Rich kid kills two people with parents car whilst stoned - walks away

[Jon-of-arc]

It's a shit report & shit website. What rag is it/was it connected with? I can't see anything on it showing it's connected with any paper.

It's got a Worthing section, and it's not connected with the local rags around here, which are owned by Newsquest & JPI Media, it seems to describes itself as a platform for 'User Generated Content', which would explain the poor standard of the article, and why it leaves me questioning what the missing details are.

Oh, hang on, via the 'contact us' page, I see it's owned by Reach PLC, that's the lot that owns the Daily Mirror, Express & Daily Star & various regional rags, but none around here, very odd set-up.

It used to be Reading Evening Post, a pretty decent example of local journalism. They got bought out by, I think MGN, and then went online and now it's pretty poor. Still an interesting article, and I approve of a local hack being so obviously partial in the face of such a shit decision by the magistrates.

E2A The website used to be called "GetReading" (and that's still the Facebook name), and then a year or two back it all went to this decentralised "in your area" shit. Local journalism being fucked up by dot-com.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

You can have accidents that aren't anyones fault

Of course. However when one party is drunk (or in this case, stoned), the presumption is towards the fucked state being a contributing factor to the accident and it is normally up to the defence to somehow convince a jury that the same outcome would have happened had the defendant not been off his face at the time. Which is a tall order.

In this instance neither a jury, nor DJ, nor even a magistrate was given that opportunity. The serious charges were shelved on the advice of the police.

 

[agricola]

That's clearly what the CPS decided. The magistrate's remarks sound like she wasn't very impressed by that decision.

Indeed, though on this occasion the CPS may actually have thrown what little book they had at him.

If he wasn't obviously driving in a substandard manner, and if the parents refused to substantiate the theft that their comments imply occured (and if they had this would be aggravated vehicle taking and he would have faced a maximum of five years), all they can do him for is drug driving.

 

[weltweit]

I didn't know there was a legal limit for cannabis.

 

[Spymaster]

The serious charges were shelved on the advice of the police.

Not necessarily. It's quite possible that they only had the evidence to do him for smoking and driving.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Not necessarily. It's quite possible that they only had the evidence to do him for smoking and driving.

Where do the CPS get their evidence from?

 

[Spymaster]

Where do the CPS get their evidence from?

Clue; they don’t collate any evidence themselves.

Ahhhh, yes, the old corrupt coppers thing. I forgot this is Urban75!

 

[cupid_stunt]

It used to be Reading Evening Post, a pretty decent example of local journalism. They got bought out by, I think MGM, and then went online and now it's pretty poor. Still an interesting article, and I approve of a local hack being so obviously partial in the face of such a shit decision by the magistrates.

E2A The website used to be called "GetReading" (and that's still the Facebook name), and then a year or two back it all went to this decentralised "in your area" shit. Local journalism being fucked up by dot-com.

Not MGM, but GMG, as in Guardian Media Group, the print versions were closed after it was then sold to Trinity Mirror, re-named Reach PLC following the recent take-over of the Express & Daily Star.

I am not convinced a proper hack wrote the article, hence all the holes in it, as the site seems to mainly carry user generated content, to be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Ahhhh, yes, the old corrupt coppers thing. I forgot this is Urban75!

Not corrupt, just business as usual for the officers of da law.

Not necessarily. It's quite possible that they only had the evidence to do him for smoking and driving.

Also, killing two people whilst over the proscribed limit for an intoxicating substance is evidence enough to proceed with a charge of death by dangerous driving.

It should be manslaughter of course, and some argue murder.

Yet he walks.

For killing two people.

Dead.

Two funerals. Two sets of wailing wives, parents, kids.

£105 fine.

Mum and dad pay it. To teach him a lesson.

 

[Spymaster]

Also, killing two people whilst over the proscribed limit for an intoxicating substance is evidence enough to proceed with a charge of death by dangerous driving.

I don't think that's correct. You have to be driving badly too.

 

[agricola]

Of course. However when one party is drunk (or in this case, stoned), the presumption is towards the fucked state being a contributing factor to the accident and it is normally up to the defence to somehow convince a jury that the same outcome would have happened had the defendant not been off his face at the time. Which is a tall order.

In this instance neither a jury, nor DJ, nor even a magistrate was given that opportunity. The serious charges were shelved on the advice of the police.

That is certainly what usually happens, but then again what usually happens when someone gets killed by drunk / drug drivers is that the level of driving is clearly dangerous or careless. If that isn't the case here then the CPS could not do him for causing death by dangerous / careless driving. In this case, there is a picture of what may be the scene in the Metro's report of this trial (link here), and if that is where the scene is it is on an unlit and tree-lined bit of road (here appears to be where it is, at least based on the telegraph pole with the tape around it and the similar wall shown in the photo on the Metro article).

I am not saying that is right - Parliament should long since past have made it (being over the limit) by itself enough to substantiate a charge of dangerous / careless driving when someone dies as the result, but they haven't.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I don't think that's correct. You have to be driving badly too.

