Prince Phils driving exploits.

[ECCOnoob 1,037]

A finding of liability for a road traffic accident does not and has never automatically lead to criminal investigations and potential prosecution.

 

If it did every police force in the country and the CPS would be completely snowed under with investigations backlogged for years.    The subsequent hearing of such prosecutions would collapse the court system.

 

Unless anybody has some concrete evidence that the duke deliberately was driving without due care and attention or was deliberately undertaking negligent acts whilst controlling his vehicle what grounds for bringing charges of criminal acts  could be raised?  

 

if the answer is none. Then just like 1001 other day-to-day road traffic incidents it will be left to the insurers to deal with as a civil matter.

 

Based on the current rumours neither driver was over the alcohol limit, neither  driver was deemed to be excessively speeding and neither driver appears to have done anything which was a deliberate negligent act which would be defined as intent to driving without due care and attention.   

 

I know there is a certain section who can't wait to get the head of a royal on the spike but this is getting beyond a joke.

Edited January 22, 2019 by ECCOnoob

[Top Cats Hat 10]

4 hours ago, ECCOnoob said: neither driver appears to have done anything which was a deliberate negligent act which would be defined as intent to driving without due care and attention.   

One of them drove intentionally or otherwise, into the other one's vehicle making quite a mess of both cars.

 

Somebody was driving carelessly! 🙄

[phil752 10]

4 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

A finding of liability for a road traffic accident does not and has never automatically lead to criminal investigations and potential prosecution.

 

If it did every police force in the country and the CPS would be completely snowed under with investigations backlogged for years.    The subsequent hearing of such prosecutions would collapse the court system.

 

Unless anybody has some concrete evidence that the duke deliberately was driving without due care and attention or was deliberately undertaking negligent acts whilst controlling his vehicle what grounds for bringing charges of criminal acts  could be raised?  

 

if the answer is none. Then just like 1001 other day-to-day road traffic incidents it will be left to the insurers to deal with as a civil matter.

 

Based on the current rumours neither driver was over the alcohol limit, neither  driver was deemed to be excessively speeding and neither driver appears to have done anything which was a deliberate negligent act which would be defined as intent to driving without due care and attention.   

 

I know there is a certain section who can't wait to get the head of a royal on the spike but this is getting beyond a joke.

Only one was coming out of a side road, onto a main road, mm which one was that, I guess it was the one that could not possibly be at fault or the one that it defiantly would be not in the public interest to prosecute. Oh and it couldn't be the one with a new land rover, wonder how the other people with injuries are getting on.  Have they a new car yet?

[Obelix 11]

13 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

A finding of liability for a road traffic accident does not and has never automatically lead to criminal investigations and potential prosecution.

 

If it did every police force in the country and the CPS would be completely snowed under with investigations backlogged for years.    The subsequent hearing of such prosecutions would collapse the court system.

 

Unless anybody has some concrete evidence that the duke deliberately was driving without due care and attention or was deliberately undertaking negligent acts whilst controlling his vehicle what grounds for bringing charges of criminal acts  could be raised?  

 

if the answer is none. Then just like 1001 other day-to-day road traffic incidents it will be left to the insurers to deal with as a civil matter.

 

Based on the current rumours neither driver was over the alcohol limit, neither  driver was deemed to be excessively speeding and neither driver appears to have done anything which was a deliberate negligent act which would be defined as intent to driving without due care and attention.   

 

I know there is a certain section who can't wait to get the head of a royal on the spike but this is getting beyond a joke.

Driving without due care is an offence of strict liability - it doesn't require mens rea to be present. Ergo it can be charged and prosecuted even if there was no intent.

[PRESLEY 1,228]

Some people think the Sun shines out of this family and can never see no wrong in them,  get a reality check for god sake, everything this family posess is through ill gotten  gains over the centuries and its still happening.  

[Top Cats Hat 10]

3 hours ago, Obelix said:

Driving without due care is an offence of strict liability - it doesn't require mens rea to be present. Ergo it can be charged and prosecuted even if there was no intent.

Driving without due care and attention is a unique offence in that by definition it is not a deliberate act but the reckless absence of any deliberate consideration for driving in a safe way.

[Obelix 11]

4 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Driving without due care and attention is a unique offence in that by definition it is not a deliberate act but the reckless absence of any deliberate consideration for driving in a safe way.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that and it's not a legal term of art I recognise.

 

If you drive such that the standard falls below that of a careful and competent driver its DWDCA. If you do it such that it is far below that of a careful and competent driver and clearly dangerous then thats dangerous driving.

 

Both of which do not require mens rea to be in place. I dont think in that case that theya re specifically unique in how the offence is formed - the sale of unfit meat for example would also fit the definition. But thats getting a little off track...

[PRESLEY 1,228]

The trouble here is,  he is that used to driving around  all of their country estates  so there isn't  much traffic around,  if there were  they would have to get out his way or he would Ramm em . Because he would knowingly get a way with it.  Royal Bullies. ! 

[Top Cats Hat 10]

46 minutes ago, Obelix said:

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that and it's not a legal term of art I recognise.

What I'm struggling to say is that by definition, driving without due care and attention isn't an intentional act.

 

You don't get into your car intending to drive without due car and attention just as you  don't go to Morrissons intending to leave your bag for life behind.

[PRESLEY 1,228]

10 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

What I'm struggling to say is that by definition, driving without due care and attention isn't an intentional act.

 

You don't get into your car intending to drive without due car and attention just as you  don't go to Morrissons intending to leave your bag for life behind.

Its causing damage probably by  lack of concentration

[Obelix 11]

20 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

What I'm struggling to say is that by definition, driving without due care and attention isn't an intentional act.

 

You don't get into your car intending to drive without due car and attention just as you  don't go to Morrissons intending to leave your bag for life behind.

Which is why I said way above it's an offence of strict liability and there is no requirement for mens rea in the offence...

[nikki-red 308]

 

 

Hes now voluntarily given up his driving licence following the accident...

 

https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/09/prince-philip-97-voluntarily-given-driving-licence-following-crash-8497550/?fbclid=IwAR02-g0wQJoXPVeudbuBvO0zw8Yx-rXGRtHVjAXM1aAXDRe9I6WmKDIhZZ0

 

 

Edited February 9, 2019 by nikki-red