NormanInNorfolk:
Eamonn Harrison’s driving record isn’t great. It seems you can be drunk in charge of a lorry, crash it, and not lose your licence if convicted in Germany.
Only the authorities from the country your licence is issued can revoke it. Best another country can do is ban you from driving in their country
True enough - but (in this country at least) only a court can disqualify (ban) you for driving offences, while only the DVLA can revoke your licence (which is normally either for medical reasons, or some other administrative purpose).
NormanInNorfolk:
Eamonn Harrison’s driving record isn’t great. It seems you can be drunk in charge of a lorry, crash it, and not lose your licence if convicted in Germany.
Only the authorities from the country your licence is issued can revoke it. Best another country can do is ban you from driving in their country
True enough - but (in this country at least) only a court can disqualify (ban) you for driving offences, while only the DVLA can revoke your licence (which is normally either for medical reasons, or some other administrative purpose).
NormanInNorfolk:
Eamonn Harrison’s driving record isn’t great. It seems you can be drunk in charge of a lorry, crash it, and not lose your licence if convicted in Germany.
Only the authorities from the country your licence is issued can revoke it. Best another country can do is ban you from driving in their country
True enough - but (in this country at least) only a court can disqualify (ban) you for driving offences, while only the DVLA can revoke your licence (which is normally either for medical reasons, or some other administrative purpose).
I.e ‘the authorities’
My point being that revocation is not what NormanInNorfolk was talking about - nobody gets their licence revoked (in this country) for a simple drink/driving offence.
Tarmaceater:
Allegedly Woody was watching Netflix when the immigrants were put in the trailer.
How convenient.
I always do that when I’m abroad.
Yeah Guv, just shove it in, I’m not even gonna check you’ve shut the doors, no worries.
Wasn’t Woody at the loading btw, was the other one. Allegedly of course.
bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-55020299
Eamonn Harrison loaded the trailer, and dropped it in Zeebrugge for unaccompanied trip to Purfleet.
He has previously crashed and damaged truck while drunk, so was paying off the damage to boss Ronan Hughes.
To pay it off quicker Harrison says he agreed to move stolen truck parts. He closed cab curtains to watch TV, and didnt watch "truck parts" being loaded. All of 5 minutes to load. He says he didnt check load at all.
It was Morris Robinson (Planky) who collected trailer in Purfleet etc.
Franglais:
Eamonn Harrison loaded the trailer, and dropped it in Zeebrugge for unaccompanied trip to Purfleet.
He has previously crashed and damaged truck while drunk, so was paying off the damage to boss Ronan Hughes.
To pay it off quicker Harrison says he agreed to move stolen truck parts. He closed cab curtains to watch TV, and didnt watch "truck parts" being loaded. All of 5 minutes to load. He says he didnt check load at all.
It was Morris Robinson (Planky) who collected trailer in Purfleet etc.
It is not beyond the bounds of belief that a trailer can be loaded while the driver, if not needed, can be unaware of what was actually put into it. If not required to shut the doors and seal it it is plausible, and there would be no sounds from the cargo who no doubt would be told to keep quiet.
Whether or not it is true of course, it is surely the only defence he can possibly put up. Then it is up to the jury, facing him in person, to make up their minds if he is truthful or not.
I remember writing to a driver from the NE who was banged up in prison near Perpignan after drugs were found in shrink wrapped pallets, loaded when he wasn’t there. Not the same I know, but such things can happen.
Friend of mine shipped a trailer in through Zeebrugge with immigrants in, one died. He walked after the court case as he said he didn’t know they were in there and the prosecution couldn’t prove otherwise. Unless there is evidence it will be hard to prove he knew they were in the trailer.
If someone agrees to carry stolen goods, then is told not to look as those goods are loaded…why?
He wasnt told it was a genuine load and the fact it is dodgy stuff is being hidden from him. ""He told jurors: "I got a bang on the door. He gives me a thumbs up and I move off. That's what I did. It was fairly quick, five minutes."" (BBC) Lorry parts? Really? Going to a warehouse putting on a full load, you cant reasonably look in every box for a kilo of powder. Even if you believed you had some dodgy engines? gearboxes? or whatever wouldnt a reasonable driver even look? Believing them to be hot, maybe not ask for certified invoice, but...Really? What if someone is charged with smuggling class A drugs? Is saying "I thought I was smuggling booze a defense"? . What is the burden of proof needed, etc, is a legal matter of course. In criminal law it is (I think) "beyond reasonable doubt", or "so that you are sure". Now, no one knows whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow! There could be a nuclear war, or the earth could stop spinning. But Im sure it will.
Franglais:
If someone agrees to carry stolen goods, then is told not to look as those goods are loaded…why?
