Re: So you can be jailed for being a passenger

On 22 Nov, 10:36, Pete Fisher <Pe...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In communiqué <s5RVk.1067$Yt5.1...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Beav
<beavis.origi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> cast forth these pearls of wisdom







"steve auvache" <dont_s...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:FwD2GWAjO8JJFwVC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <1iqs1er.mn06sz1g0fawfN%totallydeadmail...@xxxxxxxxxxx>, The
Older Gentleman <totallydeadmail...@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm

Worrying precedent, that.

No precedent there Sir but a well tested principle that any holder of a
driving licence is responsible for the actions of the driver of any
vehicle they may be travelling in.

If it worries you just make sure to ask your bus/taxi/train driver if
she has been drinking, taking drugs, is being pimped or has been within
500 yards of a swarthy foreign looking type carrying a rucksack.

Stop this bus, you're driving at 1mph over the speed limit and we KNOW that
to be dangerous. You even just stopped in the middle of the road in heavy
traffic causing alll kinds of mayhem.

The old thin end of the wedge argument with a big dollop of reductio ad
absurdum.

So exactly WHO decides what's dangerous and what's not I wonder

The courts.

and how many
of us have driven or ridden at speeds in excess of the Jag driver? Not me

I've still got the ticket I earned for 102 in a 50. Plod then went out
of their way to say I wasn't 'dangerous'. It might be a different matter
today. That much of your argument is true.

Can anyone point to an 'accessory' or 'aiding and abetting' prosecution
of a passenger for *just* speeding ?

This would appear to be a novel application of the
law.

Firstly - the non-driver's conviction appears to have been
"aiding or abetting (causing death by?) dangerous driving".
No mention of aiding or abetting (or permitting) drunk
driving. So - the non-driver does not appear to have been
convicted based on anything that happened in the car park.
Handing over the keys was not apparently part of the offence.
It appears that the non-driver's offence was failing to
take responsibility for the drivers speed in the
poor conditions at the time of the crash.


Some of this lot seem to think that this case is a
novel interpretation of the statutes and that it
"should" be appealed.

I think I will be looking for the transcript
if it appears on-line.

http://www.legalbanter.co.uk/uk-legal-legal-issues-uk/49217-whats-going-here-8.html
This appears to be a "mirror" of uk.legal and
uk.legal.moderated - feel free to read the original.

Selected quotes.

"R v Allan (1963) and R v Clarkson (1971) make it clear that mere
presence at
the commission of an offence is insufficient to found liability for
aiding
and abetting. The CPS, and the court, would seem to have extended the
principle in Tuck v Robson (1970), where a publican allowed his
customers to
drink after hours, and the fact that he had "authority and control"
made his
failure to prevent this an abetting of the customer's offences.
However, the
licensee of a pub is (IMO) in a very different position to Nichols,
because
his license imposes an implied general duty not to allow offences on
the
premises, whereas Nichols, although the owner of the vehicle, is under
no
legal duty that I'm aware of to ensure that his vehicle is driven
within the
law (apart from the "permitting" offences, which are specifically
legislated
for). **That would seem to be the extension here.**"

My "**"


"Most cases which are appealed don't involve a novel extension of the
way a
well-established law is interpreted - which, as Janitor has argued,
(citing
precedent) appears to have occurred in this case.

If this case survives appeal, a whole new universe of criminal
liability for A&A
in cases of silent, passive, aquiesence will have opened up, ISTM."


"Not quite. Attorney-General's Reference (No. 1 of 1975) [1975] QB 773
makes
it clear that any assistance *before* the commission of an offence is
counselling or procuring, and at the time of the offence is aiding or
abetting, depending on whether the activity amounts to "encouraging"
or
"helping". Note that both these words require some positive action,
and do
not involve a failure to act even if a duty to act in law arises.
That's why
I say this case is a departure from precedent, and should go to
appeal.

The dangerous driving may have persisted for a short time, and
obviously
caused a death, but it is the actions of this defendant during that
time
that are the point with respect to aiding or abetting. If all he said
was
"drive my car", and then knew that it would be driven dangerously,
that
would be counselling or procuring, not aiding and abetting."


"There's no specific duty on the passenger under any of the driving-
related
statutes, I would agree (as do we all, it seems). But the court has
constructed,
or found, or thinks it has found, an implied duty in the present case,
under A&A
statute. Whether the court was correct in doing so, and in what cases
A&A would
apply is what we should be discussing."


"Perhaps you could post the text of the "Back Seat Driving Act" to
which you allude." **** :)

My "**** :)"
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: You couldnt make it up
    ... >>>Could the brother not be charged with aiding and abetting an ... >>>escapee (or whatever the offence is really called)? ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Whats going on here?
    ... it's the concept of a general 'duty' that we should ... what the passenger says) under any of the RTA's, ... that are the point with respect to aiding or abetting. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Whats going on here?
    ... degree of inaction 'aiding and abetting' - no... ... someone merely keeping silent when they should have ... features of the performance of the vehicle when it is triggered." ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Whats going on here?
    ... passive acquiescence could or should amount to 'aiding and abetting'. ... But to call that degree of inaction 'aiding and abetting' - no... ... On the basis of your argument, a bystander could be convicted of aiding & ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: OT: porn attack against automated Turing tests
    ... > abetting a criminal fraud against Hotmail and other companies, ... is aiding and abetting bank robberies? ...
    (sci.crypt)
Loading