You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Well one Scottish QC thinks there was a case for prosecution.
He added there was a prima facie case for Mr Clarke to be charged with causing death by dangerous driving or, failing that, the lesser charge of causing death by careless driving.
Probably nae chance now as private prosecutions have to jump huge hurdles.
The law is an ass.
[quote=thegreatape ]This relates only to careless/dangerous driving and not any DVLA/fraud/pecuniary advantage offences lying to the DVLA or GCC may have involved.
It still seems remarkable to me that they're not interested in prosecuting him for that - the message they're sending is that you can lie about such things with impunity, which is exactly opposite to what they should be doing if they want things like this not to happen again.
spokesman said: “It is clear on the evidence at the time that the driver lost control of the bin lorry, resulting in the tragic deaths, he was unconscious and therefore not in control of his actions.“He did not therefore have the necessary criminal state of mind required for a criminal prosecution.
“In addition, the Crown could not prove that it was foreseeable to the driver that driving on that day would result in a loss of consciousness.
If it is precedent, it's a crazy one.
Is it necessary to have the 'criminal state of mind' at the moment of the accident? The criminal state of mind is an ongoing recklessness to the consequences of driving with a known medical condition that causes blackouts.
I would have thought that the Crown should at least be testing in court whether what happened it was a reasonably foreseeable outcome for a man who had already suffered a prior blackout at the wheel.
The reason why the DVLA ask you to notify them of conditions like this is that you are at high risk of harming yourself or others if you carry on driving until your condition is under control.
It's a bit like driving around with a unroadworthy vehicle. You don't know exactly when it will fail catastrophically and cause a crash, but there is a significant risk that it will.
Is that a peculiarity of Scots law? The logical extension of that means you could never be prosecuted for a crash caused by known medical issue which causes fits or blackouts at the wheel unless they were a predictable daily occurrence.
It's unclear to me - there was a very similar case a year or two before, and only 100 yards away, when a driver blacked out and killed two young women. Again, he faced no consequences despite having known medical issues.
It's a bit like driving around with a unroadworthy vehicle. You don't know exactly when it will fail catastrophically and cause a crash, but there is a significant risk that it will.
The argument here I presume is a bit like if you were injured because of a faulty bike part - you could sue the manufacturer for damages, but they wouldn't face criminal prosecution.
[url= http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/answer-for-your-actions-harry.html ]Lallands peat worrier[/url]
another good blog post that shed some light on the legal aspects of this. this paragrapH particularly resonated with me
"But if you found yourself in his position, would you ignore your lawyer's advice? If so, you may well be a nobler and more self-sacrificing character than this man. Perhaps the right thing to do would be to stand behind your deeds and your mistakes, and to take what comes. Reading reports from the inquiry over the last few weeks, I'm struck by the all too human qualities of Harry Clarke. An unfit, unhealthy man of a certain age with limited education and limited skills. A man who had his trade - and who desperately wanted to keep it. A man who succumbed to the all too human desire to keep his livelihood, little thinking, little imagining, the gruesome consequences of the white lies he thought he told. I don't know about you, but I can see clearly, all too clearly, how this might happen."
which is why everyone should have the full consequences spelled out to them, including prosecution, because that is all that some will understandI can see clearly, all too clearly, how this might happen
It's the "it could happen to anyone" defence.
I deal with case files in my job and I have to collect evidence to potentially prosecute people. The problem when you look from outside is that you don't see the intricacies of the case which are often so important.
You have to pass 2 tests to take something to court, is it in the public interest to prosecute someone and do you have the evidence to prove a crime has been committed. In this case there is clearly a high public interest so there must be something about the evidence of the combination of evidence and the potential offences that could be prosecuted for. It might be that the legal team went through the available evidence and potential offences and realised that for each potential offence there was a clear argument that the defence could show in court which would have made it impossible to gain a guilty verdict.
I had exactly a similar problem in a case I had, stacks of evidence collected over several weeks but when I sat down with the legal team and went through the whole case bit by bit we saw a clear problem we couldn't get around. No problem proving it happened but there was a clear defence the offender could bring which would have made the whole thing pointless. So we couldn't take it further even though the person had clearly been to blame.
Each law that we have has different types of proof that need to be brought to court to prove that someone is guilty of breaking that law. Sometimes it's pretty simple proof that is needed, sometimes it's complex.
It might well be that - or rather, it had bloody well better be that.It might be that the legal team went through the available evidence and potential offences and realised that for each potential offence there was a clear argument that the defence could show in court which would have made it impossible to gain a guilty verdict.
Point remains that, to any reasonable person the behaviour of this man was reprehensible and [i][b]should[/b][/i] be illegal, regardless of the fragility of his career prospects if he'd declared his condition.
AFAIC, it's the duty of the prosecuting authority either to take it to court and test it if they're unsure, or to outline the current shortcomings of the law and explain how these might be put right for future cases. That may include DWP making appropriate allowances in terms of loss of work & earning potential due to illness, assuming the condition develops after the individual has trained up & started their career.
This, and the comments, sum it up well so far...
http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/170-insults-to-dead.html
And now he's been reported for driving with his license suspended. Oxygen thief doesn't even come close.
His lack of remorse shown at the enquiry and now this. Either an actual genuine moron, incapable of showing empathy and the concept of responsibility through lack of neurons or a self centred scumbag.
I hope they throw not just the book, but the Mitchell Library at him, then give him the support that he needs to get his head straight in whichever way it needs straightened.
I read this earlier on the BBC website, I'm of the mindset that he's a self centred scumbag as what from i have garnered from his behaviour and the reporting of this case that he fully deserves to be up on an involuntary culpable homicide charge at the least - or perhaps we should let natural justice take it's course and allow the relatives of the deceased and injured to have a quiet word with him in a sealed room.
