Dont bother with a licence
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy169qlwk0o
This is beyond me, a licence says you are fit to drive unsupervised, not having one is not the same.
This is beyond me, a licence says you are fit to drive unsupervised, not having one is not the same.
How many times on here do people get told to check if the 6 months have timed out then everyone is saying they are lucky when it does,
This is the other side of having a time limit, there will probably be loads of discussions and lots of politicians saying the right things but then quietly dropped, for something like speeding, no licence, no insurance, it never made sense having a time limit as its not like witnesses change their mind or arent available, its a yes/no are they guilty
This is the other side of having a time limit, there will probably be loads of discussions and lots of politicians saying the right things but then quietly dropped, for something like speeding, no licence, no insurance, it never made sense having a time limit as its not like witnesses change their mind or arent available, its a yes/no are they guilty
The point is, there is no evidence that her being unlicensed caused the death of the boy.
If there is no evidence that she was driving dangerously, it's really not much difference from someone on here driving without an MOT and a child jumping in front of them. Or one of the e-scooter twerps perhaps?
There's lots of people on the road illegallyperhaps we should have less tolerance of that?
But how strong is the connection between not having all the paperwork and causing death by dangerous driving?
I suspect the correlation might be more tenuous than people think.
So basically CPS have failed to nick her for a £100 fine offence because they ran out of time while hoping to find some forensic evidence of an actual serious crime.
If there was no evidence, then there was no chance of a conviction.
If there is no evidence that she was driving dangerously, it's really not much difference from someone on here driving without an MOT and a child jumping in front of them. Or one of the e-scooter twerps perhaps?
There's lots of people on the road illegallyperhaps we should have less tolerance of that?
But how strong is the connection between not having all the paperwork and causing death by dangerous driving?
I suspect the correlation might be more tenuous than people think.
So basically CPS have failed to nick her for a £100 fine offence because they ran out of time while hoping to find some forensic evidence of an actual serious crime.
If there was no evidence, then there was no chance of a conviction.
OutInTheShed said:
The point is, there is no evidence that her being unlicensed caused the death of the boy.
So basically CPS have failed to nick her for a £100 fine offence because they ran out of time while hoping to find some forensic evidence of an actual serious crime.
Hardly, the evidence is the fact she doesn't have a licence and the causal effect is that she was not qualified to be driving a vehicleSo basically CPS have failed to nick her for a £100 fine offence because they ran out of time while hoping to find some forensic evidence of an actual serious crime.
The lack of evidence would have likely applied to the Causing death by careless charge
Edited by martinbiz on Monday 18th November 17:08
kestral said:
Outside the time limit.
Big mistake by the police/cps. They make this mistake often.
The time limit for what? Why is the charge not one of manslaughter? Big mistake by the police/cps. They make this mistake often.
A licence is required to drive a motor vehicle, and that licence is taken as proof of competence. The lack of one should be all the “evidence” that is needed to convict here.
If the driver had not been involved in any incident then the charge would indeed be a lesser one that might indeed be time limited. Claiming differently is like saying a driver killing someone whilst using a mobile phone, should face exactly the same charge as just using a mobile phone….
martinbiz said:
Either crap reporting or more to this story.
For a start causing death while driving without a licence is an either way offence, so time limit is irrelevant
The charges were:For a start causing death while driving without a licence is an either way offence, so time limit is irrelevant
(1) causing death by careless driving; and
(2) causing death by driving whilst unlicensed
Both of those are indictable offences (also called either way offences) and, as you know, there is no time limit to commence proceedings for indictable offences.
I assume that neither of the offences were charged within 6 months of the offence date.
If offence #2 had been charged within 6 months of the offence date then the prosecution could have amended the charge to an alternative offence. This is so even if more than 6 months have elapsed since the offence date when the amendment is made. See recent Dougall v CPS, following the very well known Scnthorpe Justices case
Even if they had proceeded with the basic offence, then I doubt the family members would have been hugely satisfied with a fine of up to £1000, or a fine of up to £1000 with 3-6 points - depending on the precise nature of the licence offence.
This appears to be a case in which there was a tragic accident and blame could not be attributed to the driver.
Foss62 said:
The time limit for what? Why is the charge not one of manslaughter?
A licence is required to drive a motor vehicle, and that licence is taken as proof of competence. The lack of one should be all the “evidence” that is needed to convict here.
If the driver had not been involved in any incident then the charge would indeed be a lesser one that might indeed be time limited. Claiming differently is like saying a driver killing someone whilst using a mobile phone, should face exactly the same charge as just using a mobile phone….
Stop there. You’re making yourself sound la bit silly. A licence is required to drive a motor vehicle, and that licence is taken as proof of competence. The lack of one should be all the “evidence” that is needed to convict here.
If the driver had not been involved in any incident then the charge would indeed be a lesser one that might indeed be time limited. Claiming differently is like saying a driver killing someone whilst using a mobile phone, should face exactly the same charge as just using a mobile phone….
Foss62 said:
kestral said:
Outside the time limit.
Big mistake by the police/cps. They make this mistake often.
The time limit for what? Why is the charge not one of manslaughter? Big mistake by the police/cps. They make this mistake often.
A licence is required to drive a motor vehicle, and that licence is taken as proof of competence. The lack of one should be all the “evidence” that is needed to convict here.
