I infer from this that Bystander is suggesting that of the traditional tripod of Retribution, rehabilitation and deterence,that Retribution has become the primary concern.
One hopes that the "Cash for Honours" investigation is treated in keeping with this approach - I personally would not mind being a Baron.
Sir,
You do of course realise that many death by dangerous driving cases involve drink,breaking speed limits, no insurance, no license, mobile phone use, etc?
Everyone knows the danger of driving badly and therefore should face the consequences for their actions.
Of course all cases should be judged on an individual basis however every single case like this that I have ever dealt with have involved a one of the above.
Most are not simple "accidents" as you describe.
(This is what I meant:
http://thelawwestofealingbroadwa...ored-
again.html - ed.)
I would also like to hear your opinion on the latest stroy about drug addicted criminals given compensation for being forced to give up drugs. Although I dread to think of what the answer might be.
Your humble servant.
Edited By Siteowner
PCM
Bystander is referring to death by careless driving, not dangerous driving. As you presumably know, they are very different in their seriousness and in the way that the courts deal with them at present.
It is, I think, one of life's ironies, that the people elect the politicians, who debate which laws shall bind the people and these politicans look to the popular opinion to determine how the laws should operate. In my (albeit limited) experience, it is easier to listen to those who shout the loudest, than the (potentially) more quiet voice of reason, especially when you are in a position of requiring popular support (for example following the change in a neighbouring Senate- with general elections due).I sincerely hope that politicians remember that the decisons they make now, will be open to review at a later later - potentially forever and that "knee jerk" reactions are rarely as effective as considered actions.
As Bystander states in his preface, we are obliged to follow the Law of the Land,whether they belive they are right or wrong. I am however concerned that blind obseqiousness to these laws will be a recipe of disaster- and whilst not wishing to libel anyone, dictatorships, and dare I say Nazis, are rightly held in contempt for following wrongs because they were "legal". It is for Bystander and his esteemed colleagues, in conjunction with the legal profession and courts system to ensure that common sense prevails- the so-called "golden rule"
Bystander
a driver who kills by pure accident would not be in your court because they would not be charged.
careless driving means ust that "you have been careless" if that results in the death of someone then surely some consequence should result.
but then again you are a magistrate and the concept of consequence for ones actions appears to be lost on the courts.....
ANON
Bingham is wooly as they come. I'm surprised he hasn't fallen sideways :-)
I haven't got too much respect for the cunning old furies in Chancery Lane. What do they really know about anyone? All these high level rows about whether or not such and such is guilty of what's been altered in the legal process because he's possibly dropped something on his right foot instead of his left etc. etc.
Shame then with common sense I say.
This just shows that the true power in this country lies with the Media.
PC Midlands
Why is it that Police Officers like yourself want everything in life to be a crime? Especially when you're not very good at catching those who break the laws we've already got.
Or is that the point? I don't suppose it'll be terribly difficult to catch those who sneeze and kill a pedestrian
I was very pleased to see the quotation from Dr. Johnson about why you don't want to apply the death penalty to everything.
Well, the magnanimity of the victorious badger knows no bounds, while the frightened weasel trapped in his burrow apes the ferocity of the angry bear.
Old Russian proverb. Chekhov, I think. Pavel, most likely.
For what it is worth, I think that the decision to pay compensation in the cold-turkey case was a mistake. A senior NOMS official said to me only the other day that the Prison Service detoxifies more people than any other organisation. That cannot be done without some suffering, but the end result justifies it, in my opinion.
I think the efforts to clean up the addicted inhabitants of HM Prisons is an extremely noble one - by whatever means it can be done. Cold turkey's cheaper than meth, I s'pose.
In fact, seeing as most junkies/criminals go on to reoffend to feed their habit, wouldn't it be a good idea to keep them inside until they are clean? Then they would have a much better chance of going straight, less crimes would be committed, and the public would be better protected from them.
Brian:
There is no law called death by careless driving (unless with alcohol or drugs).
