Brutal hit and run, Nottingham

[benb]

No, the other one knows who was driving and is lying about it.

X and Y.
X was driving.
X says Y was driving.
Y says X was driving.

Only X is lying. Y is innocent.

Not saying that's what they said in this case (there has been some suggestion they both said they couldn't remember) but you couldn't prosecute both of them in the scenario I just described.

 

[Spinney]

X and Y.
X was driving.
X says Y was driving.
Y says X was driving.

Only X is lying. Y is innocent.

Not saying that's what they said in this case (there has been some suggestion they both said they couldn't remember) but you couldn't prosecute both of them in the scenario I just described.

TMN to me!
(you even 'liked' my post, benb!)

 

[benb]

TMN to me!
(you even 'liked' my post, benb!)

They say imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.

 

[mjr]

Actually it's not 'beyond reasonable doubt' but 'so that you are sure'. There is a subtle but substantive difference.

My experience of criminal law is blissfully limited, so I defer to you, but that's still stronger than a balance of probabilities.

 

[Tin Pot]

X and Y.
X was driving.
X says Y was driving.
Y says X was driving.

Only X is lying. Y is innocent.

Not saying that's what they said in this case (there has been some suggestion they both said they couldn't remember) but you couldn't prosecute both of them in the scenario I just described.

X is lying. Y is lying to save X. Hang em both.

 

[Raa]

Reginald Scott has posted a youtube update; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTkscGs ... e=youtu.be

 

[oldstrath]

Reginald Scott has posted a youtube update; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTkscGs ... e=youtu.be

Watched it, sort of wished I hadn't - just a reminder that the fecks got away with it, which will probably encourage others to do the same, and nothing done to stop them.

Remind me again why vigilante action is wrong?

Edit
ok, I do know why vigilante action is wrong really, but the implications of this case seem terrifying, given the casual way in which almost every driver treats the law and their responsibilities.

 

[Pale Rider]

There is an assumption the bloke who pleaded guilty or was convicted of failure to furnish driver details is the driver.

But I wonder if he was genuinely unable to name the driver, and/or had an apparently unbreakable alibi for the time of the accident: "I was abroad at the time and the keys and the car were left at work."

The appropriate charge could be causing serious injury by dangerous driving.

There is no need for a formal admission of who was driving for that charge to be laid.

If there is good evidence he was driving, there is no reason not to charge him with the causing injury offence.

His only defence could be 'I wasn't driving', so any trial would turn on that issue.

That is good in one respect, because the serious injury and dangerous driving would have to be accepted - he can give no evidence otherwise because he wasn't there.

The prosecution would only need to prove he was driving.

We don't know what evidence there is to prove he was driving, but part of it would be the footage showing a male.

If there is no other evidence he was the driver, and some evidence he was not - see alibi paragraph above - I can understand why the police/CPS were left with failure to furnish.

That might also explain the unusually small fine - the magistrates accepted he had genuine difficulties complying with the statutory request to furnish the driver details.

 

[toffee]

- the magistrates accepted he had genuine difficulties complying with the statutory request to furnish the driver details.

Surely if he was in no position to say who was driving, such as if he was out of the country, then he would have been found not guilty as he would not be in a position to do so.

Derek

 

[Pale Rider]

Surely if he was in no position to say who was driving, such as if he was out of the country, then he would have been found not guilty as he would not be in a position to do so.

Derek

There is a statutory obligation to name the driver of your car when required to do so.

Once charged, there is a defence along the lines of you've taken all reasonable steps to comply, but the onus on you is to take a lot of those steps - you have to convince the magistrates you've tried awfully hard to comply.

In most cases, if you don't come up with a name, it's an automatic guilty verdict.

As you might imagine, there may be a handful of people who have genuinely ended up on the wrong end of that statute.

This bloke may not be one of those people, but if the police have good evidence he was the driver, there is no need or point in pratting around with failure to furnish - charge him straight away with causing serious injury by dangerous driving, and let a jury pick the bones out of whether he was driving or not.

There could be evidence he was the driver which has not been uncovered due to useless coppering.

But to be fair to Notts Police, we do not know the extent and range of their inquiries, only the result.

 

[growingvegetables]

But to be fair to Notts Police, we do not know the extent and range of their inquiries, only the result.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGG8fGnlD1o
- an account.

 

[Pale Rider]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGG8fGnlD1o
- an account.

From that second video, it appears the officer did not treat the crash with appropriate seriousness - she suggests to Reg a few points and a fine is a decent result for him.

Many CPS prosecutors are useless, but to be fair to this one he proved the only charge he was prosecuting - failure to furnish - because the magistrates found the defendant guilty of it.

Reg is correct when he ventures if he had been killed, someone would have been charged with one of the death by driving offences.

That could have brought its own reward, because if she was charged, with prison a probability, it's likely she would have run the so-called cut throat defence: "I wasn't driving," so by extension it must be him.

The officer, if she's any good, may well now regret not getting more stuck into this investigation at the early stage.

 

[oldstrath]

From that second video, it appears the officer did not treat the crash with appropriate seriousness - she suggests to Reg a few points and a fine is a decent result for him.

Many CPS prosecutors are useless, but to be fair to this one he proved the only charge he was prosecuting - failure to furnish - because the magistrates found the defendant guilty of it.

Reg is correct when he ventures if he had been killed, someone would have been charged with one of the death by driving offences.

That could have brought its own reward, because if she was charged, with prison a probability, it's likely she would have run the so-called cut throat defence: "I wasn't driving," so by extension it must be him.

The officer, if she's any good, may well now regret not getting more stuck into this investigation at the early stage.

From that second video, it appears the officer did not treat the crash with appropriate seriousness - she suggests to Reg a few points and a fine is a decent result for him.

Many CPS prosecutors are useless, but to be fair to this one he proved the only charge he was prosecuting - failure to furnish - because the magistrates found the defendant guilty of it.

Reg is correct when he ventures if he had been killed, someone would have been charged with one of the death by driving offences.

That could have brought its own reward, because if she was charged, with prison a probability, it's likely she would have run the so-called cut throat defence: "I wasn't driving," so by extension it must be him.

The officer, if she's any good, may well now regret not getting more stuck into this investigation at the early stage.

It's not clear to me why the event that occurred should not have the risk of prison, or lifetime ban on the grounds the driver was either blind or has no short term memory.

 

[Pale Rider]

It's not clear to me why the event that occurred should not have the risk of prison, or lifetime ban on the grounds the driver was either blind or has no short term memory.

There is a risk of prison, but only if an imprisonable offence is charged.

For whatever reasons, the police seem to think failure to furnish is sufficient, which carries a maximum of a fine and licence points.

Only fair to point out the police may not have been assisted by the CPS, who are notoriously timid and prone to drop a case if it starts to look a bit difficult.

 

[Nortones2]

A tendency to minimise the injuries, and blindness to the prima facie use of a vehicle to cause harm, because of an agenda? The police in this event seem to have little understanding that the outcome of an "event" is variable, even where the causal factors are very similar. They have resisted delving into motives and causes, and gathering witnesses. There were other vehicles nearby, possibly with sight of the driver, as well as CCT available. Perhaps the case was passed to a second rank investigator, as no death occurred, although clearly there was a very serious injury.