Level crossing stupidity...

[Fat Controller]

32 minutes ago, Wickham Green said:

........... and the result could qualify for the 'When the prototype looks like a model' thread !

It replaces the 'man with a brush and shovel'

[TheQ]

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/man-ignores-warning-lights-and-runs-over-crossing-1-6371440

[boxbrownie]

4 hours ago, TheQ said:

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/man-ignores-warning-lights-and-runs-over-crossing-1-6371440

They should show his face, sod his human rights and privacy 

[big jim]

Looks like he’s hepped up on goofballs!

 

complete with bottle in a brown bag by the looks of it 

 

Edited November 12, 2019 by big jim

[Wickham Green]

16 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

They should show his face, sod his human rights and privacy 

Have sub-humans got human rights ?

[Hobby]

All animals have rights these days, some better than human ones... Probably plants as well knowing the way some people think...

[PhilJ W]

Quite simply, if his face was shown it would possibly impede or even prevent prosecution.

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

Quite simply, if his face was shown it would possibly impede or even prevent prosecution.

Please elaborate Phil?

[PhilJ W]

4 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Please elaborate Phil?

His lawyers could have the film ruled as inadmissable because he could be identified. We have to wait until he is prosecuted before all can be revealed.

[boxbrownie]

3 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

His lawyers could have the film ruled as inadmissable because he could be identified. We have to wait until he is prosecuted before all can be revealed.

What?  I don’t doubt something like this might be a genuine reason but when a neighbour caught a burglar trying to break into their property the Police stated they could not prosecute because they couldn’t recognise him from the home owners video......go figure 

[TheQ]

A jury has to be uninfluenced by anything they may have seen about the case , outside of what is seen in court. Lawyers could claim the video being seen and discussed before the court case could mean an unfair trial..

[boxbrownie]

8 minutes ago, TheQ said:

A jury has to be uninfluenced by anything they may have seen about the case , outside of what is seen in court. Lawyers could claim the video being seen and discussed before the court case could mean an unfair trial..

I can see that, but wouldn’t this kind of offence just be a straight forward magistrate case, no jury involved?

[PaulCheffus]

5 minutes ago, TheQ said:

A jury has to be uninfluenced by anything they may have seen about the case , outside of what is seen in court. Lawyers could claim the video being seen and discussed before the court case could mean an unfair trial..

Hi

 

When I did jury service we were told that the verdict should only be based on the evidence presented in court and under no circumstances during the trial should we search the internet for information regarding either party.

 

We knew nothing about the case prior to being selected at which point you are asked whether there is any reason why you cannot be on the jury e.g. you know the defendant. 

 

I can see why showing the face of the defendant on a video prior to the trial could indeed prejudice the outcome.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[TheQ]

3 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

I can see that, but wouldn’t this kind of offence just be a straight forward magistrate case, no jury involved?

Unless the defendant may choose to go to jury..

[Hobby]

Whilst i see where you are coming from in these days of YouTube/FB etc I'd have thought it improbable for someone not to have seen the video especially if they are local to that area and it has been used on FB or similat to identify the individual. I can see where TheQ is coming from but i doubt the court would rule the video evidence as unmissable in court, after all there are plenty of cases where similar such evidence has been used to identify an individual on the likes of FB and they have been successfully prosecuted. What argument could the defence use? That it identifies the miscreant as Phil said, surely they could then ban fingerprints of DNA for the same reason!

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

Quite simply, if his face was shown it would possibly impede or even prevent prosecution.

Has he been identified by the police?

 

Often these sort of videos get publicly released, to help identify the offender. So how do those cases go?

[boxbrownie]

57 minutes ago, TheQ said:

Unless the defendant may choose to go to jury..

Can the defendant choose that for a small magistrate case?

 

For example a speeding offence?

[TheQ]

Speeding is a civil case, and it would be a  highly unusual case to be tried by jury.

 

As for this one it depends on what he is charged with.. just trespass is likely be just a magistrate.

If they say he was endangering others such as the train driver, then that is much more serious and could be jury..