Sentances for death by dangerous driving are in the main very low.
I am not saying that because of the Sun either but through bitter experience.
I cant see how this new law will help things. It will surely only give the magistrates another excuse to give a minor non-custodial sentance for what is essentialy manslaughter.
Infuriated:
I dont, see above. We have all the right laws in place at the current time and bystander has a point about kneejerl legislation. The main problem with the judiciary is the low sentnactes given out to most criminals.
John Cowan: It seems that it is the referral order, suspended sentance or comunity order that is the penalty for all offences now a day. Unless it goes to crown.
Sandy, that is far too sensible an option. You can gert seven years for theft and most shoplifters are heroin addicts. Put them inside for 3 years and job done.
However I have never, in all my service seen a shoplifet get anything more that a couple of months, even though it is there 30 - 40th offence.
In regards to the compensation, the world has gone mad.
Offenders rights over the victim once
again.
The Home Office could have carried it to court but they didnt. Shame on them.
death by careless driving is `essentially manslaughter`(!!!!)
are you honestly a police officer?
do you know the points to prove for manslaughter?
Intent to use unlawful violence perhaps?
death by careless driving is nothing at all like manslaughter. You should be embarrassed to write that, coming from a perspective of being involved in the law.
Calm down, silvafox, old fellow/filly, he's only talking about for the base, common and popular, not for police officers, beaks, briefs, ballot box thumpers and such like.
I wish people would take the time to learn some law before they comment here. For all those who think that Careless Driving covers a sneeze or being stung by a bee, look up "AUTOMATISM" in Blackstones Police Manuals (they are dumbed down especially for people like myself to understand).
Everyone is human, few murderous. There are already penalties for Careless Driving and if someone dies as a result the court can give out the maximum. I personally would never drive again or forgive myself if someone died as a result of me eating a sweet at the wrong moment or making a slight misjudgment of speed.
See http://pcbloggs.blogspot.com/ 2006/11/send-them-down_11.html for some other mistakes PC Midlands can send people to jail for. Are we to go through life taking no risks at all?
When you get behind the wheel of a car you are in charge of a deadly weapon. With that you should take care and reasonable steps to drive carefully. If this is not done then this is in itself pre-meditation for a reckless act, which is subsequently proved by the death.
I wonder if you would feel it was justifiable as an "accident" had someone in your own family died .
PCM,
May I ask you to do a search of this blog and have a look at earlier posts that you may have missed.
(e.g. here:- http://thelawwestofealingbroadwa...oads-
again.html
The points that I have made, ad nauseam, are that the Government plans to bring in an offence of causing death by careless (nb) driving during the next session of Parliament, and that I can think of no other imprisonable offence that requires no mens rea and no recklessness or negligence, merely carelessness. PCM or Mrs. PCM will face the prospect of a five year stretch not for careless driving, but for the fact that a death resulted. That is a matter of chance, not of justice.
Yes but the point I am making is that the carelessness is recklessness and negligence.
Of course each case will be different but examples such as mobile phone use, excessive speed, illegal overtaking etc are all actions which people take knowing what the consequences could be.
Remember dangerous driving is driving which falls far below the standard expected of a normal driver and therefore some of my examples may not apply.
PCM
The point is that the Govt intend to bring in custodial sentences for Death by Careless Driving.
I am aware of the current law, thank you. I have my trusty bench book by my side and the whole world of Google at my disposal.
Silvafox: No not embarrassed at all. In fact if I am to take legal advice I will go "no comment".
Rogerborg: Please don’t patronize me, whilst I do agree that a lot of reactionary legislation has been passed of late merely to score political points, it does not diminish the reasoning behind this particular law.
Rather than castigate the courts for sentencing, PCM should cast his eye over the Sentencing Guidelines, and the constant and often contradictory stream of drivel that comes from the Home Office about sentencing. The problem, if there is one, is I suggest entirely of the government's own making, not the courts.
