• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

Road Safety Law "Undermined" by Supreme Court?

st13phil

st13phil

Hardcore MB Enthusiast
SUPPORTER
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
13,604
Location
North Oxfordshire
Car
His - Denim Blue A220 AMG Line Premium / Hers - Obsidian Black R172 SLK55
...or did the Judges show a welcome degree of common sense and logic?

Supreme Court rules against 'death by unlicensed' motoring law

Personally I've always felt a little uneasy about this sort of sledgehammer legislation and it would appear that their Lordships were similarly concerned. Their statement that "There must be something open to proper criticism in the driving of the defendant, beyond the mere presence of the vehicle on the road, and which contributed in some more than minimal way to the death" is, to me, thoroughly logical.
 
Interesting that the judges described Mr Hughes’ driving as “faultless”. Were they there to see for themselves, or did they simply take the word of someone without a full licence and uninsured and his family? :dk: The dead man may have had another opinion.
 
Looks like a major fail by the DPP. Instead of the charge they levelled, it shoudl have been driving whilst unisured/unlicenced. For which the penalty ought to be compulsory improsonment.

It isn't even like drink driving, a loathable practice but where nevertheless someone can inadvertantly be a couple of milligrams over the limit the next morning and still (quite rightly) get a 12 month ban.

The decision to drive without a licence or insurance isn't subject to miscalculation or bad luck, it's an entirely conscious and deliberate choice that should be punished accordingly. Nowadays, you'll get a small fine and a couple of points on your as yet provisional licence. Completely inadequate.

However, if the other driver hadn't been smacked off his pectorals on heroin and was just a normal bloke killed in an accident, they should have thrown the book at the man on a provisional.
 
knighterrant said:
Interesting that the judges described Mr Hughes’ driving as “faultless”. Were they there to see for themselves, or did they simply take the word of someone without a full licence and uninsured and his family? :dk: The dead man may have had another opinion.
Click to expand...

The judges have taken the word of those who witnessed Mr Dickenson driving erratically on both sides of the road prior to the accident.
I think he was very lucky, having taken heroin, to have driven 130 miles, apparantly without incident. Thankfully he didn't kill anyone but himself.
 
Accepting the fact that he was uninsured and only held a provision licence the court accepted the evidence that at the time of the event, he was driving at what was held to be an acceptable standard and that his driving was not the cause of the incident.

Whilst waht he did was illegal (and stupid) it wasn't the cause of the accident which was solely down to the actions of a drug abuser.

As has been said above, had he been charged with driving without a licence and uninsured then he would have been convicted.
 
They got it right...driving whilst uninsured and on a provisional licence is not necessarily dangerous. The dead man crashed into the accused...case closed.
 
Teflonso said:
Looks like a major fail by the DPP. Instead of the charge they levelled, it shoudl have been driving whilst unisured/unlicenced.
Click to expand...
You're probably right. However, I'm not sure about the rest of your post.

If anyone's interested, they can read the judgement here, rather than the journo's version of it in the Telegraph article.

At point #9, their Lordships describe quite succinctly why they are not comfortable with assigning automatic responsibility for causing death simply on the basis that the driver is not insured.

Life is never black and white.
 
Mole grips are awesome aren't they.... :cool:
 
I don't think the law has been undermined at all. If anything the police, and presumably the CPS, brought the wrong charges.

To make an analogy, if someone dropped a cigarette packet on the street then another person fell off a roof and landed on it in the process of being killed, should the litterbug really be charged with manslaughter because the faller hit his litter?
 
Stratman said:
I don't think the law has been undermined at all. If anything the police, and presumably the CPS, brought the wrong charges.

To make an analogy, if someone dropped a cigarette packet on the street then another person fell off a roof and landed on it in the process of being killed, should the litterbug really be charged with manslaughter because the faller hit his litter?
Click to expand...

Or - closer to hone - had Mr Hughes just (legally and safely) stopped his vehicle on the hard shoulder to take a break when the other vehicle collided into him...?

A couple of years ago a young woman was convicted of causing death and sent to prison after hitting a cyclist who jumped a red light - the young woman had a green light and the right of way, but she also sent a text message while driving two a few seconds before hitting the cyclist.
 
I remember the cyclist case. I remember asking at the time if instead of going through red traffic lights, had the cyclist gone through red level crossing lights would the train driver have been prosecuted?
 
The answer is yes, if the train driver was texting, uninsured, or unlicensed...
 
TBH, quite scary, while-I hope- most of us abide by law and are taxed, insured, etc and the police, crown prosecution service, procurator fiscal or whatever are usually " quite good " at enforcing such things, this is quite a scary judgement.
surely there is a case to be answered on both sides and just because the now departed and totally in the wrong smacked up driver - by the way, not condoning this, but wow what a buzz! Please a joke!- can't defend himself and to be honest is there a defence! Largs ain't that bad! SORRY, joking aside, yes it's wrong and why should someone who happens to be in a junkies way be prosecuted? but any other time routine stop etc the book would be thrown at the uninsured unlicensed driver, so yeah in this case death by dangerous/misadventure for the hardworking junkie but uninsured/unlicensed family man who may or may not go on to * up a normal taxpaying/law abiding
citizen and his or her family, two birds with one stone scenario, one of the reasons we're paying some of the highest premiums in europe, * 'em I say you get caught,you rot!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stooby72 said:
TBH, quite scary, while-I hope- most of us abide by law and are taxed, insured, etc and the police, crown prosecution service, procurator fiscal or whatever are usually " quite good " at enforcing such things, this is quite a scary judgement.
surely there is a case to be answered on both sides and just because the now departed and totally in the wrong smacked up driver - by the way, not condoning this, but wow what a buzz! Please a joke!- can't defend himself and to be honest is there a defence! Largs ain't that bad! SORRY, joking aside, yes it's wrong and why should someone who happens to be in a junkies way be prosecuted? but any other time routine stop etc the book would be thrown at the uninsured unlicensed driver, so yeah in this case death by dangerous/misadventure for the hardworking junkie but uninsured/unlicensed family man who may or may not go on to f**k up a normal taxpaying/law abiding
citizen and his or her family, two birds with one stone scenario, one of the reasons we're paying some of the highest premiums in europe, F**k 'em I say you get caught,you rot!
Click to expand...

This is a nice forum...trying, unsuccessfully to get round the swear filter is facile. If you can't express yourself better...don't.
 
For a forum that's populated almost entirely by grown men I think the swear filter is a bit namby pamby TBH.

Mumsnet allows language that's banned on here!
 
neilrr said:
For a forum that's populated almost entirely by grown men I think the swear filter is a bit namby pamby TBH.

Mumsnet allows language that's banned on here!
Click to expand...

I don't read Mumsnet, so have to take your word on that.
However, Mumsnet is populated by inarticulate, unintelligent breeders, this forum is supposed to be for thinkers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

ringway
Driver who flashed others to warn of police speed trap is fined £175.
7 8 9
Replies
163
Views
15K
219
219
Back
Top Bottom