-G- Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Shocking, frankly. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617 Curious they can issue convictions & fines for Gatso evidence but not for hit and runs. Would they have gotten away with it if the cyclist had died? So wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 That sucks. Is it the same when you get caught speeding, pay £150 fee to not provide details? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaydnH Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Curious they can issue convictions & fines for Gatso evidence but not for hit and runs. It's the same isn't it? If you have multiple named drivers on the insurance and you all refuse to say who was driving you'd probably get the 6 points plus fine the same as this guy... but why would you do that when you can take the 3 points for speeding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Curious they can issue convictions & fines for Gatso evidence but not for hit and runs. It's the same isn't it? If you have multiple named drivers on the insurance and you all refuse to say who was driving you'd probably get the 6 points plus fine the same as this guy... but why would you do that when you can take the 3 points for speeding? I missed the 6 points! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyZ Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Saw this earlier - bit of a joke really. It should just get pinned on whoever the car is legally under the possession of at the time if no one owns up, but of course the law is too 'fair' to do stuff like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 It's the right call. The alternative is to put innocent people in jail on purpose, and once you start down that road it's not easy to come back from. Of course it's rubbish, but it's the lesser of two evils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davedutch Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I agree bobbyz if the insured or main driver refuses to provide details then that person should be charged as if they were the offender, I'm sure then they would soon spill the beans. From recollection Alex Ferguson got off a speeding fine a while back because he / Man U refused to say who was driving at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 It's the right call. The alternative is to put innocent people in jail on purpose, and once you start down that road it's not easy to come back from. Of course it's rubbish, but it's the lesser of two evils. Well there is a middle way, bit of light waterboarding for the accused wouldn't do any harm... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Okay, so let's say neither you nor your wife can remember who was driving when that ticket comes through for speeding. Are you saying you'd be perfectly happy with getting the points simply because your name is on the V5? Same principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davedutch Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Dan, I agree to a point but when someone deliberately witholds relevant info then it wouldn't be unreasonable to charge them as if they were the offender, at a minimum they should have been charged with perverting the course of justice. Once they choose not to provide info they are no longer innocent but complicit in the offence. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-G- Posted February 3, 2016 Author Share Posted February 3, 2016 Okay, so let's say neither you nor your wife can remember who was driving when that ticket comes through for speeding. Are you saying you'd be perfectly happy with getting the points simply because your name is on the V5? Same principle. Dare say a couple regardless of who was driving would remember hitting a cyclist though. One committed a crime the other is an accessory to what is arguably attempted murder and is similarly culpable of perverting the course of justice. Worst case scenario is do them both with perverting the course of justice and be as harsh as you can be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyZ Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Okay, so let's say neither you nor your wife can remember who was driving when that ticket comes through for speeding. Are you saying you'd be perfectly happy with getting the points simply because your name is on the V5? Same principle. It's almost definitely BS if a couple says they can't remember who was driving anyway, although in the case of speeding fines I don't care too much because they're a load of poo. In the case of a proper offence like this though, yes i think when someone is deliberately withholding the identity of the offender, they should receive the punishment if they don't spill the beans. It's also not directly comparable to your speeding example, because it's not possible to forget that you rear-ended a cyclist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 And what if they'd lent the car to someone else, so opening themselves up to an insurance charge? Would you want that on your record, or would you keep quiet too? Too many variables. The law is correct as it stands IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-G- Posted February 3, 2016 Author Share Posted February 3, 2016 Perverting the course of justice still stands as a reasonable offence to charge whoever's name was on the lease agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyZ Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 And what if they'd lent the car to someone else, so opening themselves up to an insurance charge? Would you want that on your record, or would you keep quiet too? Too many variables. The law is correct as it stands IMHO. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you're asking what I would try to get away with, and using that as a basis for how laws should be written... Perverting the course of justice still stands as a reasonable offence to charge whoever's name was on the lease agreement. I'm actually not sure what the penalty is for this, but assuming it's suitably harsh, sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaydnH Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I'm not so sure, the right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself or others is a fairly significant right, otherwise we'd all be dragged in to the police station once a month to answer the question of "what crimes have you committed?". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraziekatz1 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 So, all the CCTV's in the UK and they weren't able to pull a clear photo of the driver????