No charges for drunk driver who killed cyclist in Norfolk crash

When the problem is administrative incompetence then accommodation is not the answer. Accommodating such incompetence with limitless amounts of time will do nothing to improve justice.

I suspect the reason for not going through the usual processes to prosecute for drinking driving were the additional complications of investigation and attempting to build a case for more serious charges. Hence there should not be a clock for traffic offences which are related to injuries that might warrent more serious charges. The 14 day limit for lesser traffic offences is clearly insufficient when well healed drivers can use delays in contacting them via intermediaries as a tool for avoiding due punishment.

bluemoonday wrote:

Yet we will try to extradite someone with diplomatic immunity for driving on the wrong side of the road while sober, causing death?

Maybe, but we won't try very hard (if you and I are thinking about the same case...).

I'm referring to the American lady, who fled the country after causing a fatal accident while driving on the wrong side of the road and into that young lad on his motorbike.

eburtthebike wrote:

Without wishing to insult any members of the Norfolk Constabulary, just who did this driver know in the force?

I often have that thought when reading about such cases.

Is it? 

In this article and the initial one, no explanation has come out on why neither was taken further. The Spokesman (Press person or senior Officer is not mentioned) states it fell below standard but why? They arrested him and charged him for drink driving. Is this like the incident a few months ago where the Accident investigator stated the death would have happened whether the person was drunk or sober so decided not to even ban them for driving under the influence?

No the explanation on the drink driving charge is out there,they missed the 6month statutory timeline for lodging the paperwork in court, an admin error, but quite a costly one in terms of justice for the victim's family.

In terms of the dangerous driving part,the case has been left open,which means the police do believe that someone is guilty of a crime, the issue appears to be they dont have enough evidence to enable a prosecution of it, because they cant prove certain crucial facts of the case.

Again an unsatisfactory conclusion of justice for the victim's family,but if the police have not got the evidence to form a prosecution,then they cant proceed with it.

You have some bloke pissed, driving on the wrong side of the road who hits and kills a cyclist. What more evidence is required ?

It is even accepted he was more than two times the legal alcohol limit without this being proved in court.

Thanks Awavey for the explanations, didn't see that elsewhere on the 6 month thing which is why I was suspicious as it was not the 14 day rule as they had already charged him.  

Hirsute, the drink driving thing is a seperate issue and the guy should have definitely been done with that. However the dangerous driving bit is the one they cannot fully say for I suspect the following reasons. The DD was on the wrong side of the road only because the van was on his. So why was the van overtaking the bike and giving plenty of room but not seeing the oncoming car. I suspect because the van didn't have the visibility of the road ahead due to blind bend . Dangerous driving should have been a charge here in my opinion but can you argue Death by Dangerous Driving being as he didn't actually hit the cyclist even though his actions lead to it initially. I suspect the fact the other driver was drunk would have caused the charges to be doubted though.

The DD comes around the blind bend to see a van literally in front of him. His first instinct is to avoid it and move into the "space" which meant he then went head on into the cyclist he would have probably not even seen when he started to avoid the head on due to said bend. The inebriation might have slowed his reactions though or he might have also been driving dangerously, hard to prove. So can Death By Dangerous Driving be proven for him. Probably not as the argument would have been the van caused his manouvre that took him into the bikes path and would have happened sober or not.

However there should have been charges laid at both drivers and they should have both been taken to court for Dangerous Driving and Driving a vehicle over the legal limit but I don't think Death by Dangerous Driving would have been proven for either of them. 

As an aside, I do wonder why he wouldn't answer questions from the Coroner when he couldn't have been charged for Drunk Driving again though so I think he had more blame then he will ever admit. 

I'll simply say if you are not pissed out of your head, other options are available when confronted by a vehicle on your side of the road and before you get to that point.

I'm assuming this is the bend in question. 

Blind bend with heavy vegetation and trees both sides and 60mph limit both directions with (as of 2011 streetview) no warnings to slow down or double lines etc. The choices here are trees either side, van or "empty space". I'm being kind in assuming the pisshead didn't see the cyclist and made a decision based on empty space. However as he would not answer any questions under oath in case it inmcriminated him that might not be the case. 

However taking the drunk driving out of it for the moment, you can argue Dangerous Driving for the van driver to attempt the manouver and maybe Careless driving for the Pisshead in approaching the bend at the designated speed instead of slowing himself as he couldn't see around it. We know he was pissed so definitely Driving under the influence but I can't see them getting a "death by" charge sticking on either of them which I think Plod was hoping to do and then literally screwed it all up. 

Now if other drivers had said pisshead was all over the road ahead of the bend, then maybe different which might be the other evidence they are now waiting for. 

the van drivers exact role in the crash, would be my assumption, there have been several examples,so its established in case law at least, where the vehicle that runs over the cyclist that results in their death, that driver isnt prosecuted for death by dangerous driving, because they werent the driver in the vehicle that knocked the cyclist off their bike first.

I agree, IME the Norfolk/Suffolk road police team have always been very keen to prosecute drivers on video evidence so dont seem the least bit institutionally anti cyclist, you only have to review their twitter feed to see some of the stuff they have to deal with on a daily basis.

I think whats happened here, not that it helps the family of the victim in this case at all, who have my sympathies, is the police admitted they made a mistake on the drink driving charge & missed the statutory 6month time limit to bring a prosecution for it. That cant ever be brought to trial now, its timed out.

And on the death by dangerous driving charge, it doesnt seem like theres enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution currently, the police have said it remains an open case so if new facts came to light they might review, but because the van crucially who becomes not only a major witness but possibly an intervening cause in it, didnt stop, so cant be directly placed at the scene.

Reference the dangerous driving charge... surely they do have the evidence. They know who was driving, they know what happens. They also have evidence that the driver, at the time was over the drink drive limit. 

Why do they need to have a conviction of drink driving to be able to submit the evidence of the driver being over the drink driving limit at the time of the accident? Surely the evidence itself is still perfectly valid?  

Someone died due to careless / dangerous driving. The driving is deemed to be careless / dangerous as there is evidence that the driver was under the influence at the time of the accident. 

I'm sure there is sufficent evidence for a jury to consider. 

However I do get it... this is a prime example where a regulation has been created in order to avoid an action that leads to an undesired output (in this case someone being run over by a drunk), but, taken to court, the focus will be whether the output was indeed caused by the action the regulation was designed to prevent in the first place.

'yeah, he was drunk, but his drunkeness wasn't the cause your honour...' 

however, the reality is that it probably was. The drivers decision making will have been imparied / influenced by the alcohol, and accordingly a different course of action may have been taken by the driver if sober. It might not have made a difference, but the driver should surely be denied the benefit of the doubt when he chose to ignore his obligations to not drink and drive.