by ferrarilover » 04 Mar 2011, 16:39
Ok, without getting clever, there is a distinction in law, between the classification of the two offences.
Drink driving (to avoid unnecessarily pompous terminology) is an offence requiring both mens rea (a guilty mind) and actus reus (a guilty act). This is that to be guilty of the offence, one must, wilfully or recklessly, be over the drink-drive limit and be driving a vehicle.
Death by dangerous driving is an offence of strict liability. That is, there is no requirement of mens rea involved. One doesn't necessarily have to wilfully or recklessly drive in a dangerous manner to be found guilty. To give an example; no reasonable person would believe that changing tracks on an iPod would lead to another persons death, whereas hitting someone in the face with an axe is foreseeable as likely to cause death or serious injury.
It is for this reason that Robertson was sentenced to slightly less than half the jail time to that which was awarded to the Plymouth 'keeper Luke McCormick.
Who among us can honestly say they have never given anything but 100% concentration to the road at all times? Mobile phone buzzes, you glance down to see who's calling, look up, you've hit a cyclist. Driving through town, come to complicated junction, check the sat-nav to see where to go, look up, you've hit an old lady on a zebra crossing.
Unfortunately, there are so many cars on the road now that it is absolutely unavoidable that from time to time, they will bump into one another. From here, it is basic math that some of these incidents will be fatal.
What occurred that day has forever, irreversibly, changed the lives of a very great number of people, but, while the outcome may have been broadly similar, the events leading to those outcomes are so markedly different from case to case as to warrant unequal social judgment for Robertson and, say, McCormick or Hughes.
Matt.
Ok, without getting clever, there is a distinction in law, between the classification of the two offences.
Drink driving (to avoid unnecessarily pompous terminology) is an offence requiring both mens rea (a guilty mind) and actus reus (a guilty act). This is that to be guilty of the offence, one must, wilfully or recklessly, be over the drink-drive limit and be driving a vehicle.
Death by dangerous driving is an offence of strict liability. That is, there is no requirement of mens rea involved. One doesn't necessarily have to wilfully or recklessly drive in a dangerous manner to be found guilty. To give an example; no reasonable person would believe that changing tracks on an iPod would lead to another persons death, whereas hitting someone in the face with an axe is foreseeable as likely to cause death or serious injury.
It is for this reason that Robertson was sentenced to slightly less than half the jail time to that which was awarded to the Plymouth 'keeper Luke McCormick.
Who among us can honestly say they have never given anything but 100% concentration to the road at all times? Mobile phone buzzes, you glance down to see who's calling, look up, you've hit a cyclist. Driving through town, come to complicated junction, check the sat-nav to see where to go, look up, you've hit an old lady on a zebra crossing.
Unfortunately, there are so many cars on the road now that it is absolutely unavoidable that from time to time, they will bump into one another. From here, it is basic math that some of these incidents will be fatal.
What occurred that day has forever, irreversibly, changed the lives of a very great number of people, but, while the outcome may have been broadly similar, the events leading to those outcomes are so markedly different from case to case as to warrant unequal social judgment for Robertson and, say, McCormick or Hughes.
Matt.
