Where's the due process? Banned fisherman told to buy a bike

[carlossimon]

I read this story in the Shetland News (link below) and a similar report in the Times.. It's not the bike reference that most concerns me, but surely an abuse of an accused rights to a fair hearing.

 

http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/2009/December/news/Banned%20fisherman%20told%20to%20buy%20a%20bike.htm

 

From the report:- 'Sheriff Graeme Napier said he should buy a bike and cycle the 12 miles to Toft and back, saying that he had no choice but to disqualify anyone who acted in this way where there was any suspicion of drinking.'

 

Now, I do not in any way condone avoidable delay in reporting accidents and of course no one should leave debris on any road, or actual cases of drink-driving, but I find the Sheriff's attitude worrying. Maybe he has case law to support him (or maybe not) but if so it seems to fly in the face of the accused right to a fair trial.

 

Specifically, the Sheriff banned this man from driving for 12 months using as justification the suspicion that a separate offence involving alcohol may have been committed. I think this is a dangerous road to go down (excuse the pun). You shouldn't be punished in respect of an offence committed on the basis that another offence that 'may' have been committed. Effectively the accused is being punished for an offence which the Sheriff suspects 'may' have been committed, without the accused having the charge placed against him to be proved and him being given the opportunity to offer an argument in his defence.

 

This is a slippery slope, what next indeterminate detention without trial on suspicion of committing an offence? (As happened in Northern Ireland in the 1970s).

 

And furthermore the Sheriff suggesting that the man should ride from Voe to Toft by bicycle doesn't make me think he considered the road safety aspect of cycling on that road at all hours and in all weathers, to me recommending that mode of transport as an alternative to driving must verge on the irresponsible, the correct suggestions should have been, travel by taxi, bus, or try to get a lift.

[shetlandpeat]

This aint some mad formula on the physics teachers board.

 

The guy abandoned a vehicle after smashing into property that, if he were not caught, the tax payer would have paid to repair. The maximum penalties for leaving the carriage way in a dangerous condition, failing to respond to police requests for contact, driving through undue care and attention cos of smokin, remember, smoking is bad when drivind as you are not in full control, oh, no arguing this one unless you are really a bit behing the times, failure to inform the police of hazzards on the road that could kill, maim of deprive folk of use of their property.

 

He got of lightly if you consider the maximum penalty for all of the above.

 

I am happy he is off the road, perhaps some lessons may be learnt.

[carlossimon]

I see what your saying and indeed agree in most respects, but the Sheriff didn't disqualify him for those reasons, he focussed on his suspicion of drink being involved as the reason to justify his 'obligation' to disqualify.

[unlinkedstudent]

I think you missing the point Shetlandpeat - it is NOT the fact that he did the above, but the initial thread starting this post referring to the Sheriff's comments and suspicion that alcohol was involved.

 

Now had the Police arrested him a few hours after the event and found alcohol in his system which illustrated he had been over the limit at said time of crash THEN you could understand the Sheriff's comments as there would be forensic/medical evidence - but I'm not sure if that would be admissible. You can't pass sentence (sorry, obviously you can) on a suspicion, can you?

 

I have no sympathy for drunk drivers as my nanna was killed by one but unless he admitted he had been drinking and there was sufficient proof, you cannot sentence him on that.

 

However, perhaps when looking at a transcript of the Court Report (if available) it would illustrate as to what offence(s) his sentence actually related to.

[carlossimon]

Yes, I thought 'chinese whispers' may be a possibility, but don't know if the two reports published are from the same note taker?

[Fontal]

I think this guy got off lightly just minutes before he left the road he went through brae at very nearly tripple figer speeds as every one was leaving the pubs this guy was a serious danger on the road lets hope he can't get insurance when he does get his license back.

[carlossimon]

Yes, it sounds like seriously bad driving (to put it mildly), he is lucky not to be dead or to have killed others. I have no dispute with the road safety concerns raised, rather I'm pondering if we can have confidence in the rules of law and the rights and obligations allegedly conferred upon us if the Sheriff appears to have an interpretation of the law that removes those rights?

