PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

WTF?!?, CPS not able to identify driver....
desktop_demon
post Sat, 29 Apr 2017 - 17:11
Post #1


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 3,236
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
From: South of the border.
Member No.: 21,303



An everyday story of simple driving folk.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-39706672

How is it that the CPS cannot prosecute this case? Do the BiB have no power to ask the registered owner to identify the driver?

This post has been edited by desktop_demon: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 - 17:12


--------------------
When your life finally flashes in front of you - let's hope there's something worth watching.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sat, 29 Apr 2017 - 17:11
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 29 Apr 2017 - 17:22
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,350
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Perhaps the question was asked, an answer was refused*, and the RK was prosecuted for s 172?

* as is occasionally hinted at by some on here.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Sat, 29 Apr 2017 - 17:50
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,147
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



Indeed. The headline "No action against A140 motorist who drove into car head on" is unusually accurate. They can't take action against an unknown person.

It's reasonable to assume that the BiB did ask the keeper, and he couldn't or wouldn't tell.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 29 Apr 2017 - 18:53
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 40,978
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



We had a local case where a stolen car hit and killed a pensioner, two brothers had stolen it, both had driven it, no physical evidence as to who was driving at the time.

Both named the other as driving, neither could be prosecuted for the driving offence as neither was guilty beyond reasonable doubt so only minor offences could be prosecuted, caused local uproar of course.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fedup2
post Sat, 29 Apr 2017 - 18:57
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,343
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Member No.: 10,873



QUOTE (666 @ Sat, 29 Apr 2017 - 18:50) *
Indeed. The headline "No action against A140 motorist who drove into car head on" is unusually accurate. They can't take action against an unknown person.

It's reasonable to assume that the BiB did ask the keeper, and he couldn't or wouldn't tell.


What happened to the days of the line up? Surely there were enough witnesses?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 29 Apr 2017 - 18:59
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,350
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Manslaughter by joint enterprise.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
facade
post Sat, 29 Apr 2017 - 21:15
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 814
Joined: 7 Nov 2004
Member No.: 1,847



Unfortunately, we have an ongoing local case. A pensioner was killed by a hit & run stolen car, later abandoned. Police have made an arrest, but at the last press release were making a desperate appeal for any dash cam footage of the car around the time of the incident.

I'm guessing that the arrestee won't cough, and proof is lacking..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 29 Apr 2017 - 22:07
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,350
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (facade @ Sat, 29 Apr 2017 - 22:15) *
Unfortunately, we have an ongoing local case. A pensioner was killed by a hit & run stolen car, later abandoned. Police have made an arrest, but at the last press release were making a desperate appeal for any dash cam footage of the car around the time of the incident.

I'm guessing that the arrestee won't cough, and proof is lacking..

Or are exploring all reasonable lines of enquiry. In cases such as that there is often forensic evidence that will put the person in the driving seat.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 06:10
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,379
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 29 Apr 2017 - 19:53) *
We had a local case where a stolen car hit and killed a pensioner, two brothers had stolen it, both had driven it, no physical evidence as to who was driving at the time.

Both named the other as driving, neither could be prosecuted for the driving offence as neither was guilty beyond reasonable doubt so only minor offences could be prosecuted, caused local uproar of course.

It was exactly because of this sort of legal impasse that specific legislation was introduced to prosecute parents of murdered children where each denied the charge & blamed the other & there was no other evidence. Perhaps it's necessary for motoring offences too?


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 06:54
Post #10


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,487
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (nigelbb @ Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 07:10) *
It was exactly because of this sort of legal impasse that specific legislation was introduced to prosecute parents of murdered children where each denied the charge & blamed the other & there was no other evidence. Perhaps it's necessary for motoring offences too?


Why not just do away with the principle of presumed innocent until proven guilty altogether?


--------------------
Andy

If you're going to try to contradict me, please at least try to get your facts straight.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 12:41
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



Could still bring a claim for damages on the balance of probabilities that the registered keeper was driving

If he was served with an S172, he had the opportunity to identify another driver
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 13:27
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,379
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 07:54) *
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 07:10) *
It was exactly because of this sort of legal impasse that specific legislation was introduced to prosecute parents of murdered children where each denied the charge & blamed the other & there was no other evidence. Perhaps it's necessary for motoring offences too?


Why not just do away with the principle of presumed innocent until proven guilty altogether?

It doesn't seem too much if a stretch to frame legislation to cover these cas s where two dcrotes nick a car then kill or seriously injure someone & both admit to bring in the car. Causing death by dangerous driving joint enterprise perhaps?


