M1 crash-court update

[carryfast]

Dr Damon:

Carryfast:

Dr Damon:
The only distorted thing on this thread is you…

Carryfast.

Just admit you got it all wrong as usual.

Got exactly what ‘wrong’ out of all the different potential scenarios resulting in the collision I’d actually referred to.

I seem to remember you going on and on and on and on and on trying to defend the Fedex driver when like everyone else on here you have absolutely no idea what happened.

Now things have progressed it seems your unbalanced theory was wrong.

But you seem to have selectively ‘forgotten’ about all the other potential scenarios which I equally described which could make him guilty.You also seem to have an issue with the premise of innocent until ‘proven’ guilty.Bearing in mind the question of the potential agenda,behind the glaring inconsistency,in the Fed Ex driver’s defence advising a plea of guilty to dbcd,as opposed to the prosecution seeing it as dbdd.Also bearing in mind that the defence has all the evidence which the prosecution has and the precedent of the M62 mini bus incident.Also bearing in mind that the AIM driver’s defence has already played the race card regarding the issue of bail concerning the respective drivers.

[carryfast]

Winseer:
Who’s fault is it if you rear-end someone unexpectedly halted in a live lane whilst travelling at 56mph in the middle of the night?

Precedent suggests that it depends on the ‘reasons’ ‘why’ they’ve stopped.Just stopping for no good reason or crawling along with a knowingly knackered vehicle doesn’t cut it and can actually reverse the usually expected norms of who’s to blame and the severity of that level of blame in that case.

[dieseldave]

A question for Judge Carryfast QC…

Could it be that there are two cases?

Is it possible that there’s case to be brought against the person responsible for knowingly driving a defective vehicle, but what about a case of driving without due care or careless driving against the person who ran into the back of it?

Wouldn’t both be triable to the extent of their contribution to the overall picture since both may have committed an offence?

I don’t know, but do you know?

[dork_lard]

dieseldave:
A question for Judge Carryfast QC…

Could it be that there are two cases?

Now don’t you be confusing our resident know it all with the possibility of two ways to choose.

Curryfart couldn’t even comprehend the level of intelligence needed to preside over this very simplistic chain of events, so don’t be throwing anymore than one possible scenario into the discussion.

Something happened which caused something else to happen. Leave the man alone to work out what happened in his own mind & could you please stop referring to the facts of the case !

[carryfast]

dieseldave:
A question for Judge Carryfast QC…

Could it be that there are two cases?

Is it possible that there’s case to be brought against the person responsible for knowingly driving a defective vehicle, but what about a case of driving without due care or careless driving against the person who ran into the back of it?

Wouldn’t both be triable to the extent of their contribution to the overall picture since both may have committed an offence?

I don’t know, but do you know?

Firstly we do know that the M62 mini bus incident resulted in two different cases.We also know that the truck driver who ran into the obstruction was cleared.We also know that the Fed Ex driver has actually pleaded guilty to death by careless driving in this case.Which seems fair bearing in mind both your own view there,let alone the M62 example of not guilty of any offence ?.The question then is why did the prosecution refuse to accept that plea and why does the Fed Ex driver’s defence only see evidence of careless driving but not dangerous.While the prosecution obviously sees evidence of dangerous driving.IE what could possibly account for that discrepancy and inconsistency between them ?.

[mattecube]

Carryfast:

dieseldave:
A question for Judge Carryfast QC…

Could it be that there are two cases?

Is it possible that there’s case to be brought against the person responsible for knowingly driving a defective vehicle, but what about a case of driving without due care or careless driving against the person who ran into the back of it?

Wouldn’t both be triable to the extent of their contribution to the overall picture since both may have committed an offence?

I don’t know, but do you know?

