How Stupid Are Judges !

[big_kev]

Don't know if anyone remembers this horrific accident.

 

Lorry piled into the back of stationary traffic at 50mph resulting in the death of 3 people.

 

The police charged the lorry driver with driving dangerously and at excessive speed.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgo...est/7041425.stm

 

It appears the driver of the lorry was suffering from a rare sleeping disorder that was only diagnosed after the crash.

 

The judge believed this was possible and instructed the jury to do so as well.

 

I can't think of any comments to add to this that would not be seen as libel.

 

However please read the link and make up your own minds.

[AndeeeH]

Is that the same judge that gave two blokes two years each for raping 10 and 12 year old girls because he agreed with them that the girls looked older?!!!!!! Or is it the one that blew himself up in his shed by lighting a match to check how much petrol he had in his can. Beggers belief. Edited October 13, 2007 by AndeeeH

[Bigjeeze]

What beggars belief is that a Judge is considered wise and worldly! Judges are just old lawyers - all of whom spend their life twisting words and perverting the English language with the sole intention of winning what is in reality an argument over the meaning or otherwise of some words that were drafted by a lawyer in the first place.

 

Thye live a different life to most people - they believe they are better than the rest of us - They think that the winning of an argument about the meaning of words regardless of the pain , hurt and agony it causes is what Law is all about.

A more twisted , immoral, amoral grasping set of bigoted hypocrites you could not find.

 

Not that I personally have any problem with them you understand.

 

Have you ever noticed that the bulk of our MP's are lawyers?

 

 

See?

[big_kev]

See?

 

See what ?

[steve67car]

with out reading the full transcript of the court case and the specialist reports we i believe can not and should not comment on such a case

i do believe that a full investigation would have been done and done with a very strong accent on trying to prove the driver guilty and this was not the case hence the judge chose the option not continue with the case and directed the juriors to do the same.

as hard as it may seem it was probally the right thing to do , i know if it was my family killed in such a crash i would not be happy with the out come.

but i would also believe the driver of the truck will have to life the rest of his live knowing he killed 3 people , he also will probally never hold a driving liecence again(or so i hope any how)

Edited October 14, 2007 by steve67car

[big_kev]

, he also will probally never hold a driving liecence again(or so i hope any how)

 

He walked as free as a bird and still has a full driving license.

 

I don't think we need to see a full transcript of the case to conclude that this disease that was only "diagnosed" after the event seems to have been very convenient for the accused.

 

 

 

However my strongest point is this direct quote from the DVLA.

 

"Even if a medical condition is the cause of falling asleep at the wheel, it is not an excuse in law."

 

 

 

 

The judge directed the jury otherwise !..... :lol:

 

 

 

 

[mumof4]

Not proven is not the same as not guilty i must point out.It means there is not enough evidence to make a guilty judgemant or a not guilty one.

[big_kev]

Not proven is not the same as not guilty i must point out.It means there is not enough evidence to make a guilty judgemant or a not guilty one.

 

Under Scottish Law it is exactly the same....the defendant is aquitted of all charges.

 

Also the defendant cannot be recharged for the same crime....identical to "not guilty".

 

 

 

 

 

It is basically used as a cop out for the Jury where they are saying "we believe the defendant is guilty but there is insufficient evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt"........a bit unique to Scotland as in most other countries this would be classed as slander/libel.

 

In this particular case "in my opinion" the Judge misled the jury on a point of law....ie that regarding a medical condition.

[jkspoff]

The British antiquated legal and governmental system has and is, leading to the demise of this country, which was once envied by the rest of the world, I quite often feel like I am wasting my time with this obsolete unfair legal system. :lol:

[El Dingo]

Me too... a damn patent case, where the first judge found for us, appeal judge found for the other party. Utterly stupid. How can they take such opposing views of a simple mechanical process and whether it infringes a patent???

[Bigjeeze]

Thats because Judges and Lawyers "practice" law - there is no black & white - it's always up for debate or discussion .

 

Thats because Lawyers make the laws.

[steve67car]

do you not have to inform dvla of any and all illnesses and disablities that will hinder you in your ability to drive therefore making it impossible to hold a driving licience ever again and not doing so(informing dvla)you are breaking the law once more

also the judge should also be held responsable also by excepting the guy has an illness

[Saif Rehman]

do you not have to inform dvla of any and all illnesses and disablities that will hinder you in your ability to drive therefore making it impossible to hold a driving licience ever again and not doing so(informing dvla)you are breaking the law once more

also the judge should also be held responsable also by excepting the guy has an illness

 

Yes you do, but in this case the 'illness/condition' was diagnosed after the accident took place. I presume the defence team must have banked on this to get their client off.

 

also the judge should also be held responsable also by excepting the guy has an illness

 

How and why?????

[big_kev]

Just to reiterate what I pointed out earlier.

 

However my strongest point is this direct quote from the DVLA.

 

"Even if a medical condition is the cause of falling asleep at the wheel, it is not an excuse in law."

 

 

 

As stated the Judge instructed the Jury otherwise, he ignored the Law or was unaware of it.

 

This led the jury to reach a verdict of "not proven" which means they believed it was most likely that he was guilty but thought that there was insufficient evidence to reach a "guilty" verdict.

 

The judge misinstructed them on what was evidence and what was not.

[Bigjeeze]

Just to reiterate what I pointed out earlier.

 

However my strongest point is this direct quote from the DVLA.

 

"Even if a medical condition is the cause of falling asleep at the wheel, it is not an excuse in law."