Failing to stop or alter your course when faced with two pedestrians is enough bad driving to warrant a day in court.

This case, no court was ever given the chance to even ponder that, the police said that all there is is drug driving and that is what the CPS went with.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

Ahhhh, yes, the old corrupt coppers thing. I forgot this is Urban75!

Are you really ok with this, Spy?!?!

 

[Spymaster]

Are you really ok with this, Spy?!?!

Not with him getting away with it but it's quite possible that there's been no jiggery pokery by the police here. agricola's making the most sense on this.

 

[Ax^]

he killed two people whilst under investigation for drug drink and being disqualified

oh but he can do odd job around the house to atone for being involved in killing 2 people

hmm if he was from a council estate in reading without 2 copper parents i'm not sure he could of played the system so well

 

[Jon-of-arc]

Not with him getting away with it but it's quite possible that there's been no jiggery pokery by the police here. agricola's making the most sense on this.

It's possible that there's been no jiggery-pokery by the cops, but it's equally possible that there has been.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

hmm if he was from a council estate in reading without 2 copper parents i'm not sure he could of played the system so well

I said the exact same thing on facebook.

 

[Ax^]

I think the signs of a pure psychopathy

in the fact he blame his friends for driving the vehicle

and go off due to lack of conclusive evidence

 

[bellaozzydog]

Sounds like as well as getting a free pass despite his repeat offending, that the ball was dropped numerous times procedurally with the case before it got to court, to get to this shambles

You can’t kill two people stoned in a car and not go to jail. Not if the correct process and procedures were followed

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

That is certainly what usually happens, but then again what usually happens when someone gets killed by drunk / drug drivers is that the level of driving is clearly dangerous or careless. If that isn't the case here then the CPS could not do him for causing death by dangerous / careless driving. In this case, there is a picture of what may be the scene in the Metro's report of this trial (link here), and if that is where the scene is it is on an unlit and tree-lined bit of road (here appears to be where it is, at least based on the telegraph pole with the tape around it and the similar wall shown in the photo on the Metro article).

I am not saying that is right - Parliament should long since past have made it (being over the limit) by itself enough to substantiate a charge of dangerous / careless driving when someone dies as the result, but they haven't.

I know where it is, I spent my formative years hanging there. The site of the crash is outside the house of a former senior exec of BT who’s son got away with stealing £8000 from Budgens in Ascot (and spending it on drugs that I munched) cos his dad brought in BT’s lawyers who instructed the best barristers ( at BT’s expense) to get him off.

Cunt went down 3 years later for a road rage attack.

It is also 1/2 mile from where two other privileged pricks died in a fireball driving an M3, teens in a new M3, so what? They took a couple of plebs from Feltham with them. Mates of Prince William, obviously.

The whole area is full of kids with parents who replace parenting with cash, which massively fucks their kids, who go on to cause massive damage to regular folk and face little or no comeback for their actions. I could rant on all night of the scummers I used to steal off round there.

Of course this corruption goes on everywhere, don’t mean we shouldn’t rail against it when we see it, especially when it is so blatantly shoved in our faces as it is with this case.

 

[agricola]

Sounds like as well as getting a free pass despite his repeat offending, that the ball was dropped numerous times procedurally with the case before it got to court, to get to this shambles

You can’t kill two people stoned in a car and not go to jail. Not if the correct process and procedures were followed

The problem is that with the law as it is you can, as perverse as that sounds.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Sounds like as well as getting a free pass despite his repeat offending, that the ball was dropped numerous times procedurally with the case before it got to court, to get to this shambles

You can’t kill two people stoned in a car and not go to jail. Not if the correct process and procedures were followed

Butter fingers

 

[bellaozzydog]

The problem is that with the law as it is you can, as perverse as that sounds.

I refer you to the read of last year, pretty much covers it

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Bar...d=1548968103&sr=8-1&keywords=secret+barrister

 

[agricola]

I know where it is, I spent my formative years hanging there. The site of the crash it outside the house of a former senior exec of BT who’s son got away with stealing £8000 from Budgens in Ascot (and spending it on drugs that I munched) cos his dad brought in BT’s lawyers who instructed the best barristers ( at BT’s expense) to get him off.

Cunt went down 3 years later for a road rage attack.

It is also 1/2 mile from where two other privileged pricks died in a fireball driving an M3, teens in a new M3, so what? They took a couple of plebs from Feltham. Mates of Prince William, obviously.

The whole area is full of kids with parents who replace parenting with cash, which massively fucks yo their kids, who go on to cause massive damage to regular folk and face little or no comeback for their actions. I could rant on all night of the scummers I used to steal off round there.

Of course this corruption goes on everywhere, don’t mean we shouldn’t rail against it when we see it, especially when it is so blatantly shoved in our faces as it is with this case.

Indeed, and it is the fact that such people commit these type of offences is probably exactly why they do not cover circumstances like these, but the CPS (and the Police fwiw) have to deal with the law as it exists. If he wasn't speeding, was on his side of the road, the road was unlit and those two poor blokes were in the carriageway then with the law as it exists he (or anyone else) probably would never have been found guilty of one of the death by offences.

