An even better time for making sensible decisions and taking responsibility for our actions.
I am regularly amazed at people who go out for the day (evening) without thinking who is going to drive home. I can possibly understand teenagers doing this, but not 40 and 50 year olds.
Sanctimonious (?) rant over.
|
I am not contradicting drbe, but my own experience is totally the opposite of yours, I find the worst for drinking and driving are the older middle aged and seniors. Of the teenagers I mix with, daughters and their friends, drinking and driving is abhorrent. Maybe I am mixing with the wrong types!
It seems that the road is a flatish, straightish stretch of dual carriageway, very tempting to "press on" a little, who would expect to see a car stopped in the central reservation, drunk or not?
|
|
The 'black box' revealed the car was doing 113mph; with standing water, when other cars were reportedly being driven at 40mph because of the conditions. With such a tragic outcome this would have been a jail offence for the driver, drunk or sober.
Edited by Manatee on 22/11/2008 at 10:39
|
|
|
Of the teenagers I mix with daughters and their friends drinking and driving is abhorrent.
>>
I meant that you could perhaps understand this sort of behaviour in, say, teenagers because of their lack of experience of life.
|
|
|
|
|
I always thought that the driver was responsible for the passengers? Not the other way around?
I dont condone drinking and driving - ive knowing done it once when I was 18 and while I made it home safely, I was well aware that I had made a serious effort to do the half hour drive home - never again though it does focus the mind on why it is illegal - I do feel that the passenger seems a little hard done by.
I would have thrown the book at the driver rather than passenger - getting behind the wheel, is to me atleast, accepting responsibility for the outcome thereafter.
|
|
Reported elsewhere that the Jags computer says it was doing 110mph at the time of impact.
|
I don't quite follow the logic of some who are saying that he should not be held responsible... lets just look at those facts we know:
- its his car and he had the keys
- they were both drinking and he would be aware of the effect drinking even 1.5 glasses of wine would have, bearing in mind that it takes less alchohol to adversily affect most women
- they must be "well off" to afford a day out at the races, so why not stay over rather than drive home
- he gave her the keys despite knowing the above
- it seems he did nothing to try to stop/slow her down
The sentance by the judge said that he must accept some responsibility for the accident, even based purely on what little we know a jail sentance seems to me like a reasonable decision... but I have no doubt there's far more too it in view of the severity of his sentance... its time some people started to take responsibility for their actions.
Edited by b308 on 22/11/2008 at 10:45
|
>>its time some people started to take responsibility for their actions.
Precisely - she was responsible for her actions - not society, her parents, teachers, social worker, or arguably her business partner.
|
or arguably her business partner.
And he was jailed for actions which could have prevented the whole sorry episode if he'd have acted sensibly...
|
It seems that there is a very high burden of proof on the prosecution - they had to show not only that the passenger knew she was drunk but that he foresaw that the manner of her driving would be dangerous.
www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2006/CACRIM/mar0.1.htm
Once she was driving dangerously he may have encouraged it of course and part of me wonders whether he didn't convict himself at interview whereas good legal advice (to go "no comment") might have left them without evidence to get any conviction at all on the basis of the case above.
|
|
|
spot on b308.
He was jailed for the crime he committed, not in any way the one committed by his partner.
|
Mmmmm.
Interesting thread indeed, and one which raises many many questions.
Now, I cannot say too much on the D & D thing. I was, as many know, nicked for the same offence lately, and though I thought (silly man me) that I was Ok to drive, the law said differently. So I'm awaiting a trip to court in january.
BUT let's take alcohol out of the equation on this particular case.
I own a car. It is mine, bought and paid for. I have the keys, and decide who drives it.
Because of the insurance deal I have, I can nominate drivers to drive it.
In the time of my ownership, very few apart from I have driven the thing - girlfriend, father, mother, brother, brother in law (who is a knob, and WON'T be driving it again), and a few works colleagues.
