You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Not sure of all the facts of this one, but just reading the story and a bit of the background i'm left scratching my head on this one, honestly, is it as easy to get away with something as bad as this with the claim of 'temporary amnesia'?!
Needs more facts I think - just because she says she can’t remember, I don’t see how that changes things if for whatever reason she swerved onto the other side of the road and hit a cyclist head on - killing him.
Surely this episode could happen again so her licence should be revoked.
Shock can cause memory issues so its plausible she does not remember the crash
death by careless driving has a lower bar for a guilty verdict - it seems extremely odd the CPS didn't apply that charge as well?
more on it here
i guess its being suggested that she was incapacitated during the incident, which is why she didn't brake or swerve even before hitting a tree. If she was just on her phone, and hit something as substancial as a human, one would expect a reaction at that point..
i guess its being suggested that she was incapacitated during the incident, which is why she didn’t brake or swerve even before hitting a tree. If she was just on her phone, and hit something as substancial as a human, one would expect a reaction at that point..
which is fine but, if no explanation can be found, why should she ever drive again ?
These are the cases that baffle me.
She doesn't remember, which could easily be down to shock at the time.
However, she swerved onto the wrong side of the road and killed someone.
No other information as to why that happened, I'm sure that would have been reported if that was the case. Therefore, not in control of the car. How did the judge advise the jury before they considered their verdict?
If the victim had been a child at the side of the road, a pensioner at a bus stop, do we think the outcome would have been different?
It's these kind of incidents, rare though they are, that put me off road riding.
ah
jury
there we go then
death by careless driving has a lower bar for a guilty verdict – it seems extremely odd the CPS didn’t apply that charge as well?
It would be much more odd if the CPS were prosecuting a case in Glasgow!
However, it is likely that the PF also listed Causing Death by Careless Driving as an alternative - but if the defence (which sounds like Automatism) was accepted it would have to apply to both charges.
It does seem surprising but at least 8 people heard all the evidence, saw all the witnesses and concluded that the case against her was not proven. I dare say the telemetrics in her car which showed she had been driving sensibly the rest of the day will have done her no harm.
Would be interesting to know if DVLA have revoked her license on medical grounds? Although it’s so long ago she might have it back now!
we have fewer rights on the road than a dog.
I've just never read such a one sided argument in this type of event, a new driver with 7 weeks experience, wearing a pair of sliders and witnessed to be swerving prior to the accident ends up hitting a cyclist who was on the other side of the road, surely the discussion on her being on the phone after the incident could be proved with records, just seems like nothing was on the side of the defendant in terms of evidence, but i guess this is the issue with the Scottish 'Not Proven' outcome
I just think if the witness statement regarding her being worried that she'd be in so much trouble, and asking her mum to bring her some juice after the incident isn't showing any real concern for the victim either.
staggering.
I refrained from posting a link to the DailyHeil the other day
"Driver is forced to pay £170 compensation after offending cyclist"
if you read it, driver shouted "get in the cycle lane" (thats another argument)
Cyclist called him out on it
Man THREW A BILLHOOK (Machete) at cyclist
£170 was what was deemed suitable damages for damage to carbon wheelset.
He threw a chuffing machete at him! and its the "poor driver" who is hard done by.
He should have been done for attempted GBH!
It's a road i'm on fairly regularly as are a lot of Glasgow area cyclists when heading out west towards Renfrewshire. For those that know the area it was on the straight bit of road just after the old India of Inchinnan factory before the Red Smiddy roundabout.
Frankly it is a travesty of justice and I just can't understand why the jury have returned that verdict. As for the killer Jordan McDowall? Absolutely shameless coming up with that as her defence - she knows what she has done.
That is thoroughly depressing.
If the victim had been a child at the side of the road, a pensioner at a bus stop, do we think the outcome would have been different?
I’m pretty certain it would have been the same in those cases. Nothing to suggest any fault by the cyclist.
How did the judge advise the jury before they considered their verdict?
If there was something he said that was obviously wrong you can expect the crown to appeal it. However, unless it was something very specific about the automatism defence (if that it what was claimed) then it’s very unlikely his instructions were anything other than straight out the Jury Manual.
It’s quite possible the judge is as surprised as you are. Not impossible to play to play the hearts of the jury though. Some might think punishing her now as a young woman for something she did three years ago as a brand new driver is unfair. Some might not have found the crown witnesses that good (it’s three years later how can they possibly be sure about someone’s driving when they see hundreds of drivers every day). Almost certainly they didn’t all walk into jury room and say I’m sure she’s not at fault (the third verdict in Scotland has some benefits but it’s also a compromise for juries that don’t agree)
Locally years back ,a woman veered onto the wrong side of the road and killed a motorcyclist.
