EDP: court case about Zak Carr's death

[wafflycat]

Words fail me. The ******* is denying dangerous driving. How anyone can
think that they are in a fit state to drive when they've had no sleep and no
rest fro such a period is a total moron.


http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED02%20Jan%202007%2019%3A00%3A17%3A187

or

http://preview.tinyurl.com/y9u8jh

"Court told of top cyclist's death" by Laura Devlin EDP 3rd January 07

"A pub landlord who knocked over and killed one of Britain's top cyclists
while driving home after an overnight flight may have fallen asleep at the
wheel, a jury heard yesterday.

Norwich Crown Court was told how Donald Pearce veered in to Zak Carr on the
A11 near Wymondham but claims he did not spot the "highly experienced"
cyclist before the fatal crash.

Pearce, 49, who runs the Farmhouse pub in Colman Road, had not had an
overnight sleep between leaving Turkey the night before, arriving at
Stansted in the early hours and driving back to Norwich with his wife.

Mr Carr, 30, of Attleborough - one of the top three cyclists in the
country - was riding to work in daylight at about 7.15am on October 17,
2005, and was wearing full Lycra cycling gear and a helmet.

John Farmer, prosecuting, told the jury that Pearce and his wife had been in
Turkey for a fortnight's holiday and had landed at Stansted at 4am.

"He then gets in the car and drives and this is what happens," Mr Farmer
said.

"He is driving a car, having had no overnight sleep and no proper rest.

"He's dozed off, drifted and hit the cyclist.

"It may very well be that he's got his eyes closed, he hits the cyclist and
wakes up."

The court heard Pearce later told police in interview that he did not see
the cyclist until the last moment.

Mr Farmer read a witness statement from Mr Carr's father, Barry, who passed
his son on the A11 just moments before the collision en route to a building
job the pair were working on at Thorpe Marriott.

Barry Carr had watched his son head off from the parental home in Wymondham
and his red rear light was "clearly visible" when he overtook him.

Pearce's wife, Deborah, said she and her husband set off from Stansted at
about 5.45am and did not plan a break because Pearce "usually drives for
hours".

She slept for the entire journey and only woke when she heard a bang and saw
the windscreen was smashed and she was covered in glass.

Asked by Mr Farmer if her husband had ever given an explanation for hitting
the cyclist, she said: "We keep things bottled up and get on with life
because we've got a business to run.

"He cannot remember, all of a sudden he was there."

Laurence Bruce, defending, asked if she had any hesitation about her husband
driving home, to which she replied: "no".

She agreed he was an extremely experienced and safe driver and he had been
"badly affected" by the accident.

Giving evidence, lorry driver Antony Filby, who was on the A11 behind
Pearce's Rover 220 immediately before the collision, said Mr Carr was
cycling between the nearside carriageway and the verge and his rear light
was on.

"The next moment, this car didn't swerve, it just veered in to left.

"It was all over in a matter of seconds. it was just like a nightmare."

Witnesses who had all overtaken or were in the process of overtaking Mr
Filby's lorry told the jury they were only aware of a cyclist when they saw
a body and a bike being flung in the air.

Pearce denies causing Mr Carr's death by dangerous driving.

The trial continues."

[Tony Raven]

wafflycat wrote on 03/01/2007 09:11 +0100:
> Words fail me. The ******* is denying dangerous driving. How anyone
> can think that they are in a fit state to drive when they've had no
> sleep and no rest fro such a period is a total moron.
>

Something also should be done about the holiday charters that dump
people at an airport at that time in the morning. I know it gets cheap
landing fees etc but public transport at that time is very scarce and I
bet most of their customers drive home.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[Doki]

"Tony Raven" > wrote in message
...
> wafflycat wrote on 03/01/2007 09:11 +0100:
>> Words fail me. The ******* is denying dangerous driving. How anyone
>> can think that they are in a fit state to drive when they've had no
>> sleep and no rest fro such a period is a total moron.
>>
>
> Something also should be done about the holiday charters that dump people
> at an airport at that time in the morning. I know it gets cheap landing
> fees etc but public transport at that time is very scarce and I bet most
> of their customers drive home.

The buck still stops with the tosser who gets in a car half asleep.

[bugbear]

wafflycat wrote:
> Words fail me. The ******* is denying dangerous driving.

In fairness "denying" AKA pleading not guilty
is simply the way (in English law) of inviting
the prosecution to prove their case.

Which I most fervently hope they do.

BugBear

[Tim Hall]

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 09:21:18 +0000, Tony Raven >
wrote:

>wafflycat wrote on 03/01/2007 09:11 +0100:
>> Words fail me. The ******* is denying dangerous driving. How anyone
>> can think that they are in a fit state to drive when they've had no
>> sleep and no rest fro such a period is a total moron.
>>
>
>Something also should be done about the holiday charters that dump
>people at an airport at that time in the morning. I know it gets cheap
>landing fees etc but public transport at that time is very scarce and I
>bet most of their customers drive home.


First flight from Stansted to Norwich on a weekday is 05:27, arrives
Norwich 07:44. The Farmhouse Pub, where the defendant lives is 2
miles from Norwich station. The crash happened at 07:15.


Something should be done about making people think before they drive.



Tim

[John B]

bugbear wrote:

> > Words fail me. The ******* is denying dangerous driving.
>
> In fairness "denying" AKA pleading not guilty
> is simply the way (in English law) of inviting
> the prosecution to prove their case.
>
> Which I most fervently hope they do.

Quite, and more likely to result in a higher sentence when convicted
than if he had admitted guilt at the start.

John B

[Tony Raven]

Doki wrote on 03/01/2007 10:06 +0100:
> "Tony Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wafflycat wrote on 03/01/2007 09:11 +0100:
>>> Words fail me. The ******* is denying dangerous driving. How anyone
>>> can think that they are in a fit state to drive when they've had no
>>> sleep and no rest fro such a period is a total moron.
>>>
>> Something also should be done about the holiday charters that dump people
>> at an airport at that time in the morning. I know it gets cheap landing
>> fees etc but public transport at that time is very scarce and I bet most
>> of their customers drive home.
>
> The buck still stops with the tosser who gets in a car half asleep.
>
>

I don't disagree but lots of other people do what he did all the time as
a result of the package holiday company schedules. I think he deserves
to get done but it's meanwhile ignoring a major contributory cause of
many thousands of other similar journeys.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[spindrift]

John B wrote:
> bugbear wrote:
>
> > > Words fail me. The ******* is denying dangerous driving.
> >
> > In fairness "denying" AKA pleading not guilty
> > is simply the way (in English law) of inviting
> > the prosecution to prove their case.
> >
> > Which I most fervently hope they do.
>
> Quite, and more likely to result in a higher sentence when convicted
> than if he had admitted guilt at the start.
>
> John B

The wife sounds like a hard-faced bitch too.

[[email protected]]

Tim Hall wrote:
>
> First flight from Stansted to Norwich on a weekday is 05:27, arrives
> Norwich 07:44. The Farmhouse Pub, where the defendant lives is 2
> miles from Norwich station. The crash happened at 07:15.

First train, you mean?

[Tim Hall]

On 3 Jan 2007 03:30:17 -0800, wrote:

>
>Tim Hall wrote:
>>
>> First flight from Stansted to Norwich on a weekday is 05:27, arrives
>> Norwich 07:44. The Farmhouse Pub, where the defendant lives is 2
>> miles from Norwich station. The crash happened at 07:15.
>
>First train, you mean?

Oops, yes. That's taking a week today as the date. Can't comment on
what the train times were when the crash happened.

IMO a flight arriving at 04:00 will take at least an hour to clear
customs and baggage, making an 05:27 train a realistic option.



Tim

[Pyromancer]

Tony Raven wrote:

> wafflycat wrote on 03/01/2007 09:11 +0100:
> > Words fail me. The ******* is denying dangerous driving. How anyone
> > can think that they are in a fit state to drive when they've had no
> > sleep and no rest fro such a period is a total moron.

> Something also should be done about the holiday charters that dump
> people at an airport at that time in the morning. I know it gets cheap
> landing fees etc but public transport at that time is very scarce and I
> bet most of their customers drive home.

That may be a valid point, but it's still down to the individual to
stop and rest when they need to, rather than relying on everyone else
making sure they don't have to.

In 2005 I flew to Paris for a gig, spent about 36 hours awake and flew
back again. On arrival at Luton, at about 8am, I drove out of the
airport carpark and quickly found a safe place to park up and rest for
a while. Woke up again after a few hours, drove north for a bit,
pulled off the motorway and went for another sleep. I did that all the
way back to Leeds - it took me 13 hours total, but I made sure I wasn't
driving half asleep by stopping and napping whenever I felt tiredness
coming on.

