Another One For The "you Couldn't Make It Up" Department?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-27706339
Now our mad judges are dishing out compo to drug dealers! FF sake!

[Zacs-Master]

It would seem the law is an ass. Again.
"The understandable reaction might be: there must be some rule of public policy, reflecting public revulsion, which bars such a claim. The short answer is there is not.

[askyourgran]

If there isn't one it's about time they got one going. Sheer madness giving in to these con men. Especially those who are banged up in jail.

[THECORBYLOON]

The Uninsured Drivers' Agreement says it does not apply if


6 (1)(e)iii the vehicle was being used in the course of or the furtherance of a crime

iv the vehicle was being used as a means of escape from, or avoidance of, lawful apprehension...

Perhaps if the police had charged both drivers in the first place, it would have shown criminal intent on both sides.

[jno]

a judge who applies the law, who'd have thought it? Well, that's his job, and that's the law.

[jno]

yes, I note that the story carefully places "drug dealer" in quote marks, since he was never charged with being one. Perhaps ABers might think to do likewise.

[EDDIE51]

^^ the person in question is not 'banged up in jail' he has a severe brain injury from a car crash which means he will need constant 24/7 care for the rest of his life.
When they got him out of the car a large block of cannabis was found in his pockets. He is a known drug dealer but he has not been charged with any offence over this.
The compensation will pay for his care, you can't simply deny someone compensation just because they have a criminal record. In any case if he did not get the compensation the care would still have to be paid for and it would be the taxpayer who footed the bill. This just means the drivers insurance will pay, not taxpayers like you and me. The insurance had refused the claim as they said he was delivering drugs so he was injured in the course of a crime. The judge ordered them to pay up so this story should read '' Judge saves taxpayers £millions'' but that is not as good a headline.

[jno]

excellent point, Eddie.

[EDDIE51]

Corbyloon , it was not uninsured , he was a passenger and the driver was insured.
As said, there can be no proof he was carrying out a crime as he was never charged, the judge correctly ruled that the insurance company had to pay up.

[hc4361]

The judge made it clear he was not happy with the decision but as Eddie has so clearly stated he had no choice.

And somehow, I can't feel sorry for the insurance company.

[askyourgran]

EDDIE, I was referring in general to those who were in jail claiming compensation for things that happen to them inside. Anyone flouting the law should be dealt with accordingly - not putting in claims for events while they were in a position of criminality.

[Everhelpful]

I must have read it wrong,Eddie,it looks to me as though the Government(Taxpayer's) have to pay the Compensation,hence your "Headline" doesn't make sense,as I say,I may have read it wrong.

[hc4361]

You are right, Everhelpful. The insurance company didn't have to pay up because of the Dept of Transport's criminality exclusion, so the injured person claimed from DoT who is now appealing

[THECORBYLOON]

If the judge is saying the Agreement contravenes EU law then surely the exclusion clause should not apply and the insurers should pay out?

[Svejk]

jno /// excellent point, Eddie. ///23:13 Wed 04th Jun 2014

lol, you may think it excellent but it couldn't be more wrong.
Do you actually bother reading stories before adding your comments.
And, hc, even if the insurance company had to pay out, which they don't, you might spare a thought for law abiding people who have to pay higher premiums on account of similar scum.
Seems his serious brain injury wasn't enough to stop him, his family or money-grubbing lawyers from launching several different compo claims.

[youngmafbog]

//A bag containing 240g of cannabis was found under the front of Mr Delaney's jacket and a smaller quantity in Pickett's sock.//

So for personal use then?

They should have prosecuted him, they probably didnt because the same people on here leaping to his defence would shout 'unfair' because he has a brain injury not becuase there was lack of proof.

This is wrong, very wrong.

[emmie]

i don't know the law in this respect, however its still a mad decision.