Motorcyclists charged over crash deaths of couple

There is no new law

Hi

Having just had an amuzing five minutes reading through this thread, I thought I'd just point out there is no new law that I'm aware of. The OP about the group leader being summonsed was heard at Magistrates Court. There is then mention of an appeal. It is unclear if this was just the defendant appealing to the Magistrate(s) or a Crown Court appeal.

Either way, it is not a new law and unless it goes all the way to the Supreme Court it is not a stated Case, so cannot be used as any weight in future cases.

As for seizing sat navs etc, then yes it is done and is analysed at the FSS. Under S19 PACE, the police can seize anything that may be evidence in the case. Note that means for the defence and the prosecution. [HTML] Seizure of Property (section 19 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984)
A police officer lawfully on premises (which means any place including vehicles, tents, caravans) can seize any item which they reasonably suspect is evidence of any offence or has been obtained as a consequence of an offence. So they can seize items on actions eg: video or stills cameras,
even though you haven't been arrested, if they reasonably suspect they contain evidence of an offence.[/HTML]

The main thing when seizing items is the 'is it reasonable'. For example if a driver killed someone and the police thought the driver was using a mobile at the time, it is reasonable and proportionate to seize it. If he's just driving along, gets stopped and reported, it would not be justifiable to retain it.


Its strange that for a small country there are so many regional interpretations of the same law.

Sounds like the hearing at Magistrates on the 31st is going to be brief and that the intention or expectation is straight to Crown Court.

Implications

Cooperman said:

Sounds like the hearing at Magistrates on the 31st is going to be brief and that the intention or expectation is straight to Crown Court.

Implications

Click to expand...

Section 1 is indictable only.

Have a read of this (the aggravating factors are worth a read) :

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_dangerous_driving/

From the same source:

Charging Practice

Dangerous driving includes situations where the driver has of his or her own free will adopted a particular way of driving, and also where there is a substantial error of judgement, that, even if only for a short time, amounts to driving falling far below the required standard. If the driving that caused danger was taken as a deliberate decision this would be an aggravating feature of the offence.

It is important to remember that the manner of the driving must be seen in the context of the surrounding circumstances in which the driving took place (e.g. amount of traffic, visibility). The circumstances of every case will be unique and must be considered in each case before reaching a decision as to the appropriate level of charge.

The test for dangerousness is an objective one; persistent disregard of, say, traffic directions (be they stop, give way or traffic lights) may be evidence that the manner of the driving has fallen far below the standard required, thus making a charge of dangerous driving appropriate. It would be an aggravating feature of the offence if it could be proved that this was deliberate.

The following examples of circumstances that are likely to be characterised as dangerous driving are derived from decided cases and the SGC Guideline Causing Death by Driving.

* racing or competitive driving;
* speed, which is particularly inappropriate for the prevailing road or traffic conditions;
* aggressive driving, such as sudden lane changes, cutting into a line of vehicles or driving much too close to the vehicle in front;
* disregard of traffic lights and other road signs, which, on an objective analysis, would appear to be deliberate;
* disregard of warnings from fellow passengers;
* overtaking which could not have been carried out safely;
* driving when knowingly suffering from a medical or physical condition that significantly and dangerously impairs the offenders driving skills such as having an arm or leg in plaster, or impaired eyesight. It can include the failure to take prescribed medication;
* driving when knowingly deprived of adequate sleep or rest;
* driving a vehicle knowing it has a dangerous defect or is poorly maintained or is dangerously loaded;
* using a hand-held mobile phone or other hand-held electronic equipment whether as a phone or to compose or read text messages when the driver was avoidably and dangerously distracted by that use;
* driving whilst avoidably and dangerously distracted such as whilst reading a newspaper/map, talking to and looking at a passenger, selecting and lighting a cigarette or by adjusting the controls of electronic equipment such as a radio, hands-free mobile phone or satellite navigation equipment;
* failing to have a proper and safe regard for vulnerable road users such as cyclists, motorcyclists, horse riders, the elderly and pedestrians or in the vicinity of a pedestrian crossing, hospital, school or residential home; and
* a brief but obvious danger arising from a seriously dangerous manoeuvre. This covers situations where a driver has made a mistake or an error of judgement that was so substantial that it caused the driving to be dangerous even for only a short time. (Cases that illustrate this principle include: Att.Gens Reference No 32 of 2001 (2002) 1 Cr.App.R. (S) 121 (offender failed to stop at a junction where there was a give way sign, failing to see a taxi that was being driven across the junction perfectly properly and colliding with it); Att.Gens Reference No 4 of 2000 (2000) EWCA Crim 780 (offender unintentionally pressed the accelerator instead of the brake); and Att.Gens Reference No.76 of 2002 (Hodges) (2003) 1 Cr.App.R. (S) 100 (offender drove across junction marked by a give way sign and collided with a car that was being driven along the major road, and had no explanation for his failure to see the car This was a single misjudgement. It was a bad misjudgement but nevertheless a single one (p.423)).

It is not necessary to consider what the driver thought about the possible consequences of his actions: simply whether or not a competent and careful driver would have observed, appreciated and guarded against obvious and material dangers.

In the case of a vehicle in such a state of disrepair as to be dangerous, consideration should be given to whether the vehicle should have been driven at all, as well as to how it was driven in the particular circumstances.

BillWright said:

Hi

Having just had an amuzing five minutes reading through this thread, I thought I'd just point out there is no new law that I'm aware of.

Click to expand...

The 'new law' referred to is the Chichester Crown Court case that decided an aggravating factor can be applied to the leader of a group, when members of that group are dealt with for speeding.

It will rarely be applicable on practical grounds but it was in the MCN so it has been reported as though it's the (latest ) death knell for motorcycling.