It is my choice to hand over the keys.
I know them all, obviously, and know they have valid drivers licenses.
Would I let them drive if they were bladdered? Nope.
Or if they had no drivers' license? Nope.
Or if I thought they were rubbish drivers (It's MY car, not some company car which takes abuse). Nope.
There are many cases locally where parents let their kids take cars, even though they know the kid either doesn't have a license, or only has a provisional (learners).
If the kids get nicked - for D&D, having an accident, whatever - then it is a bit of a 'damned' situation for the parent. They are given a choice: if they allowed the kid to take the car, they are aiding and abetting. If they say the kid took car without permission, then the kid faces further prosecution for taking without owner's consent...
Back to the original story - the guy wilfully and knowingly let the driver drive.. even though he probably was aware that they were NOT capable.
Why? So the other driver took the rap if they got caught D & D? (I wouldn't put it past some folk...)
|
I bet he was stitched up. I can see the interview now.
"If you don't tell us you told her to drive the car, we will do her for TWOCing and no insurance as well"
"Yes ok I told her to drive the car"
"right ok you are now also charged with aiding and abetting......."
As someone said, at interview a series of "no comments" would probably have got him off
Its the stupid womans fault 100%
SHE knew she was over the limit
SHE could have said "no I am not driving"
SHE could have said "if you want to get home in the car you drive I am getting a taxi
SHE was at the wheel
HER foot was on the accelerator.
HE didn't have a gun to her head.
|
If I was in the car doing 100mph on a wet motorway I would have screamed at her to slow down. I also make a point of never getting in a car with somebody who has been drinking.
The moral is simple if you know you're going to be drinking leave the car at home.
|
Sorry, AE but you forgot:
HE owned the car and had the keys before they got in
HE decided who could drive it
HE knew that she'd had drinks when he did
HE handed her the keys (trigger?)
I'm not doubting that with the right advice he could have got off, but, just for once, justice was done.
Edited by b308 on 22/11/2008 at 12:34
|
B308
Look mate- I am just off to jump over a cliff - you want to come and follow me?
No of course you wont.
IF she was that drunk that she was not capable of rational thought then your argument stacks up. She wasnt.
|
I am allowed to have a different opinion to you, AE, aren't I?
He knew what he was doing when he gave those keys to someone who had been drinking (1.5 times over limit according to the report), therefore, in my eyes, he was partly responsible for what then happened... and got what he deserved, in my opinion.
Its clear you don't agree - I am entitled to my opinion, as you are yours.. perhaps we should leave it at that, eh?!
Edited by b308 on 22/11/2008 at 13:10
|
Forget the booze for a second. 113 was a bit swift in any conditions.
Yes, judgment of BOTH would have been impaired, but if I was SOBER I would allow somebody to drive at 113 in my car...
|
Her sentence was just his was ridiculous
I hope he gets off on appeal
|
I am allowed to have a different opinion to you AE aren't I?
yup you are
Its clear you don't agree -
nope i dont.
I am entitled to my opinion as you areyours.. perhaps we should leave it at that eh?!
If you wish, its not an argument per say. No-one can dispute that her driving was appalling and her head should be on a spike for all to see.
Here an interesting question. What if there had been two passengers in the back. Both sober. What would their culpability be?
|
Other passengers are irrelevent, AE, as you are fully aware! He owned the car, he knew she'd been drinking, and he gave her the keys and asked her to drive... THAT is why he is partly responsible for what happened, in my eyes... you obviously don't agree with that or are choosing to conveniently ignore the fact that he was one who gave her the keys and he knoew what state she was in when he did... he didn't have to, did he.
I feel that it is a perfectly valid reason to hold him partly responsible.
|
fair nuff - dont agree but fair nuff.
|
|
Oh and I can understand why he pleaded not guilty (whether or not you agree that he was) but she had also denied the charges. Drivng at 111 mph on a wet A-road while drunk surely falls far below the standard of a competent driver, so on the basis that the driving was dangerous and that the victims in this died - wouldn't she have been better off accepting the 1/3 discount for a guilty plea and only receiving a six-year sentence?
|
Maximum is 14 years, she's got a discount even though she went to trial.
