The jury upheld the charge on the man - presumably after serious consideration of all the facts & the judge's sentence looks like he apportioned the blame on the man as being about half that of the woman. That seems about right to me. Unless he was totally unconscious the whole time through drink (which hasn't been suggested or reported in the accounts I've read), there can't be much doubt he aided her act (by giving her the keys & allowing her to drive) & abetting by not successfully moderating her driving 'style'.
The jury must have been persuaded he was sufficiently aware at crucial points in the sequence of events to have been able to stop or change the outcome. I'd imagine the point of law in assessing this is entirely irrelevant to the possible penalties - it was their duty to verify that (or not) & the judge's duty to apply the appropriate sentence.
I think several posters (and maybe others more generally) have been unduly swayed by the sentence & reacted against that, not the point of law. Maybe, even, they fail to grasp the idea of people being severally culpable for a crime when only one 'pulled the trigger' - to use a metaphor.
|
Altea Ego:
Thanks for your reply, and I better understand and respect your view now. I share your sentiments too. We must remember that this is a most unusual case and perhaps we don't have the full facts. However, indulge me, if you would, in the following!
The jury is directed by the judge on points of law, but he doesn't direct a verdict. 'A jury of your peers' is a backbone of English law. The jury does NOT sentence and so they cannot be held to account for lenient sentences that you allude to.
|
a judge can direct a jury in some circumstances and drop some whopping great hints in others. He/she can of course throw a case out of court, which in effect is saying Not Guilty.. but ultimately a jury can make a perverse decision if they wish to e.g. find NG when everyone else thinks it's a glaringly obviously Guilty. The system is naturally swayed to protect the innocent i.e. if the judge thinks there isn't a shred of evidence, he/she will throw it our first.
I think we should have professional juries, paid, qualified, intelligent, willing to do what they should be doing, rather than have amateur Miss Marples, brain dead, automatic NG finders, utterly disinterested, attention span of a gnat, etc
Edited by Westpig on 23/11/2008 at 17:41
|
>I think we should have professional juries paid qualified intelligent willing to do what they should be doing rather than have amateur Miss Marples brain dead
Always thought those were called magistrates Wp...
In Trinidad (I have been told) miscreants arriving to be tried in magistrates' courts used to be lobbied by a competitive throng of professional witnesses...
|
So someone who has 1.5 glasses of wine (on their say-so - I'd seriously doubt thats all she had on a "day at the races") is capable of driving to the same standards as when she is sober... that defies all research, which clearly shows that even a small amount of alchohol can seriously affect your judgement...
It worries me that people are actually trying to defend the indefencible...
|
So someone who has 1.5 glasses of wine (on their say-so - I'd seriously doubt thats all she had on a "day at the races") is capable of driving to the same standards as when she is sober...
I read and re-read Lud's post but I don't think he said or implied that?
|
|
|
It worries me that people are actually trying to defend the indefencible...
I haven't noticed anyone trying to justify the crash driver's behaviour which was bad in itself and also caused a catastrophe.
AE pointed out, and I agreed, that 1.5 times the legal limit (not 1.5 glasses of wine), presumably measured after the crash, would not make an experienced drinker so drunk that they 'didn't know what they were doing'.
Neither of us claimed though that it wouldn't affect their driving judgement, especially if combined with other factors that can be surmised but for which there is no evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
The system is naturally swayed to protect the innocent i.e. if the judge thinks there isn't a shred of evidence he/she will throw it our first.
I'm sure that Stefan Kiszko would have wholeheartedly agreed with you there, WP.
|
I'm sure that Stefan Kiszko would have wholeheartedly agreed with you there WP.
fair point...but thankfully those sort of cases are still very rare....and there would have no doubt been some evidence e.g. circumstantial, albeit in that case it was incorrect to put that much weight to it
|
|
|
>>I'm sure that Stefan Kiszko would have wholeheartedly agreed with you there, WP.
Not to mention Sally Clark.
|
Not to mention Sally Clark.
The Sally Clark case had some seemingly good evidence...it was just that the 'professional witness' wasn't all that professional and badly over played his hand, so people believed what he had no right to state.
you can't blame the court system for that one
Edited by Westpig on 24/11/2008 at 23:49
|
you can't blame the court system for that one
I respect your view as usual Westpig, but I do think the court system bore some responsibility for allowing Meadow, a paediatrician to present essentially statistical 'evidence' without - judging by the outcome - sufficient challenge.
During the original case I was appalled to read of his clearly ludicrous argument which could have equally been used to 'prove' that nobody could ever win the National Lottery jackpot because it is such an unlikely event. IIRC the Royal Statistical Society took a similar view and wrote to the Lord Chancellor's office making much the same point. Of course it might have been better if the defence had tackled this more successfully at the time.
