On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:41:21 +0000, Michael MacClancy
<
[email protected]> wrote:
>On 09 Feb 2004 18:52:17 GMT, dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
>
>>>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3473907.stm
>>>
>>>A man jailed for two years after leaving the scene of an accident in which a nine-year-old boy
>>>died is to have his sentence reduced.
>>>
>>><sigh> :-(
>>
>> I tell you, if anyone seriously has an inkling to do away with someone over here in the UK, I
>> seriously doubt they'd ever get charged with murder or manslaughter if they used the car as the
>> means to the literal end. It stinks, it really does.
>
>I don't think this comment is fair. I'm sure that the police and CPS will charge people with
>offences such as dangerous driving, driving without due care and attention etc if they have
>sufficient evidence to have a reasonable chance of getting a conviction.
I've delved into this recently. The CPS guidelines (see their website) require two criteria to be
met before pursuing a prosecution; evidential and public interest. Public interest in this context
means the degree of seriousness that society views the offence.
alledged attacker and victim as witnesses and a limited amount of physical evidence. A car crash
with no third party witnesses but rapid police presence and an amount of physical evidence;
wreckage, skid marks etc.
Because the CPS sees the former incident as serious and prosecution as being, therefore, in the
public interest it will prosecute on a much weaker evidential basis than with a motoring offence
which the CPS believes that society does not rate as serious.
The problem really lies with getting the CPS to treat careless/dangerous driving offences as
seriously as violence against the person.
I've been through both these scenarios as a victim. The time I was assaulted the police put a *lot*
of effort into finding the nutter who duffed me up and prosecution was almost automatic.
When I was run over 2 months ago, the facts that police were on the scene within 5 minutes, an
admission of fault was made and that the physical damage could have only resulted from utterly shite
driving were, to the CPS, insufficient evidence.
What hacks me off is that the assault resulted in pretty minor injuries and I'd have been extremely
unlikely to end up permanently injured or dead. OTOH, I've just been told that my car smashed arm
and shoulder won't be fixed for a year and will probably never be as good as new. I'm also bloody
lucky to be here at all.
>In this case it seems they didn't so they charged him with the offences he did commit ie leaving
>the scene and failing to report an accident. The sentence was reduced because it was illegal.
>
>Fortunately, we do live in a society where the onus of proof is on the prosecution and this has
>protected very many people against miscarriages of justice.
Agreed. As I say, the fault is with the CPS.
>I would rather live in a society where the occasional offender escaped punishment because of
>insufficient evidence than one in which the prisons contain even more innocent people than
>at present.