# Driver involved horrific horse collision avoids prosecution



## Hanno Verian (5 June 2017)

How the Hell did the CPS or Cambridgeshire Police decide that this should be dealt with by a Driver Awareness Course!!

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news...fic-horse-collision-avoids-prosecution-622720

Apparently the criteria are:

Whilst offered on a discretionary basis, guidance is issued to the 43 police forces operating in England and Wales as to when a driver should be considered as eligible to attend a course. The current guidance is contained within a document entitled, "National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme (NDORS): Guidance on Eligibility Criteria for NDORS Courses". In addition to a consideration of the circumstances of the offence in determining whether or not a person is eligible to attend on a course, the guidance provides that the police should also consider the following:

Whether or not there is a realistic prospect of conviction i.e. is there evidence that the person has committed the offence
There is no other offence committed i.e. it is a single offence
A similar course has not been attended within 3 years for a similar offence
The driver holds a Full UK Driving Licence or similar certificate of competence"

This frankly amazes and appalls me!!!! Quite apart from the American on Youtube who seems to blame it on the riders wearing helmets and Hi Viz this strikes me as extraordinary and hardly "Justice", I could have understood the DAC if the driver had hit an inanimate object but not hit two people and two horses!!


----------



## MeltingSnowflake (5 June 2017)

That's shocking! Is there somewhere we can send a letter of complaint?


----------



## {97702} (5 June 2017)

The answer is quite simple - the Government have cut funding to the police services to such an extent that they no longer have the resources to pursue this sort of prosecution, so they opt for this sort of option.  If you want to send a letter of complaint, vote for a party who will invest in public services on 8th June!

And that comes from working for 2 different police services and seeing the effect budget reductions have on them, not just a vague opinion.


----------



## MeltingSnowflake (6 June 2017)

Lévrier;13565418 said:
			
		


			The answer is quite simple - the Government have cut funding to the police services to such an extent that they no longer have the resources to pursue this sort of prosecution, so they opt for this sort of option.  If you want to send a letter of complaint, vote for a party who will invest in public services on 8th June!

And that comes from working for 2 different police services and seeing the effect budget reductions have on them, not just a vague opinion.
		
Click to expand...

Already done via overseas postal vote - fingers crossed!


----------



## popsdosh (6 June 2017)

Lévrier;13565418 said:
			
		


			The answer is quite simple - the Government have cut funding to the police services to such an extent that they no longer have the resources to pursue this sort of prosecution, so they opt for this sort of option.  If you want to send a letter of complaint, vote for a party who will invest in public services on 8th June!

And that comes from working for 2 different police services and seeing the effect budget reductions have on them, not just a vague opinion.
		
Click to expand...

How can you say that ? you are turning an unfortunate nasty accident to push forward your own political point of view .
It has more to do with the ability to get a meaningful conviction with the evidence available. As much as we like it or not the system is in place to protect anybody thats accused of any offence. The Police got the best result they could in the circumstances I am sure. Do you not think they would rather had prosecuted if they could have seeing as it had caused such upset. Simply the evidence wasnt there that would bring about a conviction. The CCTV showed very little from an evidence point of view legally. Not even being able to identify the vehicle or the driver two major requirements in law.
The driver has been lucky in my view however the standards should not slip because of it being something most on here react too.


----------



## minesadouble (6 June 2017)

I have to agree with popsdosh. This kind of decision has absolutely NOTHING to do with funding or politics.


----------



## Hanno Verian (6 June 2017)

I disagree with Popsdoh:

"The CCTV showed very little from an evidence point of view legally. Not even being able to identify the vehicle or the driver two major requirements in law.
The driver has been lucky in my view however the standards should not slip because of it being something most on here react too."

I'm not sure I agree, with this the CCTV clearly shows that the vehicle was on the wrong side of the road and not driven with regard for the safety of other Road Users, plus as they were able to identify an individual to send on the course they clearly identified who was the driver I'm so annoyed I'm about to email Jason Ablewhite the Police and Crime Commissioner on cambs-pcc@cambs.pnn.police.uk and ask for an explanation

It may not achieve anything, other than making them aware of public feeling.

