Home & Garden0 min ago
Should Be Up On Manslaughter Charge
I know it's been discussed previously but the prospect of this man escaping any kind of justice seriously winds me up.
He repeatedly lied to his employers about his health issues, he should never have been behind the wheel of ANY vehicle, killed 6 people and injured numerous others.
http:// www.dai lymail. co.uk/n ews/art icle-33 49005/G lasgow- bin-lor ry-driv er-Harr y-Clark e-repea tedly-l ied-hea lth-ord er-jobs -fatal- acciden t-repor t-rule. html
He repeatedly lied to his employers about his health issues, he should never have been behind the wheel of ANY vehicle, killed 6 people and injured numerous others.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by joeluke. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.As he gave evidence to the enquiry under the assurance that there would be criminal prosecution in relation to the accident, a court would almost certainly throw out any charges now brought before him based upon that evidence.
However he can still be charged with 'fraud by false representation' (under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006) and/or 'fraud by failure to disclose information' (under Section 3 of that Act) as there is prima facie evidence that he committed one or both of those offences in his employment application (and he would thus be guilty of those offences even if the accident had not occurred).
However he can still be charged with 'fraud by false representation' (under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006) and/or 'fraud by failure to disclose information' (under Section 3 of that Act) as there is prima facie evidence that he committed one or both of those offences in his employment application (and he would thus be guilty of those offences even if the accident had not occurred).
Buenochico _ hi Chris ! - typing whilst stroking his pussy -
Dirty Boy !
there is a difficulty in showing causation - that his lying caused the damage
I am not sure if the fraud charges would stick - oh actually on 2nd thoughts he did get a financial gain .... his empoyers are leaning over backwards to say he still would have beeln employed....
Dirty Boy !
there is a difficulty in showing causation - that his lying caused the damage
I am not sure if the fraud charges would stick - oh actually on 2nd thoughts he did get a financial gain .... his empoyers are leaning over backwards to say he still would have beeln employed....
Apart from at the driving test itself, does anyone ever actually have to prove they can read a number-plate from a given distance? I know people with health defects have to renew licences at times and the forms for doing so contain a question to that effect about eyesight.
One wonders how many thousands are driving merrily - just like Harry Clarke - who are no longer visually "qualified" to do so.
One wonders how many thousands are driving merrily - just like Harry Clarke - who are no longer visually "qualified" to do so.
As it has emerged that he apparently failed to declare previous black outs, I would imagine his former employers GCC /First Bus / Caledonian Brewery, may be partly responsible for either not taking up references, or not declaring the incidents if they were asked for references. I'm sure barristers are looking into all possibilities.
-- answer removed --