Not the worst case of its kind, previous good character will have helped a bit.
He was convicted of the same offences, apart from drink/driving.
He got 'only' five years, so the fact he wasn't driving happily still counts for something.
|
Maximum is 14 years, she's got a discount even though she went to trial.
No, you don't understand. Had she admitted the offence at the first opportunity (whether in the police station interview or at the Magistrates' Court preliminary hearing) she would have had 1/3 off the appropriate sentence, whatever it might have been (and not the maxium) irrespective of other factors.
|
I'd gladly push you off mate! But the consequences would be that I could be prosecuted for 'assisting in your suicide'. QED
|
|
Also if she was doing 111mph I would dread to think what the speedo would be reading - 125mph?
|
I'd gladly push you off mate! But the consequences would be that I could be prosecuted for 'assisting in your suicide'. QED
You'd be too busy filling out a risk assesment, besides I'd have jumped before you could turn up.
Edited by Altea Ego on 22/11/2008 at 17:39
|
You'd be too busy filling out a risk assesment besides I'd have jumped before you could turn up.
probably not far wrong..:-)
|
|
|
|
Good time to invest in whoever makes those Alcocheck gizmos. HJ
Better to not drink anything, and drive OR drink some, and get a taxi!
And before someone starts, I have driven after drinking, once nearly wrapping the car around a lamp post @ 1.00 pm after stopping drinking @ 10.30 the previous night, and another time was after a couple of cans, getting a phone call to say my mother was dying - having then drunk many cups of coffee I missed her by 10 minutes - I now find it hard to drink if there is the faintest chance i may need to drive with in 24 hours.
|
When I was learning I once drove the day after a night out with a mate. I was driving down an easish bend at 30mph and nearly hit the kerb. I could only put it down to the fact I may still have alchohol in my system.
I don't drive the day after a night out anymore or at least not to very late in the afternoon and thats very rare.
|
Altea Ego - suffice to say that the law is a little more complex than you seem to appreciate. The 'no comment' option in interview often fails at court. Commentators on here have conveniently forgotten that the court may draw it's own inference from a failure to answer questions in interview. (and this simple note is over simplistic in this particular area of law). There are many examples of solicitors advising a client not to comment in interview that have been less than helpful to that client. Such a position does give the solicitor the opportunity to earn more money from the taxpayer funded gravy train of legal aid, by increased court appearances, study of case papers at the disclosure stage etc. God forbid a solicitor should be driven by money rather than properly serving their clients interests. On a moral note: would you be so delighted to see someone 'get off' an offence that resulted in the death of a member of your family? Perhaps the man involved had the decency to admit to his position in this sorry case, and if so, that should be recognised. From what I read (of the judges comments) aiding and abetting may have been his position - and with a few exceptions - almost any offence can be aided and abetted. The fuller definition of aid and abet being ' actively assists, encourages, counsels or procures'.
|
The 'no comment' option in interview often fails at court. Commentators on here have conveniently forgotten that the court may draw it's own inference from a failure to answer questions in interview. (and this simple note is over simplistic in this particular area of law).
Too right it's over simplistic - the Court can draw its own conclusions but cannot conclude from the absence of exculpatory evidence put forward, when there is also no incuplatory evidence, that the defendant is guilty.
There are many examples of solicitors advising a client not to comment in interview that have been less than helpful to that client.
Agreed. Many (not all) of those arise from the client's failure to give full and truthful disclosure to the solicitor.
Such a position does give the solicitor the opportunity to earn more money from the taxpayer funded gravy train of legal aid, by increased court appearances, study of case papers at the disclosure stage etc.