The CPS Guidelines clearly state and I have highlighted the relevent section with XXXXXXXXX's

Dangerous Driving
The offence of dangerous driving under section 2 of the RTA 1988 is committed when a person's standard of driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. Dangerous driving is an either way offence carrying a level 5 fine and/or 6 months' custody in the magistrates' court. In the Crown Court, the maximum penalty is 2 years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.

Wherever the case is dealt with, the court must disqualify the driver from driving for at least a year and order an extended retest (section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988). Where "special reasons" are found for not disqualifying the court must endorse the driver's licence with 3-11 penalty points unless there are, again, "special reasons" for not doing so.

Prosecutors should note the following relevant factors:

Both parts of the definition must be satisfied for the driving to be "dangerous" within the meaning of the Act - Section 2A(1) of the RTA 1988.
There is no statutory definition of what is meant by "far below" but "dangerous" must refer to danger of personal injury or of serious damage to property - Section 2A(3) of the RTA 1988.
Section 2A(2) of the RTA 1988 provides that a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous.When considering the state of the vehicle, regard may be had to anything carried by of attached to the vehicle - Section 2A(4) of the RTA 1988.
Skill (or indeed lack of skill) of a driver is an irrelevant circumstance when considering whether the driving is dangerous. R v Bannister [2009] EWCA Crim 1571

Charging Practice
Dangerous driving includes situations where the driver has of his or her own free will adopted a particular way of driving, and also where there is a substantial error of judgement, that, even if only for a short time, amounts to driving falling far below the required standard. If the driving that caused the danger was taken as a deliberate decision, this would be an aggravating feature of the offence.

It is important to remember that the manner of the driving must be seen in the context of the surrounding circumstances in which the driving took place (for example amount of traffic, visibility, weather conditions, excess speed etc.) and these unique factors will be relevant in reaching an appropriate charging decision in each case.

The test for "dangerousness" is an objective one: persistent disregard of, say, traffic directions (be they "stop", "give way" or traffic lights) may be evidence that the manner of the driving has fallen far below the standard required, thus making a charge of dangerous driving appropriate.

The following examples of circumstances that are likely to be characterised as dangerous driving are derived from decided cases and the SGC Definitive Guideline:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
failing to have a proper and safe regard for vulnerable road users such as cyclists, motorcyclists, horse riders, the elderly and pedestrians or when in the vicinity of a pedestrian crossing, hospital, school or residential home;
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
It is not necessary to consider what the driver thought about the possible consequences of his actions: simply whether or not a competent and careful driver would have observed, appreciated and guarded against obvious and material dangers.

In the case of a vehicle in such a state of disrepair as to be dangerous, consideration should be given to whether the vehicle should have been driven at all, as well as to how it was driven in the particular circumstances

If anyone's interested full details on
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/...ance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/#a29

I


----------



## limestonelil (6 June 2017)

Thanks for this info HV, have e-mailed Mr Ablewhite for explanation. As you say, it may not get anywhere but will show public concern over this lack of prosecution.I interpreted the video in the same way as you did, with driver exhibiting the same lack of safety/awareness/conditions  etc.


----------



## Hanno Verian (6 June 2017)

MeltingSnowflake said:



			That's shocking! Is there somewhere we can send a letter of complaint?
		
Click to expand...

Write to us Jason Ablewhite the Police and Crime Commissioner 

Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Commissioner, PO Box 688, Huntingdon, PE29 9LA

E-mail us:
cambs-pcc@cambs.pnn.police.uk

Phone us:
0300 333 3456


----------



## popsdosh (6 June 2017)

Hanno Verian said:



			I disagree with Popsdoh:

"The CCTV showed very little from an evidence point of view legally. Not even being able to identify the vehicle or the driver two major requirements in law.
The driver has been lucky in my view however the standards should not slip because of it being something most on here react too."

I'm not sure I agree, with this the CCTV clearly shows that the vehicle was on the wrong side of the road and not driven with regard for the safety of other Road Users, plus as they were able to identify an individual to send on the course they clearly identified who was the driver I'm so annoyed I'm about to email Jason Ablewhite the Police and Crime Commissioner on cambs-pcc@cambs.pnn.police.uk and ask for an explanation

It may not achieve anything, other than making them aware of public feeling.

