windrush:
My thinking is that if drivers came upon a vehicle stopped (and naturally assumed it to have broken down, why would you think otherwise?) in a ‘live lane’ they would expect that its driver had already called for assistance using either his phone or a Motorway one? I would have assumed that anyway and not given a thought that the driver was parked up asleep so would have kept going. Maybe the minibus driver stopped behind to offer assistance but never got the chance to get out of his vehicle due to volume of traffic, who knows?
Pete.
1 thats partly why i theorize he Was reversing/or planning to. 2the drivers who passed him tooted horns cos they too thought being so close to the slip he was trying that. they wouldnt have tooted if they merely thought he was broken down, nobody toots passing a broken down vehicle . 3 the minibus pulling up behind thwarted that idea to reverse but instead of pulling away he sat tight, the minibus sat tight -likely hoping hed pull off-4 but eventually minibus motored out into lane 2- im thinking that the Pole put his reversing lights on so minibus had no option to move on out
1:- Corij, why do you keep on theorizing that he was reversing or about to ■■? Complete madness !!
2:- Who knows that other drivers were sounding their horns, unless they come forward as witnesses.
3:- Would he have seen in his mirrors that there was a minibus behind him? Probably not
4:- Where on earth have you got this information from ?
and then came along our hero Fed Ex man. As his friend said under oath chatting away then silence, not wtf Im about to hit something or anything like that just silence. But there again…
Everyone is entitled to the ‘option’ of trial by jury or by judge
Really■■?
In certain cases you can opt for trial by magistrates, who decide guilt and sentence…but only for simple minor offences.
Appeals to overturn jury verdicts are sometimes allowed, and are heard by judges, but only where there is serious evidence of a miscarriage of justice at the initial trial.
But I don’t think any accused person can opt to be tried by a judge without a jury…unless they enter a guilty plea. In which case the judge decides the sentence, just as he would after a jury returned a ‘guilty’ verdict. Substantial sentence discounts are given in exchange for early ‘guilty’ pleas, as much of the trial cost is save, the accused is seen to acknowledge his guilt and people are saved the ordeal of giving evidence and undergoing cross-examination.
Wagstaff has tried that by entering a ‘guilty’ plea to ‘careless’, but that was not accepted by the prosecution, who are the ones who have opted for a trial by jury, by charging him with ‘dangerous’ in the knowledge that he will enter a plea of ‘not guilty’. If they can persuade the jury that his driving was ‘dangerous’ then he gets a longer sentence because of the crime and no discount because of the ‘not guilty’ plea.
windrush:
My thinking is that if drivers came upon a vehicle stopped (and naturally assumed it to have broken down, why would you think otherwise?) in a ‘live lane’ they would expect that its driver had already called for assistance using either his phone or a Motorway one? I would have assumed that anyway and not given a thought that the driver was parked up asleep so would have kept going. Maybe the minibus driver stopped behind to offer assistance but never got the chance to get out of his vehicle due to volume of traffic, who knows?
Pete.
1 thats partly why i theorize he Was reversing/or planning to. 2the drivers who passed him tooted horns cos they too thought being so close to the slip he was trying that. they wouldnt have tooted if they merely thought he was broken down, nobody toots passing a broken down vehicle . 3 the minibus pulling up behind thwarted that idea to reverse but instead of pulling away he sat tight, the minibus sat tight -likely hoping hed pull off-4 but eventually minibus motored out into lane 2- im thinking that the Pole put his reversing lights on so minibus had no option to move on out
1:- Corij, why do you keep on theorizing that he was reversing or about to ■■? Complete madness !!
2:- Who knows that other drivers were sounding their horns, unless they come forward as witnesses.
3:- Would he have seen in his mirrors that there was a minibus behind him? Probably not
4:- Where on earth have you got this information from ?
1- just my guess ,as he stopped so close after the slip he had missed his turn, planned to back up a bit and retake the slip . if his schedule had been checked and it read that he should have turned off there,what would you think? [someone else on this thread recalls an A1M truck taking that sliproad ahead of him in the past
2-its been stated that 2 trucks tooted a warning as they passed him
3- i think he would have seen it as it was big and white
4 - just educated guess as is everyones on here
Corij So: 1 - it’s a guess. 2 - If you say so, I can’t be bothered to read over the last however many pages, but I would love to know who actually said " oh yes I heard at least 2 trucks sounding their horns at the AIM driver as they passed him . 3 - It was a mini-bus, not a coach!! 4 - Read back my friend, I would say 99.9% of those that have commented on this subject have said that the minibus driver had stoppedbehind the AIM truck.
pierrot 14:
Corij So: 1 - it’s a guess. 2 - If you say so, I can’t be bothered to read over the last however many pages, but I would love to know who actually said " oh yes I heard at least 2 trucks sounding their horns at the AIM driver as they passed him . 3 - It was a mini-bus, not a coach!! 4 - Read back my friend, I would say 99.9% of those that have commented on this subject have said that the minibus driver had stoppedbehind the AIM truck.
its in the court transcripts,2 truckers in court as witnesses stating they sounded their horns as a warning when passing. i know the minibus stopped behind the truck
GasGas:
The Judge will explain to the jury the legal differences between ‘careless’ and ‘dangerous’ as defined in the relevant act.
