dangerous and culpable driving

If you ignore the well reported fact that the jury found him not guilty
of the charges of culpable driving, then yes, it may sound like a plea
bargain...

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

*boggle* He _WAS_ charged with and tried for culpable driving. Where
do you make up this rubbish?

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

but there are already several relevant charges, what difference will
changing the name make, other than changing it's name?

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

I don't believe I'm qualified to say (honestly), but it *is* different.

G-S

 

The criteria for vehicular manslaughter is somewhat different to the
existing charges, and evidently somewhat more practical to prosecute...
at least in the opinion of a number of people much more qualified than
me to say.

Having said that other people, just as qualified believe it's not needed .

I suppose all we can do is read the summaries for the arguments and try
and form an opinion from them *shrug*.


G-S

 

But the law is not defined by it's name, it is defined in the
legislation. They can call it whatever they want. Just because you
call something "Vehicular manslaughter" doesn't mean anything because
such a charge is not already defined in our statutes. They could create
a charge called "vehicular manslaughter" and define it to mean anything
they want.

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

Yes, he was charged with culpable driving,
but with the best legal mind in the state on his side,
he was able to convincee the jury that culpable driving was not the case
and that they settle for the lesser charge of dangerous driving
because of lack of evidence.

Amazing what a legal team can do, given the right circumstances

 

Yes but we are talking about a law which is *already defined* because it
exists in other jurisdictions. And the comments are based upon
experiences with in those jurisdictions (which are also UK derivative
legal systems).

So yes in the context I was discussing it has a particular meaning, and
the question is to create it with that meaning, based upon outcomes
elsewhere.


G-S

 

The intent lies in that the driver is aware that he/she is driving in a
dangerous manner, possibly under the influence of alcohol, drugs or
medication and continues to drive in that manner anyway. They do not
intend to cause harm to another person.

 

So he was charged with culpable driving, and in an adversarial system of
trial the prosecution failed to convinced a panel of impartial jurors
that he actually committed the crimes they accused him of. That is an
_excellent_ outcome and everyone should be happy, except the taxpayer,
who should demand better value for money from the DPP, who have
obviously spent a lot of taxpayer money trying to convict a man with a
crime they did not have the evidence to support.

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

Indeed. In the Victorian case in discussion, the lesser charge with
which he was convicted was introduced a couple of years ago specifically
to address the problem of jurors not willing to convict on the more
severe charge and the government introducing a lesser charge with
penalties which were more in line with community expectations.

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

Very true Nev and there has been cases where the evidence has been stronger than
Superman, yet the defendant has walked free without as much as a small fine

 

Big effing deal. It's just a label that you're using and it must be
defined in _our_ jurisdiction and neither that definition nor the
penalties are not bound by any other jurisdiction.

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

<aside> "I'll do this as humanely as I can"

Geoff, if you say categorically that it IS differenet, then please
give me your "unqualified" legal definition of "culpable". i.e. that
definition which you hold which is differenet to the one I have
proffered.



Onya bike...

Gerry

 

Huh? Care to find a reputable legal reference to back this up?

What you appear to be saying is that if I can argue that I did not
INTEND to kill the six teenagers, I am not blameworthy of killing
them?

As I said elsewhere, If you can prove INTENT TO KILL, you can charge
them with murder. If they were driving in a way which was clearly
blameworthy of being the primary cause of these deaths, then the
charge ought to be "culpable driving causing death." i.e. driving in
a way blameworthy of causing these deaths. Or, to put it another way,
was his manner of driving to blame for these deaths?

I'm still waiting for some quote from a reputable legal reference
which invalidates what I'm saying, and untill then, my opinion is at
least as good as anyone else's in here.

At least I'm saying that it is just my opinion, and not implying that
I am speaking authoritatively, or informedly. (Let's keep in mind
that if you claim to be "informed" but cannot provide a reference for
your informedness, you may as well be whistling Dixie...


Onya bike...

Gerry

 

Provide us with at least one reputable legal referenece which backs up
this statement, G-S, or clearly state that you are not one of the
"learned collegues" I was seeking an opinion from...

But then, acording to your very own words, you would have to prove
intent. Do you enjoy your circular logic? I do not...


Onya bike...

Gerry

 

Will this do (Victorian Crimes Act 1958 Version 195)?

" 318 Culpable driving causing death
(1) Any person who by the culpable driving of a
motor vehicle causes the death of another person
shall be guilty of an indictable offence and shall
be liable to level 3 imprisonment (20 years
maximum) or a level 3 fine or both.

" (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) a person drives
a motor vehicle culpably if he drives the motor
vehicle—
(a) recklessly, that is to say, if he consciously
and unjustifiably disregards a substantial risk
that the death of another person or the
infliction of grievous bodily harm upon
another person may result from his driving;
or
(b) negligently, that is to say, if he fails
unjustifiably and to a gross degree to observe
the standard of care which a reasonable man
would have observed in all the circumstances
of the case; or
(c) whilst under the influence of alcohol to such
an extent as to be incapable of having proper
control of the motor vehicle; or
(d) whilst under the influence of a drug to such
an extent as to be incapable of having proper
control of the motor vehicle.

" 319 Dangerous driving causing death or serious injury
(1) A person who, by driving a motor vehicle at a
speed or in a manner that is dangerous to the
public having regard to all the circumstances of
the case, causes the death of, or serious injury to,
another person is guilty of an indictable offence
and liable to level 6 imprisonment (5 years
maximum). "

318 (2) (a) and (b) use expressions like " ... consciously and
unjustifiably .." and " ... fail ... to a gross degree to observe the
standard of care ... " to define culpable driving. Dangerous driving is
defined as driving that is dangerous having regard to all of the
circumstances of the case.

For culpable driving it appears that the mental state of the driver
needs to be ascertained and taken into account. For dangerous driving
this may be done but it does not need to be done.

 

Ahhh pragmatism then - oh well, I guess it's better than nothing - my
real problem as a biker is putting myself in the shoes of the victim
(I can see the probability of getting mown down by a dozy driver
myself and I wouldn't want them to get off with a slap on the wrist -
ie the guy in Tassie the other month for example (1yr licence
suspension)).

JL

 

Very well. I'll withdraw the insinuation that there was a deal, since
there is no evidence for it. Change my original sentence to read: " That
was the bit the DPP didn't prove ... " and it matches the facts. And
everything else I said in that post holds.

The DPP went for culpable on a case that appeared to them to have
sufficient evidence, and they lost. In this instance someone drove into
a group of people with sufficient force to kill 6, and maim another 4 at
least, and the DPP failed to convince the jury that the driver was
either reckless or negligent.

I share your desire that the criminal justice system should both work,
and be seen to be working, but there is no way this is an " ...
_excellent_ ... " result (assuming that was what you meant by that
remark). If it leads to simplification and rationalisation of the laws
surrounding killing people with motor vehicles, it might become so. By
accident, so to speak.