Gresham Family tragedy takes a twist

Don't know if you all remember the sad story that broke earlier this year about the Gresham family and the tragic accident that cost 4 kids their lives? I know I contributed to a fund for the family.

Just seen this today...

formatting link
WTF ??

Reply to
Andy
Loading thread data ...

Oh FFS, haven't they been through enough ?

From the piece " Jaswant Kaur Narwal, chief crown prosecutor for Lincolnshire said: "This is a very sad case and we have spent a great deal of time reviewing the evidence and considering the public interest before making the decision to prosecute."

WHERE is the "public interest" in that ? Bastards. Steve

Reply to
steve

Unless they know something that they are not telling, it is a disgrace, an accidental tragedy that will not be eased by anything, let alone this. The justice system in this country is going to the dogs.

Reply to
Andy

If they knew that, why has it taken so long to press any kind of charges . Whatever, the guy's lost half his family - what earthly punishment can anyone give him than that ?

Like you I despair of what is called "justice" here anymore.

Steve

Reply to
Steve Taylor

I seem to recall it was the other driver who was at fault.

Reply to
GbH

Sounds like they know more than we do, so seems a little premature to wring your hands over the justice system in this country. Secondly, if he's found guilty, we don't have mandatory sentences in this country despite the howling from the press, so there's a good chance that in the event of a guilty verdict, he'd not get much punishment if any. You've probably heard of cases such as wives who murdered their husbands who were beating them but were let off with extremely light sentences, it's cases like those, and this, that point out why mandatory sentencing is a dumb idea.

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

Where did you get that info from?

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

On or around Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:50:05 +0100, Steve Taylor enlightened us thusly:

I said as much in what I sent to the beeb.

I also looked back to last year: The 2 drivers involved were interviewed by police in October, no charges were brought.

WTF do they think they're doing?

Reply to
Austin Shackles

On or around Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:24:47 +0100, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:

From what *I* recall, it's a narrow road, 2 large-ish vehicles and not enough space, the tragedy is that there's a river alongside.

Unless they have very convincing evidence which was not brought to light at the time, I fail to see how they can have a good case.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

...apart from losing half his family.

Steve

Reply to
Steve Taylor

The original writeup, the transit did not move over in spite of having plenty of room to do so.

Reply to
GbH

Indeed, but as I think you said at the time (my memory may be failing me here), if there isn't enough space for two vehicles to pass, then if they both keep on going then surely that's not good judgement at all. If that *was* the case (and I have as much knowledge of the evidence as anyone else in here --- none at all) then that could well step over the boundaries of accident into careless driving.

Maybe they didn't push it at the time due to the circumstances, but if they haven't got good evidence then they're bloody idiots, but I'd have thought that in such an emotive case they'd really have to have it in order to make a decision to prosecute.

As for what good can come of a successful prosecution, that's harder to gauge really. It was either an accident or someone was to blame, and if it's thought that someone was to blame and that person suffered badly as a result of the accident, then I'm not sure whether just closing the case on compassionate grounds would be a good thing or a bad thing. On the one hand, they've suffered badly already and why twist the knife, on the other the person who caused the accident does not have the blame attached to them.

If it did turn out that he drove the landy towards another car on a road on which there was no space to pass, in a vehicle containing all his family, and basically kept going until he threw it into the river, is that an accident or dangerous driving? That's a decision we're not informed enough to make, and personally I'm quite glad of that.

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

Is that a reliable write-up I wonder, supported by the crash investigation?

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

It *should* have been obvious that I meant punishment handed down by the judge.

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

Doing a bit more mooching around while trying to avoid exercise, I came across the following;

formatting link
The page is about the process of prosecution, selected bits are as follows;

-------------------- We regard all bad driving as serious, particularly where it has led directly to the death or serious injury of another person. As a result, the public interest in cases of bad driving, where death or serious injury has occurred, will almost always be in favour of a prosecution.

# In the past, the CPS adopted a different approach in cases where a death has occurred and the deceased was in a close personal or family relationship with the driver. It was based on the principle that the driver has suffered such enormous personal loss that it would be oppressive and insensitive to prosecute the driver for the bad driving offence that led to the death.

# While we must always be able to exercise discretion in cases where prosecution would be oppressive or insensitive, we believe that the public interest will normally demand that a prosecution takes place in cases of causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs or failing to provide a specimen, and that is now our policy in these cases.

--------------------

It is however quite easy to read possibly too much into the above.

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

Even if the reporting was accurate that's a poor excuse.

Regardless of whether the other vehicle moved over or not the LR shouldn't have been travelling at a speed that would result in it leaving the road!

Reply to
Tim Jones

Jeez.

One of the teachers at our school is either an auntie or a niece of his, we were talking about it only the other day just before schools broke up.

As has already been said there must be something new come to light for them to wait this long before charging him.

IMHO he's suffered enough whatever the circumstances, and will continue to suffer for the rest of his life. To charge him now is just twisting the knife so it hurts even more.

Reply to
Paul - xxx

I don't recall all the details, but from what I remember thinking at the time, wasn't there too many children in a 110 to make it legal? I thought children were not allowed to be carried in side facing seats, and surely with the number ok children in the vehicle, that was the case? I don't know if the prosecution is related to this, and they are trying to make a point, but it seems a rather too far whatever is the reason.

Matt

Reply to
Matt M

But I assume a chav speeding at 90 through a council estate high on crack who then kills his 4 brothers (by different fathers, obviously) in the same car should be strung up by the balls?

John

Reply to
John Greystrong

WTF are you on about?

Reply to
Nige

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.