Crosswords1 min ago
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There was no actual proof that the driver was using his laptop at the time of the accident.
A fire destroyed a lot of the evidence, and evidence is proof needed to convict.
Knowing what someone did is one thing - being able to prove it in court is another.
The police went with the charge they could convict on, rather than risk a 'dangerous driving' charge rejected for lack of evidence.
A fire destroyed a lot of the evidence, and evidence is proof needed to convict.
Knowing what someone did is one thing - being able to prove it in court is another.
The police went with the charge they could convict on, rather than risk a 'dangerous driving' charge rejected for lack of evidence.
There was a laptop in the cab but it had been thrown on impact, so it is impossible to say what was going on.
It is known that commercial travellers use their laptops as satnavs and of course a lorry driver could have one in the cab just to watch dvds on when he's parked up, for example.
This lorry driver was actually watching a film on his laptop as he drove along the motorway and merely got a ban:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mwa y-lorry-driver-was-watching-tv-950362.html
It was his good fortune he didn't drive into a vehicle as he veered across the lanes.
It is known that commercial travellers use their laptops as satnavs and of course a lorry driver could have one in the cab just to watch dvds on when he's parked up, for example.
This lorry driver was actually watching a film on his laptop as he drove along the motorway and merely got a ban:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mwa y-lorry-driver-was-watching-tv-950362.html
It was his good fortune he didn't drive into a vehicle as he veered across the lanes.
I am sure so R1Geezer, but as i said, knowing something and proving it in court are two different things.
Although people say justice has not been done, that is precisely not true - justice has been done, because the law has been followed.
Morallly, we would all wish for a much longer sentence, but justice has been served, because that is the rule of law.
The morals of the situation are a different debate entirely.
Although people say justice has not been done, that is precisely not true - justice has been done, because the law has been followed.
Morallly, we would all wish for a much longer sentence, but justice has been served, because that is the rule of law.
The morals of the situation are a different debate entirely.
Here's the document which prosecutors refer to when determining the appropriate charge to bring before the courts:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/factsheets/fs_drive _fatal.html
Chris
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/factsheets/fs_drive _fatal.html
Chris
Ist of all my sincere regards to the family & their loss, I, as many have seen the carnage on the M.Ways caused by HGVs, I am not sticking up in any way for the driver, but I have seen drivers from abroad "drop off "at the wheel due to the Hrs they work, & before anyone says its a 10hr day, live in a real world, Tacos if used right are the drivers protection with the law, & against companies exploiting them, A lot on here with their Class 1 will understand what I mean as regards tacos, they can be stopped by the driver make no mistake about that, although they say that the driver was using his lap top, my bet that the driver nodded off & its the easiest thing to do, I used to do the Coatbridge run at night pulling the gross weight at that time was 44T, many a time I could not remember where I was weather Id passed a service Area your mind had gone blank until you either came to a junction or something you recognise,
Chris has usefully pointed out the CPS document which covers these prosecutions.
The important point to remember is that there is just one word difference between �careless� driving (that which falls below that expected of a careful and competent driver) and �dangerous� (that which falls far below that expected of a careful and competent driver).
There is no statutory guidance about what behaviour constitutes a manner of driving which is "below" and "far below" the required standard. That is a decision initially for the CPS when they decide what charge to bring and, as in this case, for a jury after hearing the evidence. They were offered the choice of convicting on either count.
You need to bear in mind that all we�ve seen in the papers and on TV is �Portuguese lorry driver slays family of six�. We have not heard all the evidence (including that concerning the laptop use) and do not know all the facts. The jury did and they made their decision.
The important point to remember is that there is just one word difference between �careless� driving (that which falls below that expected of a careful and competent driver) and �dangerous� (that which falls far below that expected of a careful and competent driver).
There is no statutory guidance about what behaviour constitutes a manner of driving which is "below" and "far below" the required standard. That is a decision initially for the CPS when they decide what charge to bring and, as in this case, for a jury after hearing the evidence. They were offered the choice of convicting on either count.
You need to bear in mind that all we�ve seen in the papers and on TV is �Portuguese lorry driver slays family of six�. We have not heard all the evidence (including that concerning the laptop use) and do not know all the facts. The jury did and they made their decision.
1 to 8 of 8