He wasnt told it was a genuine load and the fact it is dodgy stuff is being hidden from him. ""He told jurors: "I got a bang on the door. He gives me a thumbs up and I move off. That's what I did. It was fairly quick, five minutes."" (BBC) Lorry parts? Really? Going to a warehouse putting on a full load, you cant reasonably look in every box for a kilo of powder. Even if you believed you had some dodgy engines? gearboxes? or whatever wouldnt a reasonable driver even look? Believing them to be hot, maybe not ask for certified invoice, but...Really? What if someone is charged with smuggling class A drugs? Is saying "I thought I was smuggling booze a defense"? . What is the burden of proof needed, etc, is a legal matter of course. In criminal law it is (I think) "beyond reasonable doubt", or "so that you are sure". Now, no one knows whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow! There could be a nuclear war, or the earth could stop spinning. But Im sure it will.
But he is not being charged with bringing in stolen goods he is being charged with facilitating people smuggling, his defence is that he didn’t know people were being loaded in and therefore is not complicit. How well he manages to convince the jury of that is down to him and his solicitor, but proof would be needed for a conviction that is safe, in the case of my friend only he knows how much he knew and he is hardly likely to say otherwise now, at the beginning of his trial he was told he was looking at 7 years but no proof was produced to show he knew there were illegals in the back and so he walked free
Franglais:
If someone agrees to carry stolen goods, then is told not to look as those goods are loaded…why?
He wasnt told it was a genuine load and the fact it is dodgy stuff is being hidden from him. ""He told jurors: "I got a bang on the door. He gives me a thumbs up and I move off. That's what I did. It was fairly quick, five minutes."" (BBC) Lorry parts? Really? Going to a warehouse putting on a full load, you cant reasonably look in every box for a kilo of powder. Even if you believed you had some dodgy engines? gearboxes? or whatever wouldnt a reasonable driver even look? Believing them to be hot, maybe not ask for certified invoice, but...Really? What if someone is charged with smuggling class A drugs? Is saying "I thought I was smuggling booze a defense"? . What is the burden of proof needed, etc, is a legal matter of course. In criminal law it is (I think) "beyond reasonable doubt", or "so that you are sure". Now, no one knows whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow! There could be a nuclear war, or the earth could stop spinning. But Im sure it will.
But he is not being charged with bringing in stolen goods he is being charged with facilitating people smuggling, his defence is that he didn’t know people were being loaded in and therefore is not complicit. How well he manages to convince the jury of that is down to him and his solicitor, but proof would be needed for a conviction that is safe, in the case of my friend only he knows how much he knew and he is hardly likely to say otherwise now, at the beginning of his trial he was told he was looking at 7 years but no proof was produced to show he knew there were illegals in the back and so he walked free
Now if you agreed to smuggle say booze, and youre told to close your eyes as the load is put in? What would you be thinking? Would you be thinking "Oh, they are loading the booze" or would you thinking, "Hmm, maybe it aint booze"?
I don`t know, but would “joint enterprise” be applicable here?
He has agreed to join in a smuggling operation. Is whether it is goods or people relevant?
It certainly makes a difference to the sentence of course, but hasn`t he already admitted culpability?
Franglais:
If someone agrees to carry stolen goods, then is told not to look as those goods are loaded…why?
He wasnt told it was a genuine load and the fact it is dodgy stuff is being hidden from him. ""He told jurors: "I got a bang on the door. He gives me a thumbs up and I move off. That's what I did. It was fairly quick, five minutes."" (BBC) Lorry parts? Really? Going to a warehouse putting on a full load, you cant reasonably look in every box for a kilo of powder. Even if you believed you had some dodgy engines? gearboxes? or whatever wouldnt a reasonable driver even look? Believing them to be hot, maybe not ask for certified invoice, but...Really? What if someone is charged with smuggling class A drugs? Is saying "I thought I was smuggling booze a defense"? . What is the burden of proof needed, etc, is a legal matter of course. In criminal law it is (I think) "beyond reasonable doubt", or "so that you are sure". Now, no one knows whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow! There could be a nuclear war, or the earth could stop spinning. But Im sure it will.
But he is not being charged with bringing in stolen goods he is being charged with facilitating people smuggling, his defence is that he didn’t know people were being loaded in and therefore is not complicit. How well he manages to convince the jury of that is down to him and his solicitor, but proof would be needed for a conviction that is safe, in the case of my friend only he knows how much he knew and he is hardly likely to say otherwise now, at the beginning of his trial he was told he was looking at 7 years but no proof was produced to show he knew there were illegals in the back and so he walked free
Now if you agreed to smuggle say booze, and youre told to close your eyes as the load is put in? What would you be thinking? Would you be thinking "Oh, they are loading the booze" or would you thinking, "Hmm, maybe it aint booze"?
I don`t know, but would “joint enterprise” be applicable here?
He has agreed to join in a smuggling operation. Is whether it is goods or people relevant?
