Loc k him up for a long time.....

[BensGrandad]

1 -
2 - as I said earlier, the Police can check at the roadside whether someone hs insurance or not.

?

That is not 100% true as some of the smaller companies are not 'tuned' into the new system, hence it is possible to try to tax a vehicle on line and the message comes up ' we cannot licence this vehicle as we do not have the required insurance information but this does not mean that the vehicle is not insured'. This happens to me quite often when I try to re tax my old camper, which incidentally is insured.

A policewoman I know, in Sussex, tried to nick a person for no insurance whose car had no MOT as she said that the insurance became invalid but the DPP refused to sanction the charges.

 

[tip top]

Yes but not till the afternoon and i'm pretty sure never over the limit. this case aside there's a HUGE difference in driving 10 hrs after your last drink (and feeling bit rough but not over limit, to driving 10 mins after your last drink. Have u been done urself then? pretty strange thing for you to come up with if you havent... ?

....... but you feel a tad sorry for your mate who got CONVICTED of DD

 

[BensGrandad]

Just read in The Star that he was allegedly twice the legal limit for DD.

I think that it is now impossible for him to get a fair and unbiased trial due to the press coverage as no doubt he will be advised to plead Not Guilty to causing death by dangerous driving . The judge will instruct the jury to disregard anything that they have read, heard or seen about this case but that is easier said than done.

I think that all media coverage of such incidents should have an embargo placed on them restricting the media, newspapers, radio and TV from reporting the intricate details once somebody has been arrested and charged with an offence, until the case has been heard in court.

This is not to say I have any sympathy towards him but feel that its on the basis of a fair trial that our legal system exists.

 

[steward 433]

BG where he crashed has a lot of cameras covering that part of the motorway!!

I am pretty sure at least one of the cameras would have picked the crash up hence the dangerous driving charge

 

[BensGrandad]

BG where he crashed has a lot of cameras covering that part of the motorway!!

I am pretty sure at least one of the cameras would have picked the crash up hence the dangerous driving charge

That may be so but I would expect his brief to suggest that he fights the Dangerous Driving charge because otherwise he is throwing himself at the mercy of the prison system and with the press coverage he is looking at a very long time.

Perhaps he deserves that, I dont know, but he is still entitled to a fair trial and an unbiased jury.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

A policewoman I know, in Sussex, tried to nick a person for no insurance whose car had no MOT as she said that the insurance became invalid but the DPP refused to sanction the charges.

Although this person didn't get charged they would have been in trouble in the event of an accident as the insurance company would have refused to honour the insurance and pay out. In that event no doubt charges would have followed.

Insurance isn't automatically invalid if the car has no MOT. The car would have been insured against theft and fire had the car been kept off the road and the insurance would have been valid if driving to a pre booked MOT test.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Nothing is PROVEN at this stage by law, because like anybody, the defendant in this matter has the right to defend himself in a court. The evidence so far is simply that he was over the limit.

He may come up with a defence as to why his breath/alcohol reading was sufficiently high to be over the limit, but I doubt it, unless he gets someone like Nick Freeman to try and exploit some miniscule technicality.

I'd imagine the charge he will contest is the dangerous driving element, and probably plead guilty to the rest. Dangerous doesn't necessarily mean he was driving at 100mph, or undertaking, or weaving in and out of the lanes.

Given that he is supposed to have gone into the back of the car carrying the family, it could be that he simply fell asleep at the wheel himself. If you could reasonably be expected to know you were that tired- quite possible at 5am- then that could be the basis the dangerous driving charge.

Simply being over the limit in itself does not qualify as "dangerous" for the purpose of being charged with causing death by dangerous driving.

If memory serves me correctly, the bloke who caused the Selby train crash when his car left the motorway and landed on the railway line was convicted of causing DBDD because it was considered likely that he fell asleep at the wheel.

 

[BensGrandad]

Although this person didn't get charged they would have been in trouble in the event of an accident as the insurance company would have refused to honour the insurance and pay out. In that event no doubt charges would have followed.

Insurance isn't automatically invalid if the car has no MOT. The car would have been insured against theft and fire had the car been kept off the road and the insurance would have been valid if driving to a pre booked MOT test.