[unlinkedstudent]

Sheriff Napier is reported as saying in the link provided above:-

 

“I have an obligation to the public and have made it quite clear in this court before that with those who disappear from an accident or fail to report when required to do so, where there is any suggestion of alcohol being involved, as there clearly is here, I am not simply going to walk away from it without a disqualification.â€

 

I am naive in some respects to the Scottish judicial system. Had the above happened in England within a Magistrates Court, then no doubt the Defendant's Solicitors would be advising their client whether they could submit an appeal on the grounds of a legal technicality. The outcome might be that they would say, "Forget the appeal because you'll get a heavier sentence for the offences you committed" or, on the other hand (again depending on the actual Court Report and what the lovely paperwork lists his sentence as being passed against which offence) "Brilliant, more dosh in our pocket, you've been charged with drink-driving with no evidence submitted so we'll whack in an appeal, you not only get the sentence quashed but you can sue the living daylights out of the Court Service also."

 

Yes, the Sheriff does have a duty. He has a duty to pass sentence where compelling, factual evidence is provided and NOT on the suspicion that he was totally off his face on booze. Had a witness come forward stating that he had been seen drinking in XXX establishment (or should that be four Xs?) all day, it was proven he had alcohol in his system, etc., then yes, nick him for drink-driving.

 

By all means throw the book at him for leaving the scene of a crash, leaving the highway in a condition causing a hazard for other road users, etc., but the Sheriff should have stuck to the facts - THAT is what the Sheriff has a duty to the public to do.

[Carlos]

And furthermore the Sheriff suggesting that the man should ride from Voe to Toft by bicycle doesn't make me think he considered the road safety aspect of cycling on that road at all hours and in all weathers, to me recommending that mode of transport as an alternative to driving must verge on the irresponsible, the correct suggestions should have been, travel by taxi, bus, or try to get a lift.

Cycling is not that dangerous. In fact from the statistics you're slightly more likely to die in an RTA as a pedestrian than as a cyclist, and more than 3 times more likely to die as a motorcyclist.

You're right that a bus is the safest though.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/221549/227755/328843/pedalcyclistfsheet07.pdf

[carlossimon]

I share your naivety, to make it easier though let's remember the UK government incorporated the ECHR into UK law, the right to a fair trial enshrined in the legislation is UK wide and should be acknowledged by the Sheriff. I think if nothing else it is an Art 6.1 breach, worth running alone by way of appeal even without looking again at other aspects of the matter.

[carlossimon]

Well Carlos, there you go and I ride a motorbike! Your statistics are I'm sure accurate, but each road is different, I think the road to Toft on a fine day would be wonderful by bicycle, but realistically it is only like that at most 10% of the time maybe. I travel that road often and the visibility can be poor at the top and honestly you wouldn't get me willingly to struggle up the hill on a bike in the rain/sleet/fog/snow praying that my lights are visible to cars trucks etc. and that they give me sufficient clearance when they pass me at 60mph when they round the bend without seeing me until they would be upon me!

[Ghostrider]

I really do hope that it is the "soundbite" style of reporting currently employed by all out local media that makes the Sheriff appear unbelievably inept, and not that he is unbelievably inept.

 

This is by no means the first time that either this Sheriff or the previous one according to local media reporting appeared to act in a way, and have an attitude that all you could say was WTF?!?

 

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, if a court case was reported, anything and everything that was of relevance to the portions of the proceedings within their report was included, and you could draw a reasonably accurate picture of the how's and why's.

 

Now all you get are these one line wonders like "saying that he had no choice but to disqualify anyone who acted in this way where there was any suspicion of drinking," with no sort of reasoning, back up or explanation for them.

 

On the face of it folk can only conclude that the Sheriff pulled the "suspicion of drinking" out of thin air. The media either need to state whether that really was the case, and if not (as I would really hope was the case) some sort of evidence was in front of the court to justify the Sheriff's comment, to at least state there was.

 

As it stands the media is doing everyone a dis-service and spreading disinformation, if the only way the public can gain the information to fully understand why certain comments were made within any one case, and certain sentences applied. Is by visiting the court themselves and checking transcripts, the media are superfluous and may as well take themselves out of the loop.

[unlinkedstudent]

Well said Ghostrider; I, for one, have considered the role of the media in this particular instance. However, even if those prosecuting and a police officer giving evidence stated that they suspected alcohol played a part, IMHO it doesn't excuse the Sheriff from saying what he did (if he did actually say those words and has been accurately reported in the press).

[carlossimon]

Thank you, I can go to bed now in the knowledge that it is not just me that found the Sheriff's reported reasonings incomprehensible!

[Mattie]

Cycling to Toft to da boat from Voe may take some time but will get him in shape. Is he fat?

Why not harbour the boat at Voe?

Common sense!!

Judge Napier might want to partake in a cycle to Toft from Voe in harsh weather as he dishes his judgement..

I don't think he would and prefers the comfort of his car and home comforts.