Someone got of lightly

[the_killjoy]

Someone got of lightly and I don't mean the biker.

Absolutely an encouragement not to stop after an accident.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617

 

[tillson]

The opening sentence in that article is incorrect. It implies that the police have decided that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute, but later on reveals that it was actually The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) who took the decision.

Unfortunately it is very easy to opt for the lesser penalty of failing to provide driver details in these circumstances. It's very hard to prove who the driver was in the absence of any other form of supporting evidence such as finger prints, photographs or witnesses. The police are almost totally reliant on a confession, which isn't going to happen these days.

The thought crossed my mind that this may be some sort of insurance scam. A rearward facing camera on a bike seems slightly unusual, throw a hire car into the mix and it starts to get a bit smelly. I might be totally wrong, but it would be interesting to know a bit of history about both the person hiring the car and the cyclist. Also the exact nature of the injuries. I could be totally wrong though.

 

[oldtom]

This isn't justice and the CPS has demonstrated how poor it is at what it should be doing. Exceptionally, because of the car occupants' refusal to comply with a police investigation, the CPS should prosecute this case beyond the normal procedural channels and place the matter before a crown court judge.

The car occupants should then be asked to name the offending driver and if they refuse, may be jailed for contempt of court......for as long as the judge decides is appropriate!

No doubt there will be some who will contend, 'Ah yeah...but!' and explain how this would be a bad thing. Well, if ensuring justice is served is simply leaving this matter as it now stands, I'm afraid the authorities have lost the plot.

Tom

 

[Fordulike]

Surely if it was a hire car, then only the person who signed the hire contract is legally insured to drive that car. So if they say they weren't driving at the time of the accident, then they have breached the hire contract. Where that would stand legally, and whether the hire company would be bothered to persue would be a different matter.

Maybe they should just release the details of who hired the car, and a bunch of Pedelec members could pay a visit and beat a confession out of them

 

[tillson]

This isn't justice and the CPS has demonstrated how poor it is at what it should be doing. Exceptionally, because of the car occupants' refusal to comply with a police investigation, the CPS should prosecute this case beyond the normal procedural channels and place the matter before a crown court judge.

The car occupants should then be asked to name the offending driver and if they refuse, may be jailed for contempt of court......for as long as the judge decides is appropriate!

No doubt there will be some who will contend, 'Ah yeah...but!' and explain how this would be a bad thing. Well, if ensuring justice is served is simply leaving this matter as it now stands, I'm afraid the authorities have lost the plot.

Tom

As much as I would like to agree with your proposal, I can't. I very much believe in, beyond reasonable doubt, and sadly if the hirer won't cooperate you never will prove who was driving beyond reasonable doubt.

What is not used enough is the facility the courts have to draw an inference from silence. If the hirer will not say who the driver was, the police can warn him /her that a court may draw an inference from their silence. That coupled with the circumstances could persuade a jury of guilt. But the CPS seldom, if ever, use it. It's probably against yeruman rights nowadays.

 

[mike killay]

As far as I am aware, it is up to the prosecution to prove its case.
Courts cannot draw any inference from silence.

 

[the_killjoy]

Courts are to comment on and allowed to draw inference from silence.

 

[tillson]

As far as I am aware, it is up to the prosecution to prove its case.
Courts cannot draw any inference from silence.

I believe the courts can draw an inference from a suspects silence. If there is evidence linking a suspect to a crime, in this case it would be the vehicle on hire to a suspect being present and being used in commission of the crime (I'm assuming that the police would be treating this as an assault or attempted murder for the purpose of interview), they can issue a special warning during interview. The suspect is warned that if they fail to account for the evidence by saying, "no comment", then a court may draw an inference from that silence.

A more common example would be a suspect's fingerprint found inside a house that had been burgled. If during interview the suspect refuses to say anything about the fingerprint or why it was there, the court may draw an inference from that.

I don't think courts take much notice of the special warning and inference though, but it does exist and it is admissible.

