You The Jury

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
07/07/2008 16:45

Drivers blamed for boys' deaths



Three 15-year-old boys from Essex fleeing a take-away after not paying died in a car crash, a court has heard. A take-away worker was following them when their car hit a tree, near Halstead, last year, prosecutors said. Christopher Jolley, of Little Maplestead, Danny Archer, of Sible Hedingham, and Richard Warren, of Halstead, died at the scene. Christopher Kibble, 18, and take-away worker Sakir Olgun, 27, deny causing death by dangerous driving. The car in which the boys died, with Mr Kibble at the wheel, crashed in May 2007, the court heard. Prosecutor Christopher Paxton told Chelmsford Crown Court that Mr Kibble and Mr Olgun, who was driving the other car, were responsible for the youngsters' deaths.



Now the question for the jury is...



Are the pursuers of the thieves really to be held responsible for their deaths?



And if they are what does that mean for all those pursuing thieves? e.g. if the bag snatcher you are chasing falls and bangs his head, is it your fault?



This is a reall case and the driver and passenger of the car are being prosecuted... so do you think this sends the right message?



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/7493404.stm

Chessman


Joined: 13/05/2008
Posts: 486

Message Posted:
07/07/2008 17:01

I cannot believe they will be found guilty. As far as I am aware the rule of 'remoteness of damage' still exists. In other words one cannot be liable for something which is not forseeable. Having said that, this is the UK!



If they are found to be liable, then It will be a disgrace and all remaining sanity and justice in the UK will have disappeared into the ether. Phew! my brain hurts.

ianwfs


Joined: 08/01/2008
Posts: 563

Message Posted:
07/07/2008 18:24

"The cars had collided on a dark country road as Olgun attempted to overtake after crossing a double white line, said Mr Paxton."



Does the quote aabove not change the story slightly?



Ian

cyprusishome


Joined: 31/03/2007
Posts: 2381

Message Posted:
07/07/2008 20:28

I think the issue of offering assistance has been developing over a number of years and now it is apparent that you keep yourself to yourself or you may be the one prosecuted or sued.



It is standard now for medical people to sit on their hands when help is asked for on aircraft, especially in the USA. Slightest mistake in working in poor environement with wrong equipment and you have the lawyers after you with a massive law suit.



Without hearing the full case it is not possible to fairly comment but if what ian says is correct then there may have been some "bravado" going on here in trying to apprehend. In which case there is a case of negligent homicide (my phrase).



Whatever I think this links to my thread of "lunatics taking over the asylum" the villain will always win!!!

PtePike



Joined: 20/05/2008
Posts: 2334

Message Posted:
07/07/2008 21:02

Leave it to the judge and jury. There is clearly a case in law to answer.

Hilltop



Joined: 28/04/2008
Posts: 636

Message Posted:
07/07/2008 22:12

As above, the jury will hear ALL the evidence, and I am happy to trust their judgement.

Our opinion is worthless without ALL of the evidence.

jakki



Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 865

Message Posted:
08/07/2008 00:24

PtePike and Hilltop have got it right - we cannot and should not make speculative assertions without hearing all the evidence in the case.

jock1



Joined: 06/01/2008
Posts: 3786

Message Posted:
08/07/2008 07:34

Got to agree with the reply of message 5,6,7

suntanman



Joined: 18/04/2007
Posts: 721

Message Posted:
08/07/2008 07:50

Mr Kibble survived the crash.... has he now paid Mr Olgun for the takeaways?

Chessman


Joined: 13/05/2008
Posts: 486

Message Posted:
08/07/2008 09:18

I wish I had read the link before I made a comment! Never to old to learn!

jock1



Joined: 06/01/2008
Posts: 3786

Message Posted:
08/07/2008 10:10

Your move chessman....

Chessman


Joined: 13/05/2008
Posts: 486

Message Posted:
08/07/2008 10:19

OK Jock1, I'll read it today.

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
08/07/2008 19:07

Well side-stepped most of you, but what I was asking was purely on the basis of the BBC report do you think prosecution of the guy giving chase is the right thing... Obviously Mr Kibble who had only passed his test a week earlier was probably a poor choice of getaway driver!



If somebody robbed you and you chased after them and they did not attempt to give up at what point do you cross the line of acceptable behaviour in continuing the pursuit?



If you are chasing a bag snatcher on foot (Pte Pike you'll know the feeling.. ha ha) and he trips and hits his head when you try to rugby tackle him (Pte Pike you'll not know the feeling.. ha ha) then is it your fault? I maintain that if a robber is tackled and is not able to take the consequences that's one of life's tough lessons... OK death is the ultimate tough lesson but, should the person who was trying to recover their loss be held responsible?



