Jump to content

Mlc Found Guilty


Lonan3

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This is taken from Wikipedia re due care and attention (and I note that Manx Law is slightly different)

 

Driving without Due Care

The Road Traffic Act 1988 (until the revision by the Road Safety Act 2006) contains law that addresses the manner in which a person drives.

At its basic section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988 provides that:

“If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.”

The offence is summary only. It can cover a multitude of occurrences and criminalises at the lower end absent mindedness and inattention to more serious cases where a motorist may collide with someone on say pedestrian crossing.

The test as to whether a person has contravened the section is an objective one. The question asked is has the person departed from the ordinary care to be expected by a reasonable and competent motorist. Impatient driving, aggressive driving and tailgating would all amount to driving that the a reasonable and competent motorist would not do.

When sentencing the the Courts have directed their attention to the nature of the departure from good driving, rather than looking towards the outcome. However, there is now a move more towards the outcome of the poor driving. R v Simmons [1999] 2 Cr. App. R. 18, CA

The penalty for contravening of this section is is a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, an obligatory endorsement and the offence carries between 3 to 9 penalty points. Disqualification is mandatory

 

 

This is taken from IOM Online

 

The verdict was delivered in court this morning - the senior politician was given a six month conditional discharge, two penalty points on his licence and ordered to pay £500 in costs.

 

I see they really went to town on the sentencing!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The prosecution said his claim he’d pulled out around Mr Walmsley’s parked car couldn’t be true because he’d clipped the car before hitting Mr Walmsley

 

Is there some reason there's no subsequent charge of perjury? If the judge didn't believe he was telling the truth then he must have been lying, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

£500 in costs.

 

OMG. I'm speechless. £500? no no no no no. However that said, knowing that you have caused someones life to completely change is quite sentence enough, its such a shame for all concerned. It'll be a while before he can afford insurance though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there some reason there's no subsequent charge of perjury? If the judge didn't believe he was telling the truth then he must have been lying, right?

 

In view of that should the issue of fitness to hold public office also be considered?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there some reason there's no subsequent charge of perjury? If the judge didn't believe he was telling the truth then he must have been lying, right?

 

In view of that should the issue of fitness to hold public office also be considered?

 

Could anyone tell when he was last voted for by a member of the public? gotta be 20 years or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...