A solicitor on legal aid will charge out at about half what a main dealer mechanic does. Most legal aid solicitors earn about the same as teachers with the same level of experience. The police station interview will attract a fixed fee of £250 including VAT which must cover all cases where there is less than about 12 hours' worth of police station attendance (i.e., probably about 98%). A no comment interview would attract exactly the same fee as a detailed denial unless it goes beyond 12 hours' worth of attendance by the solicitor or representative (not detention).
God forbid a solicitor should be driven by money rather than properly serving their clients interests.
Most solicitors aren't too keen on being struck off though.
On a moral note: would you be so delighted to see someone 'get off' an offence that resulted in the death of a member of your family? Perhaps the man involved had the decency to admit to his position in this sorry case, and if so, that should be recognised. From what I read (of the judges comments) aiding and abetting may have been his position - and with a few exceptions - almost any offence can be aided and abetted. The fuller definition of aid and abet being ' actively assists, encourages, counsels or procures'.
If the man had the decency to admit his position then it doesn't explain why he went on to plead not guilty. I agree that he may have been convicted of aiding and abetting, rather than causing death by dangerous driving (N.B. the offence is causing death by dangerous driving, not driving dangerously causing death) as the press is not clear but even for him to be convicted on that basis (subject to the case law I posted above), there would have to be evidence that he in some way encouraged or at least foresaw that the driving would be dangerous and the most likely way for that to come about would be giving an account in interview.
|
|
|
|
For those who drink at all and drive, it is obviously sound policy to stay below the legal limit.
It is apparent from several posts here that some individuals are, or think they are, very susceptible to errors of judgement caused by even small amounts of alcohol. Again obviously, it is a good idea not to drive after drinking at all if you are like that, or think you may be like that.
But there is a second level to wisdom in this context, beyond the figures. It is both wise and prudent, when you feel, or just know, that your judgement may be slightly affected by drink, to rein in any tendency to euphoria or joie de vivre (let alone anger or impatience), and BACK OFF from your usual press-on style, concentrating on smoothness, awareness and relaxation and staying in a slightly more conservative speed band than usual. As any fule of my age kno. It is simply stupid to risk being pulled for speeding when you may then be found over the limit, just as it is to drive with such ridiculously exaggerated caution that plod will know you are drunk on sight.
Looks as if various of these admonitions were not followed by those involved in this horrible case which has wasted two innocent lives and blighted at least five more, not counting those of the culprits themselves. They seem to be experienced, confident drivers and experienced drinkers. Not many women would drive that fast in the wet however plastered, even on a known dual carriageway. It seems likely that extraneous emotion could have played a part. Very sad and nasty.
|
'Too right it's over simplistic - the Court can draw its own conclusions but cannot conclude from the absence of exculpatory evidence put forward, when there is also no incuplatory evidence, that the defendant is guilty.'
In the case of a successful prosecution I think I'm right to assume inculpatory evidence was available. In which case I am correct.
'A solicitor on legal aid will charge out at about half what a main dealer mechanic does. Most legal aid solicitors earn about the same as teachers with the same level of experience. The police station interview will attract a fixed fee of £250 including VAT which must cover all cases where there is less than about 12 hours' worth of police station attendance (i.e., probably about 98%). A no comment interview would attract exactly the same fee as a detailed denial unless it goes beyond 12 hours' worth of attendance by the solicitor or representative (not detention).'
Comparisons with other occupations are irrelevant. My point is that a solicitor is able to increase their earnings by prolonging the case (not at the Police station but through to court appearances, advanced disclosure and trial) rather than seeking case disposal on the day. I accept that disposal on the day would not be available in this case.
'Most solicitors aren't too keen on being struck off though.'
Slim chance!