Firstly we do know that the M62 mini bus incident resulted in two different cases.We also know that the truck driver who ran into the obstruction was cleared.We also know that the Fed Ex driver has actually pleaded guilty to death by careless driving in this case.Which seems fair bearing in mind both your own view there,let alone the M62 example of not guilty of any offence ?.The question then is why did the prosecution refuse to accept that plea and why does the Fed Ex driver’s defence only see evidence of careless driving but not dangerous.While the prosecution obviously sees evidence of dangerous driving.IE what could possibly account for that discrepancy and inconsistency between them ?.

Plea bargain for a guilty admission for a lesser offence lesser sentence

[mattecube]

We will all know the outcome in March of next year

[carryfast]

mattecube:

Carryfast:
The question then is why did the prosecution refuse to accept that plea and why does the Fed Ex driver’s defence only see evidence of careless driving but not dangerous.While the prosecution obviously sees evidence of dangerous driving.IE what could possibly account for that discrepancy and inconsistency between them ?.

Plea bargain for a guilty admission for a lesser offence lesser sentence

It could only ever have been a plea ‘bargain’ if it had been negotiated with and accepted by the prosecution first before making the plea. IE by definition in the case of the prosecution refusing to accept the plea it could never have been any ‘bargain’.While we’ve already got evidence that the AIM driver’s defence is happy to play the race card in the event of,what it perceives as,any ‘preferential’ treatment in the case of the Fed Ex driver as in the case of bail v remand protest.

[dieseldave]

Carryfast:

dieseldave:
A question for Judge Carryfast QC…

Could it be that there are two cases?

Is it possible that there’s case to be brought against the person responsible for knowingly driving a defective vehicle, but what about a case of driving without due care or careless driving against the person who ran into the back of it?

Wouldn’t both be triable to the extent of their contribution to the overall picture since both may have committed an offence?

I don’t know, but do you know?

Firstly we do know that the M62 mini bus incident resulted in two different cases. We also know that the truck driver who ran into the obstruction was cleared.

So, have we now established that it’s not a single case against the worst offender and the rest getting swept under the carpet?
Could it be that this idea is also happening in the case under discussion?

Carryfast:
We also know that the Fed Ex driver has actually pleaded guilty to death by careless driving in this case.Which seems fair bearing in mind both your own view there,let alone the M62 example of not guilty of any offence ?.

I didn’t express a view… the clue is that everything I wrote had a question mark after it, so they were questions.

Sometimes, it’s a good idea to ask a question whilst already knowing the answer, which tactic tends to flush out the wafflers, googlers and bull manure merchants. All said whilst innocently looking up at the ceiling and having no particular poster in mind.

Carryfast:
The question then is why did the prosecution refuse to accept that plea and why does the Fed Ex driver’s defence only see evidence of careless driving but not dangerous.

Why would that be a question needing to be resolved?
Isn’t it all part of the performance of the administration of the law in such cases, usually called the main charge, and then another charge in the alternative? Couldn’t the prosecution then proceed with one of the charges whilst they can drop the other one (possibly only putting it on the charge sheet for use as leverage) by offering no evidence on it?
Could it possibly be a legal way of the prosecution hedging their bets whilst they see what shakes loose?

Carryfast:
While the prosecution obviously sees evidence of dangerous driving.IE what could possibly account for that discrepancy and inconsistency between them ?.

Only you could see a “discrepancy and inconsistency between them” so I’m wondering whether it could be that there are proper and quite separate legal definitions, criteria and thresholds that go with both charges?

Are you saying that you weren’t aware of the quite proper prosecution practice of adding an alternative charge?

Go on… google them up to discover the differences and prosecution practice in such cases, you know you want to.

… Here’s a multi use present for you…

Multi use because you could use it immediately or you could also use it as an avatar. </TIC mode>

[carryfast]

dieseldave:

Carryfast:

dieseldave:
A question for Judge Carryfast QC…

Could it be that there are two cases?

Is it possible that there’s case to be brought against the person responsible for knowingly driving a defective vehicle, but what about a case of driving without due care or careless driving against the person who ran into the back of it?

Wouldn’t both be triable to the extent of their contribution to the overall picture since both may have committed an offence?

I don’t know, but do you know?

