Safe Speed Forums

A not uncommon scenario these days is where, after a serious accedent, a motorist pleas "Guilty" to motoring offences under circumstanses where S/He could not possibly remember what happened (A Head injury causing unconsiousness will leave the victim unable to recall anything up to 7 seconds of events prior to the injury)

If the defendent cannot remember what happened, he cannot mount a defense.

ISTM that there is a serious risk of injustace here. Basically defendents are being bullied into pleading guilty under circumstances where they cannot possibly know, in themselves, whether they are guilty or not, soley on the basis of the prosecutions say so.


Is this right?

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

That's absolutelt correct.
Some years ago an employee of mine was involved in a fatal accident in Cumbria. It was, as it turned out, entirely not his fault, but at the hospital in Carlisle where he was being treated for shock the Police were waiting to interview him. His wife phoned me and I phoned a friend who happened to be a Cumbria County Councillor and a former insurance company underwriting assessor. He drove to the hospital and informed the police that my emplolyee would not be making a statement that day. If he had made a statement goodnress knows what he would have said, such was the state he was in.