The CPS Guidelines clearly state and I have highlighted the relevent section with XXXXXXXXX's

Dangerous Driving
The offence of dangerous driving under section 2 of the RTA 1988 is committed when a person's standard of driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. Dangerous driving is an either way offence carrying a level 5 fine and/or 6 months' custody in the magistrates' court. In the Crown Court, the maximum penalty is 2 years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.

Wherever the case is dealt with, the court must disqualify the driver from driving for at least a year and order an extended retest (section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988). Where "special reasons" are found for not disqualifying the court must endorse the driver's licence with 3-11 penalty points unless there are, again, "special reasons" for not doing so.

Prosecutors should note the following relevant factors:

Both parts of the definition must be satisfied for the driving to be "dangerous" within the meaning of the Act - Section 2A(1) of the RTA 1988.
There is no statutory definition of what is meant by "far below" but "dangerous" must refer to danger of personal injury or of serious damage to property - Section 2A(3) of the RTA 1988.
Section 2A(2) of the RTA 1988 provides that a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous.When considering the state of the vehicle, regard may be had to anything carried by of attached to the vehicle - Section 2A(4) of the RTA 1988.
Skill (or indeed lack of skill) of a driver is an irrelevant circumstance when considering whether the driving is dangerous. R v Bannister [2009] EWCA Crim 1571

Charging Practice
Dangerous driving includes situations where the driver has of his or her own free will adopted a particular way of driving, and also where there is a substantial error of judgement, that, even if only for a short time, amounts to driving falling far below the required standard. If the driving that caused the danger was taken as a deliberate decision, this would be an aggravating feature of the offence.

It is important to remember that the manner of the driving must be seen in the context of the surrounding circumstances in which the driving took place (for example amount of traffic, visibility, weather conditions, excess speed etc.) and these unique factors will be relevant in reaching an appropriate charging decision in each case.

The test for "dangerousness" is an objective one: persistent disregard of, say, traffic directions (be they "stop", "give way" or traffic lights) may be evidence that the manner of the driving has fallen far below the standard required, thus making a charge of dangerous driving appropriate.

The following examples of circumstances that are likely to be characterised as dangerous driving are derived from decided cases and the SGC Definitive Guideline:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
failing to have a proper and safe regard for vulnerable road users such as cyclists, motorcyclists, horse riders, the elderly and pedestrians or when in the vicinity of a pedestrian crossing, hospital, school or residential home;
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
It is not necessary to consider what the driver thought about the possible consequences of his actions: simply whether or not a competent and careful driver would have observed, appreciated and guarded against obvious and material dangers.

In the case of a vehicle in such a state of disrepair as to be dangerous, consideration should be given to whether the vehicle should have been driven at all, as well as to how it was driven in the particular circumstances

If anyone's interested full details on
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/...ance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/#a29

I
		
Click to expand...

Very conveniently you forget the burden of proof under English law and that CCTV falls down on many grounds and would have been inadmissible as evidence.Yes that  accident happened and it was unfortunate however in no way does the cctv prove who was driving only what happened in the accident. Any solicitor fresh out of college would have had that thrown out and the driver would not have at least done the course and the expense. When you are asked to take a driver course it does not actually carry any burden of responsibility so by taking it you are not admitting anything.

for what its worth the CPS are the guys you need to hassle they have the say on prosecutions and nothing to do with JA


----------



## Hanno Verian (7 June 2017)

Thanks for the response CPS it is then


----------



## fburton (7 June 2017)

popsdosh said:



			Very conveniently you forget the burden of proof under English law and that CCTV falls down on many grounds and would have been inadmissible as evidence.Yes that  accident happened and it was unfortunate however in no way does the cctv prove who was driving only what happened in the accident. Any solicitor fresh out of college would have had that thrown out and the driver would not have at least done the course and the expense. When you are asked to take a driver course it does not actually carry any burden of responsibility so by taking it you are not admitting anything.
		
Click to expand...

Does that mean that, in general, accompanied drivers can escape prosecution when it cannot be proved who was actually driving? Does someone admitting they were driving make any difference to this? It seems a bit of a glaring loophole!


----------



## popsdosh (7 June 2017)

fburton said:



			Does that mean that, in general, accompanied drivers can escape prosecution when it cannot be proved who was actually driving? Does someone admitting they were driving make any difference to this? It seems a bit of a glaring loophole!
		
