Re: Rhyl verdict out

in message <lecc83h4ovtls7n57qu5qs3dldodp94ul7@xxxxxxx>, Marc Brett
('usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx') wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:47:20 +0200, Ace <seesig@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:36:08 +0100, Marc Brett

The CPS is frustratingly coy about /why/ there were no realistic
prospects for a conviction -- what evidence was missing?

They're not being coy at all, and anyone who's familiar with the areas
of the RTAs that would have been concerned would probably understand
quite well.

The fact is that to be convicted of Causing Death by Dangerous
Driving, which is the only possible relevany offence, his or her
driving must saitisfy the following:

Careless Driving would have been a reasonable charge, with much lower
hurdles, but also with embarrassingly lenient sentences which is
frequently seen as a trivial and insulting charge, adding inslult to
injury and death.

There was nothing remotely 'careless' about this. Either he knew his tyres
were bald and drove on them regardless, in which case 'manslaughter' is
the only reasonable charge, or he didn't know, in which case his
negligence is so gross than manslaughter is the only reasonable charge.

I can't see how that could be applied in this case, so it seems to me
that the police/CPS have reached the only logicall conclusion.

The police prejudiced the case when they announced publicly thet 50 mph
was not an unreasonable speed on such a road. And this with no forensic
evidence about the actual speed.

That is the point.

--
simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Error 1109: There is no message for this error

.