 

[oldtom]

I suspect that most reasonable people will be unable to understand how this matter wasn't successfully prosecuted for the de facto attempted murder or manslaughter that clearly occurred. Had the cyclist actually died as a result of what took place, I'm sure there would have been a huge public outcry across the nation and politicians would have been urged to demand the DPP/CPS prosecute the offence properly.

Given what has been reported, it looks very much like the police know exactly who was responsible for the crime or alternatively, which person or persons are using silence to obstruct the course of justice, by identifying the perpetrator. It strikes me that our once renowned 'British justice system' has become somewhat Americanised in its application, detrimental to the interests of ordinary people while providing a guaranteed 'get out of jail card' for the professional criminal element.

Tom

 

[lectureral]

This sort of thing is a common problem with child abuse cases. Two parents who could have done it, both refusing to say anything. Spouses cannot be forced to testify against each other. The law is left with no evidence against either, other than a 50/50 chance in respect of each of them and that won't satisfy the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". Here two people were eligible to drive the car and each refused to say who was driving the car. The result is highly unsatisfactory but cannot be avoided given our rules of evidence.

 

[oldtom]

Spouses cannot be forced to testify against each other.

You point is well-made Tom and reveals an unfortunate by-product of otherwise well-intentioned law-making.

I'm aware of certain circumstances where spouses have provided testimony against their other half but those occurrences are pretty rare. A swift search produced the following synopsis of the situation without gobbledygook and clarifies the point in question. The piece of law is enshrined in British justice and fully complies with the European convention on human rights.

The bottom line is, as you have said, we are left with a highly unsatisfactory conclusion in this particular matter. Here's the piece:

Spouses or Civil Partners
Section 80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) is the statutory provision which governs the competence and compellability of spouses and civil partners in criminal proceedings.

Spouses or civil partners of a person charged in proceedings are generally competent to give evidence for the prosecution. The only exception is if the spouse or civil partner is jointly charged. If they are, neither is competent or compellable to give evidence, on behalf of the prosecution, against the other unless the spouse or civil partner witness has already pleaded guilty, or the proceedings in respect of the spouse or civil partner witness have been discontinued.

Spouses or civil partners are competent and compellable to give evidence on behalf of the defendant or the defendant's co-accused.

The prosecution can only compel a spouse or civil partner to give evidence for the prosecution in cases which involve:

• an allegation of violence against the spouse or civil partner;
• an allegation of violence against a person who was at the material time under the age of sixteen years;
• an alleged sexual offence against a victim who was at the material time under the age of sixteen years; or
• attempting, conspiring or aiding and abetting, counselling and procuring to commit the offences in the categories above.

If a spouse witness is divorced from the defendant or the civil partnership comes to an end before he or she gives evidence, the former spouse/civil partner is competent and compellable to give evidence as if that person and the accused had never been married or had never been civil partners.

Section 80 PACE does not apply to a defendant's partner to whom he or she is neither married nor in a civil partnership.

The decision to compel a witness to attend court with a view to giving evidence for the prosecution against his or her expressed wish is one that should be exercised with sensitivity and discretion.

Tom

 

[mike killay]

The problem of compellability is when both partners accuse each other. Again you are left with a jury unable to decide who is lying.

 

[gray198]

Maybe they should both have been charged.I thought there was a law now giving police the right to prosecute where a group was involved but individuals commuting crime could not be identified. Probably know applies to certain crimes.

 

[flecc]

Maybe they should both have been charged.I thought there was a law now giving police the right to prosecute where a group was involved but individuals commuting crime could not be identified. Probably know applies to certain crimes.

There's a state called Joint enterprise which can apply to all present when one commits a crime. For example others in a group can be found guilty of murder when just one kills someone. Someone waiting outside a building while someone accompanying them has entered to steal can be just as guilty of the theft.

The jury just has to be convinced that the outside party/parties could reasonably have been aware of the possibility of the crime.

This cannot apply in the driving case in this thread. In child abuse cases it might apply but it's more likely that neglect charges would be brought against both involved. That neglect charge has been successfully used against both in a number of cases.
.