Click to expand...

Unless the perpetrator is clearly identifiable on the CCTV it will be quickly chucked out, on that CCTV even the vehicle can not be identified by number plate. It was only any use if other witnesses could see who was driving. Im afraid their solicitor would never allow them to admit to it. There is I believe also a point in law that the person who records the CCTV has to testify in court to the exact time the video was recorded and that it has not been edited.
This is all very unfortunate and I think the driver has been lucky but the laws the law , I dont think anybody can doubt whos responsible however with our legal system it has to be proved beyond doubt.


----------



## ycbm (7 June 2017)

I do not believe that the CCTV evidence would not be admissable in court. There have been recent convictions of a girl who assaulted Jeremy Vine, with evidence presented from his head cam; a girl who beat a tied up pony with evidence she or her connections posted on YouTube themselves, and I have seen private domestic CCTV presented in court. Unofficial CCTV is increasingly used in court. 

 There was no dispute that it was the driver who was driving, he did not dispute that and if he had tried to in court he had stopped and been seen and could be formally identified.

It is easy from a video of that length to measure and calculate what speed he was traveling at, which was clearly, from the result, excessive for the road conditions. 

I believe the truth is exactly what Levrier has said, it was cheaper and easier to offer a driver awareness course.

It's shameful.


----------



## popsdosh (8 June 2017)

ycbm said:



			I do not believe that the CCTV evidence would not be admissable in court. There have been recent convictions of a girl who assaulted Jeremy Vine, with evidence presented from his head cam; a girl who beat a tied up pony with evidence she or her connections posted on YouTube themselves, and I have seen private domestic CCTV presented in court. Unofficial CCTV is increasingly used in court. 

 There was no dispute that it was the driver who was driving, he did not dispute that and if he had tried to in court he had stopped and been seen and could be formally identified.

It is easy from a video of that length to measure and calculate what speed he was traveling at, which was clearly, from the result, excessive for the road conditions. 

I believe the truth is exactly what Levrier has said, it was cheaper and easier to offer a driver awareness course.

It's shameful.
		
Click to expand...

Who could formally identify him ? this is the problem because the footage cant ! I doubt the riders could for obvious reasons.
In both the examples you give the perpetrator is clearly visible.  
In my mind it was certainly better to get the driver on a course for which they dont have to admit guilt than for them to get off completely however unpalatable that is. For somebody who professes to know so much about the law you certainly seem to have little understanding of what can and cannot be used in evidence. I have been on a course run locally by the police on gathering video evidence of hare coursing etc and the one thing that was stressed above all others is that the footage must be able to clearly identify the person doing it anything other it is useless.


----------



## ycbm (8 June 2017)

Popsdosh. He stopped at the scene. People saw him. It was his car. The Police arrested him. He would have had no alibi for the time he was driving and no-one would have offered to admit they were driving his car. 


You've been on one course? I've sat in court for ten years (no longer do) and Levrier has worked for two police forces. Are you really likely to know better than us?


----------



## popsdosh (8 June 2017)

ycbm said:



			Popsdosh. He stopped at the scene. People saw him. It was his car. The Police arrested him. He would have had no alibi for the time he was driving and no-one would have offered to admit they were driving his car. 


You've been on one course? I've sat in court for ten years (no longer do) and Levrier has worked for two police forces. Are you really likely to know better than us?
		
Click to expand...

No body else saw him! He was never arrested! The only evidence was the video . Remember accepting the driving course is not any admission of guilt. Im sure his insurance company will sort out the damage. Dont see what else you want!

So you would find somebody guilty on the only fact that it was their car! see you in the appeal courts. Thats why it hasnt gone to court with all the coverage this has had do you really think it would just be swept under the carpet for no reason.


----------



## fburton (8 June 2017)

So what would the defence lawyer's argument be exactly? That someone else was driving his car? If so, then who? That it wasn't his car? Sorry but I can't see a credible alternative to the story that we are all assuming is true.


----------



## ycbm (8 June 2017)

fburton said:



			So what would the defence lawyer's argument be exactly? That someone else was driving his car? If so, then who? That it wasn't his car? Sorry but I can't see a credible alternative to the story that we are all assuming is true.
		