Thing is, lots of people simply don't realise how dangerous it is to
drive while tired. And I think the risk increases as you get older.

[soup]

John B wrote:

> Quite, and more likely to result in a higher sentence when convicted
> than if he had admitted guilt at the start.

So he gets four points on his license instead of three.

--
www.cheesesoup.myby.co.uk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nileh1ZPGq4

[Sirius631]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Doki wrote on 03/01/2007 10:06 +0100:
> > "Tony Raven" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> wafflycat wrote on 03/01/2007 09:11 +0100:
> >>> Words fail me. The ******* is denying dangerous driving. How anyone
> >>> can think that they are in a fit state to drive when they've had no
> >>> sleep and no rest fro such a period is a total moron.
> >>>
> >> Something also should be done about the holiday charters that dump people
> >> at an airport at that time in the morning. I know it gets cheap landing
> >> fees etc but public transport at that time is very scarce and I bet most
> >> of their customers drive home.
> >
> > The buck still stops with the tosser who gets in a car half asleep.
> >
> >
>
> I don't disagree but lots of other people do what he did all the time as
> a result of the package holiday company schedules. I think he deserves
> to get done but it's meanwhile ignoring a major contributory cause of
> many thousands of other similar journeys.
>
Just because you have the car nearby doesn't mean that you have to jump
in it and drive straight away. People who are too tired to drive can
always book themselves into the airport hotel and have a sleep to
prepare themselves for the rest of the journey.

Just because the proverbial 'we' all do it doesn't make it safer. It
just means that the rest of us are lucky not to be hit.

David

[Nick Maclaren]

In article om>,
"Pyromancer" > writes:
|>
|> Thing is, lots of people simply don't realise how dangerous it is to
|> drive while tired. And I think the risk increases as you get older.

The last is not so. It can increase, decrease or neither. A lot of
people need less sleep as they get older, up to genuine old age.
Also, some people are little affected by a night without sleep, and
others are badly affected; it may vary for the same person depending
on their long-term sleep debt and/or health.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Tony Raven]

Pyromancer wrote on 03/01/2007 13:16 +0100:
>
> That may be a valid point, but it's still down to the individual to
> stop and rest when they need to, rather than relying on everyone else
> making sure they don't have to.
>

I agree but the holiday companies shouldn't put them in a position to be
tempted - because most of them are and succumb.

>
> Thing is, lots of people simply don't realise how dangerous it is to
> drive while tired. And I think the risk increases as you get older.
>

Precisely which is why the temptation should not be put in their way.


--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[John B]

soup wrote:

> John B wrote:
>
> > Quite, and more likely to result in a higher sentence when convicted
> > than if he had admitted guilt at the start.
>
> So he gets four points on his license instead of three.

I see you understand British justice when it comes to motoring offences.

John B

[Tony Raven]

John B wrote on 03/01/2007 13:47 +0100:
>
> soup wrote:
>
>> John B wrote:
>>
>>> Quite, and more likely to result in a higher sentence when convicted
>>> than if he had admitted guilt at the start.
>> So he gets four points on his license instead of three.
>
> I see you understand British justice when it comes to motoring offences.
>

And a follow up mathematics question. If one tired driver kills ten
train passengers and gets five years, what sentence will another tired
driver get for killing one cyclist?

Answers in the style of Eurovision voting get a bonus point.


--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[Marc Brett]

On 3 Jan 2007 05:16:51 -0800, "Pyromancer" > wrote:

>Thing is, lots of people simply don't realise how dangerous it is to
>drive while tired.

Gary Hart should be burned in effigy every year at the annual Selby bonfire, and
the event televised nationwide. It'd do more good than the Queen's speech.

[John B]

Tony Raven wrote:

>
> And a follow up mathematics question. If one tired driver kills ten
> train passengers and gets five years, what sentence will another tired
> driver get for killing one cyclist?
>
> Answers in the style of Eurovision voting get a bonus point.

Neeel pwunts.

John B

[Tim Hall]

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:47:00 +0000, John B >
wrote:

>
>
>soup wrote:
>
>> John B wrote:
>>
>> > Quite, and more likely to result in a higher sentence when convicted
>> > than if he had admitted guilt at the start.
>>
>> So he gets four points on his license instead of three.
>
>I see you understand British justice when it comes to motoring offences.


<http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/press_18feb03.html>

This suggests

* a short custodial sentence for an offence arising from a
momentary error of judgment or short period of bad driving, where
there are no aggravating features;
* a custodial sentence of 2-5 years when the standard of the
offender's driving is more highly dangerous, e.g. aggressive driving
or greatly excessive speed, or when the offender has consumed alcohol
or drugs;
* a custodial sentence over 5 years, up to the maximum of 10
years, for the most serious offences, where the offender has driven
with complete disregard for the safety of other road users and where
other aggravating features are present.

From what I understand from the Highway Code, a 2 year ban is
obligatory as well except in very, umm, exceptional circumsatnces.


Tim

[Sirius631]

Tim Hall wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:47:00 +0000, John B >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >soup wrote:
> >
> >> John B wrote:
> >>
> >> > Quite, and more likely to result in a higher sentence when convicted
> >> > than if he had admitted guilt at the start.
> >>
> >> So he gets four points on his license instead of three.
> >
> >I see you understand British justice when it comes to motoring offences.
>
>
> <http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/press_18feb03.html>
>
> This suggests
>
> * a short custodial sentence for an offence arising from a
> momentary error of judgment or short period of bad driving, where
> there are no aggravating features;
> * a custodial sentence of 2-5 years when the standard of the
> offender's driving is more highly dangerous, e.g. aggressive driving
> or greatly excessive speed, or when the offender has consumed alcohol
> or drugs;
> * a custodial sentence over 5 years, up to the maximum of 10
> years, for the most serious offences, where the offender has driven
> with complete disregard for the safety of other road users and where
> other aggravating features are present.
>
> From what I understand from the Highway Code, a 2 year ban is
> obligatory as well except in very, umm, exceptional circumsatnces.
>
>
> Tim

Personally, I would say that setting out to drive when tired would
count as showing a complete disregard for the safety of other road
users.

David

[Rob Morley]

In article om>,
says...
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
> > wafflycat wrote on 03/01/2007 09:11 +0100:
> > > Words fail me. The ******* is denying dangerous driving. How anyone
> > > can think that they are in a fit state to drive when they've had no
> > > sleep and no rest fro such a period is a total moron.
>
> > Something also should be done about the holiday charters that dump
> > people at an airport at that time in the morning. I know it gets cheap
> > landing fees etc but public transport at that time is very scarce and I
> > bet most of their customers drive home.
>
> That may be a valid point, but it's still down to the individual to
> stop and rest when they need to, rather than relying on everyone else
> making sure they don't have to.
>
Maybe next week we should get rid of the police and just rely on
everyone to obey the law.

[Doki]

"Pyromancer" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Tony Raven wrote:
> Thing is, lots of people simply don't realise how dangerous it is to
> drive while tired.

IIRC studies involving soldiers show that their reactions & judgement become
as poor as a drunk's when sleep deprived.

[[email protected]]

Pyromancer wrote:
> In 2005 I flew to Paris for a gig, spent about 36 hours awake and flew
> back again. On arrival at Luton, at about 8am, I drove out of the
> airport carpark and quickly found a safe place to park up and rest for
> a while. Woke up again after a few hours, drove north for a bit,
> pulled off the motorway and went for another sleep. I did that all the
> way back to Leeds - it took me 13 hours total, but I made sure I wasn't
> driving half asleep by stopping and napping whenever I felt tiredness
> coming on.
>
> Thing is, lots of people simply don't realise how dangerous it is to
> drive while tired. And I think the risk increases as you get older.

So why not take the train Luton Airport Parkway - Derby (or wherever) -
Leeds and sleep all the way in perfect safety?

[Tony Raven]

Doki wrote on 03/01/2007 18:01 +0100:
>
> "Pyromancer" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Thing is, lots of people simply don't realise how dangerous it is to
>> drive while tired.
>
> IIRC studies involving soldiers show that their reactions & judgement
> become as poor as a drunk's when sleep deprived.

Most people, and I bet most here, also are totally unaware of sleep
inertia. The half hour after you have woken up, especially if by alarm
clock, is a much worse time to drive than at the end of a long day.
After a nap in the day is not too good either. I generally avoid
driving for at least 30 mins after I have woken up.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/recommendations/2001/san20010244.aspx

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Doki wrote on 03/01/2007 18:01 +0100:
>> "Pyromancer" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> Thing is, lots of people simply don't realise how dangerous it is to
>>> drive while tired.
>>
>> IIRC studies involving soldiers show that their reactions & judgement
>> become as poor as a drunk's when sleep deprived.
>
> Most people, and I bet most here, also are totally unaware of sleep
> inertia. The half hour after you have woken up, especially if by
> alarm clock, is a much worse time to drive than at the end of a long
> day. After a nap in the day is not too good either. I generally avoid
> driving for at least 30 mins after I have woken up.

