ChatterBank2 mins ago
A conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?
14 Answers
The Crown Prosecution Service has dropped charges against 3 young men who were in a car which hit a 16 year old girl as she waited at a bus stop near Doncaster. The police had been unable to establish which of the three had been driving.
If the CPS can't bring driving charges could they not charge the three with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?
A young woman has suffered serious brain damage and whoever was responsible looks set to go unpunished.
If the CPS can't bring driving charges could they not charge the three with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?
A young woman has suffered serious brain damage and whoever was responsible looks set to go unpunished.
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Sandy-Wroe. 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.
Something should be done.
My daughters BF was killed in a stolen car. The sickening thing...the other occupants tried to put his body in the drivers seat before running off.
They got 4 years....
Although I hated the boy and sent my daughter out of the country so she couldn't see him.....I wouldn't have wished that on him.
My daughters BF was killed in a stolen car. The sickening thing...the other occupants tried to put his body in the drivers seat before running off.
They got 4 years....
Although I hated the boy and sent my daughter out of the country so she couldn't see him.....I wouldn't have wished that on him.
If the three of them exercise their right of silence what evidence do you have of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice ? Furthermore, if each names another one of the three, what evidence is that of conspiracy? One of them may be telling the truth ! Or if each of them denies that he, himself, was the driver, how is that a conspiracy ?
It's a complete non-starter.
It's a complete non-starter.
Further to Fred's excellent post, let's assume that Alf was actually driving but he says that Bert was.
Bert says that Charlie was driving.
Charlie is determined to be truthful in every way, and to help the police and CPS as much as he can. He truthfully states that Alf was driving. Why should HE be prosecuted for attempting to pervert the course of justice?
Chris
Bert says that Charlie was driving.
Charlie is determined to be truthful in every way, and to help the police and CPS as much as he can. He truthfully states that Alf was driving. Why should HE be prosecuted for attempting to pervert the course of justice?
Chris
well one of the 3 must have been driving and the other 2 must know who, as they are obviously perverting the course of justice I would say put them all 3 in jail for murder (I take it the girl was on the pavement in which case I'd hardly call it manslaughter). of course one the other 2 realize what their actions are going to result in they will probably name the culprit, if they don't they can all go in for murder, if they speak up the other 2 can be done for perverting the course of justice. Unfortunately i'm sure that method does not "tick the boxes" for our law system that protects murderers
This is a difficult one.
There is a legal device called 'common purpose' or 'joint purpose' or something like which a group of people can be charged with.
I think that in this case it would be difficult as it usually relies on establishing the intent to commit a crime and it would be difficult to prove intent to run someone over.
I agree that it needs looked at legally but can't think of how to go about it.
There is a legal device called 'common purpose' or 'joint purpose' or something like which a group of people can be charged with.
I think that in this case it would be difficult as it usually relies on establishing the intent to commit a crime and it would be difficult to prove intent to run someone over.
I agree that it needs looked at legally but can't think of how to go about it.
Yes. Thunderchild, that's the wayLOL. And while we're at it, we'll jail every witness to a crime who doesn't name the perpetrator who is known to them ! There's a snag or two. It overrides the principle that no man can be forced to incriminate himself, in that if he can be forced to incriminate someone else there's no reason why he shouldn't be forced to confess to any accusation made against him alone.It overrides the basic right to silence, too
It also appears to make all witnesses, or all persons, present at the scene guilty by mere presence. What happens otherwise, in this case, if one of the three does not know the others but is a complete stranger who, say, has taken a lift ?
In the instant case it's not murder, as the mens rea for murder is not present, and it won't be manslaughter because that's why we have causing death by dangerous driving. (That offence was introduced because juries were refusing to convict of manslaughter, yet that's what 'death dangerous' really is, strictly speaking )
And apart from that,if we could charge that way, you'd have to find nine others on a jury who would agree with you.'Jury equity' would prevail, whatever the law said,and there'd be an acquittal !
It also appears to make all witnesses, or all persons, present at the scene guilty by mere presence. What happens otherwise, in this case, if one of the three does not know the others but is a complete stranger who, say, has taken a lift ?
In the instant case it's not murder, as the mens rea for murder is not present, and it won't be manslaughter because that's why we have causing death by dangerous driving. (That offence was introduced because juries were refusing to convict of manslaughter, yet that's what 'death dangerous' really is, strictly speaking )
And apart from that,if we could charge that way, you'd have to find nine others on a jury who would agree with you.'Jury equity' would prevail, whatever the law said,and there'd be an acquittal !
oh well looks like we will have to have another "killer by dangerous driving" roaming the streets, one more won't make much difference. I don't know the case specifics but hec if your in a damed car that runs someone down I'm sure you know who the hec it was driving the car !, its bit different from a bystander the other 2 were in the car.
