driver charged (at last...)



W

wafflycat

Guest
You may remember postings on here about Zak Carr being killed on the A11
last October. Basically he was rear-ended by a terminally unobservant fule
as far as I know.

At long last, someone has been actually charged in this sad matter.

See

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/cont...gory=news&itemid=NOED20 Apr 2006 12:00:58:873


or

http://tinyurl.com/s8yl8

It says, "A man was today due to appear in court facing charges over the
death of a champion cyclist.

Donald Pearce, 48, of Colman Road, Norwich, has been charged with causing
death by reckless driving following the death of Zak Carr last year.
Following his arrest by police, Pearce was bailed to appear at Norwich
Magistrates Court today."

Can those who know the technicalities of the law advise me, please - I
thought that 'death by reckless driving' had been changed to 'death by
dangerous driving' some time ago. Am I thinking completely out of my tree
here??

If it is the case that it was changed, I hope that it's just the reporter
getting it wrong and not the guy being incorrectly charged and going to get
off on a technicality...

Cheers, helen s




--

~~
you may need to remove dependence
on fame & fortune from organisation
to get correct email address
~Noodliness is Good~
 
wafflycat wrote:
>
> Can those who know the technicalities of the law advise me, please -
> I thought that 'death by reckless driving' had been changed to 'death
> by dangerous driving' some time ago. Am I thinking completely out of
> my tree here??
>


IIRC, Causing Death by Reckless Driving was the old offence pre the 1991
Road Traffic Act. Its big problem was the judgement of recklessness
required an assessment of the thinking of the driver, which was
notoriously difficult to prove. The new offence of Causing Death by
Dangerous driving was based on the standard of driving, not the why the
person was driving that way.

Out of interest, pre 1977 it was Causing Death by Reckless or Dangerous
Driving but was reworded in the Criminal Law Act as Causing Death by
Reckless Driving. This was following a lot of debate as to whether the
Causing Death by.. part should be dropped altogether as it was the
standard of driving that was being prosecuted, not whether or not it led
to injury or death. The charge was introduced in the first place though
in 1956 because with only Careless and Reckless Driving charges, it
required juries to convict drivers of manslaughter or murder to get a
higher penalty if someone was killed, something the juries proved very
reluctant to do. Which brings us full circle to the recent debate in
this parish about whether such deaths should be prosecuted as
manslaughter or murder.


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
So the EDP and EEN decided to treat Zak's death with the respect and
courtesy it deserved (Traffic chaos after accident) and then get the
details of the charges wrong?
 
"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So the EDP and EEN decided to treat Zak's death with the respect and
> courtesy it deserved (Traffic chaos after accident) and then get the
> details of the charges wrong?
>


That would not surprise me in the slightest.

helen s
 
wafflycat wrote "Can those who know the technicalities of the law
advise me, please - I
thought that 'death by reckless driving' had been changed to 'death by
dangerous driving' some time ago. Am I thinking completely out of my
tree
here?? "

I think both offences still exist.
Put crudely, sub-standard driving comes in degrees of severity, from
relatively minor 'careless driving' then 'dangerous driving' up to the
extreme ' reckless driving'. Put very crudely, reckless driving is the
sort which will probably cause an accident every time, while dangerous
driving is the sort where the driver might manage to get away with it
for months but will sooner or later cause a serious accident. Careless
driving creates a enhanced risk of minor accidents and/or slight risk
of a major one.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> wafflycat wrote "Can those who know the technicalities of the law
> advise me, please - I
> thought that 'death by reckless driving' had been changed to 'death by
> dangerous driving' some time ago. Am I thinking completely out of my
> tree
> here?? "
>
> I think both offences still exist.



CPS Chapter and verse:
DRIVING OFFENCES INVOLVING FATALITIES
When a death occurs on the road in circumstances which suggest an offence
has been committed, the police will investigate. Whether an offence has been
committed will depend on the conduct of the driver of the vehicle. Where a
death has been caused, one of the following offences may have been
committed:

a.. careless driving or inconsiderate driving - section 3 Road Traffic Act
(RTA) 1988;
b.. causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or
drugs - section 3A RTA 1988;
c.. causing death by dangerous driving - section 1 RTA 1988;
d.. manslaughter - contrary to common law (rarely - used mainly where a
person intends to cause some harm, eg by deliberately driving into someone).
The offence of driving without due care and attention is committed when the
driving falls below the standard expected of a reasonable, prudent and
competent driver in all the circumstances of the case. If a death has
occurred as a result of careless driving, this can only be reflected in the
charge if the driver is under the influence of drink or drugs. There is no
offence of causing death by careless driving. A person drives dangerously
when:

a.. the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a
competent and careful driver; and
b.. it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in
that way would be dangerous.
The manner of the driving must be considered objectively. In practice, the
difference between the two types of bad driving will depend on the degree to
which the driving falls below the minimum acceptable standard. If the manner
of the driving is below that which is expected, the appropriate charge will
be careless driving; if the manner of the driving is far below that which is
expected, the appropriate charge will be dangerous driving. There is no
statutory guidance about what behaviour constitutes a manner of driving
which is "below" and "far below" the required standard.