 

 

 

As stated the Judge instructed the Jury otherwise, he ignored the Law or was unaware of it.

 

This led the jury to reach a verdict of "not proven" which means they believed it was most likely that he was guilty but thought that there was insufficient evidence to reach a "guilty" verdict.

 

The judge misinstructed them on what was evidence and what was not.

 

I think you mean misdirected them - But don't forget the Judge can direct the Jury but they still have the right to find the defendant guilty if they so wish - Then the Judge would declare a mistrial and they would do it all again.

 

This is one of the real issues with a Jury trial - it is adversarial - This means that the best man will win - So a crap prosecutor and a sh*t hot defence Lawyer can get you off - It isn't always about right or wrong. The other problem is that most people are conditioned by the media to believe the Police are always lying or that the criminal (alleged!) is there by a tragic mistake - or they see the crime as not serious - or much much worse they don't like the thought of being responsible for putting someone in Gaol. If you get the chance to do Jury service - do it - it is a real education. Juries are a mistake - your case should be heard by dispassionate impartial legally trained panel's who can find you guilty or not under the law and then allow the lawyers to mitigate in defence to reduce sentence or otherwise.

 

The system favours the rich.

[big_kev]

I think you mean misdirected them - But don't forget the Judge can direct the Jury but they still have the right to find the defendant guilty if they so wish - Then the Judge would declare a mistrial and they would do it all again.

 

Possibly misdirected....either way he did not according to the law.

 

He should have informed the Jury that even if the defendant did have a medical condition it was irrelevant to the verdict.

Although it might have an impact on sentencing.

 

He should have directed the jury according to the law....

[steve67car]

in informing dvla as he has byaquiting the driver he has excepted he has an illness that affected his abilty to drive

[big_kev]

From the DVLA

 

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...em=330180427979

 

Might help anyone who has this sleep disorder....or is thinking of having it after an accident!

DG_065252_1_.pdf

[PDM]

Judges are just old lawyers - all of whom spend their life twisting words and perverting the English language with the sole intention of winning what is in reality an argument over the meaning or otherwise of some words that were drafted by a lawyer in the first place.

 

Thye live a different life to most people - they believe they are better than the rest of us - They think that the winning of an argument about the meaning of words regardless of the pain , hurt and agony it causes is what Law is all about.

A more twisted , immoral, amoral grasping set of bigoted hypocrites you could not find.

 

Let not the actions of one Judge tar the rest. I work in legal circles and there are some very good Judges on the circuit. One in particular who stood up the the last Home Secretary with some very stern words!.

 

I would disagree with your comment of " they believe they are better than the rest of us ". Ive met a few that are very down to earth and don't abuse their status and certainly don't stick their noses up at us commoners.

[big_kev]

I will repost the original link first

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgo...est/7041425.stm

 

Read that and then go figure this one out....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7132877.stm

 

Apparently this driver suffered from the same disease as the first driver.

 

I won't say that they were both lying through their teeth and faking the ilness as this could be seen as libel.

 

However in the second case the judge acted according to the law and did not mislead the jury....unlike the judge in scotland.

 

Can anyone spot the difference between these two cases ?

 

I bet the families of the people killed in scotland are well chuffed with their judge.

[gregers]

isnt it a shame that judges do not sing from the same song sheet,like they should be expected to do!!!!!!

[big_kev]

Hopefully it will serve as a warning of the dangers of driving when tired.

 

Another interesting article.

 

http://blog.cpap.co.uk/2007/06/osa-deadly-driving

Edited December 8, 2007 by big_kev

[Bigjeeze]

Judges are just old lawyers - all of whom spend their life twisting words and perverting the English language with the sole intention of winning what is in reality an argument over the meaning or otherwise of some words that were drafted by a lawyer in the first place.

 

Thye live a different life to most people - they believe they are better than the rest of us - They think that the winning of an argument about the meaning of words regardless of the pain , hurt and agony it causes is what Law is all about.

A more twisted , immoral, amoral grasping set of bigoted hypocrites you could not find.

 

Let not the actions of one Judge tar the rest. I work in legal circles and there are some very good Judges on the circuit. One in particular who stood up the the last Home Secretary with some very stern words!.

 

I would disagree with your comment of " they believe they are better than the rest of us ". Ive met a few that are very down to earth and don't abuse their status and certainly don't stick their noses up at us commoners.

 

 

 

 

 

I am quoting from personal knowledge - I have two barristers and a solicitor in my immediate family - and as a result I meet many legal types -and they all have in commn a massive superiority complex - not unlike the proffessional distance a Dr has with his patients but loaded with scorn. Because they deal with the lowest of the low they feel above them. I would also point you at Parliament where a large proportion of ministers and MP's are Lawyers - and a more dishonest, self serving bunch of hippocrites you couldn't find anywhere else.

 

They police themselves, they assume they know best, they run, rule and otherwise regulate our lives - and we have no redress. So whilst you may know the one or two decents ones , the rest let them down. Come the revolution............

[gio]

"Even if a medical condition is the cause of falling asleep at the wheel, it is not an excuse in law."

 

What would be?Lets assume a heart attack or a stroke and taken place instead. Would you still think that this was not an excuse in law?

 

Lets hope he losses his HGV licience at the very least,or his firm founds it hard or very high insurance premiums, make him uninsurable.

[big_kev]

What would be?Lets assume a heart attack or a stroke and taken place instead. Would you still think that this was not an excuse in law?

 

You don't fall asleep with a heart attack or stroke.

 

The law in this instance is related to falling asleep whilst driving....see earlier quote from the DVLA.