BobbyZ 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. Yeah no problem - either grass up the little sh1te, or eat the penalty yourself! 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. Why not, both are conspiring to protect each other knowing one of them committed the act? Because it requires forethought. Is it reasonable to assume that when you get into a car with someone, that they are going to suddenly decide to ram someone off the road? No, of course not, hence joint enterprise would not be valid. Would it be reasonable to assume that if you go out with a group of lads and one of them has a baseball bat but doesn't particularly follow the sport, that ABH/GBH could occur? Potentially, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Yeah no problem - either grass up the little sh1te, or eat the penalty yourself! What if it wasn't him driving? What if it was one of his mates? What if you knew it wasn't him, but he was covering for someone else who would beat the sh*t out of him if he told the police? Would you admit it then? I doubt it. I wouldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 As I said, its 99% both are lying, its not the 60s anymore where you need ten witnesses and a priest to write written statements. CCTV and phone monitoring along with call history can place people - half a day looking at that data and you would have a confession in half an hour... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 If they're both in the car, and CCTV is inconclusive, you cannot charge them both. If they weren't in the car, you cannot force them to name who was. As always, the best case scenario is usually to stay quiet and let the police prove their case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaydnH Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 CCTV and phone monitoring along with call history can place people - half a day looking at that data and you would have a confession in half an hour... Well sadly not in this case, otherwise the police wouldn't have been disappointed with the crappy result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) My first thought was how many go pro`s did that cyclist have?! Ive seen a few cyclists now who have one on their helmets etc. But (from the footage i saw) this guy had both front facing helmet camera, plus a seat mounted rear facing one? Its almost as if he anticipated an attack from the rear. Its a shame he didnt also have a rear facing helmet cam as it might have actually caught the drivers face. TBH Im always very skeptical about camera up`d cyclists who have their own youtube channel then upload road rage clips etc. as usually they only show the motorist raging at the cyclist, and edit out the 15 minutes before hand of the cyclist abusing the motorist etc and winding them up to the point of snapping. Im not saying this is the case in this case at all, just a general observation, and certainly doesnt excuse the attempted murder of a cyclist by running them over. Edited February 5, 2016 by rabbitstew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyZ Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Yeah no problem - either grass up the little sh1te, or eat the penalty yourself! What if it wasn't him driving? What if it was one of his mates? What if you knew it wasn't him, but he was covering for someone else who would beat the sh*t out of him if he told the police? Would you admit it then? I doubt it. I wouldn't. The law isn't perfect, and you can't protect everyone - I get that. The question is, do you want to protect people that are blatantly lying to protect themselves or people they know, or do you want to protect a cyclist that could have been paralysed or killed? You can keep throwing hypothetical situations at me all you want, but it's clear in this instance that they're lying to save their skin, so I don't see the harm in just charging the person whose name the vehicle was in at the time. I know the law doesn't work that way, but it should do. And in your example about the son covering for the local hard lad, I'd clip him round the ear and tell him to man up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I want to protect the majority, which is what the current law does. I want to live in a land where I'm not forced by any method to tell the police anything I don't want to, and even more so if it might be something I don't actually know the answer to anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyZ Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 As I previously stated, the only reason why I'm taking this view in this case is because it's quite clear that either the guy that hired the car knows, or that it was driven by someone who shouldn't have been driving it, in which case he should say so. If it's possible that they don't know, then absolutely I agree that it shouldn't be possible to pin it on them. As far as not wanting to tell the police stuff, I'm afraid that's all part of breaking the law. I don't agree that it's right that people shouldn't have to answer questions about criminal offences just because it's a bit awkward. I don't want to get into trouble with the law either, but as the saying goes, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 But how do you know he knows? You don't, and neither do the police, hence they can't bring the case. You say it's quite clear, but it's clear that it's not quite clear (!), else CPS would prosecute. My point isn't about this case, it's about what happens if you change the law so this case works out okay but then Mr Innocent gets screwed because of it. I'd rather see ten guilty men go free than one innocent man behind bars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 You can keep throwing hypothetical situations at me all you want, but it's clear in this instance that they're lying to save their skin, so I don't see the harm in just charging the person whose name the vehicle was in at the time. I know the law doesn't work that way, but it should do. And if the renter wasnt driving? He has to do the time despite not doing the crime? Or do you put them both in prison knowing that one is innocent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyZ Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Yeah okay, having thought it through a bit more carefully, I guess it is impossible to avoid potentially locking up the wrong person. It's a huge stretch to imagine that he genuinely didn't know, but assuming that he named the person, it would still have to be proved that they did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davedutch Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 If the hirer is withholding information pertaining to a crime then he is perverting the course of justice! If he wasn't driving he has a duty to state who had charge of the vehicle, if that person wasn't driving they too have a duty to provide info etc. I agree the hirer cannot be charged with the actual offence because it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that individual committed the crime but they could and should be charged, as I said a while back, with perverting the course of justice. In any other serious offence someone refusing to provide relevant info would be charged otherwise why does such an offence exist? A charge and conviction under these circumstances isn't charging / convicting an innocent person because they are being charged with an offence they have clearly committed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 But he has committed a crime, not filing in the s192 request, for which he was fined and given points. You cannot start charging people with PTCOJ for not telling people stuff. If you did, you'd have to start charging rape victims who didn't name their attacker, which is plainly ridiculous. 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.