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fodder Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I'm not so sure, the right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself or others is a fairly significant right, otherwise we'd all be dragged in to the police station once a month to answer the question of "what crimes have you committed?". I totally agree but I think what stands here is that this incident is deliberate and potentially fatal. The person who hired the vehicle certainly does have the right to remain silent and took that option. However as the person who signed the contract for the hire car they are liable for any incidents while the vehicle is at their disposal. Much the same for any speeding offences etc so as others have said by default the person is guilty of perverting the course of justice. This is of course all in my own opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 So 5 guys are stood there attacking someone, then one of them hits him with an iron bar killing him stone dead, none of the five can remember who was holding the bar therefore its GBH and 6 months for all concerned? The law I am pretty sure would sort that out. Sorry, I don't buy it. I thought they had closed this particular loophole years ago where denying all knowledge just means nothing is done. One of those two knows who did it or can give the police evidence to point to who might have done it (i.e. lent the car to someone) Anyway, what about phone tracking? Surely any simple check with mobile operators against their phones could at least place one or both at the scene. From what I know, law very rarely deals in certainties and happily puts people in prison based on likely possibilities - its highly likely either of those two did this and I am pretty sure the threat of prison time would get the truth out pretty quickly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 And what if they'd lent the car to someone else, so opening themselves up to an insurance charge? Would you want that on your record, or would you keep quiet too? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you're asking what I would try to get away with, and using that as a basis for how laws should be written... No, what I was saying was is that neither the person who hired it nor his wife his wife were driving it. They could've loaned it to their son, which means that he would've been driving without any insurance and the hirer would've known that. As such, not only would they have been grassing their son up, but also the hirer would've been subject to a charge of allowing a vehicle to be used without insurance. It's a smaller penalty financially to cough up to a S192 offence when getting your insurance renewal than it is admitting to any kind of insurance dodgyness. We all know how rare it is for parents to dob their kids in with the law. Should we make every parent responsible for what their kids do? Certainly there's an argument for yes, and I've made a hell of a leap there which isn't really fair, but I'd wager that most people would think no. This is such a rare incident, and unfortunately it does highlight an apparent injustice in the law, but it's the lesser of two evils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 So 5 guys are stood there attacking someone, then one of them hits him with an iron bar killing him stone dead, none of the five can remember who was holding the bar therefore its GBH and 6 months for all concerned? The law I am pretty sure would sort that out. Sorry, I don't buy it. I thought they had closed this particular loophole years ago where denying all knowledge just means nothing is done. One of those two knows who did it or can give the police evidence to point to who might have done it (i.e. lent the car to someone) That could be joint enterprise, which would not apply in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyZ Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I'm not so sure, the right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself or others is a fairly significant right, otherwise we'd all be dragged in to the police station once a month to answer the question of "what crimes have you committed?". The thing with this situation is that the only plausible explanation for the incident is that they wanted to injure / kill the cyclist, and the only plausible explanation for no driver being named is that they wanted to lie to get away with it. I don't see why they should then have a right to be protected. For me, the right to remain silent is there to stop innocent people from being coerced into confessing - the same reason that torture isn't allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 So 5 guys are stood there attacking someone, then one of them hits him with an iron bar killing him stone dead, none of the five can remember who was holding the bar therefore its GBH and 6 months for all concerned? The law I am pretty sure would sort that out. Sorry, I don't buy it. I thought they had closed this particular loophole years ago where denying all knowledge just means nothing is done. One of those two knows who did it or can give the police evidence to point to who might have done it (i.e. lent the car to someone) That could be joint enterprise, which would not apply in this case. Why not, both are conspiring to protect each other knowing one of them committed the act? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Ultimately, one of these two are guilty and are getting away with it - its wrong that we shrug shoulders and say what else could the law have done. It needs sorting out, I imagine it happens more often than we realise, over the years thousands of times, and probably more before social media came along. Its only because this guy is making a big deal of it on you tube and going to the press we are seeing it. In fact its only because he had a rear facing camera (not often seen on bikes) that he could go to social media at all, otherwise no one would have been any wiser. Both those people are lying to police, the one that wont admit and the one that wont incriminate. As I say, plenty of evidence can be gathered nowadays, calls to mobile companies, CCTV can place people, etc. Of course you wouldn't do this if we were talking about someone tripping someone else up on the street but this driver nearly killed someone, and I imagine it happens more often than we hear about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) Its the law and its going to have some holes as there isnt a "cover all" for every situation, the classic is two people admitting to the same crime - this instantly creates reasonable doubt and means its very difficult to convict. As Ekona says, if there is no definitive way of proving who was actually driving then theres a good possibility of an unfair conviction and as with another fundamental of our legal system its better that 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent gets sent to prison. It does beg the question why I keep paying speeding tickets on the hire cars Ive had in Europe recently though Edited February 4, 2016 by docwra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.