Where a death has occurred it is especially important that offenders are
brought to justice. But, as the law stands, death does not, by itself, turn
an accident into careless driving or turn careless driving into dangerous
driving.

When considering the appropriate charge, it is the behaviour that is the
deciding factor, ie whether the driving was careless or dangerous rather
than the consequences. However, The CPS requires that in any prosecution for
driving without due care and attention, where a death has resulted from the
manner of the driving, those presenting the facts of the case to the court
should give full details, including the fact that a death resulted.


pk
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> I think both offences still exist.
> Put crudely, sub-standard driving comes in degrees of severity, from
> relatively minor 'careless driving' then 'dangerous driving' up to the
> extreme ' reckless driving'. Put very crudely, reckless driving is the
> sort which will probably cause an accident every time, while dangerous
> driving is the sort where the driver might manage to get away with it
> for months but will sooner or later cause a serious accident. Careless
> driving creates a enhanced risk of minor accidents and/or slight risk
> of a major one.
>


Having done a swift check on Auntie Beeb's handy online law terminology
guide, causing death by reckless driving has been superceded by causing
death by dangerous driving. See
http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/law/jargonbuster_c.shtml Now there is 'carless or
inconsiderate driving' and 'causing death by dangerous driving' which is the
more serious offence.

Cheers, helen s
 
wafflycat wrote:

>
> Having done a swift check on Auntie Beeb's handy online law terminology
> guide, causing death by reckless driving has been superceded by causing
> death by dangerous driving. See
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/law/jargonbuster_c.shtml Now there is
> 'carless or inconsiderate driving' and 'causing death by dangerous
> driving' which is the more serious offence.
>


I'm trying to imagine the offence of "carless driving." Have cars
become mandatory now?

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> I'm trying to imagine the offence of "carless driving." Have cars become
> mandatory now?
>


Just checking on your proof reading skills, Tony ;-)

Cheers, helen s
 
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:52:38 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]> said:

> I'm trying to imagine the offence of "carless driving." Have cars
> become mandatory now?


It's quite common.

http://www.ntk.net/2003/07/25/#ANTI_NEWS

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q="carless+driving"

And I'm sure the .gov.uk one wasn't there at number one
two and a half years ago.

--
Alan J. Wylie http://www.wylie.me.uk/
"Perfection [in design] is achieved not when there is nothing left to add,
but rather when there is nothing left to take away."
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
 
Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes:

>I'm trying to imagine the offence of "carless driving." Have cars
>become mandatory now?


It almost seems that way...
After a minor prang last week our car is off the road with a smashed
headlight. Other party admitted liability, and the letter from their
insurance mentioned "replacement car if you can demonstrate a need".
Now I don't think we /need/ a car but it comes in handy at times, so I
called, prepared to discuss to what extend I need it. Turns out that the
only criteria is that our car is off the road.
Same with the rental company shortly after: when would I need the car?
While I was thinking about what upcoming trips were necessary and which I
could do by bike he continued by asking if our car was away for repairs
yet, and as soon as I mentioned I couldn't drive it at the moment it
meant I needed a car right away.

And back to cycling: car rental company guy did say the Brompton was very
handy when I used it to pick up the car.

Roos
 
"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So the EDP and EEN decided to treat Zak's death with the respect and
> courtesy it deserved (Traffic chaos after accident) and then get the
> details of the charges wrong?
>


It's been confirmed that the driver has been charged with causing death by
dangerous driving. Evening News reporting getting it wrong - quelle
surprise!

Cheers, helen s
 
A11 crash causes traffic chaos


17 October 2005 13:40

A male cyclist was seriously hurt in an accident today that blocked the
northbound carriageway of the A11, between Wymondham and the Thickthorn
Roundabout, near Norwich, for over four hours.

The accident was reported at 7.23am and resulted in major traffic
problems in the vicinity. Diversions were set up at the B1135, near the
Norfolk Police operation headquarters at Wymondham, and traffic was
routed through Hethersett.

The cyclist was in collision with a Rover car and suffered a head
injury and other serious injuries. He was taken to the Norfolk and
Norwich University Hospital by ambulance. The car driver is believed to
have been unhurt.