The judge deemed that the trauma of killing someone was punishment enough.
The PF, a judge and a jury have decided, based on all the evidence, that this was the correct charge and verdict within the existing legal framework.
Second guessing the bits of evidence we have in the reports is a waste of time, really.
we have fewer rights on the road than a dog.
On the other hand, if you have a heart attack while driving along and kill someone, you won't be convicted for it.
surely the discussion on her being on the phone after the incident could be proved with records
It’s actually quite hard - young people don’t actually use their phones very often as phones, they might have been just reading something that was on the screen, changing songs on Spotify, looking a Google maps, or equally she might have not been using her phone but have received text / what’s app messages in the few minutes before impact. Meanwhile all the apps are constantly sending and receiving data in the background so phone company records aren’t very helpful at proving what you were doing.
but i guess this is the issue with the Scottish ‘Not Proven’ outcome
All not guilty verdicts are not-proven. The only thing wrong is that we have 2 possible not guilty results. The PF bring the case to court and are responsible for proving the guilt.
The PF, a judge and a jury have decided, based on all the evidence, that this was the correct charge and verdict within the existing legal framework.
Second guessing the bits of evidence we have in the reports is a waste of time, really.
This. Attend a court case and then compare it with what is published. You'll soon see why reacting to a news article isn't worthwhile.
All not guilty verdicts are not-proven
And this. If there is a problem with having three possible verdicts then let's get rid of the "Not Guilty" one.
Absolutely shameless coming up with that as her defence – she knows what she has done
Her facebook profile doesn't scream riddled with guilt. The stereotypical little princess careering round in her car with little care and attention
On the other hand, if you have a heart attack while driving along and kill someone, you won’t be convicted for it.
True, but if you have an epiletic fit you lose your licence...
Her facebook profile doesn’t scream riddled with guilt. The stereotypical little princess careering round in her car with little care and attention
Am I the only one who finds it a bit creepy that you’ve gone internet stalking someone who has just been found not guilty of a crime in a court?
You could of course argue that someone who has been involved in such a case should have the sense to turn their profile to private - but you’re at risk of encouraging others to do the same - and not everyone is well hinged; probably someone will start sending her abuse next.
On the other hand, if you have a heart attack while driving along and kill someone, you won’t be convicted for it.
True, but if you have an epiletic fit you lose your licence…
If we're going down the route of listing things that could suddenly happen behind the wheel, I feel like there's an incredibly poor taste joke to be made about 'having a stroke' while driving... But I'm better than that.
It's a sad reality that there are amazing people in the world who really care about others, and there are those who are unfortunately the opposite.
How you process this reality is what is important
At the end of the day, prosecution have to prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that she committed the crime.
We have no visibility of what evidence was provided so while it’s entirely possible she’s got away with it, it’s also entirely possible she didn’t do it. We have absolutely no way of telling.
If she has, as she claims, had an episode of some kind while driving which made her lose control, the DVLA at least should yoink her licence until such time as she can prove that further episodes aren't going to happen.
Does sound like her defence has just chucked just enough medical bullshit at the jury to muddy the waters over her distraction and pisspoor driving.
Also, shouldn't be prosecuted for dangerous driving unless all the evidence is on a plate - the threshold for conviction is very high, even some blatantly reckless stuff doesn't seem to qualify, and the likelihood of a custodial sentence means juries take a lot more convincing.
This. Attend a court case and then compare it with what is published. You’ll soon see why reacting to a news article isn’t worthwhile.
Fake Law by the Secret Barrister was an eye opener for me. Not so much the frenzy that shoddy reporting can whip up, but the loss of MY legal rights when governments have supposedly addressed the "issue".
I refrained from posting a link to the DailyHeil the other day
“Driver is forced to pay £170 compensation after offending cyclist”
if you read it, driver shouted “get in the cycle lane” (thats another argument)
Cyclist called him out on it
Man THREW A BILLHOOK (Machete) at cyclist
£170 was what was deemed suitable damages for damage to carbon wheelset.He threw a chuffing machete at him! and its the “poor driver” who is hard done by.
He should have been done for attempted GBH!
I did see that, and I am not siding with the farmer! But the cyclist did follow his van home to his farm, didn't he?