Barry Meyer trial. (Title edited)

[Pale Rider]

I have taken an interest in this case since the driver came from my area.

From the thread above, is it correct that, when charged, the CPS will only take into account the specific circumstances of the incident to determine the charge? Therefore the previous offences aren't considered at this point? If this is the case, I can kind of see (although absolutely don't agree) that careless driving may have been considered. The driver's story about following his mate and presumably then "missing" the change in light would probably allow some in a jury (of which at least some will be sympathetic to motorists in these instance) to consider that it might not be classed as "dangerous".

This seems a problem with the law as it stands. In my opinion, driving without a valid license is dangerous driving by definition. Otherwise why would we go through all the testing procedure in the first place. The other issue is that juries seem to be very reluctant to find anyone guilty of dangerous driving as can be seen on other threads. As someone else has mentioned, having a single charge of, say, "negligent driving" to cover both careless and dangerous would seem sensible with a judge then considering the actual sentence required, with a range from the bottom end of careless to top end of dangerous.

Finally, I assume the driver wasn't driving just for himself but had been contracted by a firm. WTF were the firm doing to check their drivers? A partial extension of health and safety regs applicable onsite to the public streets seems appropriate. A firm that can (deliberately or through lack of checks) employ a driver with no license or insurance and with a record such as his, should have their operation license removed and be taken out of business. This will be the only way to concentrate minds and remove these dangerous drivers, as the drivers themselves clearly have no care for the consequences. Maybe the prospect of a firm being taken out of business for not checking staff properly would be more effective.

Your understanding is correct.

At charge decision time the prosecutor must not take into account previous convictions or commission of other offences at the time.

They are aggravating features at sentence, so the judge has leeway to add to the sentence because the driver has previous and was disqualified.

Juries have been reluctant to convict in some cases, presumably thinking the death was a genuine accident.

In this case the defendant pleaded guilty, albeit on the morning of the trial.

It his likely his barrister will have told him something like: "The evidence against you is so strong, the jury will pot you for sure."

Pleading guilty helps the defendant because he is automatically entitled to a discount off his sentence.

Prosecuting the company is a harder one.

We don't know what checks they made, probably none, but we don't know.

Disqualified drivers have been known to keep their valid paper licence and show that to get jobs.

Only a direct check with the DVLA would reveal the driver's true status.

If no checks were made, there may be some HSE or Transport Commissioners record keeping offence the company could be charged with.

Corporate manslaughter is very, very complicated and I can't see it being a goer in this case.

 

[Dan B]

Prosecuting the company is a harder one.

We don't know what checks they made, probably none, but we don't know.

Disqualified drivers have been known to keep their valid paper licence and show that to get jobs.

Only a direct check with the DVLA would reveal the driver's true status.

If no checks were made, there may be some HSE or Transport Commissioners record keeping offence the company could be charged with.

Corporate manslaughter is very, very complicated and I can't see it being a goer in this case.

Because of course it's absolutely impossible for anyone to phone up the DVLA and check whether their employees licences are valid

It's curious how car hire companies all seem to manage to do exactly that though, isn't it?

 

[Pale Rider]

Because of course it's absolutely impossible for anyone to phone up the DVLA and check whether their employees licences are valid

It's curious how car hire companies all seem to manage to do exactly that though, isn't it?

Not in the slightest.

I expect reputable transport companies do make further checks, but I doubt Cowboy Tipper Co does.

 

[Dan B]

CTC pushing for corporate manslaughter against whoever employed Meyer:

I find it odd that Barry Meyer's home address is on the public record (see e.g. here) yet the name of his employer is apparently being kept secret

 

[subaqua]

I find it odd that Barry Meyer's home address is on the public record (see e.g. here) yet the name of his employer is apparently being kept secret

possibly "self employed" and working on an ad hoc basis for another company

lots of smaller firms don't check basic details like insurance and licences, as they wrongly assume you will have the required legal stuff ( we do check and drivers who cant provide the info don't get to cart away, and in some cases deliver)

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I find it odd that Barry Meyer's home address is on the public record (see e.g. here) yet the name of his employer is apparently being kept secret

He's had a few of his own haulage and skip companies in the past, probably self-employed at the time of this case too.

GC

 

[Pale Rider]

As a defendant, his home address is released to the press.

There is no particular secret about his employer - if there is one - or the company he was sub-contracted to.

