|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Aug 9, 2023 12:27:01 GMT
A couple of months ago a strange arsebook post alerted me to the start of a story that made little sense Two girls aged somewhere between my daughters and grand daughter had gone out for a night on the piss and vanished. Their car was found in a club car park. They’d gone off with sone lads and no one knew what went on after that Their bodies were found along with a third and three further people all critically injured about 46 hours later. After a ‘court hearing’ held under some sort of special secretive process that denies the principle of open justice visible to all who attend at the time, we now have some interesting facts Six people got into a car i don’t think is designed to carry six (my son in law drives one and his sure as hell isn’t) and went from Newport to Trecco Bay Caravan park where they got off their faces on booze and nitrous oxide until they were thrown out for nouse nuisance. They came back at about 2am with the car driven by one of them who had no full licence nor insurance because the others were so wasted. At some point they came back to St Mellons Cardiff and proceeded to drive straight over the roundabout through a crash barrier and lay hidden for nearly two days. I know the road in question well and was very puzzled at the time but the minimal information released from this dodgy undercover court hearing explains a lot I’m having trouble finding a lot of sympathy here. But the event is quite useful as a pointer to let my grand daughter see what happens when you act in this fashion ….. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66450162 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2023 14:14:10 GMT
Interesting, it all happened 3rd March and the proceedings are all in camera. I'm guessing someone knows someone and is getting some sort of special treatment?
If not, it may be the authorities think that 3 deaths and serious injuries are enough punishment, as no one outside the car was injured. (No thanks to their behaviour).
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Aug 26, 2023 15:00:48 GMT
The Courts do have the power to hold hearings in Camera should the circumstances warrant it but it does not happen often, sometimes in Terrorist Trials when part of the trial may be held in camera if Members of Special Branch , or Secret Services undercover officers give evidence to hide their identity etc
Members of the public and reporters cannot attend Juvenile Courts
Common Law
At common law, there is a presumption that a trial on indictment must be held in a public court with open doors. The same principle applies to proceedings in Magistrates’ Courts: see Section 121(4) Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.
The following principles may be derived from the House of Lords case of A-G v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440:
The normal rule is that criminal proceedings should be conducted publicly.
Nonetheless, courts do have power to order that the public be excluded.
The exercise of that power, in common with any other derogation from the principles of open justice, should be strictly confined to cases where the public's presence would 'frustrate or render impracticable the administration of justice'.
In Re Times Newspapers Ltd [2009] 1 WLR 1015, the Court of Appeal reiterated that:
“justice requires proceedings in court to be held in public…It is only where the proper administration of justice would be affected that any derogation from this principle can be permitted”
All courts, therefore, have the inherent power, by virtue of their general right to control their own procedure, to sit ‘in camera’. As made clear above, there must be a compelling reason to adopt such a course. A decision to sit ‘in camera’ is not justified solely to save individual from embarrassment or to conceal facts which it might, on more general grounds, be desirable to keep secret. See R v Malvern Justices, ex parte Evans; R v Evesham Justices, ex parte McDonagh (1988) 87 Cr. App. R. 19.
The same applies in relation to risk of financial damage or damage to reputation. R v Dover Justices, ex parte. Dover DC [1992] Crim.L.R. 371, DC.
Even when it is claimed that the safety of a witness or party will be endangered by an open hearing, the court should consider carefully whether he can be adequately protected by means less drastic than totally excluding the public - Reigate Justices, ex parte Argus Newspapers (1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 181.
Hearing a matter in private is a course of last resort and the justices should have applied their minds to how else they might have dealt with the matter (e.g. an order under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, section 11, protecting the identity of the accused).
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Aug 26, 2023 15:39:18 GMT
Interesting, it all happened 3rd March and the proceedings are all in camera. I'm guessing someone knows someone and is getting some sort of special treatment? If not, it may be the authorities think that 3 deaths and serious injuries are enough punishment, as no one outside the car was injured. (No thanks to their behaviour). I don't think the proceedings are 'all' in camera in relation to the accident. The report appears to refer to a charge of driving without a licence or insurance prior to the accident. I am no expert in the Single Justice system, but I wouldn't have thought it unusual for these kinds of offences to be dealt with in this way.
No doubt, more detail will be available when the adjourned inquest reconvenes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Aug 26, 2023 17:38:48 GMT
I agree that is possibly why
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Sept 4, 2023 14:32:22 GMT
The driver of the car which left the road and ended up in the trees out of sight from the road in which three people died will be sentenced this month, he has just been dealt with for more driving offences unconnected with the first accident
A man has admitted to a number of driving offences, including drink-driving, after being stopped by police.
Shane Loughlin, 32, appeared in court on Monday after he was stopped in Aberporth Road in Llandaff North, Cardiff, on Saturday at 04:20 BST.
He was charged with drink-driving, driving while disqualified and without insurance.
In March, Loughlin was hurt in a crash in St Mellons, which killed three people and injured another.
On Monday, Cardiff Magistrates' Court was told the Ford Focus he was driving on Saturday "lurched forwards and then stalled".
Loughlin, from Rumney, Cardiff, failed a roadside test and then a test at a police station found he had 46 microgrammes of alcohol in 100ml of breath.