Firstly we do know that the M62 mini bus incident resulted in two different cases. We also know that the truck driver who ran into the obstruction was cleared.

So, have we now established that it’s not a single case against the worst offender and the rest getting swept under the carpet?
Could it be that this idea is also happening in the case under discussion?

Carryfast:
We also know that the Fed Ex driver has actually pleaded guilty to death by careless driving in this case.Which seems fair bearing in mind both your own view there,let alone the M62 example of not guilty of any offence ?.

I didn’t express a view… the clue is that everything I wrote had a question mark after it, so they were questions.

Sometimes, it’s a good idea to ask a question whilst already knowing the answer, which tactic tends to flush out the wafflers, googlers and bull manure merchants. All said whilst innocently looking up at the ceiling and having no particular poster in mind.

Carryfast:
The question then is why did the prosecution refuse to accept that plea and why does the Fed Ex driver’s defence only see evidence of careless driving but not dangerous.

Why would that be a question needing to be resolved?
Isn’t it all part of the performance of the administration of the law in such cases, usually called the main charge, and then another charge in the alternative? Couldn’t the prosecution then proceed with one of the charges whilst they can drop the other one (possibly only putting it on the charge sheet for use as leverage) by offering no evidence on it?
Could it possibly be a legal way of the prosecution hedging their bets whilst they see what shakes loose?

Carryfast:
While the prosecution obviously sees evidence of dangerous driving.IE what could possibly account for that discrepancy and inconsistency between them ?.

Only you could see a “discrepancy and inconsistency between them” so I’m wondering whether it could be that there are proper and quite separate legal definitions, criteria and thresholds that go with both charges?

Are you saying that you weren’t aware of the quite proper prosecution practice of adding an alternative charge?

Go on… google them up to discover the differences and prosecution practice in such cases, you know you want to.

Who said anything about the case ever not involving both the AIM driver and the Fed Ex driver ?.

Or anything about sweeping anything under the carpet in that regard ?.

As opposed to firstly a clear precedent that running into stationary traffic in a live lane of a motorway doesn’t automatically mean that the driver is guilty of anything let alone dangerous driving.At least where it can be shown that the blockage was caused by the unreasonable actions of another driver causing the obstruction.

With the Fed Ex driver having been advised to enter a plea of guilty to dbcd regardless based on the evidence provided to his defence.

With the prosecution having refused to accept that plea and going for dbdd obviously based on that same evidence.

Also bearing in mind that my reply,to your reference to ‘careless’ driving,also included a question mark.

The question,as to why the inconsistency of the Fed Ex driver’s defence obviously advising a plea of guilty to the lesser offence of dbcd,as opposed to the prosecution seeing it as the more serious offence of dbdd,both based on the same evidence ?,remains.Bearing in mind that obviously means no question of any ‘alternative’ charge because that ( lesser ) ‘alternative’ has obviously been discounted by the prosecution in its refusal to accept the plea of guilty to it ?.

[dieseldave]

Carryfast:
With the Fed Ex driver having been advised to enter a plea of guilty to dbcd regardless based on the evidence provided to his defence.

Oh Carryfast, this just gets better and better…
Did you refuse my kind offer of a shovel because you already planned to use a JCB?

Carryfast:
With the prosecution having refused to accept that plea and going for dbdd obviously based on that same evidence.

If the prosecution refuses to accept a plea, then doesn’t the prosecution simply proceed with the charge that they think represents their best chance of success at trial?

Carryfast:
The question,as to why the inconsistency of the Fed Ex driver’s defence obviously advising a plea of guilty to the lesser offence of dbcd,as opposed to the prosecution seeing it as the more serious offence of dbdd,both based on the same evidence ?,remains.

Carryfast, I have to admit that you’re quite amazing…
Are you privy to a conversation between a lawyer and his client to the extent that you know what the advice was?

Do you honestly think it is an “inconsistency” if the defence thinks that the prosecution can’t make a case for the more serious charge?
How is it “inconsistent?”

