happypig
Staring at the rude boys
Sorry, you are right, it seems they can charge GBH alongside AVT if they feel the 2 years max will not be enough.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Let's catch the scumbag who did this
- Thread starter Man of Harveys
- Start date
Sorry, you are right, it seems they can charge GBH alongside AVT if they feel the 2 years max will not be enough.
StonehamPark
#Brighton-Nil
No need at all. I work with RTA's and liability (with the occasional look into Civil cases) and I'm interested in the Criminal courts/sentencing.
So I was just interested in hearing your opinion, having worked in the courts.
Hoping whoever the perpetrator is gets the maximum sentence possible.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,225
They won't charge GBH.
He was arrested on suspicion (amongst other offences) of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.
Maximum 5 year prison sentence.
He was arrested on suspicion (amongst other offences) of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.
Maximum 5 year prison sentence.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,225
Charging GBH is relatively uncommon now. It's what they brought in the causing serious injury by dangerous driving offence for.
happypig
Staring at the rude boys
I'm obliged. I can't ever remember sitting on a case of that. Hopefully it's quite rare.
StonehamPark
#Brighton-Nil
Interesting, thanks.
---
Whilst previously, offences resulting in serious injury which occurred as a result of a driving offence could be charged under section 20 or section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA 1861), Parliament has decided that a more focused approach which targets offences with this specific set of circumstances is more appropriate.
In addition, Parliament has responded to road safety campaign groups and victims and their representatives who have called for the gap in sentences between the current 2 year maximum for dangerous driving and the 14 year maximum for causing death by dangerous driving to be addressed. The 5 years imprisonment maximum for this offence addresses that concern.
CPS
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,225
Relatively new offence. Also more likely to be heard in Crown court rather than magistrates'.
There used to be a big gap between the standard dangerous driving offence and the S1 Road Traffic Act (causing death by dangerous driving). This was brought in- I think in the last five years or so- to address that. It's by no means rare.
happypig
Staring at the rude boys
It would still go before magistrates for it's first hearing, they would then send it up if appropriate. However, one of the reasons I resigned was that HMCTS changed things so that the only courts in Eastbourne were trials and I wasn't getting enough variation.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,225
Yes, I realise that, but with this, they would generally refer it upwards more often than not, because of the serious nature of the offence (even though it's triable either way).
martin tyler
Well-known member
- Jan 25, 2013
- 5,862
This is correct. CPS won't charge with GBH. Be either serious injury with dangerous or careless driving dependant on a number of factors or potentially both. I suspect personally although I don t know all the facts potentially both with potential of hoping for a plea to injury to the careless driving aspect and a trial to the other. The aggravated vehicle side would also be included just of a judge to decide whether the sentence runs concurrent or consecutive to the more serious crime.
Obviously police will have to prove his involvement first in respects to the gentleman they arrested, although with forensics from this day and age unless he was very careful I am sure police would be able to prove whether he was driver or not.
bha100
Active member
- Aug 25, 2011
- 898
The law in this country is laughable, if guilty he could get max 5 years for what he did, yet i read just today that the woman who tried to make claim to a £33 million lottery prize could now be prosecuted for the offence of fraud by misrepresentation, which, get this, apparently carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail, how the feck does that work?
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,225
Forensics will only get you so far. They can prove somebody has been in a car. But a person may come up with a reason for the being the case. It's not as simple as showing somebody was in the driver's seat. I wish it was.
Also, there's no such offence as causing serious injury by careless driving. IF somebody was proven to be the driver, and IF the driving was deemed to be merely careless rather than dangerous, then the injury wouldn't come into it and the charge would be a simple driving without due care & attention.
martin tyler
Well-known member
- Jan 25, 2013
- 5,862
Of course forensics will get you to a point. Always an excuse for their presence, reason always comes
In to it. Just a game police try and work out. Tough job.
Yes your correct careless driving is what I meant.
Personally I don t envy CPS or police in this matter. Looks terrible on CCTV cameras but traffic reports reference
Speed ect would play a factor, but with the potential suspect being arrested much later evidence such as Drink driving would have been lost. Like I said a tough job and I would not want to be reading that file
Doc Lynam
I hate the Daily Mail
- Jun 19, 2011
- 7,208
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1428...t_and_run__do_you_know_this_man_/?ref=mr&lp=1
Do you know who this is?
Do you know who this is?
Leekbrookgull
Well-known member
Because it,s money.
Leekbrookgull
Well-known member
What will be interesting could be should the defendant seek legal advice which firm will take it ? Although i did hear somewhere firms can no longer refuse cases ??
bha100
Active member
- Aug 25, 2011
- 898
They have finally charged him, looks like his mates did their best to help him avoid Prosecution, good mates or idiots??
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/14833743.Three_men_charged_in_connection_with_Brighton_hit_and_run/#comments-anchor
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/14833743.Three_men_charged_in_connection_with_Brighton_hit_and_run/#comments-anchor
They should face a charge of perverting the course of justice and using up more police time. Wouldn't look good on a CV, if that load of scum are employed.
Edit: Just read the full article. So depressing. Throw away the key.
Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,297
Can't seem to find it in here but sure it's about somewhere - is the fella arrested the same original one who was named & took to Facebook saying he knew nothing about it? I'm sure someone linked an old argus article of him pulling off a jewellery robbery too? I'm assuming as his name was released in the press previously, it's ok to ask this btw....
Idiots. As well,as the obvious moral issues, the offence carries a maximum term of life so they might get a long stretch. Here's hoping.