Court update - driving without due care & attention

[robert.saunders]

You may recall this thread where I detailed that I went to court as a prosecution witness following a road accident that happened in front of me late 2007.

Well, sentencing was undertaken on 6 October, and I received an update today. It turns out the charge always was "driving without due care and attention", and the message left for me where I understood it to be dangerous driving was incorrect. The defendant was charged with the offence and sentenced as follows:

• Disqualified for 15 months
• 16 weeks imprisonment suspended for 12 months
• 12 months community order
• 200 hours unpaid work
• £455 costs

I feel a little numb still, over it all, but I guess that's that.

Rob

 

[umedc]

You may recall this thread where I detailed that I went to court as a prosecution witness following a road accident that happened in front of me late 2007.

Well, sentencing was undertaken on 6 October, and I received an update today. It turns out the charge always was "driving without due care and attention", and the message left for me where I understood it to be dangerous driving was incorrect. The defendant was charged with the offence and sentenced as follows:

• Disqualified for 15 months
• 16 weeks imprisonment suspended for 12 months
• 12 months community order
• 200 hours unpaid work
• £455 costs

I feel a little numb still, over it all, but I guess that's that.

Rob

so u did not get sent down

 

[st13phil]

I always thought Community Service was a punishment in lieu of imprisonment? Seems odd to give 16 weeks inside (albeit suspended) and Community Service. I would have thought failure to comply with the Community Service sentence would have resulted in a holiday at Her Majesty's anyway. Can anyone shed any light?

BTW, well done Robert for being an honest witness and seeing the case through.

 

[GrahamC230K]

That's quite some punishment.

 

[Dieselman]

I would have thought failure to comply with the Community Service sentence would have resulted in a holiday at Her Majesty's anyway. Can anyone shed any light?

Maybe...eventually. More likely is probation.

In this case it might well as it would be breaking the terms of the sentence suspension, I think.

 

[jj_uk]

I think the person who has updated you is still muddled over the charge. 'Careless driving' (Road Traffic Act s 3) is not an imprisonable offence. It is ONLY punishable by a fine and endorsements / points / disqualification.

It is quite usual to combine a suspended sentence with an unpaid work requirement. Suspended sentences usually have one or two community orders attached to them nowadays. The idea is to ensure that even if someone keeps out of trouble over the next 12 months they still face a penalty (in this case 200 hours unpaid work). It avoids the situation where someone can appear to avoid any punishment just by keeping out of trouble for a time. If he offends again during the next 12 months the presumption is that the custodial sentence will be triggered (breaching the community order could trigger this too). Without the added threat of prison the number of hours given might have been higher.

 

[Dieselman]

So in your opinion (or factually), would the charge have been Dangerous driving.?

 

[robert.saunders]

I've just posted what was said on the letter; the charge as described and the sentencing. I agree, there seems more to this than meets the eye, but that's wot it says

 

[ms500]

Seems a little harsh to me, what exactly did the guy do wrong? I read your orginal post but can't see why he would be at fault.

Personally, I would never agree to assist the state in prosecuting an individual for a driving offense, but it was your call I guess.

 

[Dieselman]

Personally, I would never agree to assist the state in prosecuting an individual for a driving offense, but it was your call I guess.

He wasn't, he was asked to be a witness. That means a true account of what happened. Anything else is perjury.

 

[robert.saunders]

Seems a little harsh to me, what exactly did the guy do wrong? I read your orginal post but can't see why he would be at fault.

Personally, I would never agree to assist the state in prosecuting an individual for a driving offense, but it was your call I guess.

I'll put it this way; the young passenger of the driver of the van is still receiving counselling from the trauma of seeing the incident happen right in front of her.

Apart from the driver cutting in front of the van (a few metres in front) at speeds considerably higher than the speed limit, hitting the curb, pirouetting uncontrollably & dramatically and disappearing from view whilst felling a lamp column, and I stopped fearing the occupants would be dead, I guess it all seems fine. Having seen the police photographs of the vehicle where it was situated, the subsequent extraction by fire brigade, the driver was a lucky individual.

I have no regrets about appearing at court, no matter how I feel after the event. Do I want to see an 'accident' like that again? No, not really

 

[ms500]

He wasn't, he was asked to be a witness. That means a true account of what happened. Anything else is perjury.

I know that, but personally I would not have got involved at all.

 

[Dieselman]

I know that, but personally I would not have got involved at all.

So, as Robert says, he thought there may be someone injured, what would you have done.? Drive off.
That's illegal in some countries and should be here.

 

[ms500]

So, as Robert says, he thought there may be someone injured, what would you have done.? Drive off.
That's illegal in some countries and should be here.

Of course I would have stopped to help and called the emergency services, but I wouldn't have got involved in any resulting prosecution.

 

[Dieselman]

Of course I would have stopped to help and called the emergency services, but I wouldn't have got involved in any resulting prosecution.

See post #10.

 

[ms500]

See post #10.

I wasn't aware that being a witness was compulsary? He could have said no, right?

 

[oldcro]

Of course I would have stopped to help and called the emergency services, but I wouldn't have got involved in any resulting prosecution.

WHY?

 

[Dieselman]

I wasn't aware that being a witness was compulsary? He could have said no, right?

Not sure about that. The crash happened right in front of him, it would be hard to prove he couldn't see noffink..innit.

Anyway the idiot was a menace and dangerous so should be taken off the road, so well done Robert.

 

[ms500]

[/color]


WHY?

Because motorists get a hard enough time in this country as it is; we all have our small lapses of concentration when driving, it is an accident and there is no need for anyone to be seeking vengeance.

There's too many angrry people with an axe to grind in this country.

 

[robert.saunders]

This wasn't a lapse of concentration, believe me