Brutal hit and run, Nottingham

[CopperCyclist]

So would the next step be - who has an alibi at the time, or does it just get dropped? If it does get dropped, who decides that - the PC, Sergeant, Inspector, CPS?

The next steps vary from case to case, but simply put, yes - if there is a way to try and prove who was driving by questioning, then those questions will be asked. The problem is that it's very easy to give an untruthful answer which is impossible to disprove to the burden required by the court.

Different forces will have different policies as to who chooses to drop it, but a usual approach would be for a PC to write up the report explaining everything they've done, and why they think they can't go any further. A sergeant would then check the report and agree, or suggest further lines of enquiry if they spot something that was missed.

In this instance, it would appear PC and PS decided to actually report the driver to court, hoping that a court would choose to believe they are lying. Once the matter is at court in this way, it's then CPS that make the choice to discontinue as they were certain that the drivers excuse would result in a not guilty.

 

[andyoxon]

So is the law an ass on this, or is it a failure of procedural will power - 'more hassle than it's worth' for police/CPS..? Either way it seems obvious that a £150 fine is wholly inadequate, and justice does has not seen to have been done.

 

[Subotai72]

So is the law an ass on this, or is it a failure of procedural will power - 'more hassle than it's worth' for police/CPS..? Either way it seems obvious that a £150 fine is wholley inadequate, and justice does has not seen to have been done.

I suppose it would depend on whether the car is registered to Chris Huhne or not

 

[CaadX]

Justice in lots of cases is based on finance it seems, be it the lack of resources to prosecute or the ability and means to pay fines. In a cases like this the ideal would be to make the car hire firm liable no argument it was their car. Whack the max penalty up to say £25 000 of course no court will find to the max but it would probably be a few grand. Ability to pay ? I think so, and watch them get the cash out of the low lives, precedent set then civil for damages. No custodial sentence but its the next best thing.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Justice in lots of cases is based on finance it seems, be it the lack of resources to prosecute or the ability and means to pay fines. In a cases like this the ideal would be to make the car hire firm liable no argument it was their car. Whack the max penalty up to say £25 000 of course no court will find to the max but it would probably be a few grand. Ability to pay ? I think so, and watch them get the cash out of the low lives, precedent set then civil for damages. No custodial sentence but its the next best thing.

When you allow a mechanism for this person to be punished, you allow the mechanism for abuse too.

Your car was stolen through the night, the thief used it in a hit and run but was never found. Fair to prosecute the owner of the vehicle?

 

[Tin Pot]

So is the law an ass on this, or is it a failure of procedural will power - 'more hassle than it's worth' for police/CPS..? Either way it seems obvious that a £150 fine is wholly inadequate, and justice does has not seen to have been done.

Its a loophole, it needs closing.

Otherwise we see vigilante justice.

 

[400bhp]

When you allow a mechanism for this person to be punished, you allow the mechanism for abuse too.

Your car was stolen through the night, the thief used it in a hit and run but was never found. Fair to prosecute the owner of the vehicle?

You restrict it to written agreements between 2 parties.

 

[400bhp]

Maybe my first post was missed but why can both/either not be charged with perverting the course of justice?

 

[DaveReading]

Maybe my first post was missed but why can both/either not be charged with perverting the course of justice?

Because, as the law stands, such a charge wouldn't stick.

 

[Milkfloat]

Maybe my first post was missed but why can both/either not be charged with perverting the course of justice?

Only one of them is actually perverting the course of justice, which one do you choose?

 

[CaadX]

When you allow a mechanism for this person to be punished, you allow the mechanism for abuse too.

Your car was stolen through the night, the thief used it in a hit and run but was never found. Fair to prosecute the owner of the vehicle?

Why one? The driver knew they were driving and the non-driver knew that they were not. Both have, presumably, said they cannot remember. Seems that both are lying to me.

Indeed the problem is proving it.

 

[CaadX]

oops not got the hang of this did not mean to include the first quote sorry.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

You restrict it to written agreements between 2 parties.

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.

 

[Milkfloat]

Why one? The driver knew they were driving and the non-driver knew that they were not. Both have, presumably, said they cannot remember. Seems that both are lying to me.

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

 

[CaadX]

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.

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