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Sept 4, 2023 15:02:29 GMT
The case might be held somewhere with restrictions due to the fear of vigilante action against one of the others that survived.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Sept 4, 2023 15:50:13 GMT
The man has already pleaded guilty as charged to the offences he committed last Saturday , he is waiting to be sentenced for the fatal crash when he was driving in which three of his passengers died, which means he has already been tried on that case and found guilty , or he pleaded guilty
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Sept 4, 2023 18:51:35 GMT
The Courts do have the power to hold hearings in Camera should the circumstances warrant it but it does not happen often, sometimes in Terrorist Trials when part of the trial may be held in camera if Members of Special Branch , or Secret Services undercover officers give evidence to hide their identity etc Members of the public and reporters cannot attend Juvenile Courts Common Law At common law, there is a presumption that a trial on indictment must be held in a public court with open doors. The same principle applies to proceedings in Magistrates’ Courts: see Section 121(4) Magistrates’ Court Act 1980. The following principles may be derived from the House of Lords case of A-G v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440: The normal rule is that criminal proceedings should be conducted publicly. Nonetheless, courts do have power to order that the public be excluded. The exercise of that power, in common with any other derogation from the principles of open justice, should be strictly confined to cases where the public's presence would 'frustrate or render impracticable the administration of justice'. In Re Times Newspapers Ltd [2009] 1 WLR 1015, the Court of Appeal reiterated that: “justice requires proceedings in court to be held in public…It is only where the proper administration of justice would be affected that any derogation from this principle can be permitted” All courts, therefore, have the inherent power, by virtue of their general right to control their own procedure, to sit ‘in camera’. As made clear above, there must be a compelling reason to adopt such a course. A decision to sit ‘in camera’ is not justified solely to save individual from embarrassment or to conceal facts which it might, on more general grounds, be desirable to keep secret. See R v Malvern Justices, ex parte Evans; R v Evesham Justices, ex parte McDonagh (1988) 87 Cr. App. R. 19. The same applies in relation to risk of financial damage or damage to reputation. R v Dover Justices, ex parte. Dover DC [1992] Crim.L.R. 371, DC. Even when it is claimed that the safety of a witness or party will be endangered by an open hearing, the court should consider carefully whether he can be adequately protected by means less drastic than totally excluding the public - Reigate Justices, ex parte Argus Newspapers (1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 181. Hearing a matter in private is a course of last resort and the justices should have applied their minds to how else they might have dealt with the matter (e.g. an order under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, section 11, protecting the identity of the accused). the government’s own website states ‘If an individual or company has been charged with a minor criminal offence, the case may be decided by a magistrate without going to court. This is known as the ‘single justice procedure’. I don’t call getting behind the wherl of a car without a licence or insurance while off yoyr face on booze and nitrous and then driving in a way that puts the car iff the road and kills half its overloaded passenger content a ‘minor criminal offence’ Do You ?? This was a wholly inappropriate abuse of the system to keep things under wraps. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Sept 4, 2023 19:14:02 GMT
Drink Driving, No Insurance and driving whilst disqualified can be dealt with by a Magistrates Court and sentenced by the Magistrate, if the Magistrates wishes to do the defendant can be sent to the Crown Court for sentence.
Death by dangerous driving is a serious offence and can only be dealt with by a Crown Court, because if convicted or the defendant pleads guilty the Crown Court can impose a much harsher longer sentence than a Magistrate can
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Sept 5, 2023 13:16:27 GMT
He needs time behind bars to serve as a deterrent and maybe also for his own safely who knows whose father or uncle might want to exact their own punishment?
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Sept 5, 2023 13:16:40 GMT
the government’s own website states ‘If an individual or company has been charged with a minor criminal offence, the case may be decided by a magistrate without going to court. This is known as the ‘single justice procedure’. I don’t call getting behind the wherl of a car without a licence or insurance while off yoyr face on booze and nitrous and then driving in a way that puts the car iff the road and kills half its overloaded passenger content a ‘minor criminal offence’ Do You ?? This was a wholly inappropriate abuse of the system to keep things under wraps. I think the confusion is that the man, Lia, dealt with by the Single Justice system was not involved in the fatal accident. The charges against him refer to driving without a licence or insurance prior to the accident and picked up on cctv. He was not in the vehicle at the time of the crash. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Sept 5, 2023 14:30:17 GMT
the government’s own website states ‘If an individual or company has been charged with a minor criminal offence, the case may be decided by a magistrate without going to court. This is known as the ‘single justice procedure’. I don’t call getting behind the wherl of a car without a licence or insurance while off yoyr face on booze and nitrous and then driving in a way that puts the car iff the road and kills half its overloaded passenger content a ‘minor criminal offence’ Do You ?? This was a wholly inappropriate abuse of the system to keep things under wraps. I think the confusion is that the man, Lia, dealt with by the Single Justice system was not involved in the fatal accident. The charges against him refer to driving without a licence or insurance prior to the accident and picked up on cctv. He was not in the vehicle at the time of the crash. Ah I must have missed the words ‘an hour’ in between the words ‘driving the tiguan’ and ‘before the crash’ I read the earlier text where he admitted to driving the car without any licence of insurance because the others were too drunk / too nitroused or both. So if he was not driving at the time of the crash who the hell was i wonder ? Still, look on the bright side. If they were measurably off their faces on the stuff when found, all that time later, it’s a certainty the corpses felt nothing as they exited this world. Also, given the way the government make criminals of car drivers by default these days, i’m not entirely convinced his crimes were ‘minor’. I think i feel an FOI request to see how many other cases of such crimes were dealt with this way coming on…, |
|