The road re-opened at 12.12pm.

Norfolk police are appealing for information, and would like to hear
from anyone who saw the cyclist prior to the crash.

A car ended up on the roundabout at the A40/A143 junction at Stuston,
near Diss, at 4.55am today. The non-injury accident happened in thick
fog, damaging a chevron sign at the roundabout. The road was not
obstructed and no other vehicle was involved.

http://tinyurl.com/pe7mu


Charming.

Presumably the EDP would report September the Eleventh as:

"Plane incident causes traffic chaos, delays expected.

(2986 people dead)."


"The cyclist was in collision with a Rover car"

Peculiar wording.
 
> Charming.
<snippity>
> "The cyclist was in collision with a Rover car"


> Peculiar wording.



It's basically just due to lazy reporting. The 'journalist' has simply
taken the information given by the police and "written it in their own
words" like wot they were taughtt at skool.

They've searched for little (if any) extra information and, in the absence
of any information about the victim, were only able to chuck in a few of
their own words on the problems caused by traffic.
 
Mark Thompson wrote:
>
>
> It's basically just due to lazy reporting. The 'journalist' has simply
> taken the information given by the police and "written it in their own
> words" like wot they were taughtt at skool.
>
> They've searched for little (if any) extra information and, in the absence
> of any information about the victim, were only able to chuck in a few of
> their own words on the problems caused by traffic.


My experience of local paper journalists is that if you were to write
"this journalist is a numpty" in the middle of a press release, you
would find "this journalist is a numpty" faithfully reproduced in the
newspaper under their byline.

National papers are worse in that the journalist reads and then
misinterprets/misrepresents what was in the press release/interview.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:56:42 +0100 someone who may be "wafflycat"
<w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote this:-

>At long last, someone has been actually charged in this sad matter.


Will they be convicted though? The local paper here contains an
example of a motorist on trial in circumstances where one might
question how hard the government pushed their side of the case.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=601632006

"A PENSIONER who knocked down an 84-year-old man because he did not
notice a red traffic light has been cleared of causing death by
dangerous driving but convicted of a lesser charge. [snip]

"The jury found the serious charge not proven, but unanimously
convicted Shaw of a lesser offence of careless driving.

"Judge Lord Wheatley fined him £1000 and banned him from driving for
12 months."

"Carelessly" crashing into someone and killing them? I wonder.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
David Hansen wrote:
>
> "The jury found the serious charge not proven, but unanimously
> convicted Shaw of a lesser offence of careless driving.
>
> "Judge Lord Wheatley fined him £1000 and banned him from driving for
> 12 months."
>
> "Carelessly" crashing into someone and killing them? I wonder.
>
>


Wrong logic I'm afraid. According to the law

A person drives dangerously when:

The way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent
and careful driver

AND

It would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in
that way would be dangerous.

Now we all know that ignoring a red light does not fall far below the
standards expected of a normal driver nor do they think it is dangerous.
The Courts seem to think killing someone with a car is not exceptional
either. Ergo Causing Death by Dangerous Driving is a theoretical
offence only ;-^)

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 14:34:16 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:

> According to the law
>
> A person drives dangerously when:
>
> The way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent
> and careful driver
>
> AND
>
> It would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in
> that way would be dangerous.
>
> Now we all know that ignoring a red light does not fall far below the
> standards expected of a normal driver nor do they think it is dangerous.
> The Courts seem to think killing someone with a car is not exceptional
> either. Ergo Causing Death by Dangerous Driving is a theoretical
> offence only ;-^)


Slightly funny if only it wasn't so serious. Anyway, the definitions you
presented prove that Causing Death by Dangerous Driving is not a
theoretical offence: they don't mention a 'normal driver', only a
'competent and careful' one. I assume you'd include yourself in that group?
--
Michael MacClancy
 
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 11:18:13 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:
> My experience of local paper journalists is that if you were to write
> "this journalist is a numpty" in the middle of a press release, you
> would find "this journalist is a numpty" faithfully reproduced in the
> newspaper under their byline.


A friend of mine worked for a local paper for a period until he decided to
take a career change in the direction of primary school teaching. He was
once sent out with a photographer to report on the "bad parking" that was
blocking a residential street. On arrival they found not one car in the
street. Their instructions were to press on regardless, so they ditched
the photo and got a couple of quotes from local residents ("Yes. It's
terrible. I can never get through the street to get home 'cos there's cars
parked all ways!"). The article was run. Never underestimate the power of
an imminent deadline.

Jon
 

Similar threads

G
Replies
47
Views
2K
UK and Europe
naked_draughtsman
N