Brutal hit and run, Nottingham

[Tin Pot]

It's an interesting discussion, and I see the CpS position, but society needs protecting from people who are willing to flee and hide from the law after doing this. More effort is required.

 

[oldstrath]

Unless they were disqualified from driving, I suspect they were wrong about that.

I presumed from the video uploaders comments that everyone had got away completely scot free. Given our system, that's actually not too bad a result for the circumstances.

Really - a trivial fine and a small number of points is '/not too bad a result' for smashing someone with a few tonnes of metal? I've heard of lowered expectations, but this seems a bit extreme.

 

[DaveReading]

The identity of the person who paid that fine would be an accessible public record?

According to the BBC report, both of the two individuals who were eligible to drive the car were summonsed to court for failing to stop or report the accident, though the CPS subsequently dropped those charges. So both their identities will be in the public domain.

 

[Markymark]

Really - a trivial fine and a small number of points is '/not too bad a result' for smashing someone with a few tonnes of metal? I've heard of lowered expectations, but this seems a bit extreme.

That's not what the punishment was for though. It would have been greater had it been. But there is no evidence who it was.

 

[Milkfloat]

Still, at least this will hurt them financially for quite a while, as insurance companies will load their premiums for this offence.

Assuming they have a car and that they even tell the insurance company.

 

[Milkfloat]

Given our system, that's actually not too bad a result for the circumstances.

What is worrying is that our system allows this. IMO willfully not disclosing who was driving should be equal in punishment to the worst offence that is possible in the vehicle.

 

[Tin Pot]

According to the BBC report, both of the two individuals who were eligible to drive the car were summonsed to court for failing to stop or report the accident, though the CPS subsequently dropped those charges. So both their identities will be in the public domain.

Our society can do without those two people.

 

[benborp]

That's not what the punishment was for though. It would have been greater had it been. But there is no evidence who it was.

Sorry to point it out again, but people regularly receive paltry fines and moderate endorsements when convicted of driving offences that cause injury. The same goes for causing death. It's possible to receive as few as 3 points for killing someone and fines are frequently less than a moderate weekly wage. We're also depressingly familiar with the arguments that are successfully used to absolve drivers of some or all blame when such cases come to trial.

Depressingly, a moderate fine and some penalty points is a good result for a careless driving case resulting in injury.

 

[oldstrath]

That's not what the punishment was for though. It would have been greater had it been. But there is no evidence who it was.

Avoiding, if we can, the legal doublethink, one of the two people concerned is likely to have caused a significant injury. This injury has gone unpunished, except by a trifling fine levied for a technical offence.

 

[Markymark]

Avoiding, if we can, the legal doublethink, one of the two people concerned is likely to have caused a significant injury. This injury has gone unpunished, except by a trifling fine levied for a technical offence.

Do you think it fair if you were punished because either you or your neighbour definitely hurt someone but nobody knows which?

 

[Spinney]

Do you think it fair if you were punished because either you or your neighbour definitely hurt someone but nobody knows which?

That's not quite the case here though, is it? One of them must know they ran over the cyclist. The 'innocent' one must know the other did it. For neither to say anything is actually conspiracy to pervert the course of justice...

 

[benb]

Unless they were disqualified from driving, I suspect they were wrong about that.

I presumed from the video uploaders comments that everyone had got away completely scot free. Given our system, that's actually not too bad a result for the circumstances.

6 points is standard for failing to disclose, but the fine seems odd. I thought it was £500 as standard.

 

[benborp]

But such a situation shouldn't result in the punishment of an innocent. An innocent might face the prospect of facing a charge whereby the prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt their guilt. Instead we have to settle for the fact that on the balance of probabilities the CPS will fail to get a prosecution and the widespread recognition that conspiracy with or coercion of a witness is an effective method of sidestepping justice.

 

[Markymark]

That's not quite the case here though, is it? One of them must know they ran over the cyclist. The 'innocent' one must know the other did it. For neither to say anything is actually conspiracy to pervert the course of justice...

That is true. Then the punishment must be for the crime of perverting the course of justice, not running over a cyclist.....whcih it was.

Now, if you tink the punishment for that should be higher, then I agree. But they cannot be punished for something that have not been convicted of.

 

[Spinney]

I agree that the punishment was totally inadequate.