Guilty of causing serious injury by dangerous driving - 3 years jail

[Milkfloat]

Is that the sort of service we should get from the Crown Prosecution Service?

It depends, could they also work on another case with a great chance of a conviction, or would they drop another case to work on a greater charge on this one that may see the offender walk free? Given unlimited resources, then yes I would like each case prosecuted to the fullest ability of all involved, but unfortunately in the real world compromises have to be made.

Unfortunately, after some of the stories you hear (Mason) we have to chalk this one up as a 'success' even if it not the perfect outcome.

 

[Pale Rider]

Path of least resistance from CPS and Police I would assume.

That can happen, but not in this case.

Causing serious injury by dangerous driving is the equivalent of grievous bodily harm, plus the motoring aspect.

The benefit is she is sentenced for the assault and dangerous driving, which brings an automatic driving ban.

It also means she must take an extended driving test if she wishes to drive after the ban expires, and I can tell you that no one passes one of those first time.

It's also the appropriate charge from the point of view of her criminal record, because it most accurately reflects the offending.

Length of sentence/ban is a matter for the judge, but the maximum jail sentence is five years.

We don't have full details of the injury, but three years sounds about par for the course. or even a bit above par, if those injuries had been caused in, say, a pub brawl.

 

[Drago]

Is that the sort of service we should get from the Crown Prosecution Service?

No, but as long as the CPS are 'scored' on their successful prosecution rate its what we'll get. Because they get scored on performance have targets they're very risk averse. Prior to 2003 the police charged almost all offences, and they didn't give a stuff about success percentages.

 

[User482]

It is not just the outcome in Court that is worrying though. The charge of dangerous driving, for something that looks like one form of assault or another, using a car as a weapon, is just weak.

This lawyer agrees with you: http://defencebrief.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/charging-decisions-cyclist-mown-down-by.html?m=1

 

[Origamist]

I'm not sure if I wrote this ambiguously ( I meant the sentencing was appropriate, which is unusual - could have reasonably have been harsher) or if you are criticising me for omitting specifics of the case in an internet forum response.
If it is the latter, I think the perverse aspect is uncalled for. If it makes you feel better to be more pious than me, then bully for you.
I read the article, as I don't really need to see someone driving someone else off the road. I read that article, and that was the response that I chose to post. If it was terse, I may have been chosen to spend a moment on this forum in between other more important life things.
I still don't approve of damage other people's property, because they used a phone or were brutish towards you. I suspected, being a lover of cycling, a lot of my feelings went without saying.

I've never been called 'pious' before, but I'm flattered...

It wasn't that your post was terse, it was more the focus on the cyclist's misbehaviour and not the perpetrator of the life-threatening violence. As a self proclaimed 'lover of cycling', I think you'll appreciate that it jars somewhat.

 

[gaijintendo]

I've never been called 'pious' before, but I'm flattered...

It wasn't that your post was terse, it was more the focus on the cyclist's misbehaviour and not the perpetrator of the life-threatening violence. As a self proclaimed 'lover of cycling', I think you'll appreciate that it jars somewhat.

I am new to the forum, at least in terms of participating, so I guess I hadn't realised I had to balance my responses to avoid offence. Perhaps it was the "pious eejit" that made it come across flippant?
Either way, I completely regret participating in this thread.

 

[Pale Rider]

This lawyer agrees with you: http://defencebrief.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/charging-decisions-cyclist-mown-down-by.html?m=1

The motoring lawyer will rarely deal with offences of violence, and it shows from the blog post.

Proving intent to the satisfaction of a jury is notoriously difficult, because you are asking at least 10 people to be satisfied so they are sure that they are mind readers and know what the person was thinking.

The lawyer is correct in that she was charged with 'wounding by dangerous driving' - no intent needs to be proved.

The only other charge would be wounding with intent.

That's too easy to defend, she will simply say she only intended to scare the cyclist, or even knock him off his bike and give him a few cuts and bruises.

The fact she could have caused/did cause serious injury - or even killed the cyclist - is irrelevant to defending the intent charge she would have been facing.

So she can happily tell the jury: "I knocked him off his bike in the hope he would suffer a bit, but not seriously."

The jury must then find her not guilty of wounding with intent.

She walks from the court free as a bird and there's hell on.

Although what usually happens is the two offences are charged in the alternative, so she would have been found not guilty of wounding with intent, but guilty of simple wounding.

But that's no good, because it doesn't reflect the driving aspect.

Charging her with causing serious injury by dangerous driving is much harder to defend, as the guilty verdict shows.