It certainly makes a difference to the sentence of course, but hasn`t he already admitted culpability?
( note the use of ?s )
Agree that if I was smuggling booze and something lead me to suspect it wasn’t booze I might have a fair idea as to what it possibly was, but if caught it would still need to be proven that I was complicit in whatever else apart from booze was in the trailer, but that would not be the time for airing my suspicions, I would stick to saying I knew nothing about the other stuff until proof was produced.
Text messages may well be able to implicate joint culpability but there would need to be a reference to illegals in them rather than just go to a layby and wait until you’re given a thumbs up, I am guessing there is no proof of his knowledge of the illegals so far hence his story. Plenty of guilty people have walked free from court through lack of evidence so he would hardly be setting a precedent and in the same way innocent people have been imprisoned because the prosecution were sure the person had committed the offence.
If things come to light after the trial then it is possible that he will re-arrested and charged with those offences but you cannot change the charges halfway through a trial because it isn’t going the prosecutions way.
Franglais:
If someone agrees to carry stolen goods, then is told not to look as those goods are loaded…why?
He wasnt told it was a genuine load and the fact it is dodgy stuff is being hidden from him. ""He told jurors: "I got a bang on the door. He gives me a thumbs up and I move off. That's what I did. It was fairly quick, five minutes."" (BBC) Lorry parts? Really? Going to a warehouse putting on a full load, you cant reasonably look in every box for a kilo of powder. Even if you believed you had some dodgy engines? gearboxes? or whatever wouldnt a reasonable driver even look? Believing them to be hot, maybe not ask for certified invoice, but...Really? What if someone is charged with smuggling class A drugs? Is saying "I thought I was smuggling booze a defense"? . What is the burden of proof needed, etc, is a legal matter of course. In criminal law it is (I think) "beyond reasonable doubt", or "so that you are sure". Now, no one knows whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow! There could be a nuclear war, or the earth could stop spinning. But Im sure it will.
But he is not being charged with bringing in stolen goods he is being charged with facilitating people smuggling, his defence is that he didn’t know people were being loaded in and therefore is not complicit. How well he manages to convince the jury of that is down to him and his solicitor, but proof would be needed for a conviction that is safe, in the case of my friend only he knows how much he knew and he is hardly likely to say otherwise now, at the beginning of his trial he was told he was looking at 7 years but no proof was produced to show he knew there were illegals in the back and so he walked free
Now if you agreed to smuggle say booze, and youre told to close your eyes as the load is put in? What would you be thinking? Would you be thinking "Oh, they are loading the booze" or would you thinking, "Hmm, maybe it aint booze"?
I don`t know, but would “joint enterprise” be applicable here?
He has agreed to join in a smuggling operation. Is whether it is goods or people relevant?
It certainly makes a difference to the sentence of course, but hasn`t he already admitted culpability?
( note the use of ?s )
Agree that if I was smuggling booze and something lead me to suspect it wasn’t booze I might have a fair idea as to what it possibly was, but if caught it would still need to be proven that I was complicit in whatever else apart from booze was in the trailer, but that would not be the time for airing my suspicions, I would stick to saying I knew nothing about the other stuff until proof was produced.
Text messages may well be able to implicate joint culpability but there would need to be a reference to illegals in them rather than just go to a layby and wait until you’re given a thumbs up, I am guessing there is no proof of his knowledge of the illegals so far hence his story. Plenty of guilty people have walked free from court through lack of evidence so he would hardly be setting a precedent and in the same way innocent people have been imprisoned because the prosecution were sure the person had committed the offence.
If things come to light after the trial then it is possible that he will re-arrested and charged with those offences but you cannot change the charges halfway through a trial because it isn’t going the prosecutions way.
From reading some of the reports during the trial, Harrison was seen on CCTV in the hotel with Hughes or another member of the team - who did know what smuggling business they were involved in. He was also pulling a trailer for Hughes that was found to have Vietnamese migrants in the back last year, so he knew what Hughes was up to. And he allegedly stopped at a second place where the other half of the migrants were allegedly loaded. Would you drive round the lay bys of France collecting stolen lorry parts?
Who knows whether the prosecution have presented enough evidence, but it stretches credibility that he has no idea there were migrants in the trailer. IMO.
No I wouldn’t but then I wouldn’t have put myself in the position that he was in…
I agree it stretches credibility but if there was hard evidence against him then his brief would have advised him to plead guilty as it would get him a reduced sentence, yes in all probability he knew what was in the back but it is up to prosecution to prove he knew what was in the back, am in no way defending him but it would be a travesty if he got off because the prosecution’s case against him was not solid.
Following a 10-week trial, Romanian ringleader Gheorghe Nica, 43, from Basildon, and lorry driver Eamonn Harrison, 24, from County Down, were found guilty today of 39 counts of manslaughter.
)