I finally found a few moments to read Lord Bingham's speech, which is where this post began. I second Bystander's link.
Well reasoned and well expressed, particularly the part that examines the victim's interest in criminal proceedings.
The speech points out some common misconceptions about "crim-pro" (well, misconceptions that I had, anyway). Josh Billings said that it ain't so much that we don't know--it's that we know so much that ain't so. How true, how true!
The Road safety BILL is going through Parliament. It will bring a new offence of causing death by careless OR INCONSIDERATE driving.
Contrary to what ANON says it is entirely likely that someone whose driving has resulted in a fatality will face court since it will, in almost every single case, be possible to argue that the driver was at least "inconsiderate" in his driving.
Also, we all know that some people drive extremely badly but somehow (by chance/luck) avoid killing people whereas the converse can be true.
Another point is that the new offences could not be used where careless/inconsiderate driving results in serious injury. The prosecution will then have to fall back on the offences we have now (dangerous/careless driving). It must surely be an illogical position to introduce new offences relating to causing death but to leave out serious injury. Let's face it, if an act of careless driving results in the victim being in a wheelchair for life even the maximum penalty for careless driving will continue to seem to be hopelessly inadequate.
PCM, the next time you glance down and find that you're doing 31 in a 30 limit, ask yourself if you feel like turning yourself in for "attempted manslaughter by careless driving", which appears to be the standard that you want to hold the rest of us to.
Then we'll talk.
Rogerborg, we are exhorted every few yards to "check our speed", which means obviously glancing down. That takes more than a few seconds, especially if you're doing 31.
What is one to do ?
The interesting thing is that it is now almost 10 years than we have new labour, thousands of new offences, record numbers of people in prison, tougher than tough Home secretaries, Asbos, and still, we need more "tough" stuff and according to the tabloids, it is getting worse.
Isn't there some sort of contradiction ?
Bystander
In fact there are strict liability offences (requiring no mens rea or negligence) which are imprisonable.
Although not resulting in custody a couple of example cases where successful prosecutions occurred under statutes each providing for a maximum of two years' imprisonment are:
Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Storkwain [1986] where a pharmacist dispensed a prescription that subsequently proved to be forged but which he had no reason to suspect was not genuine and he was therefore not negligent.
Harrow LBC v Shah [1999] where a shopkeeper sold a lottery ticket to a person under 16, but whom he had convinced himself was over 16.
I can only restate my proposal that we sterilise the criminals and their families. That way, we'd have a minimal crime rate within a generation.
Oh, and let's abolish the Welfare State, too - no more free handouts, subsidised housing and endless supplies of methadone. Who knows, we might even get a generation of achievers, instead of the state-sponsored under-achievers we produce at the moment!?
PC Midlands says:
"... carelessness is recklessness and negligence."
That is not at all the case. There are clear differences between carelessness and negligence and recklessness. Perhaps that is partly what this discussion is about.
Can anyone who has ever driven a vehicle honestly state that they have never driven carelessly ...ever.
"There but for the grace of God go I".
Rogerborg dont be fatuous. One mile above the speed limit DOES NOT amount to carelessness.
Talking on a mobile phone, speeding by 20 miles an hour, overtaking on double white lines does not amount to dangerous driving, it will in most cases amount to driving without due care and attention.
If you kill someone by doing this, then dont you think the courts should be empowered to offer more than a fine and a disqualification? (the current penalty for this offence).
PC Midlands @ 11.15.06 - 11:08 pm:
Carelessness is "not giving sufficient attention or thought to a situation". So one mile above the speed limit could indeed amount to carelessness.
Talking on a mobile phone has an element of negligence about it, being "a failure to exercise a standard of care that a reasonable person would have in a similar situation".
Overtaking on double white lines could indicate a deliberate disregard for the dangers of a particular situation, and in some circumstances could be construed as dangerous.
Causing death in the latter two cases might indeed be worthy of punishment by imprisonment; however, do you really hope that causing death in circumstances akin to the first case will be so punished?