This was just a basic MOT had expired and he didnt realise that it was 1 month out of date. But the DPP said that his argument was that he had insurance in operation so it was legal for him to be on the road. Claims for damage etc are not the police responsibility and would constitute a civil action not a legal one.

 

[sten_super]

Insurance isn't automatically invalid if the car has no MOT. The car would have been insured against theft and fire had the car been kept off the road and the insurance would have been valid if driving to a pre booked MOT test.

I'm surprised by that as it just so happens I was reading my MOT T&Cs yesterday. Amongst the others it states that it is illegal to drive a car without a valid MOT EVEN IF you are driving to a pre booked MOT test.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The court case will reveal all but the facts as they are known don't look good for McCormick.

Firstly, he's a professional footballer but still twice over the legal limit at 6am?? How pissed was he when he was REALLY gone? You'd think the clubs would instill in the players no excessive drinking. Theyt can do all the drinking the like after they retire.

Secondly, what's with the insurance?

Thirdly, he made a conscious decision to get into the car and drive while pissed.

The guy has made a series of bad choices. I reckon he'll get 2 years but he should really get at least 10.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

This was just a basic MOT had expired and he didnt realise that it was 1 month out of date. But the DPP said that his argument was that he had insurance in operation so it was legal for him to be on the road. Claims for damage etc are not the police responsibility and would constitute a civil action not a legal one.

Sorry I should have worded my post better. I meant that in the event of an accident then they would have been more likely to face charges for driving without insurance.

Of course the other party in the accident would have to take out a civil action to recover loses.

I am sure a TV watchdog type program a few months ago mentioned insurance is invalid if the car is not MOT'd. How long ago was the incident your friend experienced?

I'm surprised by that as it just so happens I was reading my MOT T&Cs yesterday. Amongst the others it states that it is illegal to drive a car without a valid MOT EVEN IF you are driving to a pre booked MOT test.

I was always under the impression that wasn't the case. Means I'll have to go to the expense of hiring a trailer now when I finish my current restore project. Bugger.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

The guy has made a series of bad choices. I reckon he'll get 2 years but he should really get at least 10.

Really?

If convicted, I suspect he's looking at considerably more than two.

For comparison purposes, Lee Hughes got 6 years, and there was no drink drive element (he managed to escape that one by running off and hiding for two days). His victim was elderly, which, such is the way of the world, has far less emotional impact and media appeal than two little boys.

If proven that McCormick's dangerous driving contributed in some way towards the deaths of those children, then I can see him getting clobbered by the court.

 

[sten_super]

I was always under the impression that wasn't the case. Means I'll have to go to the expense of hiring a trailer now when I finish my current restore project. Bugger.

Sorry, just checked online, and apparently I can't read...

http://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q360.htm

Ooops.

 

[eastlondonseagull]

Just read in The Star that he was allegedly twice the legal limit for DD.

I think that it is now impossible for him to get a fair and unbiased trial due to the press coverage as no doubt he will be advised to plead Not Guilty to causing death by dangerous driving . The judge will instruct the jury to disregard anything that they have read, heard or seen about this case but that is easier said than done.

I think that all media coverage of such incidents should have an embargo placed on them restricting the media, newspapers, radio and TV from reporting the intricate details once somebody has been arrested and charged with an offence, until the case has been heard in court.

To be fair, that's exactly what should be happening. The Contempt of Court Act appears to be broken on a daily basis by the press these days, and they keep on getting away with it

.

 

[BensGrandad]

To be fair, that's exactly what should be happening. The Contempt of Court Act appears to be broken on a daily basis by the press these days, and they keep on getting away with it

.

Could a defence barrister use the fact that he wouldnt get a fair unbiased trial as means of getting the charges dropped.

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

Really?

If convicted, I suspect he's looking at considerably more than two.

For comparison purposes, Lee Hughes got 6 years, and there was no drink drive element (he managed to escape that one by running off and hiding for two days). His victim was elderly, which, such is the way of the world, has far less emotional impact and media appeal than two little boys.

If proven that McCormick's dangerous driving contributed in some way towards the deaths of those children, then I can see him getting clobbered by the court.

IIRC didnt Hughes get treated more severely due to the aggravating factor of trying to flee the scene? Failing to report an accident and leaving the scene is a seperate offence after all.