Click to expand...

Bearing in mind also that it is a legal requirement to know who is driving your car at all times. He would have had to claim it was stolen. My understanding is that he stopped at the scene. The conscious rider at the very least could identify him.

I think PD may be forgetting that the burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt' not 'beyond all doubt'.


----------



## popsdosh (8 June 2017)

ycbm said:



			Bearing in mind also that it is a legal requirement to know who is driving your car at all times. He would have had to claim it was stolen. My understanding is that he stopped at the scene. The conscious rider at the very least could identify him.

I think PD may be forgetting that the burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt' not 'beyond all doubt'.
		
Click to expand...

You are very clearly getting mixed up with speeding offences when indeed if you cannot name who was driving at the time you carry the can.  What would the conscious rider identify him as somebody who got out of the car maybe! Driver passenger? you couldnt tell from footage !

first question from defence barrister in court ,can you identify who was driving the vehicle? No . I really do not think unfortunately that the conscious rider would have been focusing on who got out of the vehicle or from which side. From what I know of where it happened its very unlikely there would have been other witnesses.
If the answer was yes I am sure their would have been a prosecution.

Then the simple question is why did they not prosecute?

Enough said im not getting drawn into a long tit for tat


----------



## ycbm (8 June 2017)

It has nothing specifically to do with speeding offences PD. You are required by law to be able to name who is driving a vehicle of which you are the register keeper at any time that it is on the road. 

The simple answer is that they did not prosecute because they are short of manpower, going to court costs a lot of money, and they decided to save it by giving him a driver awareness course which costs nothing because he has to pay for it.


----------



## popsdosh (8 June 2017)

fburton said:



			So what would the defence lawyer's argument be exactly? That someone else was driving his car? If so, then who? That it wasn't his car? Sorry but I can't see a credible alternative to the story that we are all assuming is true.
		
Click to expand...

There wasnt only one person in the car! It is indeed rare for any prosecution to come from any RTC when no person is seriously injured. As much as we dont like it horses are treated exactly the same as any other road vehicle and it is left to the insurance company to cover loses.


----------



## ester (8 June 2017)

Why would a passenger get out of the drivers door? 

Presumably he didn't deny being the driver given he has done a course?


----------



## minesadouble (8 June 2017)

I assume the real reason the case is not being pursued through the courts is that the CPS have facts to hand that we are not privy to that would mean it is not in the public interest to pursue the case.


----------



## ycbm (8 June 2017)

minesadouble said:



			I assume the real reason the case is not being pursued through the courts is that the CPS have facts to hand that we are not privy to that would mean it is not in the public interest to pursue the case.
		
Click to expand...

Was a file ever sent to the CPS, do we know, or did the Police simply decide to shelve this one? I suspect the latter.


----------



## fburton (8 June 2017)

Can we find out?


----------



## popsdosh (8 June 2017)

fburton said:



			Can we find out?
		
Click to expand...

I believe in a local paper that it was quoted being a decision by the police and CPS.
We can guess as much as we like it cannot change the outcome as the DAC has been served.


----------



## ester (8 June 2017)

True but it doesn't mean it wouldn't be interesting to know.


----------



## YorksG (13 June 2017)

There were two possible outcomes, one which raises revenue and one which would cost the public purse into the thousands, yet another example of the unintended side effect of "austerity" IMO.


----------



## minesadouble (13 June 2017)

YorksG said:



			There were two possible outcomes, one which raises revenue and one which would cost the public purse into the thousands, yet another example of the unintended side effect of "austerity" IMO.
		
Click to expand...

Can't agree I'm afraid, the case probably would have been heard in Mags and the so costs would be kept to a minimum. I don't think 'austerity' had any role at all  whatsoever in this decision.


----------



## YorksG (13 June 2017)

minesadouble said:



			Can't agree I'm afraid, the case probably would have been heard in Mags and the so costs would be kept to a minimum. I don't think 'austerity' had any role at all  whatsoever in this decision.
		
Click to expand...

The amount of police time, CPS time, Clerk of the Court time, ushers time etc. still adds up in Mags courts, which can be set against the revenue raised by the charge of the driver awareness course.


----------

