Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:44 pm #1705630
profchrisreed wrote:Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Going back to what was written before, I would not expect for infringements due to a moment of inattention to be dealt with any different as a speeding offence due to a similar moment of inattention, ie a speed awareness course.
There is a difference though, as the analysis I posted before shows.
Infringements which don't cause loss of separation just get a warning letter (repeat infringements etc aside).
Infringements which do cause loss of separation etc get the course.
I've already said that I'm not comfortable with a system where the outcome of a breach of the law differs according to factors outside the infringer's control or knowledge. If it's OK, I'd like those running the system to explain why, in order to convince the regulated (that's us) that it's not a purely arbitrary choice.
I am surprised that as a legal expert that you ask this. Surely this is covered by Section 143 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: “Determining the seriousness of an offence”? Where specific attention should be paid to the consequences of the crime?
“In considering the seriousness of any offence, the court must consider the offender’s culpability in committing the offence and any harm which the offence caused, was intended to cause or might foreseeably have caused.”
Is it not the final 4 words that would apply in this instance?
Then you have the 4 tests for levels of Culpability for sentencing purposes:
Where the offender;
1. Has the intention to offend, with the highest culpability when an offence is planned. The worse the harm intended, the greater the seriousness.
2. Is reckless as to whether an offence is caused, that is, where the offender appreciates at least some offence would be caused but proceeds giving no thought to the consequences even though the extent of the risk would be obvious to most people.
3. Has knowledge of the specific risks entailed by his actions even though he does not intend to cause the offence that results.
4. Is guilty of negligence.
Then a whole bunch of aggravating or mitigating factors to take into account.
I thought all of this was normal practice in UK Law??