The prosecution will try to identify aspects of the driver’s behaviour that were ‘dangerous’ which the defence will try to counter. The judge will sum up both arguments and remind the jury of what the law says/means.
The jury then have to sort the final verdict for themselves behind closed doors. If they get stuck on a point of law, they can ask the judge for advice. No doubt some will maintain the driver’s conduct was dangerous and others will not. They will try to convince each other. It’s how the legal system works…and its used for cases where the legal arguments are far more complex than they will be here. Trial by jury was probably invented in England, by the Saxons. Most other English-speaking nations have taken it up. It’s a pretty fair way of doing things, really.
As I said trial by jury or by judge is ‘optional’ whichever the defence chooses to be in its best interests.So Wagstaff’s case is solely based on the specific legal question regarding the legal definition of dangerous v careless driving which only a judge can decide not a jury.
So I’ll ask again what’s the point of Wagstaff’s case being decided by jury ?. Especially when as shown here a totally irrelevant claim of memory loss or PTS after the fact can potentially be viewed by ordinary members of the public as somehow being damaging to his defence against dangerous driving charges,as opposed to his guilty plea of careless.
GasGas:
Well, if we look at INTENT, on Wagstaff’s side there is none. He no doubt just rocked up for work as normal for another dull nightshift, then got over-chatty on the phone. He’s admitted his mistake, and he looks like a broken man
No one sets out to work with the intention of killing, but Wagstaff’s actions have contributed to the deaths of eight people. He may well have admitted his mistake in pleading guilty to dbcd but he hasn’t admitted his guilt in pleading not guilty to the charge of dbdd.
Both Wagstaff and Maseriak are trying to persuade a jury that they are not guilty of the charges before them without seeming to have anything to offer the jury to convince them.
GasGas:
but that was not accepted by the prosecution, who are the ones who have opted for a trial by jury, by charging him with ‘dangerous’ in the knowledge that he will enter a plea of ‘not guilty’. If they can persuade the jury that his driving was ‘dangerous’ then he gets a longer sentence because of the crime and no discount because of the ‘not guilty’ plea.
Don’t think I’ve ever heard of the prosecution being able to opt for trial by jury only the defence ?. Although I also didn’t realise that option had a cut off.
Which would still leave the catch 22 of a case based solely on the question of a legal definition of careless v dangerous which only a supreme court judgement not a lower court judge directing a jury can provide ?.So they go to all the wasted effort of a trial by jury which could foreseeably also be swayed by totally irrelevant points to the question.The defence then appeals on the grounds that there was no definitive or satisfactory legal definition of careless v dangerous reached at the trial while the jury reached a verdict based on irrelevant and potentially prejudicial evidence to the specific question ?.
Stanley Knife:
He may well have admitted his mistake in pleading guilty to dbcd but he hasn’t admitted his guilt in pleading not guilty to the charge of dbdd.
Both Wagstaff and Maseriak are trying to persuade a jury that they are not guilty of the charges before them without seeming to have anything to offer the jury to convince them.
You do know that the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Wagstaff’s standard of driving met the legal definition of dangerous as opposed to careless.Does using a hands free device and cruise control cut it or even have any relevance at all in that regard ?.
GasGas:
but that was not accepted by the prosecution, who are the ones who have opted for a trial by jury, by charging him with ‘dangerous’ in the knowledge that he will enter a plea of ‘not guilty’. If they can persuade the jury that his driving was ‘dangerous’ then he gets a longer sentence because of the crime and no discount because of the ‘not guilty’ plea.
Don’t think I’ve ever heard of the prosecution being able to opt for trial by jury only the defence ?. Although I also didn’t realise that option had a cut off.
Which would still leave the catch 22 of a case based solely on the question of a legal definition of careless v dangerous which only a supreme court judgement not a lower court judge directing a jury can provide ?.So they go to all the wasted effort of a trial by jury which could foreseeably also be swayed by totally irrelevant points to the question.The defence then appeals on the grounds that there was no definitive or satisfactory legal definition of careless v dangerous reached at the trial while the jury reached a verdict based on irrelevant and potentially prejudicial evidence to the specific question ?.
To be fair going by the test of ‘obviousness’ I’d guess that the use of hands free communications and cruise control,as supposed evidence of ‘obviously’ ‘dangerous’ driving,could arguably be grounds for the defence to ask for the prosecution’s case to be thrown out ?.Unless it can show that use of either/both is now considered illegal and dangerous.
While a ‘careful’ driver using correct forward observation and planning would be expected to turn off cruise control at the first sign of any form of hazard ahead needing to be ‘carefully’ dealt with or the need to over take traffic ‘carefully’.A mistake regarding forward observation and planning and resulting ‘incorrect use of’ cruise control seeming to fit the definition of ‘careless’ not ‘dangerous’ driving ?.
