Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

[iviehoff]

There are now more legal details of what happened. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-35472617

In the wider justice system, there is an offence of perverting the course of justice, which means actions or omissions that prevent the justice system from operating. You usually end up with a sentence rather like if you had been found guilty of the offence they were trying to investigate.

In the road system, we have instead the offence of failing to disclose who was driving the car you were the keeper of. Two people had the opportunity to drive this car, so there is clear advantage in refusing to disclose. Here the owner has quite clearly judged it was better to refuse to disclose and take the penalty for that. It seems to me that refusing to disclose, being rather like perverting the course of justice, should have much more serious offences. Drivers are sometimes prosecuted for perverting the course of justice, enabling a larger sentence, but when the perversion takes the form only of refusing to disclose, then it is probably difficult to prosecute for anything other than the specific offence of refusing to disclose. I think perhaps this is an area where the sentencing the law provides is wrong.

[beardy]

"While we share the victim's disappointment at the outcome, we feel the investigating police officer made every effort to ensure that the occupants of the car were found and brought before the courts," the force said in a statement.

I dont really believe them.

I wonder if this was put before a jury would they decide that the person who was registered to drive and refused to say if they were driving it had removed enough doubts in their mind already by the refusal.
Even if the Jury were wrong they could feel OK about it as it was the convicted's own choice and under perversion of the law a similar sentence would have been given anyway.

In other words the term "reasonable" has more flex when you are only worrying about the details of the crime rather than the underlying guilt.

[reohn2]

"While we share the victim's disappointment at the outcome, we feel the investigating police officer made every effort to ensure that the occupants of the car were found and brought before the courts," the force said in a statement.

I dont really believe them.

I wonder if this was put before a jury would they decide that the person who was registered to drive and refused to say if they were driving it had removed enough doubts in their mind already by the refusal.
Even if the Jury were wrong they could feel OK about it as it was the convicted's own choice and under perversion of the law a similar sentence would have been given anyway.

In other words the term "reasonable" has more flex when you are only worrying about the details of the crime rather than the underlying guilt.

Agreed.
From the BBC report:-

The 52-year-old man, from Nottingham, received six penalty points and a £150 fine for failing to provide driver details

Is that a correct and just sentence for someone who caused the perversion of justice?
Is this the best the police and justice system can do?

As a result, the prosecution for failing to stop and failing to report was discontinued.

Is that what happens in a sane and just society,when the only two people responsible for driving the car involved simply clam up and are not prosecuted for a more serious crime?
The message is clear,don't stop (it doesn't matter if you've killed or maimed someone)then simply say nothing and get 6 points and £150 fine.

Do we know who these two offenders are and what they do for a living?

[beardy]

There is also the old "Joint Enterprise" which is so infamously used to get whole gangs of youths when Police cant say which one held the knife. Whoever wasnt driving the car is involved in this joint enterprise one way or the other.

[Vantage]

That's great news.
Now, if I find I don't like someone, I can just buy a gun, shoot them, deny I had anything to do with it and get away with it.
Marvellous.

[661-Pete]

So it was a hired car all the time - as most commenters have already reasoned. Whether hired direct or a 'courtesy car' provided by a garage, is immaterial.

Perhaps the law regarding vehicle hire should be re-examined. I could argue, ban the hire of vehicles where more than one driver is nominated - but then my wife doesn't drive so that's easy for me to propose. Perhaps it should be legislated thus: if two or more drivers are nominated, both should be deemed to have been driving the vehicle at the time of the offence, and hence both should face the appropriate prosecution.

After all, the penalty for aiding and abetting an offence can be as severe as the penalty for committing that offence.

And I keep thinking 'Chris Huhne' here. How come he and his ex-missus get hauled over the coals, over a relatively minor offence, whilst these lowlife get off almost scot-free?

[pwa]

That video footage, whilst alarming, does raise the old question of whether it was deliberate or grossly incompetent. I would guess that it is more likely to be the latter. I,m not saying that because I have great faith in human nature and like to see the best in people. It is more to do with my lack of faith in the competence of some drivers, and it would not surprise me at all if that shunt was the result of a number of misjudgments happening at the same time. Lack of familiarity with the width of the vehicle. A distraction of some sort. Some confusion with the vehicle's controls. Possibly alcohol still in the system from the night before. And then panic when it goes wrong. Not good excuses, of course, but realistic explanations.

