Safe Speed Forums

With such little success that HMCS has to save in the region of £90 million over the next 3 years.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

The problem is that the definition of dangerous driving the courts have to work to differs from yours.

We recently found dangerous driving when a driver had failed to stop at a zebra crossing. His defence was - they could hear him coming and would have moved out of his way if it it had been necessary, he was careful not to hit anybody and he was late for work. The offence was isolated, with no intent to harm (although there was clearly an intent to disobey the law about precedence to pedestrians) , no sustained pattern of bad driving. The question of recklessness is not quite so clear cut, he claims he was careful not to put anybody in danger, and got no closer than 4 feet to the pedestrians. Which as he pointed out was more clearance than they get walking on the path.
We took the view that his driving fell far below the standard expected AND that it would have been considered to be dangerous by a careful and competent driver. As it happens 4 drivers who witnessed the incident thought it was dangerous enough to phone 999.

I had no hesitation in finding that driving to be dangerous. However, I have returned not guilty verdicts (but guilty of careless driving) for other incidents which were longer lasting and involved the breach of more than one law. I still feel that, in the specific circumstances of "dangerous or careless", the current law is as good as it can be, as it forces all concerned to consider what actually happened in each individual case. The alternative seems to be a "one size fits all" sort of law in which the amount of individual differences between cases that can be taken into account are lost in the pursuit of more convictions.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Oh come on.

The government collects billions of pounds a year in "criminal taxes" (sorry fines) £90 million over three years is very small beer by comparison and amounts to the saleries of no more than a dozen or so top parasites (sorry, lawyers)

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

Probably.
But the court/s have their own budget.
And most of the staff at a court earn little more than the minimum wage, albeit with fringe benefits.
And they are the ones who will bear the brunt of the savings.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

Given that there was obvious intent in this case I wouldn't disagree with your conclusion.


I entirely agree that we need to leave discretion to the courts. However, the standard against which "dangerous driving" is judged seems to be being steadily ratcheted down.

There is no doubt that the actions of the woman in the OP were extremely foolish and irresponsible. I would have no problem with her being heavily fined, disqualified from driving, made to take an extended retest etc. I suspect it is highly likely she would voluntarily surrender her driving licence anyway. But to send someone to prison for an isolated error of judgment where there is no mens rea is disproportionate and barbaric.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

There is no doubt that a lot staff will lose their jobs and that courts will close. However, they are not the only ones who will be affected. Every time a court is closed it becomes necessary for people to travel to the new location. That not only loses the local justice aspect which is why magistrates came into being in the first place, but also means lawyers, witnesses and defendants all spending time travelling.

The local justice factor can be very important. A lot of motorists have been grateful for the fact that the bench had driven the same road as they had, and were familiar with poorly sited signs or difficult junctions. Also having to go to a court miles away can bring real problems for a defendant who doesn't know if will be disqualified or not.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

She will need to take an extended test if she wants to drive again. I have no figures to show what percentage do get back on the road, but going on personal experience, a surprising number of elderly drivers do manage to pass a test, only to end up back in court.

I take your point about mens rea, but there comes a time when driving is of such a low standard that the person must have known they were doing wrong even if it wasn't deliberate.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.