Me too. Unfortunately, I'm not that good at getting up at least half an hour
before I *should* leave to drive to work.

Ob. cycling: does anyone know offhand if the fact that your heart rate is
elevated on a bike mitigate that effect? My intuition says it does, but what
does intuition know?

A

[Buck]

On 01/03/2007 16:56:15 Rob Morley > wrote:

> In article om>,
> says...


> Maybe next week we should get rid of the police and just rely on everyone
> to obey the law.

Would we notice?
--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

[wafflycat]

There's more in today's EDP (not on the web site at the moment though, so no
URL). Seems it *might* have been an attempted hit and run :(

Here's an extract of the article in today's EDP, (04 Jan 07, Page 21: "Car
'drifted' into cyclist at 60mph" by Laura Devlin)

"Paul Dunhill, who was travelling towards Norwich behind Pearce's Rover 220
for several miles before the crash, said the pub landlord eventually stopped
but remained by his own vehicle while others tended to Mr Carr, a champion
cyclist from Attleborough.

Describing the moments leading up to the impact at about 7.15am on October
17, 2005, he said Mr Carr was riding parallel to and slightly within a layby
and had been "clearly visible" from three to four hundred yards away

"The Rover was moving closer and I remember thinking 'come on, mate, it's
time you moved out'," he said.

The court heard the Rover "drifted in" to the lay-by at up to 60mph, Mr
Dunhill heard a bang and saw it drift out again but no sign of the car
slowing or braking.

"I thought 'it's a hit and run', so I hit the accelerator to try and catch
him up," he said.

"I went behind him and sounded my horn - I did not believe the cyclist would
have survived and my concern was to try and stop the Rover."

The court heard Mr Dunhill ran to the layby after the Rover stopped, found
Mr Carr was still breathing, and ran back to his car to fetch a blanket.

"The Rover driver had got out of his car and was on the grass verge on his
mobile phone, smoking a cigarette," he said. "As I ran back to the
car I shouted to him 'you've killed him' and he gestured that he was on the
phone to the police."

Asked by prosecutor John Farmer whether he believed Pearce had heard the
comment, he said he was not sure. "He didn't come over at all when I was
there and I watched the paramedics putting Zak into the ambulance.""

And the driver, Pearce is denying dangerous driving...

[spindrift]

wafflycat wrote:
> There's more in today's EDP (not on the web site at the moment though, so no
> URL). Seems it *might* have been an attempted hit and run :(
>
> Here's an extract of the article in today's EDP, (04 Jan 07, Page 21: "Car
> 'drifted' into cyclist at 60mph" by Laura Devlin)
>
> "Paul Dunhill, who was travelling towards Norwich behind Pearce's Rover 220
> for several miles before the crash, said the pub landlord eventually stopped
> but remained by his own vehicle while others tended to Mr Carr, a champion
> cyclist from Attleborough.
>
> Describing the moments leading up to the impact at about 7.15am on October
> 17, 2005, he said Mr Carr was riding parallel to and slightly within a layby
> and had been "clearly visible" from three to four hundred yards away
>
> "The Rover was moving closer and I remember thinking 'come on, mate, it's
> time you moved out'," he said.
>
> The court heard the Rover "drifted in" to the lay-by at up to 60mph, Mr
> Dunhill heard a bang and saw it drift out again but no sign of the car
> slowing or braking.
>
> "I thought 'it's a hit and run', so I hit the accelerator to try and catch
> him up," he said.
>
> "I went behind him and sounded my horn - I did not believe the cyclist would
> have survived and my concern was to try and stop the Rover."
>
> The court heard Mr Dunhill ran to the layby after the Rover stopped, found
> Mr Carr was still breathing, and ran back to his car to fetch a blanket.
>
> "The Rover driver had got out of his car and was on the grass verge on his
> mobile phone, smoking a cigarette," he said. "As I ran back to the
> car I shouted to him 'you've killed him' and he gestured that he was on the
> phone to the police."
>
> Asked by prosecutor John Farmer whether he believed Pearce had heard the
> comment, he said he was not sure. "He didn't come over at all when I was
> there and I watched the paramedics putting Zak into the ambulance.""
>
> And the driver, Pearce is denying dangerous driving...


Oh, for God's sake, he tried to get away after killing someone. Even
after being forced to stop he did nothing to help Kaz or even check if
he was ok. Bravo to Mr Dunhill, his evidence is damning.

[spindrift]

wafflycat wrote:
> There's more in today's EDP (not on the web site at the moment though, so no
> URL). Seems it *might* have been an attempted hit and run :(
>
> Here's an extract of the article in today's EDP, (04 Jan 07, Page 21: "Car
> 'drifted' into cyclist at 60mph" by Laura Devlin)
>
> "Paul Dunhill, who was travelling towards Norwich behind Pearce's Rover 220
> for several miles before the crash, said the pub landlord eventually stopped
> but remained by his own vehicle while others tended to Mr Carr, a champion
> cyclist from Attleborough.
>
> Describing the moments leading up to the impact at about 7.15am on October
> 17, 2005, he said Mr Carr was riding parallel to and slightly within a layby
> and had been "clearly visible" from three to four hundred yards away
>
> "The Rover was moving closer and I remember thinking 'come on, mate, it's
> time you moved out'," he said.
>
> The court heard the Rover "drifted in" to the lay-by at up to 60mph, Mr
> Dunhill heard a bang and saw it drift out again but no sign of the car
> slowing or braking.
>
> "I thought 'it's a hit and run', so I hit the accelerator to try and catch
> him up," he said.
>
> "I went behind him and sounded my horn - I did not believe the cyclist would
> have survived and my concern was to try and stop the Rover."
>
> The court heard Mr Dunhill ran to the layby after the Rover stopped, found
> Mr Carr was still breathing, and ran back to his car to fetch a blanket.
>
> "The Rover driver had got out of his car and was on the grass verge on his
> mobile phone, smoking a cigarette," he said. "As I ran back to the
> car I shouted to him 'you've killed him' and he gestured that he was on the
> phone to the police."
>
> Asked by prosecutor John Farmer whether he believed Pearce had heard the
> comment, he said he was not sure. "He didn't come over at all when I was
> there and I watched the paramedics putting Zak into the ambulance.""
>
> And the driver, Pearce is denying dangerous driving...


Oh, for God's sake, he tried to get away after killing someone. Even
after being forced to stop he did nothing to help Zak or even check if
he was ok. Bravo to Mr Dunhill, his evidence is damning.

[spindrift]

wafflycat wrote:
> There's more in today's EDP (not on the web site at the moment though, so no
> URL). Seems it *might* have been an attempted hit and run :(
>
> Here's an extract of the article in today's EDP, (04 Jan 07, Page 21: "Car
> 'drifted' into cyclist at 60mph" by Laura Devlin)
>
> "Paul Dunhill, who was travelling towards Norwich behind Pearce's Rover 220
> for several miles before the crash, said the pub landlord eventually stopped
> but remained by his own vehicle while others tended to Mr Carr, a champion
> cyclist from Attleborough.
>
> Describing the moments leading up to the impact at about 7.15am on October
> 17, 2005, he said Mr Carr was riding parallel to and slightly within a layby
> and had been "clearly visible" from three to four hundred yards away
>
> "The Rover was moving closer and I remember thinking 'come on, mate, it's
> time you moved out'," he said.
>
> The court heard the Rover "drifted in" to the lay-by at up to 60mph, Mr
> Dunhill heard a bang and saw it drift out again but no sign of the car
> slowing or braking.
>
> "I thought 'it's a hit and run', so I hit the accelerator to try and catch
> him up," he said.
>
> "I went behind him and sounded my horn - I did not believe the cyclist would
> have survived and my concern was to try and stop the Rover."
>
> The court heard Mr Dunhill ran to the layby after the Rover stopped, found
> Mr Carr was still breathing, and ran back to his car to fetch a blanket.
>
> "The Rover driver had got out of his car and was on the grass verge on his
> mobile phone, smoking a cigarette," he said. "As I ran back to the
> car I shouted to him 'you've killed him' and he gestured that he was on the
> phone to the police."
>
> Asked by prosecutor John Farmer whether he believed Pearce had heard the
> comment, he said he was not sure. "He didn't come over at all when I was
> there and I watched the paramedics putting Zak into the ambulance.""
>
> And the driver, Pearce is denying dangerous driving...


Oh, for God's sake, he tried to get away after killing someone. Even
after being forced to stop he did nothing to help Zak or even check if
he was ok. Bravo to Mr Dunhill, his evidence is damning.

[wafflycat]

"spindrift" > wrote in message
oups.com...

