More Judicial Madness !!

[Supervox]

Originally Posted by Quote from Sky News

A motorist who killed four cyclists on an icy stretch of road has been fined £180 and received six penalty points on his licence.

Robert Harris, 47, was driving a Toyota Corolla with three defective tyres when he lost control on black ice and ploughed into the cyclists.

The car hit a group of 12 members of Rhyll Cycling Club who were out on a training ride near his home in Abergele, north Wales.

Thomas Harland, 14, Maurice Broadbent, 61, Dave Horrocks, 55, and Wayne Wilkes, 42, all died in the accident on January 8.

Thomas Harland's father, Jon Harland, suffered a broken leg.

Harris, a security guard for DIY chain B&Q, pleaded guilty to three counts of driving with defective tyres.

He entered his plea by post and did not attend the hearing at Llandudno Magistrates' Court.

Diane Williams, prosecuting, told the court a police investigation had revealed Harris's defective tyres were not the cause of the crash.

She said: "The Crown took the decision that in the circumstances, tyre tread is there to displace liquid debris from the road to give a better grip.

"In this situation, the examination has found there was no liquid there - it was black ice, consequently the defective tyres couldn't have been a contributory factor to the collision."

Chairman of the bench Llion Williams fined Harris £60 for each of the counts and endorsed his driving licence with three points for the first two counts but none for the third.

WTF is going on with our bl**dy judiciary ??

I mean, you can be jailed (losing your job, house etc) for SPEEDING - but only get a f***ing fine & points for multiple deaths ??

What sort of message does this send out ?

Originally Posted by Supervox

What sort of message does this send out ?

If any at all...

Originally Posted by Supervox

What sort of message does this send out ?

At the very best, a mixed one.



Doesn't seem right, does it?

Kill 4 people.... less punishment than going 32 in a 30 4times.

[Spiderman]

Bad bad news.

Surley a charge of driving without due care could have been pressed against him? That way he would be responsible for his actions and failure to keep his vehicle in a roadworthy condition too, no?

If the tyres were only meant to disperse liquid then he should have been leaving a safer distance between himself and a group of cyclists if the weather was bad enough to allow black ice to form.

To be fair, I don't think in this case it's a "Judiciary" problem. It's the Crown Prosecution Service (or whatever they are called these days). They offered up the charge of driving with three defective tyres...the Bench, or whoever, judged the Defendant on that issue.

The issue is whether that was the right charge or not - and in this case I have to say IMO that the Crown chickened out of it. They decided there was no case to answer on a higher charge - but in the case of death, my personal view is that there should ALWAYS be a higher charge. That's why we have a Prosecution-Defence adversarial system. But then Ed will be along soon to offer a more learned opinion!

And I am horrified that he was allowed to plead by post. That can't be right - for speeding on the A303, I HAD to attend. For killing four people, you sit at home?

If it was a speeding biker who'd gone over on the ice, would there be as much outrage?

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

If it was a speeding biker who'd gone over on the ice, would there be as much outrage?

Where was speeding* mentioned?

Bald tyres on black ice means no skid marks (on the road, at least ), so now way of estimating speed.

I suspect that the CPS brought the only charges that the evidence allowed. There's no evidence of dangerous/careless driving. The sentence, although seeming lenient at first sight, was probably dictated by the govts sentencing guidlines. If they'd gone outside these guidlines then the guy would appeal and might end up with no sentence at all.

The system is flawed; don't blame the magistrates (they were probably as appalled as we are and traumatised by having to listen to the evidence), blame the govt.

Please don't misunderstand; I'm not making excuses for the guy. I don't like it either.





*I'm assuming that you mean "breaking the speed limit" rather than "going too fast for the conditions"

[Spiderman]

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

If it was a speeding biker who'd gone over on the ice, would there be as much outrage?

Pointless argument imo.
Bikes have 2 wheels and cars 4, how are you gonna compare 3 defective tyres out of 4 to something with 2? Totaly inapropriate argument and utterly theroetical.

But remeber this, the guy who wheelied outside the Ace and lost it and tried to do a runner? There was no-one who thought his behaviour was acceptable was there?

Please try and keep your theorteical arguments on track wont you?

[timwilky]

Look, you are charged with the offence you commit, not the consequence of the offence. That has been a basic tenant of English law for a 1000 years and long may it remain so.

Of course the family and friends of the dead/injured cyclists may feel that justice was not done. But the guys offence was simply defective tyres and he was punished for that offence.

If it was a speeding motorcyclist then the offence could be causing death by dangerous driving etc, if the speeding was a contributing factor etc.

If we do not have this system were you are charged with the offense you commit, think of the danger to totally innocent motorists in the unfortunate position where a child runs out in front of them etc.

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