So you can be jailed for being a passenger

*Ding*

 

Neither of these scenarios seems to address the fact that the issue was
not that he was convicted for letting her drive while pissed, but for
failing to stop her driving dangerously.

In other words, while he might have suspected she was over the limit,
could he have foreseen she'd try and do 113mph through standing water?

I dunno. I'm uneasy about it, for reasons aforementioned.

 

Someone posted yesterday that this isn't the first time this sort of
verdict has been reached. And I think it is important that a court be
allowed to judge each case on its merits.

The government may be promulgating a presumption of guilt in terrorism
cases, but they're finding it heavy going. And I really think the
courts are on our side so to speak.

 

In communiqué <1iqsw4x.ois1pj1yzhe0eN%>,

Which offence carries the greater maximum penalty?

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest * 2 Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

 

I think the last posts about this "thing" were centred on the same people.
In other words, it as a ginge.

Not to worry, they'll just target the motorist instead. Softer and fairly
easy to trace.

Not the side of truth and justice, surely?

--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

Yeah, the same one TOG posted, but to make life easier, try this

"The court heard that Nichols, who owned the Jaguar and was the front-seat
passenger, was convicted because he had failed to stop her from driving
dangerously."

And this..

"They were both found guilty of two counts of causing death by dangerous
driving."

No mention of either of them being convicted of driving under the influence
in this instance.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

I wouldn't rely on press reports to make that distinction.

The court was in a better position than us to decide that.

Fair enough.

 

Did I say that, or are you just clutching at straws coz you've got **** all
else?

It's already established that being pissed disallows driving, so why/how
would that be a defence, but what you wrote actually makes no sense at all.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

"Double ding."

--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

*applause*

These arguments are always pointless. Unless you were in possession
of *all* the facts, i.e. in the court room when the case was being
tried.
You have no way of meaningfully aruing the case one way or the other.
Let the courts get on with what they're designed to do.

 

Stop this bus, you're driving at 1mph over the speed limit and we KNOW that
to be dangerous. You even just stopped in the middle of the road in heavy
traffic causing alll kinds of mayhem.

So exactly WHO decides what's dangerous and what's not I wonder and how many
of us have driven or ridden at speeds in excess of the Jag driver? Not me
Sir.

--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

Hung for a sheep instead of a lamb. Were they even charged with DIC?

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest * 2 Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

 

See my reply to Tosspot. "I don't think that excludes what would have
been the most effective way of stopping her - not giving her the keys
in the first place."

Indeed not. But we have no idea of the weight the court gave to the
couple's intoxication in reaching its verdict.

Look, without more information I see no reason to worry about the
court's verdict - you do. Fair enough.

 

You implied , by my reading, that because he was drunk he shouldn't be
held responsible for his actions.

Extend your reasoning to a wider arena than driving. Should people not
be held to account for decisions they make while pissed?


--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest * 2 Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

 

The old thin end of the wedge argument with a big dollop of reductio ad
absurdum.

The courts.

I've still got the ticket I earned for 102 in a 50. Plod then went out
of their way to say I wasn't 'dangerous'. It might be a different matter
today. That much of your argument is true.

Can anyone point to an 'accessory' or 'aiding and abetting' prosecution
of a passenger for *just* speeding ?
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest * 2 Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

 

Yes, actually, I agree with that.

I'm not so sure about the courts. They follow the legislation that is
promulgated, although obviously common law is still applicable in many
instances and they can still create a precedent.

If there's one body that I think *is* on our side, as regards repressive
legislation/civil liberties, it's the House of Lords, oddly enough.

 

Yep, we've had plenty of reason to thank them recently.

 

1.5 times over the limit -ambiguous reporting, at its best.
Superficially, I took that to mean she was 250% full.

 

You're assuming she asked for the keys.

 

Exactly. This has all been covered before.
The owner /peson in charge is responsible for who drives it and for
ascertaining their state of fitness. Being drunk is just one of a range
of things that could have backfired on him - if the other person had one
leg and lost control, he'd have been just as liable.