>
>
> Oh, for God's sake, he tried to get away after killing someone. Even
> after being forced to stop he did nothing to help Zak or even check if
> he was ok. Bravo to Mr Dunhill, his evidence is damning.
>

Heard you three times on this one ;-)

I truly hope that the evidence given is taken by the jury to accept that
Pearce is guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. One can but hope.

[Buck]

On 01/04/2007 09:40:33 "spindrift" > wrote:

> wafflycat wrote:

>> There's more in today's EDP (not on the web site at the moment though, so
>> no URL). Seems it *might* have been an attempted hit and run :(

>> Here's an extract of the article in today's EDP, (04 Jan 07, Page 21:
>> "Car 'drifted' into cyclist at 60mph" by Laura Devlin)

>> "Paul Dunhill, who was travelling towards Norwich behind Pearce's Rover
>> 220 for several miles before the crash, said the pub landlord eventually
>> stopped but remained by his own vehicle while others tended to Mr Carr, a
>> champion cyclist from Attleborough.

>> Describing the moments leading up to the impact at about 7.15am on
>> October 17, 2005, he said Mr Carr was riding parallel to and slightly
>> within a layby and had been "clearly visible" from three to four hundred
>> yards away


> Oh, for God's sake, he tried to get away after killing someone. Even
> after being forced to stop he did nothing to help Kaz or even check if he
> was ok. Bravo to Mr Dunhill, his evidence is damning.

That will be 4 points and a £150 fine then, true justice at work, not.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

[Tim Hall]

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:07:43 GMT, Buck
> wrote:

>
>
>On 01/04/2007 09:40:33 "spindrift" > wrote:

>
>> Oh, for God's sake, he tried to get away after killing someone. Even
>> after being forced to stop he did nothing to help Kaz or even check if he
>> was ok. Bravo to Mr Dunhill, his evidence is damning.
>
>That will be 4 points and a £150 fine then, true justice at work, not.


Very unlikely.

I've already posted the sentencing guidelines for death by dangerous
driving.



Tim

[spindrift]

spindrift wrote:
> wafflycat wrote:
> > There's more in today's EDP (not on the web site at the moment though, so no
> > URL). Seems it *might* have been an attempted hit and run :(
> >
> > Here's an extract of the article in today's EDP, (04 Jan 07, Page 21: "Car
> > 'drifted' into cyclist at 60mph" by Laura Devlin)
> >
> > "Paul Dunhill, who was travelling towards Norwich behind Pearce's Rover 220
> > for several miles before the crash, said the pub landlord eventually stopped
> > but remained by his own vehicle while others tended to Mr Carr, a champion
> > cyclist from Attleborough.
> >
> > Describing the moments leading up to the impact at about 7.15am on October
> > 17, 2005, he said Mr Carr was riding parallel to and slightly within a layby
> > and had been "clearly visible" from three to four hundred yards away
> >
> > "The Rover was moving closer and I remember thinking 'come on, mate, it's
> > time you moved out'," he said.
> >
> > The court heard the Rover "drifted in" to the lay-by at up to 60mph, Mr
> > Dunhill heard a bang and saw it drift out again but no sign of the car
> > slowing or braking.
> >
> > "I thought 'it's a hit and run', so I hit the accelerator to try and catch
> > him up," he said.
> >
> > "I went behind him and sounded my horn - I did not believe the cyclist would
> > have survived and my concern was to try and stop the Rover."
> >
> > The court heard Mr Dunhill ran to the layby after the Rover stopped, found
> > Mr Carr was still breathing, and ran back to his car to fetch a blanket.
> >
> > "The Rover driver had got out of his car and was on the grass verge on his
> > mobile phone, smoking a cigarette," he said. "As I ran back to the
> > car I shouted to him 'you've killed him' and he gestured that he was on the
> > phone to the police."
> >
> > Asked by prosecutor John Farmer whether he believed Pearce had heard the
> > comment, he said he was not sure. "He didn't come over at all when I was
> > there and I watched the paramedics putting Zak into the ambulance.""
> >
> > And the driver, Pearce is denying dangerous driving...
>
>
> Oh, for God's sake, he tried to get away after killing someone. Even
> after being forced to stop he did nothing to help Zak or even check if
> he was ok. Bravo to Mr Dunhill, his evidence is damning.


Whoops, sorry.

[POHB]

spindrift wrote:
> > The court heard the Rover "drifted in" to the lay-by at up to 60mph, Mr
> > Dunhill heard a bang and saw it drift out again but no sign of the car
> > slowing or braking.
>
> Oh, for God's sake, he tried to get away after killing someone. Even
> after being forced to stop he did nothing to help Kaz or even check if
> he was ok. Bravo to Mr Dunhill, his evidence is damning.

Sounds to me more like it took him a while to wake up after the impact.

Do I correctly recall that they recently made driving while sleepy an
exacerbating circumstance rather than an excuse? Maybe after that guy
drove his Land Rover down the bank onto the train line?

[wafflycat]

"POHB" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> spindrift wrote:
>> > The court heard the Rover "drifted in" to the lay-by at up to 60mph, Mr
>> > Dunhill heard a bang and saw it drift out again but no sign of the car
>> > slowing or braking.
>>
>> Oh, for God's sake, he tried to get away after killing someone. Even
>> after being forced to stop he did nothing to help Kaz or even check if
>> he was ok. Bravo to Mr Dunhill, his evidence is damning.
>
> Sounds to me more like it took him a while to wake up after the impact.
>

Possibly not. Reason being as this quote from the previous day's report in
the EDP:-

"The court heard Pearce later told police in interview that he did not see
the cyclist until the last moment."

So he's admitted he saw Zak, even if it was 'at the last moment' if the
report is correct.

[dkahn400]

wafflycat wrote:
> "POHB" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > Sounds to me more like it took him a while to wake up after the impact.
>
> Possibly not. Reason being as this quote from the previous day's report in
> the EDP:-
>
> "The court heard Pearce later told police in interview that he did not see
> the cyclist until the last moment."
>
> So he's admitted he saw Zak, even if it was 'at the last moment' if the
> report is correct.

I wouldn't take anything the scumbag says at face value. He may have
decided a SMIDSY would go better for him than admitting he was fast
asleep.

--
Dave...

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

"wafflycat" >typed



> "spindrift" > wrote in message
> oups.com...

> >
> >
> > Oh, for God's sake, he tried to get away after killing someone. Even
> > after being forced to stop he did nothing to help Zak or even check if
> > he was ok. Bravo to Mr Dunhill, his evidence is damning.
> >

> Heard you three times on this one ;-)

> I truly hope that the evidence given is taken by the jury to accept that
> Pearce is guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. One can but hope.

The evidence from the defendant on the BBC wibble
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/6231725.stm does not really
add up to the testimony of of a good and careful driver, does it?

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

[Buck]

On 01/04/2007 10:34:23 Tim Hall > wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:07:43 GMT, Buck >
> wrote:

>> On 01/04/2007 09:40:33 "spindrift" > wrote:

>>> Oh, for God's sake, he tried to get away after killing someone. Even
>>> after being forced to stop he did nothing to help Kaz or even check if
>>> he was ok. Bravo to Mr Dunhill, his evidence is damning.

>> That will be 4 points and a £150 fine then, true justice at work, not.

> Very unlikely.

> I've already posted the sentencing guidelines for death by dangerous
> driving.

> Tim

It is seldom followed.
--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

[wafflycat]

It appears he's effectively admitted it. Yet still pleads not guilty. Go
figure...

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED04%20Jan%202007%2021%3A10%3A56%3A550

or

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ymuyhd


Includes:-

"He became emotional when asked about the effect the accident had had on
him, saying he was devastated and his life had not been the same since.

Mr Farmer asked: "If you are a person who can drive along in a motor car
which, after all, is a lethal weapon, and kill someone and just not know how
it happened, that in itself is pretty dangerous, isn't it?" Pearce agreed.

He said he did not think he had drifted into a layby but agreed that
evidence from the scene revealed he had done.

"Can you offer any justification for a normal and competent driver to drive
into a layby like that?" asked Mr Farmer.

"No," said Pearce, agreeing it fell far below what he would expect of a
driver.

"And that's how you drove?" said Mr Farmer.

"Must have been," replied Pearce, who also agreed it fell below normal
standards for a driver not to notice what was ahead of him and not to stop
immediately after hitting someone, as he had done.

Mr Farmer suggested to Pearce that

it looked as if the most viable explanation was he had fallen asleep behind
the wheel.

"It does," said Pearce.

"You have admitted the statutory elements of this offence. What is your
defence?" asked Mr Farmer.

"I don't know," said Pearce.

"Are you hoping for a perverse verdict - a sympathy vote?" Mr Farmer
continued. "This is pretty serious. Are you in fact admitting no defence to
this charge against you?"

