Video evidence of crime not enough proof to prosecute..

[Surfer]

So there is video evidence of a car running you over but apparently that is still not enough evidence for the police to find out who was driving it and thereby prosecute them...

uhmmm fingerprints, dna in the car? wtf...lets wait until a cyclist is seriously injured or dies and hey maybe then we will be bothered enough to do a proper investigation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617

Boggles the mind how the owner of the car got away with this (yeah £150 fine slap on the wrist is not punishment especially as they refused to inform police who was actually driving their car wtf...)

imo the legal owners should have been prosecuted in place of the actual driver as they refused to name the person who was driving the vehicle.

But police fail tbh. Fail investigation...they need better detective skills.

 

[FutileBreadMachine]

As I understood it, it was a rental car, and there were 2 people in the car. If the police cannot prove which one of them was driving, then they can't convict them (I haven't watched the video, but I assume it doesn't show the face of the driver, so they cannot prove who it was).

 

[Eddie182]

Finger prints and or DNA can't prove who was driving, only that an individual was in the car at some point. And that's ignoring the fact that obtaining either in real life is nothing like as simple as TV shows would make believe.

As far as refusing to identify the driver, everyone has a right to silence in law. While it is suspicious, suspicion does not count as evidence.

 

[Thekwango]

imo the legal owners should have been prosecuted in place of the actual driver as they refused to name the person who was driving the vehicle.

I thought the police already had the power to do that - prosecute the owner if they refused to identify the driver? if not then surely it should be something that comes into effect??

edit: ah just seen above it was a rental car

 

[FutileBreadMachine]

I thought the police already had the power to do that - prosecute the owner if they refused to identify the driver? if not then surely it should be something that comes into effect??

edit: ah just seen above it was a rental car

It says "The 52-year-old man, from Nottingham, received six penalty points and a £150 fine for failing to provide driver details", so one of them was punished for not providing details.

 

[StriderX]

Prosecute them both then, compliance is just as bad.

 

[dowie]

it is ridiculous - knocking someone over like that could kill them but because it is a motoring offence it isn't treated very seriously by the criminal justice system

if a gang of kids kill or seriously injure someone then the police don't necessarily have to figure out who it was that struck the fatal blow or caused the bad injury, joint enterprise laws mean they can just prosecute the lot of them

there were two people in the car, one of them caused the accident but both were responsible for not reporting it and leaving the scene... really they both ought to be facing punishment for that

 

[Thekwango]

It says "The 52-year-old man, from Nottingham, received six penalty points and a £150 fine for failing to provide driver details", so one of them was punished for not providing details.

I meant i thought they could prosecute them for the crime that was committed, not just for failing to provide details of who the driver was

 

[Eddie182]

It was a hire car, how can you prosecute a company who can't possibly indentify who was driving. It'd be the same for a privately owned car as well, you can't prosecute someone for following their rights in law, and you also can't prosecute someone who, if they weren't present at the time if the incident, confirm who was or wasn't driving.

Again, the law requires proof in order to convict someone of a crime. If you can't provide enough evidence to convince a judge/jury you can't prosecute.

It might be frustrating but it's how things work, and for good reason.

 

[Thekwango]

It was a hire car, how can you prosecute a company who can't possibly indentify who was driving. It'd be the same for a privately owned car as well, you can't prosecute someone for following their rights in law, and you also can't prosecute someone who, if they weren't present at the time if the incident, confirm who was or wasn't driving.

Again, the law requires proof in order to convict someone of a crime. If you can't provide enough evidence to convince a judge/jury you can't prosecute.

It might be frustrating but it's how things work, and for good reason.

read my original post I didn't realise it was a rental. given that it was, then as dowie notes, why can't both be charged under joint venture laws.

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!

 

[Brizzles]

it is ridiculous - knocking someone over like that could kill them but because it is a motoring offence it isn't treated very seriously by the criminal justice system

if a gang of kids kill or seriously injure someone then the police don't necessarily have to figure out who it was that struck the fatal blow or caused the bad injury, joint enterprise laws mean they can just prosecute the lot of them

there were two people in the car, one of them caused the accident but both were responsible for not reporting it and leaving the scene... really they both ought to be facing punishment for that

+1

 

[dowie]

read my original post I didn't realise it was a rental. given that it was, then as dowie notes, why can't both be charged under joint venture laws.

IANAL but I'd suspect that joint venture laws don't apply to motoring offences - just stuff like murder, GBH etc... so not much the police could do

my main point is that some motoring offences are as serious as GBH, etc.. and the criminal justice system ought to take them more seriously and perhaps there ought to be something in place whereby both occupants of the car could be charged when something like this happens... the idea that just because both of them kept quiet they both get off scott free more or less is ridiculous when we know that one of the two did it and they both know who it was

 

[tom_e]

How do you know they were both in the car at the time? While I agree it's a poor punishment for the crime you can't just go assuming that because they both could drive the car that they were both in it at the time.

 

[Brizzles]

Stop vid at 14 secs and it shows it was outside a BBC building.

I wonder if they were so outraged as to run the story, that they provided all the CCTV coverage from their building to assist the Police.

( Unless the BBC building is Brians Budget Can-openers, in that case i have no point ! )

 

[One More Solo]

They should be done for perverting the course of justice much as Chris Huhne was. Sounds like they just ignored the request for details so they were hardly helpful.

 

[Janesy B]

If you want to kill someone, the best way of getting away with it is by doing it with a car.

 

[wozencl]

*hire car

 

[Janesy B]

*hire car

Nah, doesn't even need to be that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-34444418

 

[FTM]

They should be done for perverting the course of justice much as Chris Huhne was. Sounds like they just ignored the request for details so they were hardly helpful.

this to be honest

at best they are lazy and unco-operative when a bloke was nearly killed

at worst they are both complicit in the crime as they each know who was driving but wont admit it

prosecute both and see who rolls over first

surely phone records could put the person in the area or the car?

 

[dowie]

surely phone records could put the person in the area or the car?

yup, but the police probably haven't bothered with that

motoring related offenses simply aren't treated as seriously by the criminal justice system