It's certainly true that Meadow overplayed his hand though, especially as it wasn't his hand to play - a truly awful episode and I sincerely hope that the court system is not still as vulnerable to expert witnesses straying well beyond their expertise.
|
I think this is extraordinary. She deserves the book throwing at her for doing 113mph.
But 1.5 times over the limit... if the legal limit is 1.5 pints, then she only had to drink 2.25 pints to reach that level, and as we all have different metabolic rates, how is he to know how drunk she may - or may not - be?
He certainly knew she had "been drinking". He certainly didn't know she was 1.5 times over the limit. (That said, a friend who was done for DUI was 1.5 times over, and he was virtually unable to stand.)
Makes you think. I've certainly let friends drive me home from parties in my car (under their DOC insurance, one of the major bonuses of bangernomics!) where I know they've drunk SOMEthing, but no idea how much, but assume that because they're grown up they are perfectly capable of "knowing" how much or little they should drink.
|
>>>> But 1.5 times over the limit... if the legal limit is 1.5 pints then sheonly had to drink 2.25 pints>>
Is your maths sound? If she was 1.5 times OVER the limit and to use your approximation of 1.5 pints, does that not mean 3.75 pints?
In other words, 150% over, not 50% over.
|
|
|
fair point Manatee.
|
|
'1.5 times over...' does seem ambiguous. I took it to mean '1.5 times...'. It doesn't seem likely that anyone would miss the opportunity to say 'two and a half times the limit' if that was actually the case.
|
|
|
|
|
I think we should have professional juries ... rather than have amateur Miss Marples brain dead automatic NG finders utterly disinterested attention span of a gnat etc
Indeed. I expect a lot of people would rather resent the suggection that those characteristics are representative of their peers.
|
I think that we are getting a little too concerned with exactly how much she's drunk - fact is, everyone's different in their reactions to alchohol and it can also vary from day do day... however, it is a fact that even a small amount will affect your judgement, I seem to remember a show that did some sort of test with just one pint and was surprised how much the persons judgemnent had been affected...
In this case he knew that she'd had a few and still gave her the gun... sorry, keys to the car...
|
drunk - fact is everyone's different in their reactions to alchohol and it can also vary from day do day...
Quite. So how can an owner guess how a third party might be under or over the limit.
however it is a fact that even a small amount will affect your judgement I seem to remember a show that did some sort of test with just one pint
Indeed, but completely irrelevant. Fact is the law allows you to drive after 3 glasses of wine.
In this case he knew that she'd had a few and still gave her the gun... sorry keys to the car...
"A few". As you point out, she might have been above or below the limit according to her reaction that day. Now, if she'd been unable to stand, 3x over the limit, then that's one thing. But she'd drunk 1.5 glasses of wine more than she was legally allowed to - that's such a fine line.
Telegraph: "She was also, he said, an estimated one-and-a-half times the drink drive limit"
|
The law doesn't allow you to drive after 3 glasses of wine at all. The drink/driving limits are specific about the alcoholic content in your system. This limit could be reached in the body of Driver A after half a glass of wine and in the case of Driver B after 4 large whiskies. A lot depends on personal metabolism.
If you're over, you're over. Full stop.
|
If you're over you're over. Full stop.
But does it show? Clearly she knew how to put away a few. Probably hold it quite well. To him, in his drunk state, she might have seemed the sober pillar of society.
Doesn't alter the fact that she drove appallingly, killed some people and he copped half the blame.
|
Doesn't alter the fact that she drove appallingly killed some people and he copped half the blame.
do you mean .5 of the blame?
|
|
The law doesn't allow you to drive after 3 glasses of wine at all.
Quite. There's a limit on your alcohol content, not on how many glasses of certain stuff you've had.
The drink/driving limits are specific about the alcoholic content in your system. This limit could be reached in the body of Driver A after half a glass of wine
For even a lightweight driver, starting from sober, I absolutely disagree. However do you come to that conclusion?
and in the case of Driver B after 4 large whiskies.
That's about fout pints worth of average beer. Unless the driver is very large, he'll be over the limit.
A lot depends on personal metabolism.
Humph. I'd say time, not "metabolism".
If you're over you're over. Full stop.
Correct.
|
|
|
|
"A few".
Telegraph: "She was also he said an estimated one-and-a-half times the drink drive limit"
I was using "a few" as in "quite a few" (should have been more specific, sorry!), so yes, I do feel he would have known that she was not capable of driving the car safely... and judging by the sentances it seems I'm not alone.
Edited by b308 on 26/11/2008 at 14:35
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