'If the man had the decency to admit his position then it doesn't explain why he went on to plead not guilty. I agree that he may have been convicted of aiding and abetting, rather than causing death by dangerous driving (N.B. the offence is causing death by dangerous driving, not driving dangerously causing death) as the press is not clear but even for him to be convicted on that basis (subject to the case law I posted above), there would have to be evidence that he in some way encouraged or at least foresaw that the driving would be dangerous and the most likely way for that to come about would be giving an account in interview. '
Only he could account for the decision to plead NG.
Yes there would have to be evidence to support the charge. Whilst I accept that it most likely comes from interview, so what? It could potentially come from witness evidence immediately before the driving took place, though this would perhaps be stretching things a bit, I admit.
|
|
|
Although I was initially surprised when I read this case; it does have a certain logic.
The owner/controller of a vehicle does have legal obligations as to permitting it's use by another. If you give the keys to a driver that you know is, unlicenced, or under-age, or uninsured - or you have reason to believe is unfit through drink; then any dire consequences flow directly from your decision.
The court must have felt that a reasonable person should, in this case, have refused to let a lady, who they knew had been drinking, drive their car.
Maybe as this fact becomes more widely publicized by cases such as these; more owners will realize that they can be held jointly, or even severally if the accident is fatal to the driver, liable and exercise greater care as to who drives their car.
Edited by Screwloose on 22/11/2008 at 20:26
|
|
I still come back to the point that I made in this thread at 10.08 this morning - I am amazed that otherwise intelligent people will go out for a days drinking without thinking how they are going to get home (safely).
|
.. I am amazed that otherwise intelligent people will go out for a days drinking without thinking how they are going to get home (safely).
Therein lies the answer.
It is because these drunkards think they are intelligent that they will do so. They think they are clever enough to know when they have had too much to drink so as not to be able to drive.
The reason the woman in the case in question here was speeding along on wet roads at such a high speed was probably that she was so drunk that her normal sense of fear and judgement was all gone.
She then had this drunken belief that she was actually a very intelligent and capable and superior driver, driving at what she felt was a very safe slow-enough speed for the conditions for an intelligent driver of her superior abilities.
[just like speedtards believe in their superior ability to drive at 70mph in a 30mph zone].
p.s. The risk of being charged with "aiding and abetting" in various scenarios can actually be quite wide ranging.
|
>The reason the woman in the case in question here was speeding along on wet roads at >such a high speed was probably that she was so drunk that her normal sense of fear and >judgement was all gone.
Not at 1.5 times the legal limit it wasnt. she knew exactly what she was doing - her previous record shows she had no respect for the safety of others.
>p.s. The risk of being charged with "aiding and abetting" in various scenarios can actually >be quite wide ranging
Isnt it legal speak for "we dont actually have enough evidence to convict them of actually doing anything wrong but we dont like the company they keep so we will convict on this wide ranging catch all law"?
|
|
the fact that this pair of pink fluffy dice never said sorry or gave any form of apology couldnt have helped their case when the judge passed sentence!!
|
Not at 1.5 times the legal limit it wasnt. she knew exactly what she was doing
I agree AE, it seems unlikely that she was going fast because she was especially drunk. Much more likely it was a thing she often did, in a very safe and competent car, and was used to. But it also seems probable as they say that 'drink played a part' in causing the dreadful crash, although other factors almost certainly did too. These events are seldom as simple as they look. That is why I am neutral on the passenger's guilt or otherwise.
|
Isnt it legal speak for "we dont actually have enough evidence to convict them of actually doing anything wrong but we dont like the company they keep so we will convict on this wide ranging catch all law"?
No its because as a vehicle owner, employer or person in authority there are obligations to ensure that vehicles are driven legally, comes with the territory.
|
Me and my mate got beaten up in Manchester last year on a saturday night. The police eventually arrived and checked all the CCTV etc. While they were doing that two PCs were at a loose end and talked to us. We had a conversion for about an hour about driving, house prices etc and drunks (we 'only' had about 8 pints at that time).
One of the things the PC told us is that if a passanger got into a car knwoing the driver has been drinking, the passanger is commiting a crinimal offence.