The prosecution only has to prove the cyclist was seriously injured, that's nailed on from the medical records, and the driving was dangerous - the video does a pretty good job of proving that.

 

[oldstrath]

Since I assume no lawyer ever advises their client to admit that they intended to cause harm, how on earth does anyone ever "prove intent"?

If you're really going to allow someone to get away with pretending to be stupid enough not to know that driving a car into a person will hurt them, or to pretend that they chased a man down a street just to scare them a wee bit, what in God's name do you need to " prove intent"? A signed declaration in front of 10 witnesses?

Or should we just accept that if you are driving a car you can pretty much do anything you like to a vulnerable road user, then say " oh, I didn't mean it, I never expected driving over him to hurt him " and get essentially let off?

 

[Drago]

For an assault you don't need to prove intent. It is equally possible to recklessly assault someone.

Random example - you throw a brick out of the window of your flat into the street below. You do not know if there is anyone there, so could not possibly intend to hurt any specific person, but the act of recklessness is sufficient. Ditto with some other offences, such as criminal damage.

So if this Lady had been charged with some level of assault it would not be necessary to prove intent, only that she was reckless. However, if intent can be reasonably proven on a GBH or above the charge gets the 'with intent' tag that one often hears in the news.

 

[Pale Rider]

For an assault you don't need to prove intent. It is equally possible to recklessly assault someone.

You do need to prove intent for the more serious wounding with intent charge, which is the one some posters on here are calling for.

You do not need to prove intent for simple wounding, which is the charge she has effectively been convicted of, but with the added ingredient of dangerous driving.

Since I assume no lawyer ever advises their client to admit that they intended to cause harm, how on earth does anyone ever "prove intent"?

If you're really going to allow someone to get away with pretending to be stupid enough not to know that driving a car into a person will hurt them, or to pretend that they chased a man down a street just to scare them a wee bit, what in God's name do you need to " prove intent"? A signed declaration in front of 10 witnesses?

Or should we just accept that if you are driving a car you can pretty much do anything you like to a vulnerable road user, then say " oh, I didn't mean it, I never expected driving over him to hurt him " and get essentially let off?

You are right that wounding with intent is usually denied, but it can be proved by the nature of the assault.

Bear in mind the jury hears all the gory details, so if someone is stabbed multiple times that might prove intent, but if they are 'only' stabbed once that might not.

Or if the victim is simply punched to the ground that might not prove intent, but if he is punched to the ground then jumped on and kicked numerous times in the head that could prove intent.

Circumstances come into it, the jury may hear of a possible motive - a dispute between the parties - or premeditation where the defendant arms himself with a weapon, then seeks out his victim, all of which goes to prove he intended - set out - to cause serious injury.

Going back to this case, no intent was proved because it didn't need to be.

Three years in prison is hardly a let off, although as a supporter of stiffer sentences I would have given her longer.

Leaving aside the injuries, she should get an extra year for the tactical pregnancy.

Dreadful woman all round.

 

[Pale Rider]

Has intent been demonstrated?

No, but in my sentencing world it would be inferred.

 

[jefmcg]

No, but in my sentencing world it would be inferred.

Yes, and punishing women for their reproductive choices could never have a down side. [/sarcasm]

Seriously, if this kid was conceived as a get-out-of-jail card, she is going to have enough problems without inflicting an extra year of foster care on her.

 

[Pale Rider]

Yes, and punishing women for their reproductive choices could never have a down side. [/sarcasm]

Seriously, if this kid was conceived as a get-out-of-jail card, she is going to have enough problems without inflicting an extra year of foster care on her.

Seriously, I (reluctantly) agree.

And the tactic appears not to have worked in this case, because three years looks about right in the context of current sentencing.

 

[KnackeredBike]

With all this "intent" stuff it's worth noting that if you drive a car at a police officer where they are "shaken but unhurt" they will push for attempted murder. Shouldn't be one rule for plod and another for cyclists.

 

[jefmcg]

With all this "intent" stuff it's worth noting that if you drive a car at a police officer where they are "shaken but unhurt" they will push for attempted murder. Shouldn't be one rule for plod and another for cyclists.

I totally disagree. Policemen put themselves in harms way, I am happy for the law to offer them a little extra protection - especially in the UK where most of them are unarmed, so can't protect themselves any better than civilians who don't take extra risks for my sake.

Edit: actually, it's more than that. For our society to work, people need to respect the police. If you can hurt them with the same risk as killing anyone else, then we are all more exposed to danger because the police will have less real authority to protect us. So yes, pursue those who attack the police more vigorously than those who attack civilians.