"No," said Pearce, who confirmed he was not admitting the charged when asked
by Mr Bruce."

[Tony Raven]

wafflycat wrote on 05/01/2007 07:53 +0100:
>
> It appears he's effectively admitted it. Yet still pleads not guilty.
> Go figure...
>
> http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED04%20Jan%202007%2021%3A10%3A56%3A550
>

I can't see it not being a guilty verdict given he has admitted to all
the elements of a death by dangerous driving charge. Trouble is what
will be the sentence - the sympathy sentence of "you have already
suffered enough from the consequences so off you go and don't do it again"?

The sad thing is this should be front page news in the nationals as the
Selby trial was, not tucked away in an obscure local rag. How else will
others learn there can be consequences for them personally of such
decisions?


--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[Tim Hall]

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 20:21:36 GMT, Buck
> wrote:

>
>
>On 01/04/2007 10:34:23 Tim Hall > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:07:43 GMT, Buck >
>> wrote:
>
>>> On 01/04/2007 09:40:33 "spindrift" > wrote:
>
>>>> Oh, for God's sake, he tried to get away after killing someone. Even
>>>> after being forced to stop he did nothing to help Kaz or even check if
>>>> he was ok. Bravo to Mr Dunhill, his evidence is damning.
>
>>> That will be 4 points and a £150 fine then, true justice at work, not.
>
>> Very unlikely.
>
>> I've already posted the sentencing guidelines for death by dangerous
>> driving.
>
>> Tim
>
>It is seldom followed.



In a survey carried out for the Dft:

"In 15 of the 16 cases where the defendant was found guilty of Causing
Death by Dangerous Driving, a penalty of a prison sentence was given,
ranging from six months to six years. In the sixteenth case, P8, 240
hours of community service was ordered. For 10 of these cases a
re-test formed part of the penalty.

Disqualification from driving was also ordered in 15
of the 16 cases, ranging in length from 2-10 years. In all cases the
disqualification extended past the period of imprisonment. For 10 of
the 15 disqualifications, a re-test was ordered."

<http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_504603-11.hcsp#TopOfPage>


It would seem the crux is getting theright chargebrought in the first
place - death by dangerous driving, rather than dangerous driving or
other lesser offences.


Tim

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Tim Hall
') wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:07:43 GMT, Buck
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>On 01/04/2007 09:40:33 "spindrift" > wrote:
>
>>
>>> Oh, for God's sake, he tried to get away after killing someone. Even
>>> after being forced to stop he did nothing to help Kaz or even check if
>>> he
>>> was ok. Bravo to Mr Dunhill, his evidence is damning.
>>
>>That will be 4 points and a £150 fine then, true justice at work, not.
>
> Very unlikely.
>
> I've already posted the sentencing guidelines for death by dangerous
> driving.

So, two points and ten hours 'community service', then.

This sort of thing needs to be treated as manslaughter, which is what it
is. Having special offences so that drivers can get away with it simply
should not be acceptable.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other
;; languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their
;; pockets for new vocabulary -- James D. Nicoll

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Tim Hall
') wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:47:00 +0000, John B >
> wrote:
>
>>soup wrote:
>>
>>> John B wrote:
>>>
>>> > Quite, and more likely to result in a higher sentence when convicted
>>> > than if he had admitted guilt at the start.
>>>
>>> So he gets four points on his license instead of three.
>>
>>I see you understand British justice when it comes to motoring offences.
>
> <http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/press_18feb03.html>
>
> This suggests
>
> * a short custodial sentence for an offence arising from a
> momentary error of judgment or short period of bad driving, where
> there are no aggravating features;
> * a custodial sentence of 2-5 years when the standard of the
> offender's driving is more highly dangerous, e.g. aggressive driving
> or greatly excessive speed, or when the offender has consumed alcohol
> or drugs;
> * a custodial sentence over 5 years, up to the maximum of 10
> years, for the most serious offences, where the offender has driven
> with complete disregard for the safety of other road users and where
> other aggravating features are present.
>
> From what I understand from the Highway Code, a 2 year ban is
> obligatory as well except in very, umm, exceptional circumsatnces.

So, as we were saying, that's two points and ten days community service. Or
a discharge.

And yes, after he's been sentenced, if he gets imprisoned, you can come
back and say you told us so. I shan't hold my breath.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Copyright (c) Simon Brooke; All rights reserved. Permission is
granted to transfer this message via UUCP or NNTP and to store it
for the purpose of archiving or further transfer. Permission is
explicitly denied to use this message as part of a 'Web Forum', or
to transfer it by HTTP.

[Tony Raven]

Tim Hall wrote on 05/01/2007 09:44 +0100:
>
> It would seem the crux is getting theright chargebrought in the first
> place - death by dangerous driving, rather than dangerous driving or
> other lesser offences.
>

I do detect with the cases reported here this week and the Heathrow bus
crash that there is a changing police approach to road accidents
consistent with some of the recent messages coming out of Government.
People seem to be being charged with serious offences where serious
consequences have occurred.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[spindrift]

Tony Raven wrote:
> wafflycat wrote on 05/01/2007 07:53 +0100:
> >
> > It appears he's effectively admitted it. Yet still pleads not guilty.
> > Go figure...
> >
> > http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED04%20Jan%202007%2021%3A10%3A56%3A550
> >
>
> I can't see it not being a guilty verdict given he has admitted to all
> the elements of a death by dangerous driving charge. Trouble is what
> will be the sentence - the sympathy sentence of "you have already
> suffered enough from the consequences so off you go and don't do it again"?
>
> The sad thing is this should be front page news in the nationals as the
> Selby trial was, not tucked away in an obscure local rag. How else will
> others learn there can be consequences for them personally of such
> decisions?
>
>
> --
> Tony
>
> "...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
> wildly inaccurate..."
> Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy



Pearce's actions after the he killed Zak are difficult to explain.
Falling asleep is one thing, trying to get away afterwards is another.

Pleading not guilty and then, when asked what your defence is, say "I
don't know" is very rum.

[dkahn400]

spindrift wrote:

> Pearce's actions after the he killed Zak are difficult to explain.
> Falling asleep is one thing, trying to get away afterwards is another.

Must have been the sleep inertia that Tony mentioned.

--
Dave...

[Tony Raven]

spindrift wrote on 05/01/2007 11:29 +0100:
>
> Pleading not guilty and then, when asked what your defence is, say "I
> don't know" is very rum.
>

That's not as relevant though as the way the prosecution led him through
each of the component elements of the offence charged and made him admit
each of them in turn. The "What is your defence" was just, I think, the
lawyer's triumphant underlining for everyone of what he had just
successfully done. I bet the defence team were cringing at that point
with what their client had just done. We might even see a change of
plea now on advice from his defence.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:49:24 +0000 someone who may be Tony Raven
> wrote this:-

>I do detect with the cases reported here this week and the Heathrow bus
>crash that there is a changing police approach to road accidents
>consistent with some of the recent messages coming out of Government.
>People seem to be being charged with serious offences where serious
>consequences have occurred.

One can but hope that this is more than just a coincidence.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[Tim Hall]

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:49:24 +0000, Tony Raven >
wrote:

>Tim Hall wrote on 05/01/2007 09:44 +0100:
>>
>> It would seem the crux is getting theright chargebrought in the first
>> place - death by dangerous driving, rather than dangerous driving or
>> other lesser offences.
>>
>
>I do detect with the cases reported here this week and the Heathrow bus
>crash that there is a changing police approach to road accidents
>consistent with some of the recent messages coming out of Government.
>People seem to be being charged with serious offences where serious
>consequences have occurred.

Just seen on the BBC website, driver was found guilty. Sentencing will
be later this month.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/6235339.stm>


Tim

[dkahn400]

Tim Hall wrote:

> Just seen on the BBC website, driver was found guilty. Sentencing will
> be later this month.
>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/6235339.stm>

So far, so good. Thanks, Tim.

--
Dave...

[Jan Wysocki]

On 2007-01-03, wafflycat > wrote:
> Words fail me. The ******* is denying dangerous driving. How anyone can
> think that they are in a fit state to drive when they've had no sleep and no
> rest fro such a period is a total moron.
[snip] lots of comment

The verdict is out: http://tinyurl.com/tx23z

"A jury at Norwich Crown Court took two and three-quarter hours to
decide Donald Pearce had driven dangerously when he knocked down and
killed Zak Carr on the A11 at Wymondham."

Sentencing on 26th of January.

--
Jan

[David Hansen]

On 5 Jan 2007 09:24:10 -0800 someone who may be "dkahn400"
> wrote this:-

>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/6235339.stm>
>
>So far, so good. Thanks, Tim.