I am very drunk now (had 6 pints and a curry) and I love drinking yet I have no sympathy for either of them. I am not getting behind the wheel until Monday. I know I will possibly be over the limit tomorrow so I am not risking it, even if I am under the limit I may still have alchohol in my blood.
We have taxis and buses for a reason,there is simply no excuse for drink driving. As I get older the more I am understanding the consquences of peoples actions. Everytime I get behind a wheel I know I am driving a potential weapon so I do my best to drive it as safe as possible if you're drunk how can you do that? Drink makes you thikn you're confident when actually you're not.
|
One of the things the PC told us is that if a passanger got into a car knwoing the driver has been drinking the passanger is commiting a crinimal offence.
it's a tad more complicated than that. To Aid, abet ,counsel or procure you'd have to do something, however minor...rather than quietly get in someone else's car and just sit there
|
Altea Ego - 'Isnt it legal speak for "we dont actually have enough evidence to convict them of actually doing anything wrong but we dont like the company they keep so we will convict on this wide ranging catch all law"?
You seem to despise the prosecuting authorities in this case. Aid and abet is an extremely useful piece of law for situations where you cannot convict a third party but they have brought about a situation. In this case you might remember that those convicted have been so convicted by a 12 person jury of their peers - a backbone of English law. They have been afforded the same protections as anyone else. The prosecuting authorities do not proceed on the basis of personal like/dislike, but are driven by public interest, case severity and budgets, amongst other things. Were a member of your family to be killed on the road would your apparent attitude be the same? I can speak with some authority when I suggest that you would be seeking 'justice' for those involved, to whatever degree. I know who you would be looking to to provide that justice and I equally know who you'd blame if they didn't come up to your exacting standard in the suggested situation.
|
Let us get some things right.
I have no hesitation in applauding the sentence the woman got. Her driving was appalling and reckless and it make no difference if she was over the limit or not. A long custodial sentence was justified and correctly applied.
Nor do I criticise the police generally - they do on the whole a fine job despite political interference and political correctness and a reduction in resources and numbers.
with respect to 12 persons good and true. I have sat on a jury. As you well know when it comes to matters of law and charges, the jury does what the judge says.
Backbone of English law? don't make me laugh. If you think the law is applied fairly or even seen to be applied fairly then you are clearly covering your eyes. Far too many serious crimes go by with a mere slap on the wrist because of political or demographic reasons, while the law abiding majority get the knife ripped through their guts if the suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of the law.
The simple matter here, in my view - and that's all it is - is that the woman drove. She drove in a reckless manner. The man did not have his foot pressed on her accelerator.
Even if she was coerced to drive over the limit, the burden of proof has to be that the male forced or coerced her to drive in such an appalling manner. I doubt they managed to get that level of proof. Morally he may be slime on the bottom of my shoe, but at the end of the day the woman killed the victims not him.
|
Isnt it ["aiding and abetting"] legal speak for "we dont actually have enough evidence to convict them of actually doing anything wrong but we dont like the company they keep so we will convict on this wide ranging catch all law"?
Not at all. It's much more akin (though with technical differences) to handing someone a gun and then asserting you didn't anticipate anyone would get killed with it.
|
|
|
I still come back to the point that I made in this thread at 10.08 this morning - I am amazed that otherwise intelligent people will go out for a days drinking without thinking how they are going to get home (safely).
In my ever so humble, it's quite simple. Arrogance and pride. Often, well off people with flashy cars want to be seen in said status symbol as much as possible, especially at a "prestige" event such as horse racing. Also, they would not wish to be seen as being unable to "handle" a few drinks, hence straight back in the motor and off they go home. Add in a dose of the "it'll-never-happen-to-mes-'cos-I'm-special", and you have this sort of thing waiting to happen.
Same thing goes for the long and sorry list of footballers who have done similar things in their Blingwagens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