Maybe you might see whether the answer lies in the definitions, criteria and thresholds of the charges involved maybe?
People see things differently or think they have (or don’t have) a case, but then what are the courts for if not to settle exactly that?

Carryfast:
Bearing in mind that obviously means no question of any ‘alternative’ charge because that ( lesser ) ‘alternative’ has obviously been discounted by the prosecution in its refusal to accept the plea of guilty to it ?.

Carryfast, I have to admit that you’re still quite amazing…

Nothing is “obvious” unless you’ve seen the charge sheet or been privy to a conversation between lawyer and his client whilst having a barrister’s knowledge of the workings of the law. (That doesn’t need a question mark. )

Carry on digging Carryfast, you’re doing a wonderful job!

[the_maoster]

I can’t stop reading! It’s somewhat akin to watching a kid with a magnifying glass in the sunshine dispatching ants, except the ants just won’t accept that they’re fried!

[carryfast]

dieseldave:

Carryfast:
With the Fed Ex driver having been advised to enter a plea of guilty to dbcd regardless based on the evidence provided to his defence.

Oh Carryfast, this just gets better and better…
Did you refuse my kind offer of a shovel because you already planned to use a JCB?

Carryfast:
With the prosecution having refused to accept that plea and going for dbdd obviously based on that same evidence.

If the prosecution refuses to accept a plea, then doesn’t the prosecution simply proceed with the charge that they think represents their best chance of success at trial?

Carryfast:
The question,as to why the inconsistency of the Fed Ex driver’s defence obviously advising a plea of guilty to the lesser offence of dbcd,as opposed to the prosecution seeing it as the more serious offence of dbdd,both based on the same evidence ?,remains.

Carryfast, I have to admit that you’re quite amazing…
Are you privy to a conversation between a lawyer and his client to the extent that you know what the advice was?

Do you honestly think it is an “inconsistency” if the defence thinks that the prosecution can’t make a case for the more serious charge?
How is it “inconsistent?”

Maybe you might see whether the answer lies in the definitions, criteria and thresholds of the charges involved maybe?
People see things differently or think they have (or don’t have) a case, but then what are the courts for if not to settle exactly that?

Carryfast:
Bearing in mind that obviously means no question of any ‘alternative’ charge because that ( lesser ) ‘alternative’ has obviously been discounted by the prosecution in its refusal to accept the plea of guilty to it ?.

Carryfast, I have to admit that you’re still quite amazing…

Nothing is “obvious” unless you’ve seen the charge sheet or been privy to a conversation between lawyer and his client whilst having a barrister’s knowledge of the workings of the law. (That doesn’t need a question mark. )

Carry on digging Carryfast, you’re doing a wonderful job!

1 ) Surely if the Fed Ex driver has entered a plea of guilty to anything here then logically it follows that he was advised to do so by his defence team ?.Unless you’re saying he actually went against their advice to plead not guilty to anything at all ?.

2. Why would the prosecution think that it has more ‘chance of success’ with a more serious charge than it would by accepting the plea of guilty to the lesser one ?.IE ‘success’ for who and in what way ?.

3. As for the ‘obvious’ conversation,which ‘obviously’ took place,between the defence team and their client,regarding the plea of guilty,see 1).

4. The ‘obvious’ fact that the prosecution are intending no ‘alternative’ is ‘obvious’ because of the fact that they have already refused to accept the plea of guilty to the lesser ‘alternative’ charge nor chosen to drop the more serious one ?.

5. The ‘inconsistency’ is the fact that the defence team ‘obviously’ don’t see any evidence of dbdd within that which they’ve been provided while the prosecution ‘obviously’ do within that exact same evidence.Why,is then the ‘obvious’ question.Especially for anyone who,might,possibly,be thinking of any possible potential politically motivated agenda.In which the Fed Ex driver has to face the same charges as the AIM driver for politically driven and expedient reasons,such as the potential possibility of the AIM driver’s defence team potentially appealing on racial grounds if the Fed Ex driver is to face a lesser alleged charge and resulting potential penalty ?.Bearing in mind the already previously reported protests regarding the bail v remand issue in that regard.