If so, be very careful using the blue lights and siren.
Micahel G:
"If so, be very careful using the blue lights and siren."
Trust me, I do. I personnally hate using them and police driving does teach you that it is not about speed but carefull handling of the car to pass hazards. But I am an experieced police driver so please dont tell me how to drive as I could probably teach you a thing or two!
"Carelessness is "not giving sufficient attention or thought to a situation". So one mile above the speed limit could indeed amount to carelessness."
Tell me of one occasion where anyone has been charged with careless driving for being one mile over the speed limit.
Talking on a mobile phone has an element of negligence about it, being "a failure to exercise a standard of care that a reasonable person would have in a similar situation".
The offence is both a specific offence or alternatively "driving whilst not in proper control of vehilce". Again that is not dangerous driving.
I wont go through the rest suffice to say that you any driving could amount to carelessness and each case needs to be viewed on its own merits. But as it stands, in the main the above scenarios do not amount to dangerous driving and therfore leave the courts and police powerless.
A court would not convict someone on an accident.
Dear PC Midlands
Actually, I am a currently qualified and properly trained Police pursuit driver, but working in the jurisdiction of neither Bystander, nor yourself.
From what I have personally experienced of British Police driving standards, neither you nor any of your colleagues can teach me anything at all about driving safely.
A quick and quite recent story to illustrate:
Last year while travelling in England at the speed limit on my own side of the road in a 30 mph limit, I was confronted by one of your colleagues, in a marked car, on the wrong side of the road, on a blind corner, across double white lines. The marked car was travelling at about 100 mph (yes, only estimated, yes blue lights, but no siren), less than 50 metres from me.
Had I not taken extremely drastic steps to avoid a collision there would have been six people (my three passengers, me and two pedestrians) severely injured or even dead, excluding the stupid, dangerous, reckless and irresponsible individual driving the marked car, and his uniformed accomplice.
When I registered my complaint, I was told: "He was attending a scene; he had to get there in a hurry. The siren was off in case he disturbed the criminals at work".
My insistence on pursuing a complaint led to a series of very nasty and extremely confrontational high profile visits by uniformed Police to the place where I was staying, each visit being a very forceful and intimidatory attempt to persuade me to withdraw my complaint.
I was later told that the "scene" to be attended by the speedster was a burglary that had been reported five hours earlier (and which was not still in progress, so no need for quick response). Another officer had already arrived there.
I said then and I say again: the bastard twat incompetent boy-racer was not giving sufficient attention and/or thought to his current driving situation.
Had he killed someone what would the situation have been … and what would it be under the proposed legislation?
In any event, he was not prosecuted.
(Perhaps I should not have stopped the moron from actually killing someone?)
As a result of that experience, I do not consider the British/English Police to be anything but lucky amateurs and stupid incompetents when it comes to driving safely.
Also, you say:
"A court would not convict someone on an accident"
I say:
They do that quite often.
And then I ask:
Are you really a Police officer?
If you really are a Police officer then, given your displayed grasp of Law and associated procedures, and also of reality, I am no longer surprised at anything that happens in this country.
(Sorry Bystander, that was a clear breach of your principle: "attack the sin and not the sinner.")
Michael - you are right about the principle. PCM is a regular, and he can dish it out, so I expect that he is big enough and ugly enough to take it, but I wouldn't want to see anything go further than this.
Michael G:
"Actually, I am a currently qualified and properly trained Police pursuit driver, but working in the jurisdiction of neither Bystander, nor yourself. "
Which means what exactly?
With all due respect, I do not believe this story and I will explain why.
To drive around a corner at £100 is very difficult to do, to do this and cross double white lines is against the ACPO manual of guidance. He may not have been using sirens but that is standard for certain incidents.
"My insistence on pursuing a complaint led to a series of very nasty and extremely confrontational high profile visits by uniformed Police to the place where I was staying, each visit being a very forceful and intimidatory attempt to persuade me to withdraw my complaint."
