Sheppey crash

[michael769]

The sentence of which could include the course.

Courses are not a sentencing option open to the courts.

[sussex2]

The sentence of which could include the course.

Courses are not a sentencing option open to the courts.

I understand and thank you for that.

[MGF]

Allocating a trial to a bench of drivers is hardly setting a precedent for replacing lay people with experts.

[TripleS]

That may well be the way things are; but do we not feel that for the purpose of judging the culpability of those before him, a magistrate would be better placed to make a fair judgement if he were to be a driver himself, and preferably one with a reasonable degree of interest in the subject?

Such an argument would require the magistrate to know everything about everything which is clearly not feasible. How would one judge a case involving complex forensic evidence, for example? Likewise such a requirement would have to be applied to juries which would create a terrible difficulty in selecting jurors for many cases. Requiring jurors to be experts would also mean we are no longer being judged by our peers.

It is the duty of the prosecution and defense to put forth the necessary arguments to assist the magistrate/jurors in assessing the issues in question, if necessary with recourse to accredited expert witnesses.

Yes, fair enough, I can see the difficulty with cases involving complex scientific and technical matters, but with driving being an everyday activity, I would have thought it feasible for magistrates to have reasonable understanding of the subject, then they could rightly be regarded as our peers.

[GJD]

Yes, fair enough, I can see the difficulty with cases involving complex scientific and technical matters, but with driving being an everyday activity, I would have thought it feasible for magistrates to have reasonable understanding of the subject, then they could rightly be regarded as our peers.

It's not an everyday activity for everybody. How can a magistrate (or juror) who doesn't drive be expected to have an innate understanding of what the law's standard of good driving is? It's not even reasonable to assume that someone who does drive has that understanding.

[MGF]

The standard is a matter of fact, not law. It isn't meant to be rocket science. An experienced passenger who doesn't drive can form an opinion of carefulness and competence.

[GJD]

The standard is a matter of fact, not law. It isn't meant to be rocket science. An experienced passenger who doesn't drive can form an opinion of carefulness and competence.

Not sure what you mean about matter of fact vs matter of law, but if the standard is a matter of fact how relevant are opinions? Ask me what I think about someone's driving and I can give you my opinion on how careful and competent the driver was. Ask me whether the law would regard their driving as criminally careless or dangerous (which is a different question to whether I think the law should regard their driving as criminally careless or dangerous) and I'm not qualified to answer.

I presume courts are at least supposed to make decisions based on what the law is, not on what witnesses or jurors or anyone else who is clever enough to have an opinion want the law to be.

[MGF]

The legal test is 'careful and competent'. There are rules as to what can be taken into account* in deciding if the standard is met but apart from that it really is down to the opinion of the factfinder as to whether or not the driving is below the standard.

* eg inexperience and post-DSA test training are not relevant to 'competent'. It is an objective test.

[TripleS]

That may well be the way things are; but do we not feel that for the purpose of judging the culpability of those before him, a magistrate would be better placed to make a fair judgement if he were to be a driver himself, and preferably one with a reasonable degree of interest in the subject?

Such an argument would require the magistrate to know everything about everything which is clearly not feasible. How would one judge a case involving complex forensic evidence, for example?.... if necessary with recourse to accredited expert witnesses.

How often are expert witnesses on driving standards used to assist a court in its understanding of reasonable competence and care?

I don't know, but would it be worthwhile having somebody around who could assist magistrates (especially if the magistrate were to be a non-driver) to reach a fair judgement? I mean, suppose you were in court over a driving offence, and the magistrate turned out to be a non-driver, and a Brake supporter to boot! The blood runs cold at the very thought.

[TripleS]

Yes, fair enough, I can see the difficulty with cases involving complex scientific and technical matters, but with driving being an everyday activity, I would have thought it feasible for magistrates to have reasonable understanding of the subject, then they could rightly be regarded as our peers.

It's not an everyday activity for everybody. How can a magistrate (or juror) who doesn't drive be expected to have an innate understanding of what the law's standard of good driving is? It's not even reasonable to assume that someone who does drive has that understanding.

No, driving may not be an everyday activity for everybody, but it's an activity in which most people are likely to have some reasonable knowledge, rather than it being a relatively rare and highly technical matter.

[TripleS]

The standard is a matter of fact, not law. It isn't meant to be rocket science. An experienced passenger who doesn't drive can form an opinion of carefulness and competence.

Well I'm not sure I would take such an opinion as being of high value. I'm not saying it is necessarily worthless, but it could lead to a very unfair judgement if, in the absence of other advice, undue weight were to be placed on it.