Unfortunately that may be the relatively easy bit. The Hutton may
well assert that it was only a cyclist that he crashed into and he
has already suffered enough. At least the crash wasn't in Telford,
or the dead cyclist would have been prosecuted for something or
other.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[Dan Gregory]

Jan Wysocki wrote:

> The verdict is out: http://tinyurl.com/tx23z
>
> "A jury at Norwich Crown Court took two and three-quarter hours to
> decide Donald Pearce had driven dangerously when he knocked down and
> killed Zak Carr on the A11 at Wymondham."
>
> Sentencing on 26th of January.
>
Why did it take them so long?
:-((

[Tony Raven]

David Hansen wrote on 05/01/2007 17:51 +0100:
>
> At least the crash wasn't in Telford,
> or the dead cyclist would have been prosecuted for something or
> other.
>

Criminal damage to a car bumper I would think.


--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[wafflycat]

"Dan Gregory" > wrote in message
...
> Jan Wysocki wrote:
>
>> The verdict is out: http://tinyurl.com/tx23z
>>
>> "A jury at Norwich Crown Court took two and three-quarter hours to
>> decide Donald Pearce had driven dangerously when he knocked down and
>> killed Zak Carr on the A11 at Wymondham."
>>
>> Sentencing on 26th of January.
>>
> Why did it take them so long?
> :-((

Got to remember that it's highly unlikely that any of the jury would be
cyclists, even recreational ones and certainly it would be highly unusual if
there were any experienced cyclists there. The A11 is a dual carriageway. I
would not be surprised if there was some thoughts of it being the cyclist's
own fault, in part at least, for cycling on such a road. It is highly likely
that most, if not all, of the jury are motorists and if local people, may
well have used the A11 on many an occasion. Taking that into account I would
not be surprised if there was a certain "it could happen to anyone, we're
all motorists, it was just an accident really" mentality to overcome,
despite the facts of the case. :-( Of course I could be barking up entirely
the wrong tree.

[Tony Raven]

wafflycat wrote on 05/01/2007 18:57 +0100:
>
> Got to remember that it's highly unlikely that any of the jury would be
> cyclists, even recreational ones and certainly it would be highly
> unusual if there were any experienced cyclists there. The A11 is a dual
> carriageway. I would not be surprised if there was some thoughts of it
> being the cyclist's own fault, in part at least, for cycling on such a
> road. It is highly likely that most, if not all, of the jury are
> motorists and if local people, may well have used the A11 on many an
> occasion. Taking that into account I would not be surprised if there was
> a certain "it could happen to anyone, we're all motorists, it was just
> an accident really" mentality to overcome, despite the facts of the
> case. :-( Of course I could be barking up entirely the wrong tree.
>

Let's hope it's not your local JP "friend" who's presiding and
responsible for sentencing.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[[email protected]]

January 26th is the day. He won`t walk but I reckon he will be out this
time next year at the very latest and about £7000 lighter inclusive of
his briefs fee.
Big ****ing deal. If it was one of mine that was splatted I would
pay to have the **** snuffed when things quietened down after he was
let out.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Tony Raven
') wrote:

> People seem to be being charged with serious offences where serious
> consequences have occurred.

While this is a good thing, It would be better if people were also charged
with serious offences when serious consequences might well have occurred
but were fortunately avoided.

In the case of drifting into a lay-by at 60mph, if there hadn't happened to
be a cyclist there the motorist would have got away with it. The penalty
should be based on the potential to cause injury, not on the injury
actually caused.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; MS Windows: A thirty-two bit extension ... to a sixteen bit
;; patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a
;; four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that
;; can't stand one bit of competition -- anonymous

[Tim Hall]

Tony Raven wrote:

> Let's hope it's not your local JP "friend" who's presiding and
> responsible for sentencing.
>
It won't be a JP of any sort. A JP (Justice of The Peace) is a
magistrate. Death by Dangerous Driving is an indictable offence and
must be heard by a Crown Court ( judge and jury).


Tim

[Marc Brett]

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 14:12:27 +0000, Tim Hall >
wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:47:00 +0000, John B >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>soup wrote:
>>
>>> John B wrote:
>>>
>>> > Quite, and more likely to result in a higher sentence when convicted
>>> > than if he had admitted guilt at the start.
>>>
>>> So he gets four points on his license instead of three.
>>
>>I see you understand British justice when it comes to motoring offences.
>
>
><http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/press_18feb03.html>

From:

http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=675

I don't see the perpetrator getting a very stiff sentence, almost certainly less
than 5 years, perhaps even less than 2 years.

One reason is the lack of aggravating factors: No alcohol or drugs; No excessive
speed; No warnings from fellow passengers to disregard (sole passenger
conveniently asleep); No aggressive driving; No distractions; No known
debilitating medical conditions; No poorly maintained vehicle; No other offences
committed at the same time (license, insurance, etc); Not attempting to avoid
apprehension when accident occurred; Not on bail at the time of the accident;
Not more than one fatality and no other serious injuries. Only aggravating
factors are a lack of sleep; and presumably a long course of (bad?) driving
while in this state; and failure to stop (sleep inertia?)

Some mitigating factors: (presumably) a good driving record; (presumably) a lack
of previous convictions; (presumably) genuine shock and remorse. On the other
hand, there was no timely plea of guilty; he was not inexperienced; he was not
seriously injured.

I agree with Brake's suggestion that the law be amended so that causing the
death of a pedestrian or cyclist who is walking or riding responsibly be on the
list of aggravating factors.

[Tony Raven]

Marc Brett wrote on 06/01/2007 01:55 +0100:
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 14:12:27 +0000, Tim Hall
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:47:00 +0000, John B >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> soup wrote:
>>>
>>>> John B wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Quite, and more likely to result in a higher sentence when
>>>>> convicted than if he had admitted guilt at the start.
>>>> So he gets four points on his license instead of three.
>>> I see you understand British justice when it comes to motoring
>>> offences.
>>
>> <http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/press_18feb03.html>
>
> From:
>
> http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=675
>
> I don't see the perpetrator getting a very stiff sentence, almost
> certainly less than 5 years, perhaps even less than 2 years.
>
> One reason is the lack of aggravating factors: No alcohol or drugs;
> No excessive speed; No warnings from fellow passengers to disregard
> (sole passenger conveniently asleep); No aggressive driving; No
> distractions; No known debilitating medical conditions; No poorly
> maintained vehicle; No other offences committed at the same time
> (license, insurance, etc); Not attempting to avoid apprehension when
> accident occurred; Not on bail at the time of the accident; Not more
> than one fatality and no other serious injuries. Only aggravating
> factors are a lack of sleep; and presumably a long course of (bad?)
> driving while in this state; and failure to stop (sleep inertia?)
>

Sounds like Selby. Five years then?

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[Alan J. Wylie]

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:14:21 +0000, Tim Hall > said:


> Just seen on the BBC website, driver was found guilty. Sentencing
> will be later this month.

> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/6235339.stm>

More at
<http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?itemid=NOED06%20Jan%202007%2009%3A51%3A 16%3A993>

| 49-year-old Donald Pearce, who runs the Farmhouse pub at Colman
| Road, Norwich

....

| adjournment to give [Pearce] time to end his franchise at the
| Farmhouse and deal with staff issues.

| He is due to be sentenced on January 26.

--
Alan J. Wylie http://www.wylie.me.uk/
"Perfection [in design] is achieved not when there is nothing left to add,
but rather when there is nothing left to take away."
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[[email protected]]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> In the case of drifting into a lay-by at 60mph, if there hadn't happened to
> be a cyclist there the motorist would have got away with it. The penalty
> should be based on the potential to cause injury, not on the injury
> actually caused.


It sounds as though you saying that you would like to see the present
situation maintained where not only are drivers held to be only
minimally responsible for their own actions, they are most often held
to be not responsible at all for the consequences of their own actions.


We first need to remember that this driver was culpable not just
because he 'drifted' across the road at the wrong time, but because
this 'error' arose because he quite deliberately acted in a manner
which increased the risk he posed to others, in this case going without
sleep.

A similar level of culpability applies in many if not most crashes.
I.e. they most often result from the driver QUITE WILFULLY acting in a
manner which any reasonable person would recognise increased the risk
posed to others, be this by speeding, driving whilst using a mobile
phone, driving after drinking alcohol or going without sleep, or
engaging in other wilfully dangerous actions such as bullying past a
cyclist at a pinch point or overtaking a cyclist and then immediately
turning left across their path etc. The deliberateness of such actions
should be taken into account when considering the culpability of a
driver who causes harm to another person. (And indeed in many cases
even if they do not cause harm).

Also it is quite right that the consequences of a drivers actions
should be taken into account. After all, if you deliberately stab
someone, but without the actual intention of killing them, and they die
you will face a manslaughter charge, not just a wounding charge with
the consequential death being ignored. As the House of Commons
Transport Committee pointed out, drivers should not be treated more
leniently simply because they were driving a car when they caused harm
to others.

