Video evidence of crime not enough proof to prosecute..

Well, call me reactionary if you will, but I just think it's time that car drivers should be licensed and insured and cars should be required by law to show an identification number so that when drivers behave like this, the perpetrator can be tracked down and brought to book.....


Oh wait...........
 
Janesy B said:
If you want to kill someone, the best way of getting away with it is by doing it with a car.
Click to expand...
Janesy B said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-34444418
Click to expand...

in fairness I don't think the chaps intentions were to kill anyone. but if the law is so easy to get around, intentionally setting off with an accomplice to run someone over, kill them and get away with seems relatively easy.......

Police Officer: 'ok so who was driving when mr x was mown down on the footpath and killed'

suspect one: 'honestly mr policeman it weren't me driving'
suspect two: 'honestly mr policeman it weren't me driving'

Police Officer: 'ah ok well guess we have let you both be on your way'

this sort of how it goes then?
 
Thekwango said:
so out of curiosity, if me and a friend are driving round and I mow someone down and kill them, if we both deny being the driver of the vehicle, and there's no video or eyewitness evidence to identify which of us was driving the law can't prosecute for murder/manslaughter?.......hmm I now have a plan to rid myself of several folks I don't overly like round home!
Click to expand...

It certainly sounds like this is the case... so, basically, hire a car with a mate, both wear a balaclava while driving it, run over who you wish, "forget" who was driving, get off with 6 points and £150 fine, bargain!

Edit: a bit more reading shows that the maximum fine is £1,000... that's still a hell of a lot cheaper than a hitman :D
 
Completely ridiculous that the driver got away without any kind of criminal record for perverting the course of justice.
 
Thekwango said:
in fairness I don't think the chaps intentions were to kill anyone. but if the law is so easy to get around, intentionally setting off with an accomplice to run someone over, kill them and get away with seems relatively easy.......

Police Officer: 'ok so who was driving when mr x was mown down on the footpath and killed'

suspect one: 'honestly mr policeman it weren't me driving'
suspect two: 'honestly mr policeman it weren't me driving'

Police Officer: 'ah ok well guess we have let you both be on your way'

this sort of how it goes then?
Click to expand...

quite

I mean if you shot and injured (nearly killing) someone with say a shotgun when out hunting rabbits with a friend... not clear whether you did it deliberately or not and not clear to others whether you or the friend were firing the shotgun at the time... but either way you shot them and left them for dead.... could you just both keep quiet and because the police don't know which of the two of you fired at the person neither of you gets prosecuted...
 
neoboy said:
Completely ridiculous that the driver got away without any kind of criminal record for perverting the course of justice.
Click to expand...

Who was the driver?

That is the big question.

And the one the police are unable to work out given the evidence.

On the other hand they've applied the penalty that can be given to the keeper of the vehicle for not identifying the driver.
 
The officer traced a man and a woman who were eligible to drive the car, so could have been driving on that day. The man and woman were issued with a formal request to provide the driver's details, but did not respond
Click to expand...

The 52-year-old man, from Nottingham, received six penalty points and a £150 fine for failing to provide driver details
Click to expand...

Makes no sense why punish only one of them if they'd both been requested to provide the drivers details and could both have been driving.
 
Thekwango said:
Police Officer: 'ok so who was driving when mr x was mown down on the footpath and killed'

suspect one: 'honestly mr policeman it weren't me driving'
suspect two: 'honestly mr policeman it weren't me driving'

Police Officer: 'ah ok well guess we have let you both be on your way'

this sort of how it goes then?
Click to expand...

What punishment would you suggest is appropriate for the suspect that is telling the truth in your example?
 
Thompson_NCL said:
If both occupants say it was the other person, how can you prosecute them both? You'd get the passenger too. It's not like the passenger is lying.
Click to expand...

if you're in a car with someone and they run someone over, possibly killing them you'd expect them to stop the car... if they don't stop you'd demand they stop...

neither of them it seems bothered to report the accident - is it not an offence to fail to stop, fail to report an accident?
 
Pretty bad that.

Can't support the idea of prosecuting everyone, though. I'd rather see guilty people walk free than innocent ones do time.
 
shorttricky said:
What punishment would you suggest is appropriate for the suspect that is telling the truth in your example?
Click to expand...

they should both be charged with the crime if both are denying any wrong doing. It is rather simple is it not, if you are the innocent party you will tell the police that the other person was driving.

though my post was actually just a jovial comment pointing out how to potentially get away with a crime if this how the law currently stands.;)
 
Thompson_NCL said:
If both occupants say it was the other person, how can you prosecute them both? You'd get the passenger too. It's not like the passenger is lying.
Click to expand...

but surely the fact the 'innocent' person is not prepared to identify the guilty party makes them complicit, and therefore guilty by association?
 
Thekwango said:
but surely the fact the 'innocent' person is not prepared to identify the guilty party makes them complicit, and therefore guilty by association?
Click to expand...
If they were a married couple (probably), then they can't be compelled by law to give evidence against the other.

And not giving evidence doesn't make you guilty of anything.
 
Whats also neglected is that surely there was damage to the car. Who took it to get repaired? Was it the insurer that repaired it? If so then they must know who was driving at the time of the accident.
It does set a precedent however. Run someone over, deny you know who was driving and just get hit with a tiny fine and some points.
 
cheesyboy said:
If they were a married couple (probably), then they can't be compelled by law to give evidence against the other.

And not giving evidence doesn't make you guilty of anything.
Click to expand...

so my joke post is actually correct then,

2 people in a car, the driver runs someone down and kills them, both parties deny being the driver - video/witness evidence isn't available to identify which person was driving = both parties get off free and easy.

that can't be right surely
 
Again how can you be sure they were both in the car? Everyone seems to be assuming that they both know exactly what the other is up to at all times or they're joined at the hip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom