On the Joyce treason point, it's always struck me as special pleading to claim that he was somehow not guilty because he wasn't really a British subject.
I don't think anyone has suggested Joyce wasn't guilty - just that he wasn't guilty of Treason against a country that couldn't claim him legitimately as their own subject. He was, of course, utterly guilty of his part in the German propaganda war against Britain and the allies, and whatever other crimes he must have committed in order to serve the Nazi regime as he did. The suggestion is that 'Treason' is a very specific crime - which is why it is extremely rare to hear of it in modern times. I expect it's entirely up to the governing legislature how these things are defined anyway, according to what is convenient for achieving the goal. Mary Queen of Scots refused to acknowledge Elizabeth's accusation of Treason on the grounds that as a sovereign in her own right, she wasn't - and could never be - a subject of Elizabeth's. She was pretty damn guilty of collusion in the Babington plot. And she didn't deny the evidence that indicated this guilt. But she didn't want to die as a 'traitor' to a country that she wasn't even a subject of, which is how it ended up, I think.
And of course if a foreign national should commit a crime in a country of residence not their own they should expect to be held to account for it in that country. The Harry Dunn/Ann Scoolas case still rages - at least over here in the UK.
I don't particularly want to make special pleading, on those grounds, for Begum either. I just think the UK Government acted precipitately and unwisely when it followed the mob and removed her citizenship from her, as they have potentially invited all these complications and questions; where it might have been quite simple otherwise to apply British justice, if they had kept their perspective.
@Martin54 Apologies for getting the wrong King! Apart from the hanging bit, I'm inclined to agree with you about Edward VIII.
On the Joyce treason point, it's always struck me as special pleading to claim that he was somehow not guilty because he wasn't really a British subject. It may be that his fraudulent application for a UK passport meant that the UK would have been entitled to repudiate him had it chosen to do so. However, by purporting to have been British, and by claiming a British passport, even if wrongfully, he had hoist himself by his own petard. It is an entirely reasonable answer to any attempt after the event to deny guilt simply to say, "Hard luck, chum. You can't have it both ways".
You can only be guilty of treason against a country of which you are in law a citizen. Not sometimes claiming citizenship, or waving a passport about - the prosecution must offer evidence that you are a citizen. He almost certainly committed crimes against US Federal law, maybe ones also carrying the death penalty.
Shamima Begum now seen dressed in western clothes in this Daily Telegraph photo (you should be able to see the photo without subscribing, but not able to read the full story)
Sigh. There are multiple permutations of what's going on there, one of them is that she's showing a major change of heart, although she won't talk about it. I find it upsettingly poignant, regardless of all the Little Drummer Girl in reverse undertones. When does her Dutch husband get out of jail? Although Rutter's a Tory and the Dutch have much worse.
(And @Anselmina, nay bother, the ambiguity was mine.)
And of course if a foreign national should commit a crime in a country of residence not their own they should expect to be held to account for it in that country. The Harry Dunn/Ann Scoolas case still rages - at least over here in the UK.
In this road crash case, the UK actually wants to prosecute (tangent: it isn't an "accident" any more than a plane crash is an accident). In the Begum case wants to leave her unprosecuted. Is this the issue?
In this road crash case, the UK actually wants to prosecute (tangent: it isn't an "accident" any more than a plane crash is an accident).
Accidents that are caused by negligence are still accidents. Nobody has suggested that Mrs Sacoolas intentionally drove her car into Mr Dunn. Plenty of people have suggested that she was negligent when she did so.
If you reserve the word "accident" to describe only events where human carelessness didn't contribute, then an accident is probably rather rarer than a true Scotsman.
In this road crash case, the UK actually wants to prosecute (tangent: it isn't an "accident" any more than a plane crash is an accident). In the Begum case wants to leave her unprosecuted. Is this the issue?
Mrs Sacoolas is living a comfortable life in the US. Ms Begum is stuck in a (probably fairly shitty) refugee camp. That's probably the difference.
If other ISIS fighters have returned to the UK I see no reason why Begum should not return too. Prosecute if there is a case. Otherwise not. Watch by all means. Attempt deradicalization by all means. If really so astonishingly dangerous that we want to lock her up without trial then do so on UK soil and take responsibility for it. Current hypocrisy unacceptable.
Accidents that are caused by negligence are still accidents. Nobody has suggested that Mrs Sacoolas intentionally drove her car into Mr Dunn. Plenty of people have suggested that she was negligent when she did so.
Do you not have a hierarchy of offences? Here, there's a scheme - a base of offence of negligent driving (from memory, that's only punishable by fine) through negligent driving causing death, which carries a fine or relatively short prison term, then onto dangerous driving causing death - a heavy prison sentence being the maximum, and finally very severe (forgotten exact term) dangerous driving with an even heavier prison term as a maximum. Of course, were there to be a deliberate act with the intention of causing death or severe injury, you'd be looking at the possibility of a murder charge.
Yes, of course. What does that have to do with the question of whether it's reasonable to call a car crash an "accident"? @NOprophet_NØprofit seems to take the view that all car crashes are partly caused by bad human behaviour, and so aren't "accidents". I think that humans routinely use the word "accident" to describe something that they didn't intend, even if they had been careless or negligent about preventing it, so the fact that negligence might be involved doesn't preclude the word "accident" being appropriate.
Yes, of course. What does that have to do with the question of whether it's reasonable to call a car crash an "accident"? @NOprophet_NØprofit seems to take the view that all car crashes are partly caused by bad human behaviour, and so aren't "accidents". I think that humans routinely use the word "accident" to describe something that they didn't intend, even if they had been careless or negligent about preventing it, so the fact that negligence might be involved doesn't preclude the word "accident" being appropriate.
A lot, is my answer to your question. It goes back to what the intention is. Your use seems to be to ask if the driver intended to have a collision. The offences I referred to look to what the driver was doing, and while the driver almost certainly did not intend the collision, was the manner of driving intentional is the real question; hence the hierarchy.
According to this Law Gazette article by Joshua Rozenberg from this week, Anne Sacoolas is not returning to stand trial in England, as here she would be charged with death by dangerous driving, a more serious offence than she would be charged with in the US. There are a number of different driving offences in the UK - link to gov.uk site - graded by severity.
I heard on the radio that she'd offered to do community service. For what with any other weapon than a car would be manslaughter. Frankly that seems more insulting to the family of the victim than her getting away with it.
[Amy] Jeffress, a partner at Arnold & Porter in Washington DC and a former federal prosecutor, told [Joshua Rozenberg] that a motorist would not face criminal charges in the US for an accident such as this – unless there was drunk driving, distracted driving, a hit-and-run or excessive speeding. ‘These cases are only prosecuted where there is evidence of recklessness that rises to the level of close to intent,’ she added.
A lot, is my answer to your question. It goes back to what the intention is. Your use seems to be to ask if the driver intended to have a collision. The offences I referred to look to what the driver was doing, and while the driver almost certainly did not intend the collision, was the manner of driving intentional is the real question; hence the hierarchy.
I think we're talking past each other. Yes, of course the offence is different depending on the degree of negligence on display. Not all accidents are equally culpable.
Just because something was an accident doesn't mean that a crime wasn't committed. If I was holding a bit of wood in my palm and carving it with a sharp knife, and I slipped and jabbed my palm with the knife, then I'd be a bloody idiot for using the knife in an unsafe manner. I would be at fault for acting in an unsafe way. It would still be an accident.
Presumably being on the wrong side of the road would constitute distracted driving ?
I've done it in the UK, having lived in the US for several years. Stopped for lunch at a country pub. On pulling out of the car park onto the unmarked road, automatically drove on the right hand side of the road, because there weren't any visual cues to tell me not to. Drove on the wrong side of the road for several seconds, before realizing that I was in the UK.
I've been a passenger in a car when my British colleague turned onto the wrong side of a dual carriageway at a crossroads with traffic lights in France. He'd just arrived in France from the UK, and got confused. Fortunately, there was a break in the central reservation that he was able to go through after we'd all yelled at him.
I'd have thought that these would qualify as "careless" rather than "dangerous" driving. I'm not familiar enough with the details of Mrs Sacoolas's case to have an opinion on which way hers should go.
Careless driving could be anything that falls below what would be expected of a competent driver; things like not giving way, passing traffic on the inside, eating or drinking while driving. Causing death by careless driving could carry a prison sentence of upto 5 years.
(From the UK Road Traffic Act, "dangerous driving" requires:
(a)the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
whereas "careless driving":
(2)A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.
(3)In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above what would be expected of a careful and competent driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.
So the difference is that "dangerous" is "far below" the standard expected of a competent and careful driver, whereas "careless" is just "below" that standard.
It's obvious that driving on the wrong side of the road is dangerous. It is not obvious to me that a momentary brain fart is enough to warrant driving "far below" the standard.
For causing death by careless driving, there's a mandatory 12 month driving disqualification. Community orders can be given if the level of carelessness is low; the maximum sentence in the Crown Court is 5 years in jail. I think Mrs Sacoolas's actions after the offence could be regarded as aggravating factors; I think it likely that a custodial sentence would be sought.
I'd have thought that these would qualify as "careless" rather than "dangerous" driving. I'm not familiar enough with the details of Mrs Sacoolas's case to have an opinion on which way hers should go.
Perhaps what is merely 'careless' becomes 'dangerous' when someone is killed? Carelessness is drifting over the white line. Dangerous is killing another human being because you've drifted over the white line. Just because one is being careless at the time doesn't make it less 'dangerous' to the dead person. The outcome of carelessness - if that's what it was - surely has to have a bearing on things?
I, too, thought the suggestion of community service as insulting to Harry Dunn's family. Effectively saying, your son's life is worth barely more than a handful hours of picking up rubbish or scraping graffiti off a wall. Contemptible.
The law works fairly hard to distinguish between levels of carelessness or negligence and the consequences of that carelessness or negligence.
If she was convicted of ‘causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving’ then (for careless or inconsiderate driving arising from momentary inattention with no aggravating factors) the sentencing range is a low to high level community order (anything from 40-300 hours of community service) with a starting point of a medium level community order (80-150 hours of community service).
A greater level of carelessness would attract a sentence from high level community order up to 2 years’ custody with a starting point of 36 weeks’ custody.
I don’t have all the details, but I’m not sure a prosecution would achieve a verdict of death by dangerous driving, but on that charge a conviction for the lesser offence would be likely.
Carelessness is drifting over the white line. Dangerous is killing another human being because you've drifted over the white line. Just because one is being careless at the time doesn't make it less 'dangerous' to the dead person. The outcome of carelessness - if that's what it was - surely has to have a bearing on things?
That's why "careless driving" and "causing death by careless driving" aren't the same offence - the latter has significantly larger punishments. Also, "dangerous driving" and "causing death by dangerous driving" aren't the same.
But if you drift over the white line because you're fiddling with your radio and not looking where you're going, for example, that's a certain level of carelessness. It might be more reckless if you reasonably expect that there are other cars or small children around (if it's outside a school at drop-off time, for example), but your act can't be differently careless depending on whether there happens to be a person that you hit while you're not looking.
If the person was there, but managed to jump out of your way, you're not any less careless.
I, too, thought the suggestion of community service as insulting to Harry Dunn's family. Effectively saying, your son's life is worth barely more than a handful hours of picking up rubbish or scraping graffiti off a wall. Contemptible.
But that's not what it says. There is no connection between the worth of Harry Dunn's life, and the possible sentence that Anne Sacoolas might be given. At best, you could argue that the "correct" sentence would be the product of the worth of Mr Dunn's life and the culpability of Mrs Sacoolas, but that's not right either. No jail sentence is equal to the worth of a human life. You can't balance that.
I have found that infamous quote "vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" very helpful in this regard. The function of the human justice system is not to exact vengeance as such. Humans can never be in a position to correctly judge what anyone deserves. Only God can do that.
I feel that the criminal justice system at best provides a kind of picture or diagram of justice, a reminder that such a thing as justice exists, even if we cannot exactly provide it.
In this road crash case, the UK actually wants to prosecute (tangent: it isn't an "accident" any more than a plane crash is an accident).
Accidents that are caused by negligence are still accidents. Nobody has suggested that Mrs Sacoolas intentionally drove her car into Mr Dunn. Plenty of people have suggested that she was negligent when she did so.
If you reserve the word "accident" to describe only events where human carelessness didn't contribute, then an accident is probably rather rarer than a true Scotsman.
Perhaps. Accident means that it was not preventable. "Crash no Accident" is in fact a great discussion in transportion where cars drivers hit walkers, people on bikes with their cars. Also is Worksafe "mission zero" discussed re work injuries, which aren't accidents either. Words matter. Crash not accident - letter Why it matters
Accident in the UK means it wasn't intended. (As opposed to a mistake in which one does what was intended, but one's intentions are formed on false grounds.) If the driver is playing, look no hands, it's still an accident.
"To say that this occurrence was an accident would be wrong, because not one accident in a hundred deserves the name. In this case it was simply the legitimate result of carelessness, brought about by an over-confidence in supposing that matters would take care of themselves."
Washington Roebling, chief engineer of the Brooklyn Bridge
The thing about a lot of uk driving laws is that they seemed to be based on outcome rather than intention - whilst also taking little of account of what humans can actually achieve.
So if you drive on a motorway it is expected that you can maintain a perfect level of speed 70mph for, say, two hours without ever drifting above that limit by even 1 mph. Clearly you can’t. No normal person can monitor their performance at that level for that length time. That’s why air traffic controllers are paid so much.
Likewise what is the moral difference in driving whilst drunk, and driving whilst drunk and killing someone ? You have control over your intention and behaviour in choosing to drive whilst drunk, whilst you have no control over the random chance of whether that will lead to someone’s death. Arguably, that means the sentencing for driving whilst drunk ought to be harsher - rather than have two sets of offences.
But the real problem is that all the evidence shows that it is far more deterrent to reliably detect and prosecute crimes than it is to heavily punish a small minority of offenders.
Our current system is to expect the vast majority of drivers to break the law to some extent, and semi randomly punish a minority of them.
So if you drive on a motorway it is expected that you can maintain a perfect level of speed 70mph for, say, two hours without ever drifting above that limit by even 1 mph. Clearly you can’t.
I think rather the expectation of the people framing the law was that people would maintain a speed of 50 or 60 mph and the people going at 60 mph would rise to the range of 65-70 mph to overtake the people travelling at 50 mph. Obviously that's not how UK drivers have taken it or how it is enforced.
I have found that infamous quote "vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" very helpful in this regard. The function of the human justice system is not to exact vengeance as such. Humans can never be in a position to correctly judge what anyone deserves. Only God can do that.
I feel that the criminal justice system at best provides a kind of picture or diagram of justice, a reminder that such a thing as justice exists, even if we cannot exactly provide it.
My uncle, a court reporter for many years, used to say: you don't go to the courts for justice, you go for the law. Never confuse the two.
Perhaps what is merely 'careless' becomes 'dangerous' when someone is killed? Carelessness is drifting over the white line. Dangerous is killing another human being because you've drifted over the white line. Just because one is being careless at the time doesn't make it less 'dangerous' to the dead person. The outcome of carelessness - if that's what it was - surely has to have a bearing on things?
I'd have said that drifting over the white line would itself be potentially dangerous depending on whether there's any other traffic around. It's dangerous to drive along a suburban street at 100 kph regardless of what other traffic may be around. As to your last sentence, the outcome may well have some bearing on the sentence imposed rather than the commission of the offence.
So if you drive on a motorway it is expected that you can maintain a perfect level of speed 70mph for, say, two hours without ever drifting above that limit by even 1 mph. Clearly you can’t.
I think rather the expectation of the people framing the law was that people would maintain a speed of 50 or 60 mph and the people going at 60 mph would rise to the range of 65-70 mph to overtake the people travelling at 50 mph. Obviously that's not how UK drivers have taken it or how it is enforced.
This. If we enforced a 70mph speed limit strictly folk would soon learn to aim for 65. Nonetheless I'd be happy enough with strict enforcement at 10% above the limit, so 77mph on motorways, and would be delighted if the government would tell the speeding lobby and their friends in the press to get tae fuck (as the Scots phrase has it).
So if you drive on a motorway it is expected that you can maintain a perfect level of speed 70mph for, say, two hours without ever drifting above that limit by even 1 mph. Clearly you can’t.
I think rather the expectation of the people framing the law was that people would maintain a speed of 50 or 60 mph and the people going at 60 mph would rise to the range of 65-70 mph to overtake the people travelling at 50 mph. Obviously that's not how UK drivers have taken it or how it is enforced.
Part of the problem is we've made "making reasonable progress" a driving test criterion, widely interpreted as "driving at the speed limit unless circumstances dictate otherwise". Cause and effect are hard to detangle, but many drivers do seem to feel they're being wronged by anyone in front of them doing less.
My uncle, a court reporter for many years, used to say: you don't go to the courts for justice, you go for the law. Never confuse the two.
Very true - achieving justice is a subjective opinion, while applying the law is much more objective.
You mean the object of the law courts can never be justice? Quite. Probably why so many people are failed by the system and have no respect for it.
One man's justice is another man's retribution. South Africa moved on with truth and some reconciliation, that's justice at its best this side of death.
My uncle, a court reporter for many years, used to say: you don't go to the courts for justice, you go for the law. Never confuse the two.
Very true - achieving justice is a subjective opinion, while applying the law is much more objective.
You mean the object of the law courts can never be justice? Quite. Probably why so many people are failed by the system and have no respect for it.
One man's justice is another man's retribution. South Africa moved on with truth and some reconciliation, that's justice at its best this side of death.
Sadly, no. The Truth & Reconciliation Commission failed in many ways.
My uncle, a court reporter for many years, used to say: you don't go to the courts for justice, you go for the law. Never confuse the two.
Very true - achieving justice is a subjective opinion, while applying the law is much more objective.
You mean the object of the law courts can never be justice? Quite. Probably why so many people are failed by the system and have no respect for it.
One man's justice is another man's retribution. South Africa moved on with truth and some reconciliation, that's justice at its best this side of death.
Sadly, no. The Truth & Reconciliation Commission failed in many ways.
Justice is a somewhat nebulous word. It doesn't restore what's lost - there's no justice that can bring back Harry Dunn or the victims of Da'esh inspired murders. Is justice furthered by letting a young woman fester is refugee camp? Does the death of her children in anyway make up for the death of other children at the hands of people she supported?
Perhaps. Accident means that it was not preventable.
And therefore doesn't exist. You have defined the word "accident" out of existence. Is that a standard Canadian use, or your own idiosyncrasy?
Read the links. No it is general.
It originated in the USA. There's also a public health push to have reporting of crashes say things like "a driver hit a pedestrian" rather than a car. It's about both responsibility of a human and about their agency.
We have no-fault, mandatory, public insurance for auto crashes. Lawsuits are banned and there's one public insurer which also licences motor vehicles. Same for many jurisdictions in North America for no fault, some have private insurance companies providing the insurance.
The reason to mention this is that if it's lawyers arguing they may like the term accident as it shifts responsibility off of the driver: 'look, it was circumstances beyond my control'. Which is nonsense. Drive slower, pay better attention etc. Whereas with a public insurance scheme, the interest is to have the costs low and prevent crashes.
Perhaps. Accident means that it was not preventable.
And therefore doesn't exist. You have defined the word "accident" out of existence. Is that a standard Canadian use, or your own idiosyncrasy?
Read the links. No it is general.
It originated in the USA. There's also a public health push to have reporting of crashes say things like "a driver hit a pedestrian" rather than a car. It's about both responsibility of a human and about their agency.
We have no-fault, mandatory, public insurance for auto crashes. Lawsuits are banned and there's one public insurer which also licences motor vehicles. Same for many jurisdictions in North America for no fault, some have private insurance companies providing the insurance.
The reason to mention this is that if it's lawyers arguing they may like the term accident as it shifts responsibility off of the driver: 'look, it was circumstances beyond my control'. Which is nonsense. Drive slower, pay better attention etc. Whereas with a public insurance scheme, the interest is to have the costs low and prevent crashes.
Sorry. That's rhetoric.
Besides, even if that's how language is used in Canada, it isn't how it's used here.
Also, the UK doesn't manage motor insurance or liability the way you describe.
Comments
We have yet to prove in a court of law that she did these things.
When I was looking for information I also found this academic article by the expert cited by the FT discussing the difficulties, mostly covered on this thread.
I don't think anyone has suggested Joyce wasn't guilty - just that he wasn't guilty of Treason against a country that couldn't claim him legitimately as their own subject. He was, of course, utterly guilty of his part in the German propaganda war against Britain and the allies, and whatever other crimes he must have committed in order to serve the Nazi regime as he did. The suggestion is that 'Treason' is a very specific crime - which is why it is extremely rare to hear of it in modern times. I expect it's entirely up to the governing legislature how these things are defined anyway, according to what is convenient for achieving the goal. Mary Queen of Scots refused to acknowledge Elizabeth's accusation of Treason on the grounds that as a sovereign in her own right, she wasn't - and could never be - a subject of Elizabeth's. She was pretty damn guilty of collusion in the Babington plot. And she didn't deny the evidence that indicated this guilt. But she didn't want to die as a 'traitor' to a country that she wasn't even a subject of, which is how it ended up, I think.
And of course if a foreign national should commit a crime in a country of residence not their own they should expect to be held to account for it in that country. The Harry Dunn/Ann Scoolas case still rages - at least over here in the UK.
I don't particularly want to make special pleading, on those grounds, for Begum either. I just think the UK Government acted precipitately and unwisely when it followed the mob and removed her citizenship from her, as they have potentially invited all these complications and questions; where it might have been quite simple otherwise to apply British justice, if they had kept their perspective.
@Martin54 Apologies for getting the wrong King! Apart from the hanging bit, I'm inclined to agree with you about Edward VIII.
You can only be guilty of treason against a country of which you are in law a citizen. Not sometimes claiming citizenship, or waving a passport about - the prosecution must offer evidence that you are a citizen. He almost certainly committed crimes against US Federal law, maybe ones also carrying the death penalty.
[Again, sorry!] Of course they do. You can have your cake and eat it too.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/14/exclusive-shamima-begum-seen-make-up-western-clothes-seeks-break/
(And @Anselmina, nay bother, the ambiguity was mine.)
In this road crash case, the UK actually wants to prosecute (tangent: it isn't an "accident" any more than a plane crash is an accident). In the Begum case wants to leave her unprosecuted. Is this the issue?
Accidents that are caused by negligence are still accidents. Nobody has suggested that Mrs Sacoolas intentionally drove her car into Mr Dunn. Plenty of people have suggested that she was negligent when she did so.
If you reserve the word "accident" to describe only events where human carelessness didn't contribute, then an accident is probably rather rarer than a true Scotsman.
Mrs Sacoolas is living a comfortable life in the US. Ms Begum is stuck in a (probably fairly shitty) refugee camp. That's probably the difference.
Do you not have a hierarchy of offences? Here, there's a scheme - a base of offence of negligent driving (from memory, that's only punishable by fine) through negligent driving causing death, which carries a fine or relatively short prison term, then onto dangerous driving causing death - a heavy prison sentence being the maximum, and finally very severe (forgotten exact term) dangerous driving with an even heavier prison term as a maximum. Of course, were there to be a deliberate act with the intention of causing death or severe injury, you'd be looking at the possibility of a murder charge.
Yes, of course. What does that have to do with the question of whether it's reasonable to call a car crash an "accident"? @NOprophet_NØprofit seems to take the view that all car crashes are partly caused by bad human behaviour, and so aren't "accidents". I think that humans routinely use the word "accident" to describe something that they didn't intend, even if they had been careless or negligent about preventing it, so the fact that negligence might be involved doesn't preclude the word "accident" being appropriate.
A lot, is my answer to your question. It goes back to what the intention is. Your use seems to be to ask if the driver intended to have a collision. The offences I referred to look to what the driver was doing, and while the driver almost certainly did not intend the collision, was the manner of driving intentional is the real question; hence the hierarchy.
I think we're talking past each other. Yes, of course the offence is different depending on the degree of negligence on display. Not all accidents are equally culpable.
Just because something was an accident doesn't mean that a crime wasn't committed. If I was holding a bit of wood in my palm and carving it with a sharp knife, and I slipped and jabbed my palm with the knife, then I'd be a bloody idiot for using the knife in an unsafe manner. I would be at fault for acting in an unsafe way. It would still be an accident.
I've done it in the UK, having lived in the US for several years. Stopped for lunch at a country pub. On pulling out of the car park onto the unmarked road, automatically drove on the right hand side of the road, because there weren't any visual cues to tell me not to. Drove on the wrong side of the road for several seconds, before realizing that I was in the UK.
I've been a passenger in a car when my British colleague turned onto the wrong side of a dual carriageway at a crossroads with traffic lights in France. He'd just arrived in France from the UK, and got confused. Fortunately, there was a break in the central reservation that he was able to go through after we'd all yelled at him.
I'd have thought that these would qualify as "careless" rather than "dangerous" driving. I'm not familiar enough with the details of Mrs Sacoolas's case to have an opinion on which way hers should go.
whereas "careless driving":
So the difference is that "dangerous" is "far below" the standard expected of a competent and careful driver, whereas "careless" is just "below" that standard.
It's obvious that driving on the wrong side of the road is dangerous. It is not obvious to me that a momentary brain fart is enough to warrant driving "far below" the standard.
For causing death by careless driving, there's a mandatory 12 month driving disqualification. Community orders can be given if the level of carelessness is low; the maximum sentence in the Crown Court is 5 years in jail. I think Mrs Sacoolas's actions after the offence could be regarded as aggravating factors; I think it likely that a custodial sentence would be sought.
Perhaps what is merely 'careless' becomes 'dangerous' when someone is killed? Carelessness is drifting over the white line. Dangerous is killing another human being because you've drifted over the white line. Just because one is being careless at the time doesn't make it less 'dangerous' to the dead person. The outcome of carelessness - if that's what it was - surely has to have a bearing on things?
I, too, thought the suggestion of community service as insulting to Harry Dunn's family. Effectively saying, your son's life is worth barely more than a handful hours of picking up rubbish or scraping graffiti off a wall. Contemptible.
If she was convicted of ‘causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving’ then (for careless or inconsiderate driving arising from momentary inattention with no aggravating factors) the sentencing range is a low to high level community order (anything from 40-300 hours of community service) with a starting point of a medium level community order (80-150 hours of community service).
A greater level of carelessness would attract a sentence from high level community order up to 2 years’ custody with a starting point of 36 weeks’ custody.
I don’t have all the details, but I’m not sure a prosecution would achieve a verdict of death by dangerous driving, but on that charge a conviction for the lesser offence would be likely.
There's a whole offence of "Causing death by careless driving".
That's why "careless driving" and "causing death by careless driving" aren't the same offence - the latter has significantly larger punishments. Also, "dangerous driving" and "causing death by dangerous driving" aren't the same.
But if you drift over the white line because you're fiddling with your radio and not looking where you're going, for example, that's a certain level of carelessness. It might be more reckless if you reasonably expect that there are other cars or small children around (if it's outside a school at drop-off time, for example), but your act can't be differently careless depending on whether there happens to be a person that you hit while you're not looking.
If the person was there, but managed to jump out of your way, you're not any less careless.
But that's not what it says. There is no connection between the worth of Harry Dunn's life, and the possible sentence that Anne Sacoolas might be given. At best, you could argue that the "correct" sentence would be the product of the worth of Mr Dunn's life and the culpability of Mrs Sacoolas, but that's not right either. No jail sentence is equal to the worth of a human life. You can't balance that.
I feel that the criminal justice system at best provides a kind of picture or diagram of justice, a reminder that such a thing as justice exists, even if we cannot exactly provide it.
Perhaps. Accident means that it was not preventable. "Crash no Accident" is in fact a great discussion in transportion where cars drivers hit walkers, people on bikes with their cars. Also is Worksafe "mission zero" discussed re work injuries, which aren't accidents either. Words matter.
Crash not accident - letter
Why it matters
And therefore doesn't exist. You have defined the word "accident" out of existence. Is that a standard Canadian use, or your own idiosyncrasy?
Washington Roebling, chief engineer of the Brooklyn Bridge
So if you drive on a motorway it is expected that you can maintain a perfect level of speed 70mph for, say, two hours without ever drifting above that limit by even 1 mph. Clearly you can’t. No normal person can monitor their performance at that level for that length time. That’s why air traffic controllers are paid so much.
Likewise what is the moral difference in driving whilst drunk, and driving whilst drunk and killing someone ? You have control over your intention and behaviour in choosing to drive whilst drunk, whilst you have no control over the random chance of whether that will lead to someone’s death. Arguably, that means the sentencing for driving whilst drunk ought to be harsher - rather than have two sets of offences.
But the real problem is that all the evidence shows that it is far more deterrent to reliably detect and prosecute crimes than it is to heavily punish a small minority of offenders.
Our current system is to expect the vast majority of drivers to break the law to some extent, and semi randomly punish a minority of them.
My uncle, a court reporter for many years, used to say: you don't go to the courts for justice, you go for the law. Never confuse the two.
I'd have said that drifting over the white line would itself be potentially dangerous depending on whether there's any other traffic around. It's dangerous to drive along a suburban street at 100 kph regardless of what other traffic may be around. As to your last sentence, the outcome may well have some bearing on the sentence imposed rather than the commission of the offence.
Very true - achieving justice is a subjective opinion, while applying the law is much more objective.
This. If we enforced a 70mph speed limit strictly folk would soon learn to aim for 65. Nonetheless I'd be happy enough with strict enforcement at 10% above the limit, so 77mph on motorways, and would be delighted if the government would tell the speeding lobby and their friends in the press to get tae fuck (as the Scots phrase has it).
Part of the problem is we've made "making reasonable progress" a driving test criterion, widely interpreted as "driving at the speed limit unless circumstances dictate otherwise". Cause and effect are hard to detangle, but many drivers do seem to feel they're being wronged by anyone in front of them doing less.
You mean the object of the law courts can never be justice? Quite. Probably why so many people are failed by the system and have no respect for it.
One man's justice is another man's retribution. South Africa moved on with truth and some reconciliation, that's justice at its best this side of death.
Sadly, no. The Truth & Reconciliation Commission failed in many ways.
Aye, that's the choice. That or worse.
Read the links. No it is general.
It originated in the USA. There's also a public health push to have reporting of crashes say things like "a driver hit a pedestrian" rather than a car. It's about both responsibility of a human and about their agency.
We have no-fault, mandatory, public insurance for auto crashes. Lawsuits are banned and there's one public insurer which also licences motor vehicles. Same for many jurisdictions in North America for no fault, some have private insurance companies providing the insurance.
The reason to mention this is that if it's lawyers arguing they may like the term accident as it shifts responsibility off of the driver: 'look, it was circumstances beyond my control'. Which is nonsense. Drive slower, pay better attention etc. Whereas with a public insurance scheme, the interest is to have the costs low and prevent crashes.
Besides, even if that's how language is used in Canada, it isn't how it's used here.
Also, the UK doesn't manage motor insurance or liability the way you describe.