So you can be jailed for being a passenger

'Alex Ferrier' wrote...>

Oh yes you canaru!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=`Arued

 

'Colin Irvine' wrote...>

That would imply he had knowledge that she was going to drive at
excessive speed.

If she was fuming at being made to drive or completely steaming drunk,
fair play, but otherwise he had no knowledge at that time that she was
going to drive too fast.

If she was not obviously affected by the drink, was a good driver
normally, he had no reason not to give her the keys (because he thought
she would drive dangerously).

Exactly.

 

'Pete Fisher' wrote...>

Which is complete bollocks.

If that was the case I could decide to kill someone, get drunk, murder
them and get done for being drunk in charge of a chainsaw.

 

'Pete Fisher' wrote...>

Lesser charge, they will have just dropped it.

 

From today's Guardian. "Butres yesterday admitted an additional charge
of drink-driving".

 

According to the URL, they'd been drinking at the same venue. Not quite
the same thing. And, when I go drinking with someone, I generally
couldn't tell you how many drinks someone I'm with has or hasn't had.

I can't count the number of times I've been in a car with someone who I
thought drove like a useless twat. How I can possibly be considered at
fault for their driving, however, is utterly beyond me.

Also, have you ever tried to tell someone their driving was shit? You
get a less aggressive response telling someone you've just fucked their
other half.

--
Veggie Dave
http://www.iq18films.co.uk

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim
that Jesus was not born of a virgin." Cardinal Bellarmine

 

This would appear to be a novel application of the
law.

Firstly - the non-driver's conviction appears to have been
"aiding or abetting (causing death by?) dangerous driving".
No mention of aiding or abetting (or permitting) drunk
driving. So - the non-driver does not appear to have been
convicted based on anything that happened in the car park.
Handing over the keys was not apparently part of the offence.
It appears that the non-driver's offence was failing to
take responsibility for the drivers speed in the
poor conditions at the time of the crash.


Some of this lot seem to think that this case is a
novel interpretation of the statutes and that it
"should" be appealed.

I think I will be looking for the transcript
if it appears on-line.

http://www.legalbanter.co.uk/uk-legal-legal-issues-uk/49217-whats-going-here-8.html
This appears to be a "mirror" of uk.legal and
uk.legal.moderated - feel free to read the original.

Selected quotes.

"R v Allan (1963) and R v Clarkson (1971) make it clear that mere
presence at
the commission of an offence is insufficient to found liability for
aiding
and abetting. The CPS, and the court, would seem to have extended the
principle in Tuck v Robson (1970), where a publican allowed his
customers to
drink after hours, and the fact that he had "authority and control"
made his
failure to prevent this an abetting of the customer's offences.
However, the
licensee of a pub is (IMO) in a very different position to Nichols,
because
his license imposes an implied general duty not to allow offences on
the
premises, whereas Nichols, although the owner of the vehicle, is under
no
legal duty that I'm aware of to ensure that his vehicle is driven
within the
law (apart from the "permitting" offences, which are specifically
legislated
for). **That would seem to be the extension here.**"

My "**"


"Most cases which are appealed don't involve a novel extension of the
way a
well-established law is interpreted - which, as Janitor has argued,
(citing
precedent) appears to have occurred in this case.

If this case survives appeal, a whole new universe of criminal
liability for A&A
in cases of silent, passive, aquiesence will have opened up, ISTM."


"Not quite. Attorney-General's Reference (No. 1 of 1975) [1975] QB 773
makes
it clear that any assistance *before* the commission of an offence is
counselling or procuring, and at the time of the offence is aiding or
abetting, depending on whether the activity amounts to "encouraging"
or
"helping". Note that both these words require some positive action,
and do
not involve a failure to act even if a duty to act in law arises.
That's why
I say this case is a departure from precedent, and should go to
appeal.

The dangerous driving may have persisted for a short time, and
obviously
caused a death, but it is the actions of this defendant during that
time
that are the point with respect to aiding or abetting. If all he said
was
"drive my car", and then knew that it would be driven dangerously,
that
would be counselling or procuring, not aiding and abetting."


"There's no specific duty on the passenger under any of the driving-
related
statutes, I would agree (as do we all, it seems). But the court has
constructed,
or found, or thinks it has found, an implied duty in the present case,
under A&A
statute. Whether the court was correct in doing so, and in what cases
A&A would
apply is what we should be discussing."


"Perhaps you could post the text of the "Back Seat Driving Act" to
which you allude." ****

My "**** "

 

In communiqué

The scenario in which I am pretty sure it might apply is in the case of
a learner. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall a pillion with a full
licence being done when a learner at the controls transgressed. That was
years ago. Can you even take a licence holder on the back with 'L'
plates these days?

In that situation, though there is at least some element of control or
implied supervision, however theoretical it might be in anything but a
car with dual controls.

As Rope said, there appears to be a back story to this particular case
with details we haven't been privy to. Perhaps someone has a recording
of him shouting "faster, faster you drunken bitch", just before impact
(joke OK).

If the sole point upon which the prosecution was successful would
equally apply to a passenger (possibly even one not qualified to drive)
failing to prevent an otherwise capable driver of driving like a
fuckwit, then it should be appealed.

I await an opportunity to examine the full facts, such as they can be,
in the transcript, with interest.


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

 

Yeah, I think you got it there. I wonder what that means for DD cases?

 

*ding* I was going to post exactly that. In essence, I am responsible
for *your* driving while *I'm* in the passenger seat and presumably am
guilty if you drive like a ****.

You wait till next time i'm in the No. 8 bus.

 

*sigh* You seem to be wilfully missing the point.

You are partially responsible for my driving while you're in the
passenger seat in YOUR CAR.

 

Right, then you're not driving my car I still reckon it's crap and
ill thought out. Anyhow, I think done to death now, to coin a phrase.

 

Same venue, also she was his business partner, and they were in a
relationship. The prosecution could have called the waiter as a witness if
there was any dispute.

His car, therefore driven with his permission.

Well, I drive like a useless twat, and get told about it on a regular basis.

 

I wonder how this works:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/7743759.stm
"Four men, from Ashbourne, have been detained on suspicion of causing
death by dangerous driving."
And apparently they were all passengers.

 

Stolen car, most likely. Or driving without the owner's permission at
least. Laws introduced to combat twokking state that all occupants of such
a vehicle will be charged. The driver is dead, so escapes charge...

 

Considering that two died in the Corsa and four others were arrested, I
suspect there may have been at least one other car involved.

 

Cue Bruce Springsteen "Racing in the Street"?

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

 

Couldn't possibly comment. I notice that there's no mention in any of the
reports of racing or another car being involved, but that may be for legal
reasons.

 

Lots of lies being told, I would think. Better to keep hold of them
until the beati... the truth emerges.

 

It's no longer the thin end of the wedge. Definitely getting towards the
middle.
Remember the Joshua Knights case last May? Six years for causing an accident
that had already happened by the time he got to the scene.
That could happen to any of us.