 

[Ax^]

SENTENCING FOR CAUSING DEATH BY DRIVING THE OFFENCES Causing death by driving is divided into four offences.
These are:
 causing death by dangerous driving;
 causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs;
 causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving;
and  causing death by driving: unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured drivers.

 

[Treacle Toes]

I know where it is, I spent my formative years hanging there. The site of the crash it outside the house of a former senior exec of BT who’s son got away with stealing £8000 from Budgens in Ascot (and spending it on drugs that I munched) cos his dad brought in BT’s lawyers who instructed the best barristers ( at BT’s expense) to get him off.

Cunt went down 3 years later for a road rage attack.

It is also 1/2 mile from where two other privileged pricks died in a fireball driving an M3, teens in a new M3, so what? They took a couple of plebs from Feltham. Mates of Prince William, obviously.

The whole area is full of kids with parents who replace parenting with cash, which massively fucks yo their kids, who go on to cause massive damage to regular folk and face little or no comeback for their actions. I could rant on all night of the scummers I used to steal off round there.

Of course this corruption goes on everywhere, don’t mean we shouldn’t rail against it when we see it, especially when it is so blatantly shoved in our faces as it is with this case.

But, but, but...

Would like to see the reaction here if one of these self important, entitled little cunts killed one of the relatives of those posting 'yeah..but' posts. Actually disgusting tbh. A kid in Peckham or Hackney would be treated the same? Would they fuck.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Indeed, and it is the fact that such people commit these type of offences is probably exactly why they do not apply in circumstances like these, but the CPS (and the Police fwiw) have to deal with the law as it exists. If he wasn't speeding, was on his side of the road, the road was unlit and those two poor blokes were in the carriageway then with the law as it exists he (or anyone else) probably would never have been found guilty of one of the death by offences.

None of those possible mitigations were examined though. Copper’s kid, off goes the slant to the whole investigation even before the corpses are scrapped off the tarmac.

Tell me, hand on heart, scummy Dave from slumbsville estate wouldn’t have had OB scouring the books looking for offences to pros him under, had the situation been the same.

 

[agricola]

None of those possible mitigations were examined though. Copper’s kid, off goes the slant to the whole investigation even before the corpses are scrapped off the tarmac.

Tell me, hand on heart, scummy Dave from slumbsville estate wouldn’t have had OB scouring the books looking for offences to pros him under, had the situation been the same.

I am sure OB were scouring the books looking for offences to prosecute this kid under. He was arrested for causing death by dangerous driving (at least according to the initial report of the accident), they did him for drug driving (which can only come out of a custody process) and they have been going after him for the previous offence and subsequent instances of him allegedly driving whilst disqualified.

The problem is - and it is absolutely a problem - that the law does not current support a charge of causing death by dangerous driving based solely on the accused being over the limit at the time they kill someone. It should, but it doesnt. If this kid, scummy Dave, or anyone, was not driving carelessly or dangerously as well as being over the limit then he currently cannot be done for it. He could have been done for aggravated vehicle taking (which only requires that someone dies after an accident in which a stolen car is involved) if the parents admitted he had taken the car without their consent, but they didn't.

 

[Treacle Toes]

I am sure OB were scouring the books looking for offences to prosecute this kid under. He was arrested for causing death by dangerous driving (at least according to the initial report of the accident), they did him for drug driving (which can only come out of a custody process) and they have been going after him for the previous offence and subsequent instances of him allegedly driving whilst disqualified.

How are you sure of that then?

The things you have listed that they originally arrested him for (death by dangerous driving), ending up charging/prosecuting him with (drug driving) and also suspected him of (driving whilst disqualified) are not obscure at all, they are obvious given what this kid did and his form. No one needed to scour books at all.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I am sure OB were scouring the books looking for offences to prosecute this kid under. He was arrested for causing death by dangerous driving (at least according to the initial report of the accident), they did him for drug driving (which can only come out of a custody process) and they have been going after him for the previous offence and subsequent instances of him allegedly driving whilst disqualified.

The problem is - and it is absolutely a problem - that the law does not current support a charge of causing death by dangerous driving based solely on the accused being over the limit at the time they kill someone. It should, but it doesnt. If this kid, scummy Dave, or anyone, was not driving carelessly or dangerously as well as being over the limit then he currently cannot be done for it. He could have been done for aggravated vehicle taking (which only requires that someone dies after an accident in which a stolen car is involved) if the parents admitted he had taken the car without their consent, but they didn't.

I do appreciate your replies, but I feel here you are going a bit detective boy...

If OB want to charge someone they know well enough to talk up the evidence to the CPS to get the charge.

In this case there were two corpses and an intoxicated driver.

That is enough for the CPS to at least get involved.

The police chose not to go there. They told the CPS that their colleague’s kid was only off his face and that had no bearing on him killing the two men he killed.

Call me a cynic...


Our judicial system makes it nearly impossible to bring a private criminal prosecution. If it were not so hard I would bet a handsome wedge it would get a good chance of death by dangerous driving conviction if put before a court.