Having said that ‘if’ anyone is saying that use of hands free communications or cruise control should be banned as being ‘obviously’ dangerous I’d agree.Then drivers would know exactly where they stand and there would be no argument that not only is it illegal to fit them but ‘use’ of them constitutes ‘obviously’ dangerous driving even if they are fitted.But that isn’t what’s being decided here.
To be fair going by the test of ‘obviousness’ I’d guess that the use of hands free communications and cruise control,as supposed evidence of ‘obviously’ ‘dangerous’ driving,could arguably be grounds for the defence to ask for the prosecution’s case to be thrown out ?.Unless it can show that use of either/both is now considered illegal and dangerous.
While a ‘careful’ driver using correct forward observation and planning would be expected to turn off cruise control at the first sign of any form of hazard ahead needing to be ‘carefully’ dealt with or the need to over take traffic ‘carefully’.A mistake regarding forward observation and planning and resulting ‘incorrect use of’ cruise control seeming to fit the definition of ‘careless’ not ‘dangerous’ driving ?.
Having said that ‘if’ anyone is saying that use of hands free communications or cruise control should be banned as being ‘obviously’ dangerous I’d agree.Then drivers would know exactly where they stand and there would be no argument that not only is it illegal to fit them but ‘use’ of them constitutes ‘obviously’ dangerous driving even if they are fitted.But that isn’t what’s being decided here.
Used by the prosecution to sum up
the way he/she drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous
To be fair going by the test of ‘obviousness’ I’d guess that the use of hands free communications and cruise control,as supposed evidence of ‘obviously’ ‘dangerous’ driving,could arguably be grounds for the defence to ask for the prosecution’s case to be thrown out ?.Unless it can show that use of either/both is now considered illegal and dangerous.
While a ‘careful’ driver using correct forward observation and planning would be expected to turn off cruise control at the first sign of any form of hazard ahead needing to be ‘carefully’ dealt with or the need to over take traffic ‘carefully’.A mistake regarding forward observation and planning and resulting ‘incorrect use of’ cruise control seeming to fit the definition of ‘careless’ not ‘dangerous’ driving ?.
Having said that ‘if’ anyone is saying that use of hands free communications or cruise control should be banned as being ‘obviously’ dangerous I’d agree.Then drivers would know exactly where they stand and there would be no argument that not only is it illegal to fit them but ‘use’ of them constitutes ‘obviously’ dangerous driving even if they are fitted.But that isn’t what’s being decided here.
From the AA’s website
While it’s an offence to be seen using a hand held phone, regardless of whether driving has been affected, this is not the case for hands-free phones. If you’re seen not to be in control of a vehicle while using a hands-free phone you can be prosecuted for that offence.
Blue Day:
While it’s an offence to be seen using a hand held phone, regardless of whether driving has been affected, this is not the case for hands-free phones. If you’re seen not to be in control of a vehicle while using a hands-free phone you can be prosecuted for that offence.
It’s a can of worms because that could easily translate as if you’re involved in a collision while using a hands free device it can only affect any defence against resulting charges ?.
Ironically I agree with the premise that if you need to chat on the phone then you need to stop in a safe place to do it no ifs no buts.Also don’t think there’s any justification or place for use of cruise control in UK traffic and road conditions and would refuse to use it if any employer instructed me to.
However it seems unfair to then penalise drivers for possibly getting caught up in the contradictory application of the law in that regard.
bugcos:
Is today the last day? It is day 8. Does that include sentencing, or I suppose it depends how long the jury take to decide.
There is quite often a long time gap, weeks or even months sometimes but not always, between verdict and sentencing because it is the judge that sets the sentence. They will quite often though warn any guilty parties whether they are likely to receive a jail sentence.
Blue Day:
While it’s an offence to be seen using a hand held phone, regardless of whether driving has been affected, this is not the case for hands-free phones. If you’re seen not to be in control of a vehicle while using a hands-free phone you can be prosecuted for that offence.
It’s a can of worms because that could easily translate as if you’re involved in a collision while using a hands free device it can only affect any defence against resulting charges ?.
Ironically I agree with the premise that if you need to chat on the phone then you need to stop in a safe place to do it no ifs no buts.Also don’t think there’s any justification or place for use of cruise control in UK traffic and road conditions and would refuse to use it if any employer instructed me to.
However it seems unfair to then penalise drivers for possibly getting caught up in the contradictory application of the law in that regard.
XPO mark you down if you don’t use cruise control as much as possible on their weekly performance charts. It seems saving fuel more important
Maybe the minibus driver stopped behind to offer assistance but never got the chance to get out of his vehicle due to volume of traffic, who knows?
So: 1 - it’s a guess. 2 - If you say so, I can’t be bothered to read over the last however many pages, but I would love to know who actually said " oh yes I heard at least 2 trucks sounding their horns at the AIM driver as they passed him . 3 - It was a mini-bus, not a coach!! 4 - Read back my friend, I would say 99.9% of those that have commented on this subject have said that the minibus driver had stopped behind the AIM truck.