If the driver had not been involved in any incident then the charge would indeed be a lesser one that might indeed be time limited. Claiming differently is like saying a driver killing someone whilst using a mobile phone, should face exactly the same charge as just using a mobile phone….
What is intriguing however is the quote from the boy’s parent that “she didn’t stop”. That’s rather more serious, I would have thought?
MustangGT said:
I can understand why the 'causing death by careless driving' was dropped based on the article, but surely the 'causing death by unlicensed driving' was a slam dunk, unless they could not prove who was driving.
Would they have to prove that her driving was the cause though?As in, an average driver would not have had the collision?
There was a case where a child ran out of a house straight into a stream of traffic
Had the driver who killed the child not been there, the next car would have been in his place at the exact same speed with the exact same outcome.
Does being (e.g.) an unlicensed driver automatically make you the cause of every unfortunate event within a certain radius?
Or do you want some evidence of causation?
OutInTheShed said:
The point is, there is no evidence that her being unlicensed caused the death of the boy.
If there is no evidence that she was driving dangerously, it's really not much difference from someone on here driving without an MOT and a child jumping in front of them. Or one of the e-scooter twerps perhaps?
There's lots of people on the road illegallyperhaps we should have less tolerance of that?
But how strong is the connection between not having all the paperwork and causing death by dangerous driving?
I suspect the correlation might be more tenuous than people think.
So basically CPS have failed to nick her for a £100 fine offence because they ran out of time while hoping to find some forensic evidence of an actual serious crime.
If there was no evidence, then there was no chance of a conviction.
‘Correlation’ is not required and this was a case about careless (not dangerous) driving.If there is no evidence that she was driving dangerously, it's really not much difference from someone on here driving without an MOT and a child jumping in front of them. Or one of the e-scooter twerps perhaps?
There's lots of people on the road illegallyperhaps we should have less tolerance of that?
But how strong is the connection between not having all the paperwork and causing death by dangerous driving?
I suspect the correlation might be more tenuous than people think.
So basically CPS have failed to nick her for a £100 fine offence because they ran out of time while hoping to find some forensic evidence of an actual serious crime.
If there was no evidence, then there was no chance of a conviction.
See Hughes (2013)
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2013/56.html
“Section 3ZB requires at least some act or omission in the control of the car, which involves some element of fault, whether amounting to careless/inconsiderate driving or not, and which contributes in some more than minimal way to the death.” CPS website.
OutInTheShed said:
Would they have to prove that her driving was the cause though?
As in, an average driver would not have had the collision?
There was a case where a child ran out of a house straight into a stream of traffic
Had the driver who killed the child not been there, the next car would have been in his place at the exact same speed with the exact same outcome.
Does being (e.g.) an unlicensed driver automatically make you the cause of every unfortunate event within a certain radius?
Or do you want some evidence of causation?
See Hughes. As in, an average driver would not have had the collision?
There was a case where a child ran out of a house straight into a stream of traffic
Had the driver who killed the child not been there, the next car would have been in his place at the exact same speed with the exact same outcome.
Does being (e.g.) an unlicensed driver automatically make you the cause of every unfortunate event within a certain radius?
Or do you want some evidence of causation?
agtlaw said:
‘Correlation’ is not required and this was a case about careless (not dangerous) driving.
See Hughes (2013)
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2013/56.html
“Section 3ZB requires at least some act or omission in the control of the car, which involves some element of fault, whether amounting to careless/inconsiderate driving or not, and which contributes in some more than minimal way to the death.” CPS website.
So simply not holding a licence constitutes, by default, “some act or omission in the control of the car”, regardless of any evidence of such?See Hughes (2013)
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2013/56.html
“Section 3ZB requires at least some act or omission in the control of the car, which involves some element of fault, whether amounting to careless/inconsiderate driving or not, and which contributes in some more than minimal way to the death.” CPS website.
Tony1963 said:
Foss62 said:
The time limit for what? Why is the charge not one of manslaughter?
A licence is required to drive a motor vehicle, and that licence is taken as proof of competence. The lack of one should be all the “evidence” that is needed to convict here.
If the driver had not been involved in any incident then the charge would indeed be a lesser one that might indeed be time limited. Claiming differently is like saying a driver killing someone whilst using a mobile phone, should face exactly the same charge as just using a mobile phone….
Stop there. You’re making yourself sound la bit silly. A licence is required to drive a motor vehicle, and that licence is taken as proof of competence. The lack of one should be all the “evidence” that is needed to convict here.
If the driver had not been involved in any incident then the charge would indeed be a lesser one that might indeed be time limited. Claiming differently is like saying a driver killing someone whilst using a mobile phone, should face exactly the same charge as just using a mobile phone….
Southerner said:
So simply not holding a licence constitutes, by default, “some act or omission in the control of the car”, regardless of any evidence of such?
No. The offence requires bad driving. Even if that bad driving is not sufficiently bad to constitute careless or inconsiderate driving.agtlaw said:
Southerner said:
So simply not holding a licence constitutes, by default, “some act or omission in the control of the car”, regardless of any evidence of such?
No. The offence requires bad driving. Even if that bad driving is not sufficiently bad to constitute careless or inconsiderate driving.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff