For some purposes an offence is never spent

 

But that could never apply in this case, since any custodial sentence would have been short.

.

But that could never apply in this case, since any custodial sentence would have been short.

.

A mistake made many years ago doesn’t automatically preclude you from certain occupations or activities but a failure to disclose anything, even a minor motoring offence, let alone a custodial automatically will.

 

Anyway it’s most likely not going to be an issue to him anyway.

Anyway it’s most likely not going to be an issue to him anyway.

 

True, he's a bricklayer.

A mistake made many years ago doesn’t automatically preclude you from certain occupations or activities but a failure to disclose anything, even a minor motoring offence, let alone a custodial automatically will.

 

That depends on the occupation or activity, but you are taking far too sweeping a view. In the vast majority of instances a spent conviction need never be disclosed to anyone.

 

That is the whole point of the rehabilition act.

.

True, he's a bricklayer.

 

He couldn’t lay bricks on some jobs then :-)

 

Actually he would almost certainly get clearance even with a record if he disclosed it. It even says that no offence is considered spent on the forms. In fact I think it’s the same with a FAC although I can’t remember if it specifically mentions motoring offences.

 

Failure to disclose would stop his application in its tracks.

The CPS I guess decided to proceed with the most severe offence which was deemed driving without due care etc, if they had gone with just the motoring offences he would have been guilty and received a conviction but as Flecc has mentioned non custodial for a first time offence. A decent fine and licence points for when/if he has a licence.

Due to the nature of the incident and the death of the lady they had no choice but to pursue the most severe of the offences knowing that an acquittal would end the affair and all other charges. Had they gone with the lesser charges then the judiciary would have failed to carry out their duty and the family and the public would have been treated with contempt by the judiciary.

I am very surprised by the verdict but as it has been said none of us were in court or on the jury to listen to the proceedings or see the conduct/ affect it may have had on Hanlon, end of the day I have respect for the twelve just men or women who came to their conclusion.

That depends on the occupation or activity, but you are taking far too sweeping a view. In the vast majority of instances a spent conviction need never be disclosed to anyone.

 

That is the whole point of the rehabilition act.

.

 

Sorry our replies crossed in the post :-)

 

I’m just pointing out that there are a number of occupations and activities that require you to show good character when applying, it’s the important ones that require you to openly disclose your past.

 

Anyway enough .. no point dwelling on it.

Wow that is really harsh and thoughtless, at the end of the day the guy was riding an illegal bike which should not have been on the road at all, and then ran off after the accident. I wonder how you would feel if one of your loved ones was killed by an illegal driver?

It is not harsh, it is the law. Neither am I being thoughtless.

This woman ignored it and paid the price.

Life is tough but judicial decisions should be logical and never based on emotions

Wh

Sorry our replies crossed in the post

 

I’m just pointing out that there are a number of occupations and activities that require you to show good character when applying, it’s the important ones that require you to openly disclose your past.

 

Anyway enough .. no point dwelling on it.

Which ones are those?

It is not harsh, it is the law. Neither am I being thoughtless.

This woman ignored it and paid the price.

Life is tough but judicial decisions should be logical and never based on emotions

A pedestrian walking out in front of a vehicle does not deserve to be killed and those in charge of any vehicle have a duty to be watchful of what others are doing regardless of whether what they are doing is right or wrong. A pedestrian also has a duty to watch where they are going.

 

The jury (not the judicery) will have made their decision based purely on the evidence in court. They will have been given legal advice but the decision is theirs alone. The jury are not there to decide whether someone did wrong; they are there to decide whether the court proceedings have made them absolutely sure that the defendant is guilty of the exact charges laid before them. If the jury is not absolutely sure then the verdict must be not guilty. I have been on a jury where the defendant was obviously a bad person and was doing some bad things but, from the evidence given, we could not be sure he was guilty of the charges made against him. We had no choice but to find him not guilty.

 

It could well be in this case that there was sufficient doubt about whether the careless bit had actually be proven, but only the members of the jury will know what discussions went on in order to reach their decision.

I'm more surprised that he got off on the causing death whilst uninsured charge than the causing death by careless driving one.

 

Both require some causation element - a material contribution to the death.

 

The Supreme Court gave as an example of the former offence a driver who was driving above the speed limit but not sufficiently badly to be classified as 'careless'.

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-charging

 

 

So to acquit on both the jury must have decided that any contribution to the death from the driver's driving was minimal. Or at least that they couldn't be sure it was any more than minimal.