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 20:55
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,749
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (nigelbb @ Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 14:27) *
It doesn't seem too much if a stretch to frame legislation to cover these cas s where two dcrotes nick a car then kill or seriously injure someone & both admit to bring in the car. Causing death by dangerous driving joint enterprise perhaps?

Idiotic idea, how can you prove they could have forseen someone else killing/seriously injuring someone whilst driving. "Joint enterprise" is for people like gang members (and even then it is shaky), not someone with keys to a family car.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 22:02
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,350
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 29 Apr 2017 - 19:59) *
Manslaughter by joint enterprise.



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 21:55) *
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 14:27) *
It doesn't seem too much if a stretch to frame legislation to cover these cas s where two dcrotes nick a car then kill or seriously injure someone & both admit to bring in the car. Causing death by dangerous driving joint enterprise perhaps?

Idiotic idea, how can you prove they could have forseen someone else killing/seriously injuring someone whilst driving. "Joint enterprise" is for people like gang members (and even then it is shaky), not someone with keys to a family car.

Oh, really?

Presumably the learned judges presiding over trials for causing death by dangerous driving (or manslaughter) where two or more defendants are prosecuted as part of a joint enterprise are idiots? Perhaps so are the learned barristers and solicitors advising both sides? Perhaps so am I for suggesting it?

I am so glad we have a mind of such jurisprudential talents to put us all straight.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
m7891
post Mon, 1 May 2017 - 00:45
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 345
Joined: 10 Aug 2012
Member No.: 56,508



It's for situations like this where the I'm sympathetic to the idea that the punishment for failing to furnish should be at least equal to the punishment for the alleged offence if the driver, if known, were found guilty.

What I can't decide is if the (unknown) driver should be assumed guilty, or if there should be something akin to a Trial of the Facts to determine whether or not, in law, the alleged offence occurred. That would then determine the sentence for f2f, i.e. if the driving offence occurred, sentence on that basis; if not, revert to the current sentence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Mon, 1 May 2017 - 07:06
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,379
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (nigelbb @ Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 14:27) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 07:54) *
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 07:10) *
It was exactly because of this sort of legal impasse that specific legislation was introduced to prosecute parents of murdered children where each denied the charge & blamed the other & there was no other evidence. Perhaps it's necessary for motoring offences too?


Why not just do away with the principle of presumed innocent until proven guilty altogether?

It doesn't seem too much if a stretch to frame legislation to cover these cases where two scrotes nick a car then kill or seriously injure someone & both admit to being in the car. Causing death by dangerous driving joint enterprise perhaps?

Edited to correct typos as post written on a phone.

It doesn't seem too much of a stretch to frame legislation to cover these cases where two scrotes nick a car then kill or seriously injure someone & both admit to being in the car. Causing death by dangerous driving joint enterprise perhaps?

There can be no objection in principle as the law already stands that a person who joins in a crime, which any reasonable person would realise involves a risk of harm, and death then results, is guilty at least of manslaughter.


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
facade
post Mon, 1 May 2017 - 07:51
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 814
Joined: 7 Nov 2004
Member No.: 1,847



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 29 Apr 2017 - 23:07) *
Or are exploring all reasonable lines of enquiry. In cases such as that there is often forensic evidence that will put the person in the driving seat.


Possibly the person they arrested denies driving it at the time, but doesn't deny driving it recently.
Very little in the papers, but they don't appeal for dash-cam footage very often. I suppose they might be after further evidence that the car was being dangerously driven before/after the accident.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mattd
post Mon, 1 May 2017 - 12:12
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,238
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Member No.: 50,335



QUOTE (facade @ Mon, 1 May 2017 - 08:51) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 29 Apr 2017 - 23:07) *
Or are exploring all reasonable lines of enquiry. In cases such as that there is often forensic evidence that will put the person in the driving seat.


Possibly the person they arrested denies driving it at the time, but doesn't deny driving it recently.
Very little in the papers, but they don't appeal for dash-cam footage very often. I suppose they might be after further evidence that the car was being dangerously driven before/after the accident.


Appealing for witnesses in fatal collisions is a fairly standard and basic line of enquiry. With the advent of cheaper high quality dash cams it's now increasingly likely that people may, unwittingly, have crucial footage they aren't aware of.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 1 May 2017 - 14:11
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 40,978
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



No fatalities in this case....


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mattd
post Mon, 1 May 2017 - 16:31
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,238
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Member No.: 50,335



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 1 May 2017 - 15:11) *
No fatalities in this case....


If you read my quote it was a reply to Facade. In the case we were discussing it was a fatal collision.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 20th March 2019 - 00:00
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.