Anyway, i suspect by the look of him that a heart attack/stroke can't be that far down the road.
what a **** hopefully they will do something now as he is a danger to everyone.
He's really not doing himself any favours at all - I hope he's getting police protection.
I had a fair bit of sympathy for this guy.
No more.
I hope he's getting police protection.
I hope he isn't. He's wasted enough lives and public money.
I hope he isn't. He's wasted enough lives and public money.
I have zero sympathy for him, but it'd be a pity if someone did something they might later regret.
Agreed - Enough lives have been ruined by that ****.
I'll bid 3 points and £50 fine.
Plus allowed to get his license back as he needs it for his job.
I've no wish for any vigilante action. The families of the victims have conducted themselves with great dignity throughout this whole bourach. I don't think the driver is in any danger. Unless he does suffer some sort of retribution I just don't want any police time wasted on protecting him. There are better things the police could do with their time.
Though if I was sentencing with free reign, my sentence would be at least within the standard range for causing death by dangerous driving. Given that he is presumably aware that is the possible consequence of such behaviour - and we've discussed several times on here that sentences for motoring offences should be based on actions not consequences.
Never let him drive again but perhaps encourage him to ride a bike on public roads?, he may faint again whilst cycling and there you go....job done, problem solved.
Bit nasty in here, for sure.
Apparently in England you can have a pint then drive home. Which I saw at the weekend and believe to be ridiculous.
Justice will serve.
I consider the fact that he continued to drive with impunity after his actions directly caused the deaths of 6 people and injured a further 15 to show his utter disregard for the life's of others, he obviously knows the risk he is taking by continuing to drive so if he shows such little concern for others around him then I have absolutely zero regard nor compassion/care for his life.
Aracer, you'll be disappointed to hear the maximum sentence (assuming the most obvious charge) is six months in prison.
I think it is also worth cautioning that he's not been convicted of anything yet. the report I saw didn't suggest police had caught him in the act either - it is possible that this is a malicious false accusation. As I understood it he had been arrested, but as yet not charged with anything?
That was a very, very silly thing to do. An entire nation eyeing him suspiciously, unable to fully decide on whether they should vilify him or not given the awful circumstances of last christmas...then he goes and does this?
As above, he is either missing a few brain cells or just doesn't care.
be interesting to see what the attitude of the cps is towards the coventry bus crash.
As I understood it he had been arrested, but as yet not charged with anything?
Up here, you only get arrested when there is enough evidence to charge you. If we've got grounds to suspect you've done something we detain you, then if we subsequently have enough evidence to charge you we'll arrest you, charge you, and report you to the PF, either from custody or slow time. So if it's being reported correctly, he's been charged.
It is hard to believe how selfish and stupid he has been in driving a bin lorry in a town centre when he shouldn't have been behind the wheel of any vehicle. I would hope that if he is guilty of driving whilst disqualified then they will throw the book at him.
Apparently in England you can have a pint then drive home. Which I saw at the weekend and believe to be ridiculous.
What is your point?
This guy doesn't care about other peoples lives.
[quote=poly ]Aracer, you'll be disappointed to hear the maximum sentence (assuming the most obvious charge) is six months in prison.
What's the minimum sentence? That appears to be more relevant for motoring offences - especially given he's a first time offender 🙄
I consider the fact that he continued to drive with impunity after his actions directly caused the deaths of 6 people and injured a further 15 to show his utter disregard for the life's of others, he obviously knows the risk he is taking by continuing to drive so if he shows such little concern for others around him then I have absolutely zero regard nor compassion/care for his life.
Exactly what @somafunk said
On a somewhat related note I find it hard to comprehend that the driver of the bus involved in the fatal crash yesterday was 77
Tga - it said in the article I read "will be reported to the PF" that implied to me that the PF had yet to decide, but I guess time will tell...
aracer - assuming for driving with medically revoked license then statute says 3-6 pts, fine upto 5000, 6 months prison, discretionary disqualification are the options. Admonishment (plus 3pts) is therefore the "minimum". Even if the sentencing judge manages to distance himself from the historical events that would seem unlikely.
Tga - it said in the article I read "will be reported to the PF" that implied to me that the PF had yet to decide, but I guess time will tell...
Pretty much. There are various ways you can be dealt with after the police have arrested and charged you, one of which is released and 'reported for citation' (the others being remanded in police custody to appear in court the next day, or liberated on an undertaking to appear on a specific date). This means he would have been released, and the police will send a report to the PF within 28 days, the PF will decide whether to prosecute and if so, issue a citation for him to appear in court on a specific date. That would be the normal way for this offence, which appears to be driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence as opposed to driving while disqualified (the latter in Scotland would normally be, or at least historically have been, a custody case).
Yup, the PF can decide to drop the charges. Happened to me.
(Not driving-related, I upset BAE Systems.)
I upset BAE Systems
Which crane did they catch you on?
Which crane did they catch you on?
Not a crane - ROF Bishopton, a live explosives factory. According to the charges, I caused alarm and distress to a multinational arms company 😀
That would be the normal way for this offence, which appears to be driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence as opposed to driving while disqualified (the latter in Scotland would normally be, or at least historically have been, a custody case).
If its "only" otherwise in accordance with a license Aracer will probably explode because the maximum sentence then is lower. There is however a specific charge for driving after a license is revoked for medical reasons (I'd need to look it up but its something like s94 of RTA) - this carries the more significant sentencing options.
I assume it's that, or the one you mention that I was unaware of, as it doesn't appear that he's been DQd by a court.
[img] 
[/img]