This is where the credibility in your story falls down. Anyone with any experience of police complaints departments will know that these officers are like vultures, and will do anything to convict an officer.
"I was later told that the "scene" to be attended by the speedster was a burglary that had been reported five hours earlier (and which was not still in progress, so no need for quick response). Another officer had already arrived there."
Again, the story does not make sense, in a situation like this, when someone has woken up to find their house burgled, then only one unit would ever be sent, much less two. In any case it would only be graded as a priority job if the offenders were still at the location, which 5 hours after is unlikely.
"As a result of that experience, I do not consider the British/English Police to be anything but lucky amateurs and stupid incompetents when it comes to driving safely."
You tell me you are a police driver and then come up with something like that? Again police driving courses are extremely difficult and not one officer would ever say that this leads to incompetants behind the wheel. Unless they had no experience of police driving.
"Had he killed someone what would the situation have been … and what would it be under the proposed legislation? "
Assuming (making an ass etc) that this story is based on truth then yes he should have been prosecuted for death by dangerous driving, however i all he did was overtake on a blind bend then the charge of death by careless driving may be more suitable.
In fact you have argued my case for me. Thank you.
" say:
They do that quite often.
And then I ask:
Are you really a Police officer?
If you really are a Police officer then, given your displayed grasp of Law and associated procedures, and also of reality,"
This made me laugh! I am a police officer and proud of being one. Please tell me where I have not fully grasped the law and procedure?
I do sometimes wish I was a civvie, nice hours, warm dry office, weekends off with no threat of a complaint to take my job from underneath me. That my friend is reality.
A colleague of mine attended one of your driving courses some years ago. (Officers from my force used to do this quite often.)
He told me that the final "test" was driving over a distance of a hundred miles or so within 90 minutes. The route was a mixture of undivided highway and some dual carriageway, mainly rural, but through some villages, and some urban area.
The test was passed if the driver completed the course within the set time without being caught (involved in an accident or discovered speeding etc). That is an interesting way of doing things.
How about this from the BBC:
Helen Barbour [had been] a passenger in a car being driven by her husband.
They were turning right at a major junction when a police car responding to a call about a drunk driver collided with them. Mrs Barbour died in hospital."
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...land/
676094.stm ]
Or this?
"A police officer has been... convicted of causing an accident which led to the deaths of two pedestrians...
...the court heard how PC XXX’s car crossed to the opposite side of the road, mounted the pavement and struck Mr Carey, 56, and his 61-year-old wife as they went to collect the Sunday newspapers."
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne...land/
643421.stm ]
And that was just the first two Google results; there are many, many more.
Your IPCC investigated 85 Police related road traffic collisions that occurred between 1998 and 2001, which had resulted in a total of 91 fatalities.
They concluded that:
“There is inadequate risk assessment taking place ... resulting in risky decisions taken by police drivers ...”
And yes, going around a corner safely at 100mph is difficult; I think the driver to whom I referred in my earlier had just discovered that very fact, which is why he was in the wrong lane: he was losing control of his vehicle, despite anything that the ACPO manual of guidance might have had to say on the subject!
And no, I have no idea why a second team was supposedly being despatched to the burglary case, perhaps there was some over eagerness on the part of the two officers concerned.
About the visits I experienced: I do not think at all that it was the Police Complaints Department who visited; those guys were a selection of the officer’s colleagues.
Best wishes
Michael G.
Michael G:
"He told me that the final "test" was driving over a distance of a hundred miles or so within 90 minutes. The route was a mixture of undivided highway and some dual carriageway, mainly rural, but through some villages, and some urban area.
The test was passed if the driver completed the course within the set time without being caught (involved in an accident or discovered speeding etc). That is an interesting way of doing things."
Tests on driving courses are very complex, expecting a high standard of technical driving abilty. You clearly know nothing about them if you believ the above. I thought YOU had done the advanced driving course?