On the other hand perhaps you are saying that all motorists who are
observed driving in an objectively dangerous manner, say by failing to
give adequate room to a cyclist when overtaking, or who use a mobile
when driving, or who speed should receive a lengthy ban at the very
least, even when they have caused no harm to anyone. In which case I am
more inclined to agree with you.

To quote from Nigel Spencer's 'The art of cycling' published in 1947.

'The carnage which occurs on our national roads presents a problem of
the gravest importance. Unfortunately the tremendous toll of lives is
rarely the result of an accident pure and simple; most of the so-called
accidents are the outcome of carelessness, thoughtlessness, selfishness
and stupidity, together with ignorance and inefficiency, and behaviour
of this kind exhibited by any class of road user is no less criminal
than malicious violence...'

[Maurice Wibblington]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:24:51 +0000, (Alan J. Wylie)
wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:14:21 +0000, Tim Hall > said:
>
>>| adjournment to give [Pearce] time to end his franchise at the
>| Farmhouse and deal with staff issues.
>
>| He is due to be sentenced on January 26.


The local tv news quoted the judge as saying that he could face up to
14yrs.


M

[Alan J. Wylie]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:04:47 +0000, Maurice Wibblington > said:

>> <http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?itemid=NOED06%20Jan%202007%2009%3A51%3A 16%3A993>

>> | He is due to be sentenced on January 26.

> The local tv news quoted the judge as saying that he could face up
> to 14yrs.

"Up to" - I hate those weasel words.

They are synonymous with "no more than".

The above Norwich Evening News article reports:

| The court heard the maximum sentence for the conviction was 14
| years, though Pearce was not warned what he may face.

--
Alan J. Wylie http://www.wylie.me.uk/
"Perfection [in design] is achieved not when there is nothing left to add,
but rather when there is nothing left to take away."
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[[email protected]]

Alan J. Wylie wrote:
> "Up to" - I hate those weasel words.
>
> They are synonymous with "no more than".

You've lost me.
Yes, 'up to' is synonymous 'with no more than', but why does that make
them weasel words?

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:46:03 +0000 someone who may be Tony Raven
> wrote this:-

>> At least the crash wasn't in Telford,
>> or the dead cyclist would have been prosecuted for something or
>> other.
>
>Criminal damage to a car bumper I would think.

Indeed. Using the reflector of his toy bicycle to cause damage to a
lovely motor vehicle owned by a poor put upon motorist, who is
constantly hounded by faceless officials and has already been
punished more then enough.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[Alan J. Wylie]

On 6 Jan 2007 05:24:22 -0800, said:

> Alan J. Wylie wrote:

>> "Up to" - I hate those weasel words.
>>
>> They are synonymous with "no more than".

> You've lost me. Yes, 'up to' is synonymous 'with no more than', but
> why does that make them weasel words?

Because they are designed to mislead. Not specifically in this
instance, but in general reporting and advertising.

What they say:
"Sale - up to 50% reductions".

What they want to you think:
"I'll get 50% off any purchase I make"

What they mean:
"There's one item in the sale at 50% off, all the rest have 10% off".

How about this, off the top of a quick google search?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/04_april/14/pod.shtml

| The BBC is to podcast up to 20 more radio shows

Well? If it's exactly 20, why do they need "up to". If it's less than,
and they know how many, why not give the number? I count 14 shows
listed. Where does the 20 come from?

A friend of mine who works with disadvantaged children tells me that
these days they have classes in how to recognise when they are trying
to deceive you like this.

--
Alan J. Wylie http://www.wylie.me.uk/
"Perfection [in design] is achieved not when there is nothing left to add,
but rather when there is nothing left to take away."
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Sue White]

Dan Gregory > whizzed past me
shouting

>> "A jury at Norwich Crown Court took two and three-quarter hours to
>> decide Donald Pearce had driven dangerously when he knocked down and
>> killed Zak Carr on the A11 at Wymondham."
>> Sentencing on 26th of January.
>>
>Why did it take them so long?
>:-((

Juries are amateurs and tend to be very conscientious. They'd go
through the whole case very carefully before deciding, especially if
they were a new panel who hadn't convicted anyone before.

I can heartily recommend the experience of jury duty - once in your
life.

--
Sue ]:(:)

[Mark Thompson]

> You've lost me.
> Yes, 'up to' is synonymous 'with no more than', but why does that make
> them weasel words?

"Up to 14 years" might be seen to imply that he faces a long prison
sentance, when in actual fact he prolly faces a short spell, or even a mere
suspended sentance.

[Sue White]

Simon Brooke > whizzed past me shouting
>
>In the case of drifting into a lay-by at 60mph, if there hadn't happened to
>be a cyclist there the motorist would have got away with it. The penalty
>should be based on the potential to cause injury, not on the injury
>actually caused.
>

Hitting the cyclist woke him up. If there hadn't been a cyclist, he'd
have drifted on until he did hit something, and "getting away with it"
would have been a lottery - with the passenger in much the more
dangerous position.
Does anyone know the spot? What would he have hit?

I wonder if the wife realises how close she was to being splatted ?

--
Sue ]:(:)

Bicycle helmets are really a bit of a scam.
They make most cyclists slightly less safe but there's money in selling them.

[Dan Gregory]

Sue White wrote:

> Juries are amateurs and tend to be very conscientious. They'd go
> through the whole case very carefully before deciding, especially if
> they were a new panel who hadn't convicted anyone before.
>
> I can heartily recommend the experience of jury duty - once in your life.
>

I have never been asked. Nor unless it has happened recently have any of
my friends/acquaintances. I take you point. Are they chosen at random or
perhaps vetted first?
I remember a teacher being out for a whole term on a murder trial once
but nobody else I've known of.

[Simon D]

on 06/01/2007, Dan Gregory supposed :
> Sue White wrote:
>
>> Juries are amateurs and tend to be very conscientious. They'd go through
>> the whole case very carefully before deciding, especially if they were a
>> new panel who hadn't convicted anyone before.
>>
>> I can heartily recommend the experience of jury duty - once in your life.
>>
>
> I have never been asked. Nor unless it has happened recently have any of my
> friends/acquaintances. I take you point. Are they chosen at random or perhaps
> vetted first?
> I remember a teacher being out for a whole term on a murder trial once but
> nobody else I've known of.


You probably haven't missed much. My name came out of the hat about
fifteen years ago, just before Christmas.

I got an ABH case. Sue's point about jurors being conscientious is
probably mostly true, but certainly it's also the case that the twelve
may include a malcontent or two, a ne'er do well, and - certainly in
the case of "my" trial - several feeble-minded individuals. It's just
these latter who, as someone else suggested, may have stretched the
deliberations out ("Oh, but he seems quite a nice man, really...").

In the case of the ABH trial, they wanted to let him off on the basis
that it was Christmas (I kid you not). Meanwhile the malcontent was
trying to convince everyone that the person who got hit (car salesman -
and no, I haven't made that up, either!) deserved to get hit because he
was a representative of the bourgeoisie. The case was cut and dried -
the judge said he couldn't understand how it had come to trial - but it
still took the sane amongst us hours to convince the idiots that we
were going to stand our ground.

--
Simon

[Don Whybrow]

Simon D wrote:
> on 06/01/2007, Dan Gregory supposed :
>
>> Sue White wrote:
>>
>>> I can heartily recommend the experience of jury duty - once in your
>>> life.
>>>
>>
>> I have never been asked. Nor unless it has happened recently have any
>> of my friends/acquaintances. I take you point. Are they chosen at
>> random or perhaps vetted first?
>
> You probably haven't missed much. My name came out of the hat about
> fifteen years ago, just before Christmas.
>

I had a citation to attend just before Christmas this year, but I didn't
make the 15 [1]. I was quite looking forward to it since it was for the
High Court.

[1] Before anyone says that should be 12, I am in Scotland.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

One tentacle, one vote.

[John Kane]

Dan Gregory wrote:
> Jan Wysocki wrote:
>
> > The verdict is out: http://tinyurl.com/tx23z
> >
> > "A jury at Norwich Crown Court took two and three-quarter hours to
> > decide Donald Pearce had driven dangerously when he knocked down and
> > killed Zak Carr on the A11 at Wymondham."
> >
> > Sentencing on 26th of January.
> >
> Why did it take them so long?
> :-((

The jury may have retired just before lunch?

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

[Nick Kew]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 18:17:40 +0000
Dan Gregory > wrote:


> I have never been asked.

/me neither.

> I remember a teacher being out for a whole term on a murder trial
> once but nobody else I've known of.