It may have already been mentioned at one of the hearings, or may be mentioned by the prosecutor at sentence.

The employer's name could be mentioned by the defence if they give him a reference.

You are then relying on the court reporter to still be awake at this point and for him/her to think it a sufficiently interesting piece of information to include in the report.

 

[glenn forger]

I find it odd that Barry Meyer's home address is on the public record (see e.g. here) yet the name of his employer is apparently being kept secret

Meyer was working the system, he's acquainted with the legal process. he changed his plea at the last minute so prosecution evidence wasn't heard.

 

[Arrowfoot]

I looked at the Charging guidelines and what Parliament legislated and it appears that CPS has usurped the power of Parliament. Or have I got the wrong legislation. The one by Parliament appears to the definition that seems to tie with the normal usage of the word Dangerous.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/2A
[F12AMeaning of dangerous driving.
(1)For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above 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.

(2)A person is also to be regarded as driving dangerously for the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous.

(3)In subsections (1) and (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of those subsections what would be expected of, or obvious to, a competent and careful driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.

(4)In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above the state of a vehicle, regard may be had to anything attached to or carried on or in it and to the manner in which it is attached or carried.]

 

[glenn forger]

This seems a problem with the law as it stands. In my opinion, driving without a valid license is dangerous driving by definition. Otherwise why would we go through all the testing procedure in the first place. The other issue is that juries seem to be very reluctant to find anyone guilty of dangerous driving as can be seen on other threads. As someone else has mentioned, having a single charge of, say, "negligent driving" to cover both careless and dangerous would seem sensible with a judge then considering the actual sentence required, with a range from the bottom end of careless to top end of dangerous.

.

They've left a massive hole in the law:

The offence of causing death by careless driving was introduced in 2008. As the graph shows, the number of prosecutions for causing death by dangerous driving has roughly halved since then.

 

[Pale Rider]

Is there a graph to show how many convictions resulted? I.

Yes, you are looking at it - the convictions are the dotted lines.

 

[Haitch]

Is there a graph to show how many convictions resulted?

The dashed line on glenn forger's graph, or am I missing summat?

 

[Pale Rider]

I looked at the Charging guidelines and what Parliament legislated and it appears that CPS has usurped the power of Parliament. Or have I got the wrong legislation. The one by Parliament appears to the definition that seems to tie with the normal usage of the word Dangerous.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/2A
[F12AMeaning of dangerous driving.
(1)For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above 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.

(2)A person is also to be regarded as driving dangerously for the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous.

(3)In subsections (1) and (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of those subsections what would be expected of, or obvious to, a competent and careful driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.

(4)In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above the state of a vehicle, regard may be had to anything attached to or carried on or in it and to the manner in which it is attached or carried.]

The charging guidelines use the same definitions.

Put simply, dangerous is 'far below' a competent standard, careless is 'below' a competent standard.

That's the choice the prosecutor has, the death is effectively irrelevant in making that choice because it is met by both charges.

So the prosecutor knows it is either death by careless, or death by dangerous.

Running a red light at a relatively slow speed is careless driving.

As I mentioned, it is routinely dealt with by a fixed penalty.

So, under the law, this was always going to be death by careless.

That charge was laid the day after the crash, which I think demonstrates this was not a hard decision for those with experience of making such decisions.

I'm not sure where the 'massive hole in the law' is.

Almost any minor motoring transgression can be characterised as careless, so you will be charged if you kill someone doing it.

Prior to 2008, when death by careless was introduced, this driver could not have been charged with anything.

Edit: I should add, he could only have been charged with simple careless driving.

That happened a few times in fatal crashes.

The victims' families were, quite rightly, not impressed.

 

[Pale Rider]

Apologies, phone screen.

Good answer, thinking on your feet.

Have you thought of a career at the criminal Bar?

The discussion that needs to be had is around what constitutes below and far below. It appears that we accept far below as being below and below as being competent. Put that right and we might recover some decent standards of behaviour.

I agree, if you are unhappy at the way cases are charged at present, you need to focus on achieving a change in the law and charging guidelines.

That will be a long and exhausting process, but it can be done.

The laws surrounding the double jeopardy protection for defendants were changed in response to public pressure.

 

[Dan B]

In particular, driving through a red light on Proctor St, which is a four lane one way road at a busy junction with cars, vans, cycles and usually hordes of pedestrians trying to cross ... that's a long way from "careful and competent"