"About the visits I experienced: I do not think at all that it was the Police Complaints Department who visited; those guys were a selection of the officer’s colleagues."
Again it sounds like rubbish. These two would be risking a lot by looking like they were trying to intimidate a complainant.
As for your posts about police accidents: The police cover thousands of miles every day in their duties, when you combine this with HAVING to respond to emergency incideents then the chances of having an accident will increase. Its not rocket science.
Every time a pollcol occurs our PSD looks at each case and the officer could face losing his job and liberty if found at fault.
Like I said, not many officers like to drive with blues and twos, but it is a public expectation for us to do this and for a good reason.
There will always be a risk when you combine emergency driving and the public, however their is no alternative. All we can do is give adequate training and rely on public awareness.
We have a good balance at the moment.
PC Midlands
Yes, I do indeed believe that the final "test" as noted in my colleague’s case was “…driving over a distance of a hundred miles or so within 90 minutes...etc…” because my colleague is almost invariably honest, had no reason at all to lie on this occasion (he had taken your course and passed, with a written declaration of such pass), and he provided the information at a formal debriefing.
No, although I am indeed a Police driver (pursuit qualified), I have not done your "advanced driving course", whatever that is. I was carefully trained (and undergo regular retraining and stringent retesting) by my own Force, which is not a United Kingdom one. Without intending to seem arrogant, I think that the UK Police Forces should be a little less introspective, and should look at the way things are done in other places, and then consider, what is best practice.
(Don’t be complacent; there is always room to improve: seek excellence!)
Please remember, your own organisation of Chief Police Officers and your own Independent Police Complaints Committee (IPCC) have already expressed concern at the problem of Police Traffic Collisions, particularly with respect to the number of deaths resulting from these collisions. They are, I suppose, taking steps to improve the situation.
The major improvement would probably be something to do with the IPCC’s view that: “There is inadequate risk assessment taking place ... resulting in risky decisions taken by police drivers ...”
Yes indeed, my friend, someone has to report to emergency incidents, but the speed of vehicular response must be appropriate and should not usually be so fast as to further endanger life; nor should a vehicle be driven beyond an officer’s ability to properly control it, at all times.
(Red mist clouds vision.)
The officer going to attend the “drunk driver” scene now has a death on his conscience; the officer who, for whatever reason, drove onto the pavement has two more. The officers driving on the wrong side of the road at high speed, supposedly to attend that stale burglary, could have had several more on top of that.
(As for my visitors, you may rest absolutely assured that they have by now definitely realised that their misguided efforts in this matter were not at all worth the eventual consequences.)
Best wishes.
Michael
Michael G: Would you please enlighted me to which force you are from? In the UK only an advanced driver can pursue cars, which in itself is much more difficult than standard emergencey driving.
As for the test, well driving to a point as fast as possible is not the test but the perception and avoidance of hazards.
"Yes indeed, my friend, someone has to report to emergency incidents, but the speed of vehicular response must be appropriate and should not usually be so fast as to further endanger life; nor should a vehicle be driven beyond an officer’s ability to properly control it, at all times.
(Red mist clouds vision.)"
Well that is hardly new thinking is it? It has been part of the syllabus for a long time now.
You should know this.
"(Don’t be complacent; there is always room to improve: seek excellence!)"
No I quite agree.
So what actually is your point? That police driving is bad in this country?
What do you suggest?
PC Midlands
My Force is not at all relevant to this discussion (and anyway, I rather value my privacy).
Suffice it for you to now know that there are Police Forces in common-law jurisdictions elsewhere in the world than in the British Isles.
As what actually is my point?
My points were already made, further up this same comments page.
It is just that I was rather sparked off when you said (11.16.06 at 12:12 pm):
"I am an experieced police driver so please dont tell me how to drive as I could probably teach you a thing or two!"
That opened up this particular side discussion.
I think that it is all thrashed out now.
Best wishes.
Michael
I respect your privacy and I agree that the ideas have been thrashed out now.
Commenting by HaloScan
