Brutal hit and run, Nottingham

[CaadX]

And if they both say neither of them were driving, which one do you pick?

You do not have to pick either if you use a different mechanism as I outlined earlier.

 

[Milkfloat]

You do not have to pick either if you use a different mechanism as I outlined earlier.

Well 6 pages ago I suggested this https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/brutal-hit-and-run-nottingham.195351/post-4137775

I personally think it is a better option, whoever owns/rents the car is responsible for those driving it.

 

[CaadX]

Well 6 pages ago I suggested this https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/brutal-hit-and-run-nottingham.195351/post-4137775

I personally think it is a better option, whoever owns/rents the car is responsible for those driving it.

In an ideal world I might agree however the willfully part and proving it would be the stumbling block. You need to remove the burden of proof.

 

[mjr]

There are a lot of what ifs. The thing is none are being tested because the police and CPS are acting as judge and jury instead of law enforcement agencies

Maybe there's precedent? Surely this has been tried by now? If so, few would thank the CPS for throwing money away on hopeless cases.

 

[steveindenmark]

You are correct. Both the police and CPS can only work with the law available. They all seem frustrated by this and the law needs to be changed.

 

[400bhp]

What if a hire car gets stolen? What IF the one in the video was driven after being stolen and the owner couldn't identify?

Obviously this is unlikely to be the case, but we cannot have a justice system that punishes people without proving guilt, finding an innocent person guilty is far worse than finding a guilty person not guilty.

Nothing. It's stolen. The same principle applies for any vehicle that's stolen.

It's very easy to point to extreme scenarios as a basis for doing nothing. That isn't good enough in my view.

 

[400bhp]

Two different criminal offences. The perverting the course of justice one is demonstrated on the fact that both are lying about something both know full well, in order to duck the primary offence.

And why can't you use the "balance of probabilities" here, i.e. on balance of probailiities you would know if you hit the cyclist in the circumstance described and reported, and hence if, on the balance of probabilities, you would also know if you didn't hit the cyclist.

Roughly translated as "FFS, it's so bl00dy obvious that you'd know if you had hit a cyclist"

 

[DaveReading]

[QUOTE 4140573, member: 9609"]As far as the very serious offence of failing to stop, perverting the course of justice, and perjury, can they both not be charged with "Joint Enterprise"[/QUOTE]

You can't convict someone for claiming that they don't recall something, even if it's bleeding obvious that they are being disingenuous.

In the absence of any other evidence, that is.

 

[mjr]

And why can't you use the "balance of probabilities" here, i.e. on balance of probailiities you would know if you hit the cyclist ...

That's not what balance of probabilities usually means.

And that's usually the standard of proof for civil disputes, not criminal trials which usually seek proof beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[DaveReading]

[QUOTE 4140616, member: 9609"]the evidence is overwhelming, charge both of them under 'joint enterprise' it makes no difference who was driving.[/QUOTE]

We're going round in circles here.

If the CPS thought a Joint Enterprise charge would stick, then the pair would be in court. But JE would require that the person in the passenger seat had agreed and planned in advance with the driver that they were going to run down a cyclist.

Are you suggesting that's what they did?

And yes you can convict someone even if they claim not to remember.

Of course you can. But not, as I said, in the absence of any evidence that identifies the offender.

 

[400bhp]

That's not what balance of probabilities usually means.

And that's usually the standard of proof for civil disputes, not criminal trials which usually seek proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Well, it means, more likely than not. So it's the same?

Yes, understand about civil & criminal but I don't know enough about the law to know when it's possible not to use beyond reasonable doubt? I'm interested in this because all this seems like a massive gap in the law.

Edit, actually FFS surely this is "beyond reasonable doubt" here?

 

[Raa]

Well they seem to have sucessfully avoided justice, they probably had some loophle lawyer tell them exactly what to say.

Personally I think a good public shaming would go some way towards a a suitable punishment. How about crowdfunding a reward for the person who makes thier identities public?

I'll start with £100

Anyone else?

 

[TheJDog]

The £150 fine as opposed to the maximum is a real kick in the teeth here. I hope the insurance company gets stuck to the wall.

 

[benb]

Trouble with JE in this case is that if they are both saying it was the other one driving, only one of them is lying. The other is innocent.

 

[Spinney]

I think they are both saying they can't remember.