As you might imagine, there are many people who find themselves in Court for various reasons and I have to say that most don't merit comment. Those I mention in this forum have, in my view, something of interest. This is one that we heard this morning.
The defendant was charged with causing death by careless driving, the prosecution case being that he ought to have been sufficiently aware that he could have taken avoiding action.
The defendant collided with a 31 year old male pedestrian who was attempting to cross a road, not on a controlled pedestrian crossing.
He pleaded not guilty, his defence being that, had the pedestrian not been in the road, there would have been no collision and that therefore, the pedestrian was responsible for his own death.
When asked why he had not taken avoiding action, he replied, "It's not my job to look out for every dick-head on the road"
When further pressed he accepted that he could well have taken avoiding action but insisted that his driving standard had been reasonable in the circumstances, the pedestrian being the one whose actions should be regarded as suspect, ie. he shouldn't have been in the road.
His defence failed. We convicted him and committed him to Crown Court for sentencing.
The parents and girl friend of the deceased were in Court for the duration of the trial.
As I said, the greater majority of cases are not worth commenting on, but some are.
I'm chairing the remand Court tomorrow morning as well... that should be a barrel of laughs.
The defendant was charged with causing death by careless driving, the prosecution case being that he ought to have been sufficiently aware that he could have taken avoiding action.
The defendant collided with a 31 year old male pedestrian who was attempting to cross a road, not on a controlled pedestrian crossing.
He pleaded not guilty, his defence being that, had the pedestrian not been in the road, there would have been no collision and that therefore, the pedestrian was responsible for his own death.
When asked why he had not taken avoiding action, he replied, "It's not my job to look out for every dick-head on the road"
When further pressed he accepted that he could well have taken avoiding action but insisted that his driving standard had been reasonable in the circumstances, the pedestrian being the one whose actions should be regarded as suspect, ie. he shouldn't have been in the road.
His defence failed. We convicted him and committed him to Crown Court for sentencing.
The parents and girl friend of the deceased were in Court for the duration of the trial.
As I said, the greater majority of cases are not worth commenting on, but some are.
I'm chairing the remand Court tomorrow morning as well... that should be a barrel of laughs.
Paul
Cogito ergo sum... maybe?
Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Cogito ergo sum... maybe?
Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
