I see someone who killed a pedestrian by colliding into them on their cycle has been jailed for 7 months under the 19th century offence of "wanton and furious driving causing bodily harm".
Full story here: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8197430.stm
But he's also been banned from driving for 12 months... (so it is driving related)
Not heard of this old offence before.
|
google helps.
www.cps.gov.uk/Publications/prosecution/pbd_policy...1
Wanton and furious driving
# Wanton and furious driving is an old offence - predating the invention of the internal combustion engine - contained in Section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The prosecution must prove that the defendant drove dangerously (careless driving is insufficient) and caused some injury to another person.
# The offence is not limited to a road or other public place and is therefore useful for prosecuting cases where the bad driving occurred off-road.
# The offence can be tried either in the magistrates' court or in the Crown Court. At the Crown Court it carries a maximum sentence of 2 years' imprisonment.
# Penalty points and discretionary disqualification are now available to courts (see note 10).
|
When I was cutting my teeth in this profession I dealt with a kid who crashed into a tent injuring the occupants and was subsequently charged with this offence, brilliant bit of lateral thinking from a cop in pre-CPS and pre-legal databases days. It was a different breed in them days. It is the same Act as most Assault offences (ABH S47, GBH S20 and Wounding S18) goes to show what a class act legislators where in those days that acts and sections drafted 150 yrs ago are still in daily use today. They were craftsmen.
Note in seriousness somewhere between S20 and S47 Assault.
Edited by Pugugly on 12/08/2009 at 17:52
|
I've seen this charge used against a car driver, but the case hit the buffers partly because the car was not invented when the statute was written.
I believe the recently introduced charge of causing death by careless driving includes causing death 'or injury' by careless driving.
|
|
Don't see why it should hit the buffers (unless it was a train of course)
|
...Don't see why it should hit the buffers (unless it was a train of course)...
From memory, I think the judge indicated he was not happy applying a law to a driver of a motor car which can only have been intended for a horse or cycle rider, or someone driving some form of horse and carriage.
It seemed to make a bit of sense at the time.
|
|
|
|
brilliant bit of lateral thinking from a cop in pre-CPS and pre-legal databases days. It was a different breed in them days
I knew a retired cop who went into the non certificated legal game. He was one of the old school who would spend vast amounts of time reading the legal tombs and coming up with obscure charges.
I used to have him as a passenger quite often on long 150-200 mile car trips and they seemed to be over in no time listening to his stories, which never seemed to repeat themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6529309.stm
This is what happens to a driver who terminates 4 cyclists at once (which is quite a lot of bodily harm) : Not much. It is no doubt argued that this skidding on black ice 'could happen to anyone', but this is because there are a lot more drivers than cyclists and cyclists are regarded as irritating holders-up of traffic exercising it's right to go as fast as it likes in black ice conditions. If you then kill a few, you can always cry 'I didn't mean to do it!' I am all in favour of the prison sentence for this miscreant- I just wish the law would aspire to fairness and cease falling over backwards to allow drivers to get away with it because that's popular.
|
Just supposing the offence had been the other way round and a pedestrian had wandered into the road in front of the cyclist, who fell off as a consequence, hit their head and died. What offence would the pedestrian have committed in such a situation?
|
As a cyclist, I don't really see the problem.
EDIT: ie. the sentence seems fair
Edited by Focus {P} on 12/08/2009 at 21:55
|
I wish the same policeman had been around when a cycle courier in central London decided Zebra crossings did not apply to him, hit the fit and healthy pedestrian and broke her hip in three places, thus ending a successful career modelling.
Pedestrian=loss of career, including some lucrative contracts involving what had been beautiful legs, long time, often painful, recovery.
Cyclist= rode off on his way after being thoroughly unpleasant to all around.
|
...including some lucrative contracts involving what had been beautiful legs...
I wish the victim in this case well and who knows what's around the corner for her?
When the police motorcyclist hit Heather Mills she might have thought losing part of her leg had ruined her life.
Yet she went on to enjoy a successful modelling career and is leading, er, a very full life, in many other respects.
|
|
|
|
I'm glad to see that there is at last some legal force that can be applied in cases like this. Most cyclists are of course sensible and considerate, but there are a few that give cyclists a bad name, and there hasn't really been any effective deterrent for bad riding, as there is for motor drivers.
An old friend of mine was still driving and playing the church organ regularly at the age of 97, until a cyclist, riding on the pavement in the centre of Reading , knocked him down. He broke a leg and never recovered properly, and died a month ago, a year after the accident. Such a waste of what was still a very good life.
|
|
Time for cyclists to be licenced and insured?
|
Time for cyclists to be licenced and insured?
Please no. I think we might have enough rules to be going on with. Whatever happened to the encouragement of common sense ? It's getting daft now.
|
|
|
|
