible from them as i over took, knowing bikes can veer off path for seemingly no reason to a car but very good reasons for a bike, like ice or glass etc on the road.

May well be that's what this guy did and thats why he only took 4 lives, but i feel if you take a life their should be a penalty for that in itself.
I know in some countries you spend x amount of time "serving" the family to show your sense of responsibility in some way and allow the family to come to terms with the person who deprived them of their loved one(s).

To have it settled in court like this i think makes people feel like "he got away scott free/ with murder" .

Originally Posted by Red ones

I suspect (as I don't think any of us have the facts) that it looks like the CPS pressed the wrong charge.

Just interested to know what you think he should have been charged him with based on the evidence that we know about?



In the case quoted by Red Ones, the CPS went for the more serious charge and the guy was found not guilty by "12 good men and true". Here, they went for charges that would stick. They are being criticised by us here in both cases. Can't have it both ways, can we?

We don't know enough about this to pass judgement. For all we know that car could have been doing 40mph on clear stretch of road. The driver didn't see the black ice. Would any of us have?

It could have been any one of us. There but for the grace of god............

Originally Posted by Supervox

Are not the CPS part of the judiciary ?

No.