MikeP said:

Section 1 is indictable only.

Click to expand...

Out of interest if indictable means Crown Court only - why the need to attend the Magistrates Court

Cooperman said:

Out of interest if indictable means Crown Court only - why the need to attend the Magistrates Court

Click to expand...

Yes. Indictable only = Crown Court, Summary = magistrates court only and Either Way means the choice is open.

This will be a Committal Hearing.

In short, the magistrates hear an account of the evidence to confirm that there is a case to answer and then commit the case to the upper court, or not.

Not to be confused with committal to Crown Court for sentence. This happens when magistrates hear the case and then decide that the sentence should be more than their limited sentencing powers permit.

Another Court Case

Cooperman said:

Four Riders - only one being charged with CDCD this time.

Click to expand...

That may hopefully (fingers-crossed and all that stuff) help to reassure some that there is no catch-all policy being applied in such unfortunate cases.

The problem with this whole debate is everybody seems to think the legal system is fair and about Justice: it isn't, it is about making lots of money for those operating within the legal system. Justice and fairness have very little to do with it. A very wise man told me many years ago 'never trust men in suits or Policemen'. Very wise words indeed.

Devon said:

The problem with this whole debate is everybody seems to think the legal system is fair and about Justice: it isn't, it is about making lots of money for those operating within the legal system. Justice and fairness have very little to do with it. A very wise man told me many years ago 'never trust men in suits or Policemen'. Very wise words indeed.

Click to expand...

Yeah and and even wiser one once told me never to believe anything anyone in the building-trade tell you, they lie like a dockyard clock and will screw you for every penny they can.

MikeP said:

Yeah and and even wiser one once told me never to believe anything anyone in the building-trade tell you, they lie like a dockyard clock and will screw you for every penny they can.

Click to expand...

You are making that up, which only goes to prove what I was told was true

Cooperman said:

After another fatal motorcycle accident during a group ride in North Yorkshire, a rider is due in court on charges of causing death by careless driving. ​

On Friday 3 September 2010 a group of four motorcycists were riding on the A684 between Swinithwaite and Aysgarth when Mark Richard Chadfield collided with an oncoming vehicle.​

Carl Buckingham, 34, from Darlington will appear at 10am today (Monday 21st March) at Teesside Crown Court for a plea and case management hearing. He has been charged with causing death by careless driving.​

Four Riders - only one being charged with CDCD this time.​

Click to expand...

Local newspaper report:

A MOTORCYCLIST who caused the death of a friend in an accident on a country road is facing a possible jail sentence.

Carl Buckingham today admitted responsibility for the crash in which fellow rider Mark Chadfield was killed last year.

The accident happened on the A684 Temple Bank, between Aysgarth and Swinithwaite, North Yorkshire, on September 3.

Buckingham, 34, of Thompson Street East, Darlington, will be sentenced at Teesside Crown Court in three weeks' time.

He was given bail until his next appearance, and a pre-sentence background report was ordered by Judge Peter Fox, QC.

The judge told Buckingham: "You must not think that my giving you bail is any indication of your sentence."

Married Mr Chadfield, from Darlington, was riding a Kawasaki motorbike in a convoy when the accident happened.

Buckingham was at the front of the line and is said to have panicked and braked heavily when something startled him.

His bike skidded out of control and onto the other side of the road where an Isuzu Rodeo was forced to take evasive action.

Mr Chadfield, 34, who was riding close behind Buckingham, was hit by the Isuzu, and died as a result of his injuries.

In a written basis of plea, Buckingham accepts his actions contributed to the collision as they would have distracted his friend.

The document - accepted by prosecutors - also says his riding before the accident was "at all times" careful and safe.

Defence lawyer, Dan Cordey, told the court that the momentary lapse of concentration was not a major cause of the accident.

Judge Fox adjourned the case until May 11 and ordered Buckingham to co-operate with the Probation Service for his report.

Buckingham admitted a charge of causing death by careless driving.

See, you all take the p1ss out of the HOG boys but at least they'll avoid all this as they stick to the speed limit

So on that count, person A drops diesel / oil / brake fluid on the road, someone crashes and dies, then person A is gulity (at least) of causing death by careless driving?

John Armstrong said:

So on that count, person A drops diesel / oil / brake fluid on the road, someone crashes and dies, then person A is gulity (at least) of causing death by careless driving?

Click to expand...

If you are basing that on the Carl Buckingham case only if the diesel dripper pleads GUILTY

Preliminary hearing set for next Friday at Crown Court.

Mutley said:

See, you all take the p1ss out of the HOG boys but at least they'll avoid all this as they stick to the speed limit

Click to expand...

here here

This is an interesting case (legally speaking) and I rather suspect that the final outcome will become caselaw. As motorcyclists, this is a crucial case to follow.

I might even sit in on the trial when it comes to full hearing.

(Yes I do work with the law).

Sadly, the net result of this case is that 2 human beings lost their lives. That can never be changed by whatever happens with this case.

Anybody know when/where the trial is?

giles lamb said:

Was matey boy dragged out of his comfort zone by the other three? Should he have recognised that the pace was not for him and that he should have backed off and met them at their destination? Did the other three show a complete disregard for their new friend and his ability? Ultimately are their actions contributing factors to the accident, or is the new guy solely responsibile for his own death?

It's cases like this, that laws and rulings like these are applied to ..

Click to expand...

Indeed. I rode up to the GOTC 2009 with Popeye when I'd only been on the GS (or any bike for that matter) for 6 months and in the last 10 or so miles or so of a 660 mile ride when we were doing north of 90 down some B roads in the rain I decided that I wasn't that good and let him go.

All about knowing your limits, if I'd stoved it into a corner it wouldn't have been his fault but mine.

Finished it at a leisurly 50.