Nine times out of ten that accident would probably leave the victim the way it did, winded, bashed and bruised. But there is always the one in ten occasion when the result is worse.

[reohn2]

And I keep thinking 'Chris Huhne' here. How come he and his ex-missus get hauled over the coals, over a relatively minor offence, whilst these lowlife get off almost scot-free?

Ditto.
Who was 'shopped' by a 'crime of passion'(?).

In the case of these two despicable creatures,I'm still wondering what they do for a living,and who advised(looked after) them on their evasion of 'justice'

[iviehoff]

That's great news.
Now, if I find I don't like someone, I can just buy a gun, shoot them, deny I had anything to do with it and get away with it.

The more relevant comparison is that if there are two people who had access to the gun, and they can't show which of you took the gun and shot the person, and there were no other factors pointing strongly enough to one of you rather than the other, then, yes you can get away with this. Cases like this exist. One notable example was a case where they found DNA at a serious crime scene, but it turned out to match identical twins. Each twin accused the other, and so neither could be prosecuted. (There are complications - you can in fact distinguish the DNA of identical twins, but it requires very expensive time-consuming processes, and their reliability is not court-tested.)

[reohn2]

That video footage, whilst alarming, does raise the old question of whether it was deliberate or grossly incompetent. I would guess that it is more likely to be the latter. I,m not saying that because I have great faith in human nature and like to see the best in people. It is more to do with my lack of faith in the competence of some drivers, and it would not surprise me at all if that shunt was the result of a number of misjudgments happening at the same time. Lack of familiarity with the width of the vehicle. A distraction of some sort. Some confusion with the vehicle's controls. Possibly alcohol still in the system from the night before. And then panic when it goes wrong. Not good excuses, of course, but realistic explanations.

Nine times out of ten that accident would probably leave the victim the way it did, winded, bashed and bruised. But there is always the one in ten occasion when the result is worse.

And the driving off leaving the victim in the road in agony,would that be incompetence,or malice of afterthought?
And the refusal to declare who was driving,that would be incompetence too?
And the sentence,is that incompetence?

Or could we be dealing with two people who knew exactly the course of action to take,due to their competence,after the initial incompetence?

[beardy]

Or could we be dealing with two people who knew exactly the course of action to take,due to their competence,after the initial incompetence?

If they knew what they were doing, they would have stopped and made some feeble excuse and got off with only three points or nothing.

Unless they were drunk or drugged up.

[horizon]

Some confusion with the vehicle's controls. Possibly alcohol still in the system from the night before.

And we must of course be very gentle and understanding when a mature adult drives off in a vehicle that they don't know how to control. And a little drink, well that's very understandable too. And not stopping to help when you've hit someone who lies potentially dying. On these points we must feel every sympathy with the driver.

Oh, and the hire company: could they not be held responsible for checking that the hirer knew how to control the vehicle. No. More sympathy there as well I think.

[reohn2]

Or could we be dealing with two people who knew exactly the course of action to take,due to their competence,after the initial incompetence?

If they knew what they were doing, they would have stopped and made some feeble excuse and got off with only three points or nothing.

Unless they were drunk or drugged up.

Or unless they didn't know there was a rear facing camera fitted on bike they ran into and thereby thought they were anonymous.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Came to this late, I remember a police officer standing being interviewed by the press (TV) and the officer saying if you want to kill someone with a car, just get as far away as soon as you can................................................
This was after an incident where the probable driver was known but escaped prosecution.

[Postboxer]

Unless both potential drivers were in the vehicle I can't believe it couldn't be determined which one was where at the time of the accident, phone records, internet history, CCTV of the route.

I also see no reason why the person prosecuted for failing to disclose the driver can't be publicly named and shamed. Then the public know what kind of person they are, they've either ran someone over, possibly killing them and driven off, or are harbouring the person who did it.