So was that a major interruption to your education? Twelve people,
none of them accused of any crime, are deprived of their liberty
and normal life *indefinitely* (in this instance, months).
One of those twelve is a teacher, and 30 children have their
educations disrupted (unless perhaps the school has the luxury
of ample slack). Maybe another is a critical person in a small
business, which could be killed off altogether by loss of that
person.

The jury system itself is a greater crime than any you're likely
to get to try. There's only one ethical approach: refuse to
cooperate. Don't reach a verdict based on the performances of
grossly overpaid actors (aka barristers) in court. Nor even on
the facts of the case, if (as appears to apply in this instance)
they're too simple to admit of any doubt *despite* the show.
As soon as you do that, you're cooperating in the greater crime.

The conclusion is, you must *always* find the defendent not guilty.
If they didn't commit the crime, that's straightforward. If they
did, then it's a case of the lesser of two evils.

And bear in mind that the very most serious criminals will get
off on an appeal - where there is no jury - anyway, on the
time-honoured principle of innocent until proven broke.
But the jury responsible for the original conviction may then
be in danger of their lives. That's happened in our times.

--
not me guv

[Clive George]

"Dan Gregory" > wrote in message
...

> I have never been asked. Nor unless it has happened recently have any of
> my friends/acquaintances. I take you point. Are they chosen at random or
> perhaps vetted first?

Friend just did his. I got asked. I was at college, and got the letter a few
days before it was due. I spoke to the court officials - "I just got this
letter" "No you didn't, you got it months ago" "No, I just got it" etc etc.
It had been sent to an old address and forwarded after being sat on for
ages. Anyway I gave up trying to argue (I'd have been happy to do it out of
term, and perhaps was being extra stroppy because I knew there was no way
they were getting me to do it then (during my finals) and was ****ed off at
effectively being told I was lying), just gave it to the college authorities
to sort out, and I heard nothing more.

cheers,
clive

[Colin McKenzie]

Alan J. Wylie wrote:
>>>"Up to" - I hate those weasel words.
>>>
>>>They are synonymous with "no more than".
>
>>You've lost me. Yes, 'up to' is synonymous 'with no more than', but
>>why does that make them weasel words?
>
>
> Because they are designed to mislead. Not specifically in this
> instance, but in general reporting and advertising.
....
> A friend of mine who works with disadvantaged children tells me that
> these days they have classes in how to recognise when they are trying
> to deceive you like this.

And, on the subject of children, "children as young as..." is often
used in the same way. It means children older than, and tells you
nothing about the average age. But it looks good in a headline.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[Andy Leighton]

On 6 Jan 2007 11:32:35 -0800, John Kane > wrote:
>
> Dan Gregory wrote:
>> Jan Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> > The verdict is out: http://tinyurl.com/tx23z
>> >
>> > "A jury at Norwich Crown Court took two and three-quarter hours to
>> > decide Donald Pearce had driven dangerously when he knocked down and
>> > killed Zak Carr on the A11 at Wymondham."
>> >
>> > Sentencing on 26th of January.
>> >
>> Why did it take them so long?
>> :-((
>
> The jury may have retired just before lunch?

Remember that when the jury retire it is supposed to be the first
chance they have to discuss what they have heard. Certainly the
first chance to talk about the evidence in detail. Just going
through the motions of choosing a foreman and talking through
the important bits of evidence letting everyone who wants a say to
have one will take quite a bit of that time. One should also
remember that it would have been a unanimous verdict (otherwise it
would have taken much longer, involving further instruction from
the judge, and said majority verdict in the report).

--
Andy Leighton =>
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[Simon Brooke]

in message m>,
') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>> In the case of drifting into a lay-by at 60mph, if there hadn't happened
>> to be a cyclist there the motorist would have got away with it. The
>> penalty should be based on the potential to cause injury, not on the
>> injury actually caused.
>
> It sounds as though you saying that you would like to see the present
> situation maintained where not only are drivers held to be only
> minimally responsible for their own actions, they are most often held
> to be not responsible at all for the consequences of their own actions.

No, I'm arguing that anyone who 'drifts into a layby' at 60mph needs to go
to prison for a long time. And yes, I'd argue that opinion even if it were
me. Being careless with a lethal weapon should not be acceptable.

> We first need to remember that this driver was culpable not just
> because he 'drifted' across the road at the wrong time, but because
> this 'error' arose because he quite deliberately acted in a manner
> which increased the risk he posed to others, in this case going without
> sleep.

Yes, that certainly makes him more culpable.

> On the other hand perhaps you are saying that all motorists who are
> observed driving in an objectively dangerous manner, say by failing to
> give adequate room to a cyclist when overtaking, or who use a mobile
> when driving, or who speed should receive a lengthy ban at the very
> least, even when they have caused no harm to anyone. In which case I am
> more inclined to agree with you.

That is what I am saying, yes.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Wannabe a Web designer?
<URL:http://userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/97dec/19971206.html>

[[email protected]]

Nick Kew wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 18:17:40 +0000
> Dan Gregory > wrote:
>
>
> > I have never been asked.
>
> /me neither.
>
> > I remember a teacher being out for a whole term on a murder trial
> > once but nobody else I've known of.
>
> So was that a major interruption to your education? Twelve people,
> none of them accused of any crime, are deprived of their liberty
> and normal life *indefinitely* (in this instance, months).
> One of those twelve is a teacher, and 30 children have their
> educations disrupted (unless perhaps the school has the luxury
> of ample slack). Maybe another is a critical person in a small
> business, which could be killed off altogether by loss of that
> person.

I got called up a couple of years ago. When the selection was being
made for the case I sat on the judge said that the case may overrun the
two weeks nominal service length and asked would this cause a problem
for anyone? A teacher was excused on this basis. Perhaps the teacher
was not so keen oh his/her pupils

best wishes
james

[Stevie D]

Sue White wrote:

> Hitting the cyclist woke him up. If there hadn't been a cyclist, he'd
> have drifted on until he did hit something, and "getting away with it"
> would have been a lottery - with the passenger in much the more
> dangerous position.

But if there had been a left-hand bend, the driver would have been in
a more dangerous position...

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

[Sue White]

Stevie D > whizzed past me shouting
>Sue White wrote:
>
>> Hitting the cyclist woke him up. If there hadn't been a cyclist, he'd
>> have drifted on until he did hit something, and "getting away with it"
>> would have been a lottery - with the passenger in much the more
>> dangerous position.
>
>But if there had been a left-hand bend, the driver would have been in
>a more dangerous position...
>

In theory. But the impression I've got from local paper reports of the
carnage on local roads is that passengers are much more often killed.
For instance, over the recent holidays, three accidents where the
front-seat passenger was killed but not the driver.

Myself, I think motor vehicles are so dangerous that we need a higher
standard of care and consideration from drivers. We won't get that by
jailing the few who kill someone, because the others think it won't
happen to them. We'll only get it by handing out a great many smaller
punishments, especially driving bans, for bad driving that doesn't hurt
anyone - but that easily could have.

(Oh, and double punishments if the offender's a police officer. They
ought to be setting a better example, not a worse one.)

--
Sue ]:(:)

Bicycle helmets are really a bit of a scam.
They make most cyclists slightly less safe but there's money in selling them.

[Dan Gregory]

wrote:

>
> I got called up a couple of years ago. When the selection was being
> made for the case I sat on the judge said that the case may overrun the
> two weeks nominal service length and asked would this cause a problem
> for anyone? A teacher was excused on this basis. Perhaps the teacher
> was not so keen oh his/her pupils

I do seem to remember that the case was not expected to run for as long
as it did. Not being her pupil I can bear none of the blame!!
:-)

[Mark Thompson]

> When the selection was being made for the case I sat on the judge

That'll ensure you don't get selected ;)

[Tim Hall]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:24:51 +0000, (Alan J. Wylie)
wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:14:21 +0000, Tim Hall > said:
>
>
>> Just seen on the BBC website, driver was found guilty. Sentencing
>> will be later this month.
>
>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/6235339.stm>
>
>More at
><http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?itemid=NOED06%20Jan%202007%2009%3A51%3A 16%3A993>
>
>| 49-year-old Donald Pearce, who runs the Farmhouse pub at Colman
>| Road, Norwich
>
>...
>
>| adjournment to give [Pearce] time to end his franchise at the
>| Farmhouse and deal with staff issues.


This bit is baffling - letting him have time to sort his life out
before he gets banged up.

>
>| He is due to be sentenced on January 26.

Waiting.....



Tim

[Clive George]

"Tim Hall" > wrote in message
...

>>| adjournment to give [Pearce] time to end his franchise at the
>>| Farmhouse and deal with staff issues.
>
>
> This bit is baffling - letting him have time to sort his life out
> before he gets banged up.

Not really. It's not his life he's sorting out, it's others - eg staff at
the pub, the owners of the pub, even the customers.

cheers,
clive