CW's website or forum carried a thread or article condemning the "feeble legal system as regards prosecuting dangerous drivers.
As said - Our patch tend to use common sense over "targets" which could explain why are not "top of the table" - but have a comfy -ish middle plodding rank ("Freudianly" let slip by Surrey (who ticked all the boxes :wink) in the press yesterday
Bit like top public schools plummeting to the bottom of school league tables for choosing a "more challenging exam" than the Maths GCSE - but unable to "tick the right box"
)
We do actually prosecute more dangerous/careless types than the person who just drifts by a small margin for a short distance..
THE CPS team leader saw this ., and replied to the magazine which published the letter. (:yikes: Lurkers
)
I am going to summarise and quote bits of it for discussion. Hopefully fisherman and cam op will have some comments
The team leader of the CPS Directorate starts off by commenting that the article on the website is incorrect and refers to a public consultation held in December 2007 at which a revised prosecution policy was announced
Quote:
The public made it clear in their comments that there was a widespread concern about the dangers of using a mobile phone. This was why the director of public prosecutions ammounced that a charge of dangerous driving would be the starting point for this offence, where there is clear evidence that a danger has been caused by the use of a phone
Unfortunately - the law interprets as slightest handling constituting "use" even if switched off. This is akin to a laser detector being discovered in a case in a boot by a French gendarme
But in any case, the evidence or the burden of proof still has to be tight if anyone is going to prove beyond any reasoned doubt that the standard of driving fell wasy below the standard required of a normal and competent person. Any "technicality" and Mr Loophole will circle and pounce on it
And perhaps the level of irrelevant paperwork taking priority over the paperwork which SEAL the case - gives the "Loophole types" who look for such chinks to get their defence over.
(Source - various broadsheets carried the tale of woe over how serious criminals have been let off because of poor preparation on the part of CPS and police alike
Grrrr..
)
Quote:
Prosecutors also have more guidance on when it is appropriate to charge manslaughter instead of a lesser offence - so that the correct charge is chosen from the start
Only to find when there is insufficient evidence - they end up having to almost "plea bargain" for the lesser offences to be considered .. even going down to "careless" when we knew we had enough to get a dangerous through with the full sentence whacked out there
Basic nub of outline: We had what we thought to be a case of racing which did result in a death. We could prove they were dangerous - but there was not enough evidence to suggest manslaughter would be successful. It went pear shaped as the initial charge was not "correct" as it ended up with a "careless/inconsiderate" .. but they did get lengthy bans and a term in jail The onus of proof for a "manslaughter" to be proven has to be way beyond "dangerous" and whilst we could argue "racing" or "nodding off" could consitute "manslaughter" - we have to prove at which point the drivers began to "race" and why - and in the case of the sleepy driver - at which point he nodded off and why he did so. Not that easy in all reality
I do agree with his final point though.
Quote:
We will continue to prosecute obustly where there is sufficient evidence and the prosecution is in the public interest
He ends with trying to reassure folks that public concerns have been met when deciding the correct charge.
I would perhaps suggest dumping the irrelvant paperwork and concentrating on reeling in all dangerous types properly.. and that ranges from the bobby on the beat upwards
would be far more reassuring.
We do.. we tend to target idiots here and not get obsessed with petty "minors" which warrant no more than a quiet word to correct most of the time.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