Remember I'm only posing the question... just interested to hear your views. Not, "let somebody else decide", that's a cop-out.

jakki



Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 865

Message Posted:
08/07/2008 19:14

In law one can use 'reasonable force' to defend oneself - it's not a cop out but it is for the jury to decide what is 'reasonable'. Anyway, in the case that you highlight - noone wins!! It is terrible what both families of the victims/defendants have to endure.

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
09/07/2008 09:20

Yeah but I'm asking you to be the jury.... no one is saying the pursuer was trying to defend himself... so your argument is not relevant...



When you are being robbed, what are you reasonably allowed to do?



I would have thought at lowest one ought to be able to give chase without fear of prosecution if the felon won't desist in their flight...



Would there be a prosecution if it were the police giving chase? I think not! but, there's not much chance of that (police giving chase) these days anyway....

cyprusishome


Joined: 31/03/2007
Posts: 2381

Message Posted:
09/07/2008 09:59

Grouco,



I will give you an answer to your question.



The principle of an Englishman's home is his castle should still prevail.



Yes, if someone insists on continuing to runaway under pursuit and something happens to them it is their own fault.



I think if everyone is honest they would say the same but we have been hijacked by The Lunatics into sitting on the fence.



Is that what you were looking for Gavin.



David

Aslan


Joined: 23/06/2008
Posts: 757

Message Posted:
09/07/2008 10:34

I see in the UK that when a criminal court case is publicised the defence team can use this as a tool in reducing the sentence or even having the sentence quashed as it is deemed as an unfair trial based on media attention.



As I have not been invited to do Jury service for this case and have not read the link regarding the case I do not feel i am in a position to give a view on the case or its outcome.

Chessman


Joined: 13/05/2008
Posts: 486

Message Posted:
09/07/2008 11:30

I believe that my comment in message 2 relating to 'remoteness of damage' and forseeability remain valid. However IF, as stated in the report, ''the cars had collided on a dark country road as Olgun attempted to overtake after crossing a double white line, said Mr Paxton'' then this puts a different slant on the issue.



The report states - ''Christopher Kibble, 18, and take-away worker Sakir Olgun, 27, deny causing death by dangerous driving''.



The pursuers were, in effect, breaking the law (i.e the highway code and the Road Traffic Act. Part I Principal Road Safety Provisions, I guess) Although a quick look only enabled me to find reference to the word reckless and not dangerous. There may be some subtle difference somewhere in the Act but I am not sure.



A judge would always fully explain any points of law but in the absence of this and relating to the purpose of this thread only, I would VERY reluctantly find them guilty.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
09/07/2008 11:56

Are the pursuers of the thieves really to be held responsible for their deaths?



I fail to see how the pursuers can be held responsible. Do we hold Police officers responsible when a death occurs following a chase?

Chessman


Joined: 13/05/2008
Posts: 486

Message Posted:
09/07/2008 11:57

Maybe yes if they break the law whilst in pusuit.

Chessman


Joined: 13/05/2008
Posts: 486

Message Posted:
09/07/2008 12:02

In fact, I am pretty sure police officers have been convicted on occasions. In any event the pursuers here were not police officers. When ALL the facts are established I hope they are found not guilty in any case.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
09/07/2008 12:11

Sorry Chessman I disagree.

Hypothetically - someone robs you on a main road. You give chase only for the thief to get run over and killed on the main road. Is this your fault because you run after him?

Chessman


Joined: 13/05/2008
Posts: 486

Message Posted:
09/07/2008 12:22

No, it is not your fault. You haven't broken any laws. The point with this case is that the proximate cause of the accident was that the pursuers broke the law through reckless/dangerous driving. They are being prosecuted for breaking the law with its attendant results i.e the deaths. I think that is what the prosecution's case is. Just my opinion though. It's a shame we couldn't be lawyers, No1 Doyen. We could make a fortune with spurious cases like this!

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
09/07/2008 12:56

Chessman, if only - this time next year we could be ....................

Chessman


Joined: 13/05/2008
Posts: 486

Message Posted:
09/07/2008 12:59

No1 Doyen. Absolutely, my friend. I miss Del Boy on the old telly.

david123


Joined: 07/07/2008
Posts: 393

Message Posted:
09/07/2008 22:30

Hi,no i don't think they shoule be tried,but remember we are in the uk and thats why we are all leaving because the goverment seem to think that, if someone is in your house and you find them, then you should help them to carry the tv and that out,and not ask them what they are doing,then when you have done this phone the police,who will turn up and say, never mind we will get him/her next time.