Now surely not you’re not going to say that there has never been any questions, ever raised,regarding possible political pressure being applied to the justice system,in history ?.

Over to dieseldog999 for a view.

[dr_damon]

on and on and on and on and yawn yawn yawn.

Carryfast please stop or if you cannot maybe try reading back some of your posts and see what we have to put up with.

My god you must have a lot of spare time. Put it to good use and go out.

[dieseldog999]

Dr Damon:
on and on and on and on and yawn yawn yawn.

Carryfast please stop or if you cannot maybe try reading back some of your posts and see what we have to put up with.

My god you must have a lot of spare time. Put it to good use and go out.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

remember and close the door after you then.
come back carryfast,all is forgiven.

[carryfast]

dieseldog999:

Dr Damon:
on and on and on and on and yawn yawn yawn.

Carryfast please stop or if you cannot maybe try reading back some of your posts and see what we have to put up with.

My god you must have a lot of spare time. Put it to good use and go out.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

remember and close the door after you then.
come back carryfast,all is forgive.

Absolutely there wouldn’t be much point in a forum in which we all decide to do something else instead of posting anything on it.

Anyway back to that question of potential reasons why the prosecution won’t accept the Fed Ex driver’s guilty of dbcd plea ?.

[blue_day]

RE the minibus driver.

Some responses on here show amazement that he has not been blamed for any part in the accident.

Now obviously as the fella is dead he isn’t going to get charged. That doesn’t mean that at trial he won’t be apportioned some of the blame. Driving a minibus for a living, customers on board and for whatever reason he stops in Lane 1 when the hard shoulder is there to his left.

I’d be amazed if he isn’t blamed for some part once the trial starts.

Also, regards the FedEx driver. Prosecutors will normally go for a higher more serious charge if there’s a chance of getting a guilty verdict, with the chance that may fail but a lesser verdict (in this case DBCD) will be proven. It happens often when people are tried on a murder charge and end up guilty of manslaughter.

[carryfast]

Blue Day:
Also, regards the FedEx driver. Prosecutors will normally go for a higher more serious charge if there’s a chance of getting a guilty verdict, with the chance that may fail but a lesser verdict (in this case DBCD) will be proven. It happens often when people are tried on a murder charge and end up guilty of manslaughter.

The big question is why would the prosecution see it as so important to try to get the Fed Ex driver tried for dbdd rather than just accept his plea of guilty to dbcd.In addition to his defence advising guilty to dbcd rather than dbdd based on the same evidence in front of them.Bearing in mind the potentially even more severe penalty if he’s found guilty at trial of dbdd than pleading guilty to it now ‘if’ that’s what the evidence shows.

[dieseldave]

Carryfast:
Anyway back to that question of potential reasons why the prosecution won’t accept the Fed Ex driver’s guilty of dbcd plea ?.

Carryfast,

Why would anybody want to go back to a non-question?

To quote a poster not very far from here, the answer is “obvious,” but some people might struggle with this because it’s only obvious to those who have more than two working brain cells that are on speaking terms with each other.

Now I’m off to watch some paint whilst it dries.

[carryfast]

dieseldave:

Carryfast:
Anyway back to that question of potential reasons why the prosecution won’t accept the Fed Ex driver’s guilty of dbcd plea ?.

Carryfast,

Why would anybody want to go back to a non-question?

To quote a poster not very far from here, the answer is “obvious,” but some people might struggle with this because it’s only obvious to those who have more than two working brain cells that are on speaking terms with each other.

Now I’m off to watch some paint whilst it dries.

To be fair reaching the possible answer,of political pressure,to equalise the charges with the AIM driver,to avoid any suggestion of ethnic preference in favour of the Fed Ex driver,by the AIM driver’s defence,takes a healthy amount of cynicism and with it therefore intelligence worthy of a decent news reporter,than that.