 

[boxbrownie]

4 minutes ago, TheQ said:

Speeding is a civil case, and it would be a  highly unusual case to be tried by jury.

 

As for this one it depends on what he is charged with.. just trespass is likely be just a magistrate.

If they say he was endangering others such as the train driver, then that is much more serious and could be jury..

 

OK, that’s what I thought it would be just a trespass for example, which it why I questioned the jury example.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

[Richard E]

15 minutes ago, TheQ said:

Speeding is a civil case, and it would be a  highly unusual case to be tried by jury.

 

As for this one it depends on what he is charged with.. just trespass is likely be just a magistrate.

If they say he was endangering others such as the train driver, then that is much more serious and could be jury..

 

Actually speeding is a criminal offence but is not recorded as a criminal conviction for assessing whether someone has a criminal record or not.

 

Trespass is, however, normally a civil offence. But if it is trespass on the railway it is a criminal offence created by the railway byelaws. Only mentioned this as it was brought up in the next post.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Richard E
accuracy

[Wickham Green]

Back to bridge strikes* : Looked like a VERY near miss at Orpington at lunchtime - no sign of damage to the bridge or curtain-sided artic but SERIOUS disruption to traffic as the truck tried to reverse away up the hill.

 

* Is there a dedicated thread ? :  a search for 'strike' came up with nothing - and for 'bridge' found 27 pages ! 

[bimble]

1 hour ago, Wickham Green said:

Back to bridge strikes* : Looked like a VERY near miss at Orpington at lunchtime - no sign of damage to the bridge or curtain-sided artic but SERIOUS disruption to traffic as the truck tried to reverse away up the hill.

 

* Is there a dedicated thread ? :  a search for 'strike' came up with nothing - and for 'bridge' found 27 pages ! 

 

it was called 'Bridge Bashing'

 

[Wickham Green]

Ah - that was it !     Ta !

[phil-b259]

On 13/11/2019 at 12:33, Hobby said:

Whilst i see where you are coming from in these days of YouTube/FB etc I'd have thought it improbable for someone not to have seen the video especially if they are local to that area and it has been used on FB or similat to identify the individual. I can see where TheQ is coming from but i doubt the court would rule the video evidence as unmissable in court, after all there are plenty of cases where similar such evidence has been used to identify an individual on the likes of FB and they have been successfully prosecuted. What argument could the defence use? That it identifies the miscreant as Phil said, surely they could then ban fingerprints of DNA for the same reason!

 

The issue is not the person being shown on video as such - it’s the fact said video appeared in an article which accused the person of doing something wrong - and as any competent lawyer would tell you, by association pronounces the person guilty.

 

Lawyers are specialists in arguing black is white - most journalists or Internet forums are not!

 

Have a look at this persons ability to seemingly get the rich and famous out of driving misdemeanours https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Freeman

 

Judges also take a very dim view of anything that might conceivably influence court proceedings.

 

There is also the matter that were the person to be found not guilty they could take legal action against any media showing the clip on the basis of slander.

 

It is therefore safer all round if people’s images are obscured until due legal process has been completed.

 

As for cases heard by magistrates, I believe that it is still the case that any person accused of a criminal offence (however minor) has the legal right to insist their case is heard by a judge and jury rather than a magistrate. If a cases did get before a judge and video of the offender committing the offence had been plastered all over the media then I’m sure someone in the legal profession could get the case thrown out.

Edited November 15, 2019 by phil-b259

[newbryford]

On 14/11/2019 at 14:50, Wickham Green said:

Back to bridge strikes* : Looked like a VERY near miss at Orpington at lunchtime - no sign of damage to the bridge or curtain-sided artic but SERIOUS disruption to traffic as the truck tried to reverse away up the hill.

 

* Is there a dedicated thread ? :  a search for 'strike' came up with nothing - and for 'bridge' found 27 pages ! 

 

There's a low-ish bridge near me and despite a number of warning signs indicating alternate routes, it still amazes me how many high vehicles have to reverse/turn round. One direction does involve an uphill reverse..

And it's got worse by a factor of about 10 since sat-nav became popular.