Loss of confidence in UK courts

#1
#2
I know this sticks in the craw but, in law, this decision is correct. if you read the article the driver in question was not convicted of dangerous driving and no legal power exists to make him pay the compo.

Courts cannot act beyond their power. The victim will still recieve his money but from the another source (and much quicker than £3 a week).

It just doesn't seem right, hard cases make bad law.......

Trotsky
 
#3
if he does it right, he can sue the family for stress like that bast*** taxi driver who sued the family after he killed their son.
 
#4
I hope they find a way to take the little chav sh*te to the cleaners - the git deserves everything he gets.
 
#5
I am sure that leaving the scene of a crime is against the law and is a custodial sentence. Driving without due care and attention etc are available to the police.

it is the duty of the Government to change the law but sadly such things are of minor import considering that billions are spent on convict rehabilitation and only millions spent on victims. There is NO accountability with this government since they have removed the H.O.L and reduced the judicial organisation to nothing more than a group of yes men.

Other than organising a fund for this poor lad and providing assistance to his parents, nothing will improve the rest of his life.

PS
In real terms, I don't care if the press reads the responses to half of these threads - maybe we could change things.
 

Unknown_Quantity

War Hero
Moderator
#7
johnojohnson said:
...it is the duty of the Government to change the law...
Unlucky! There are still minority sports to ban first. I'm glad that their priorities are so well ordered.
 
#8
What strikes me as madness is that the courts really think that banning someone who is driving without insurance, and probably hasn't got a license anyway, is going to work. Do they really expect that they will obey the court? These scum just walk out of the court and jump into the car they have parked in the carpark then go and run someone else down.

Jail the b@stards instead of banning them!! That'll keep them off the road!
 
#9
twicer said:
What strikes me as madness is that the courts really think that banning someone who is driving without insurance, and probably hasn't got a license anyway, is going to work. Do they really expect that they will obey the court? These scum just walk out of the court and jump into the car they have parked in the carpark then go and run someone else down.

Jail the b@stards instead of banning them!! That'll keep them off the road!
Abso-bloody- lutely!
 
#10
Two accidents, two innocent parties injured and the *anker is still on the streets laughing. What makes it worse is that he probably got leagal aid to defend himself with too. Sometimes you just wish that the stocks were still an option. They'd soon realize what the population really think of them.
 
#12
twicer said:
What strikes me as madness is that the courts really think that banning someone who is driving without insurance, and probably hasn't got a license anyway, is going to work. Do they really expect that they will obey the court? These scum just walk out of the court and jump into the car they have parked in the carpark then go and run someone else down.

Jail the b@stards instead of banning them!! That'll keep them off the road!
Too right! Here's the proof:

These men were disqualified but chose to drive anyway:

Peter Noble

Noble was disqualified from driving when he went on a "motorised pub crawl" which ended with him ploughing into an oncoming car, killing the three occupants and his three passengers. He is serving 10 years in prison and has been banned from driving for life.

John Dore

Despite being banned twice, Dore was driving at 60mph to make a drug deal when he knocked down and killed an 11-year-old schoolboy in Manchester. He did not stop to help his victim and later tried to destroy the car. He was sentenced to five years in jail in September.

Wayne Rule

Showing a "total disregard for human life", disqualified driver Rule crashed into a policeman, dragging him 50 metres and killing him. The 25-year-old received a nine-year prison sentence for manslaughter and was banned from driving for a further 15 years.

Howard Bloor

Dubbed "the worst driver in Britain" by the tabloids, Bloor has amassed 28 convictions for driving while banned and 27 for drink driving-related offences. He was sentenced to five months in jail two weeks ago and banned for a further three years.

Robert Campbell

Campbell received the dubious distinction of breaking Scotland's drink-driving record - six times the limit. At his court case last April, he admitted already being banned when he was stopped by police, as well as driving without insurance. He was banned for 10 years and imprisoned for four months.
That Howard Bloor was continuedly banned, and even when he appeared in court for breaking the ban - what did the nice judge do? Extended the ban again - hello? WTF? Then again - I think the judge's hands are tied; there's only maximum they can put them in jail for especially if sentenced before a magistrate - therefore the most is six months. Its the law that needs a severe shake up.
 
#13
deleted
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top