Whilst I understand the legally correct amswers that have been given, it would seem to most reasonable people that a crime has been committed and that by sticking together, they have evaded justice, which is not right.
In a sense all three of them are guilty, because they know who was driving. It seems to me that whilst they cannot be forced to talk, their names and pictures could be published and it made clear that one of these three is a killer. They may not like it - it could affect their social position and job prospects so let them sue if they don't like it.
There should perhaps also be some legislation dealing with keeping stum in such circumstances, akin to the joint enterprise rules.
In a sense all three of them are guilty, because they know who was driving. It seems to me that whilst they cannot be forced to talk, their names and pictures could be published and it made clear that one of these three is a killer. They may not like it - it could affect their social position and job prospects so let them sue if they don't like it.
There should perhaps also be some legislation dealing with keeping stum in such circumstances, akin to the joint enterprise rules.
well thats basically what I have been saying, hence condemn all three ! its time this mamby pamby country got its act together, christ just because the culprit won't own up and the other two won't tell one gets away with what i would at this point call murder and the other two have potentially taken part and are perverting the course of justice, there's pleanty on them all ready !
Bad luck for the one who doesn't know who was driving, or genuinely can't remember ! Or is he to be afforded a defence?
You may argue however that the evidence of their being in the car is, or should be evidence of joint enterprise. As a matter of law and evidence,, presence can be evidence of joint enterprise. If these men were in a stolen car, or in a car which was used in the commission of a burglary or about to be, there's an inference that their presence together was not accidental. Defendants are always saying " I didn't know what was going on . I was just there by chance" and always being asked " Was nothing said, so you knew? If not, someone planning a crime brought a witness to the crime with them, for no reason at all.If you were an honest man you might tell someone or the police !The other man was taking a wholly pointless risk, if you didn't agree to it ! "
In dangerous driving there's seldom evidence of a joint enterprise. But if there was evidence that one (even unidentified) of the three had said 'Let's see see how fast this car goes.Come on,let's go!' you'd be getting close to it, because the others could be said to have got in knowing and encouraging the dangerous driving and therefore they're liable for the consequences And we do have cases along those lines where all are convicted. Joy-riders don't escape that easily. AND it wouldn't matter that none of them said which one was driving ,they could all be convicted.
You may argue however that the evidence of their being in the car is, or should be evidence of joint enterprise. As a matter of law and evidence,, presence can be evidence of joint enterprise. If these men were in a stolen car, or in a car which was used in the commission of a burglary or about to be, there's an inference that their presence together was not accidental. Defendants are always saying " I didn't know what was going on . I was just there by chance" and always being asked " Was nothing said, so you knew? If not, someone planning a crime brought a witness to the crime with them, for no reason at all.If you were an honest man you might tell someone or the police !The other man was taking a wholly pointless risk, if you didn't agree to it ! "
In dangerous driving there's seldom evidence of a joint enterprise. But if there was evidence that one (even unidentified) of the three had said 'Let's see see how fast this car goes.Come on,let's go!' you'd be getting close to it, because the others could be said to have got in knowing and encouraging the dangerous driving and therefore they're liable for the consequences And we do have cases along those lines where all are convicted. Joy-riders don't escape that easily. AND it wouldn't matter that none of them said which one was driving ,they could all be convicted.
Fred
Thanks for the further info on 'joint entrerprise'. We had a similar-ish situation here several years ago. Some firearms which had been surrendered and/or seized ans had been sent for destruction actually ended up for sale in a legitimiate gunsmith's shop.
There were 5 or 6 people who could have done this but since no-one talked as far as I can recall nothing was ever done.
We can only hope their careers in the Police Force did not progress further.
Personally I would have sacked them all and considered any wrongful dismissal awards good value in the circumstances.
Thanks for the further info on 'joint entrerprise'. We had a similar-ish situation here several years ago. Some firearms which had been surrendered and/or seized ans had been sent for destruction actually ended up for sale in a legitimiate gunsmith's shop.
There were 5 or 6 people who could have done this but since no-one talked as far as I can recall nothing was ever done.
We can only hope their careers in the Police Force did not progress further.
Personally I would have sacked them all and considered any wrongful dismissal awards good value in the circumstances.
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
Crosswords15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles36 mins ago
Motoring47 mins ago
Film, Media & TV48 mins ago
