Jokes1 min ago
Why Was He Not Charged With Manslaughter?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by davebro. 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.
Yet in this case the driver was done for murder & the passenger for manslaughter - it just doesn't make sense.
https:/
https:/
In your last link, the driver was pursuing someone cycling on the road and had they not hit the pedestrian crossing the road, they could have ended up killing the cyclist.
They were driving in a deliberately dangerous manner and the bar for murder or manslaughter is set at a much higher level than causing a death whilst driving.
They were driving in a deliberately dangerous manner and the bar for murder or manslaughter is set at a much higher level than causing a death whilst driving.
There are many other examples of manslaughter. A particularly common occurrence is vehicular manslaughter. This is when you drive in a dangerous or reckless way, causing another person’s death. This might happen as a result of drink/drug driving, speeding, dangerous driving, careless driving or distracted driving.
//phooey!//
Phooey or not, dave, Corby has explained it correctly.
The problem with looking at criminal offences when all you have is a brief report from the telly or a newspaper, is that you are lucky if you have 5% of the information that any decision was based on and very often you have far less than that. In every criminal prosecution, the CPS must undertake a two-part test before authorising charges. The second is a "public interest" test which does not concern us here. But the first is an "evidential test." The CPS must be sure that sufficient evidence exists that, taken at its best, would see a conviction. There simply is no point in prosecuting somebody for an offence which CPS lawyers know is unlikely to be successful. It's certainly important that defendants are not "under charged" with less serious offences. But it is equally (if not more) important that they are not "over charged" with offences when a successful prosecution is unlikely. The CPS has all the information to enable them to do that. We do not.
Phooey or not, dave, Corby has explained it correctly.
The problem with looking at criminal offences when all you have is a brief report from the telly or a newspaper, is that you are lucky if you have 5% of the information that any decision was based on and very often you have far less than that. In every criminal prosecution, the CPS must undertake a two-part test before authorising charges. The second is a "public interest" test which does not concern us here. But the first is an "evidential test." The CPS must be sure that sufficient evidence exists that, taken at its best, would see a conviction. There simply is no point in prosecuting somebody for an offence which CPS lawyers know is unlikely to be successful. It's certainly important that defendants are not "under charged" with less serious offences. But it is equally (if not more) important that they are not "over charged" with offences when a successful prosecution is unlikely. The CPS has all the information to enable them to do that. We do not.
I fully understand NJs post, but looking back to the death of PC Harper, the three involved with his death did get charged with manslaughter, and convicted of such. Dangerous driving was involved, along with theft, both a crime. In the case, dangerous driving, and the use of drugs, both a crime. Are they not very much alike NJ?
//Are they not very much alike NJ?//
I wouldn’t know. I only know what I’ve read in the papers and seen on the telly.
//I think in these cases the facts are pretty plain.//
What we know is pretty plain (if it’s been reported correctly). What we don’t know…well, we don’t know.
To be honest there is some appalling reporting both on the TV and in the press. Very often, especially in motoring cases, the report is not only deficient, it is often misleading and just plain wrong. A case in point: a couple of weeks back it was reported that a driver had “racked up 78 [or thereabouts] points” for speeding and was not banned. He’d done nothing of the sort. His car had been caught by a speed camera a number of times but the alleged offences had not been processed because teh Registered Keeper had neglected to change his address on his V5C (“logbook”). He actually racked up no points whatsoever and had not faced or avoided a ban. It had only been reported because the police had finally caught up with him. His prosecutions were still pending. But the headline would not be quite so sensational if it read “Police finally catch up with the Registered Keeper of a car which they suspect was involved in 19 speeding cases.”
An awful lot of information that is provided in court proceedings is not published (it would take too long and much of it would be tedious). So making a judgement on a CPS charging decision is pointless. All you can say is “I don’t see why he didn’t face (say) a manslaughter charge.” The CPS have no reason to undercharge people but they have a duty to see justice done. Justice will not be done if they initiate a prosecution that stands little or no chance of success in court. In this particular case, what's best - a manslaughter charge which is unlikely to succeed or a charge of causing death by careless driving, which is?
I wouldn’t know. I only know what I’ve read in the papers and seen on the telly.
//I think in these cases the facts are pretty plain.//
What we know is pretty plain (if it’s been reported correctly). What we don’t know…well, we don’t know.
To be honest there is some appalling reporting both on the TV and in the press. Very often, especially in motoring cases, the report is not only deficient, it is often misleading and just plain wrong. A case in point: a couple of weeks back it was reported that a driver had “racked up 78 [or thereabouts] points” for speeding and was not banned. He’d done nothing of the sort. His car had been caught by a speed camera a number of times but the alleged offences had not been processed because teh Registered Keeper had neglected to change his address on his V5C (“logbook”). He actually racked up no points whatsoever and had not faced or avoided a ban. It had only been reported because the police had finally caught up with him. His prosecutions were still pending. But the headline would not be quite so sensational if it read “Police finally catch up with the Registered Keeper of a car which they suspect was involved in 19 speeding cases.”
An awful lot of information that is provided in court proceedings is not published (it would take too long and much of it would be tedious). So making a judgement on a CPS charging decision is pointless. All you can say is “I don’t see why he didn’t face (say) a manslaughter charge.” The CPS have no reason to undercharge people but they have a duty to see justice done. Justice will not be done if they initiate a prosecution that stands little or no chance of success in court. In this particular case, what's best - a manslaughter charge which is unlikely to succeed or a charge of causing death by careless driving, which is?
I am no expert, but as I understand it, the CPS needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the death of the victim was the accused's premeditated intention, in order for a charge of murder to be brought, and for a weight of evidence to provide a better than fity per cent chance of a conviction.
In terms of manslaughter, as I understand it once again, a degree of intent has to be present, and in this case, it was not present, hence the absence of the charge.
Looking at a siutation as a simple scenario, and deciding that an accused should be accused of something that will generate the maximum sentence, is not the way the law works.
In terms of manslaughter, as I understand it once again, a degree of intent has to be present, and in this case, it was not present, hence the absence of the charge.
Looking at a siutation as a simple scenario, and deciding that an accused should be accused of something that will generate the maximum sentence, is not the way the law works.
Latest Posts
Starmer Continues With "Grossly...
News10 mins ago
Time For A Limit On Angry Posts
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Businesses Warn Of Job Losses Threat As...
News16 mins ago
