crash law

sebdangerfield

Quote;
In Hallinan v DPP1 a passenger had fallen and injured herself when the bus on which she was travelling halted sharply. No damage was caused to any property nor injury suffered by anyone else. The High Court held that the bus driver had to stop his vehicle. If he had done so and had then decided that it was best to go on, the obligation in the statute to stop would have been satisfied. In those circumstances the stop would not have been a long one. Thus, wherever an accident occurs, a driver must stop immediately and if he fails to do so he does not satisfy the requirement of the RTA 1988, s 170(2).

To start with, it doesn't matter nothing was damaged and there were no other people injured.... owing to the presence of that vehicle injury was caused to anyone other than the driver. That fits doent it?

Where have you got the bits you added? The case law Hallinan v DPP1 is regarding the bus driver claiming he could continue his journy without stopping and exchanging details with the injured passenger as he claimed the bus itself was the scene rather than the roas it was on. To satisfy the act he must have stopped the bus and exchanged details with the injured passenger before continuing the journey. The stop needs to be long enough to do the above.

cyclonebri1

sebdangerfield wrote: »

No Bri, it already was confrontational. You called Nige and I !!!!!!. You made it confrontational.

All Paul was dong, in his first post I may add, was standing up for us when it's quite obvious you don't really have any real understanding or training in law.

I'd love to quote what he put in the PM but I think you'd be embarrased. Unless you've got anything to add to this, like realising what the law is very simply asking for us to do or bringing somthing more than just argumentative, petty jibes when someones got less posts than you I think i'll take my leave. Sad really, I'm aware of many forums where a little legal understanding from someone with the relevent training would be welcomed.

Nothing to do with the fact that your were claiming Nige was harrasing you with PMs then? And the fact that you got drawn into this as easily as I did?

So we have two people that had being going at it hammer and tongue, who then joined sides, denied the rift and were aided by a newcomer with no additional input? Both of you for whatever reason then left the arena for a while leaving Paul on the seat?

I do have something else that may just allow you to explain why many people cannot understand the issues of stopping and failing to report, back in a minute

sebdangerfield

I was taking the mick out of nige. His PM's were actually quite entertaining and funny.

I dont see what i've been drawn into? I'm just trying to explain why the law doesn't allow you to do what you said it could. It's what I came on these forums for, to give an insight to alot of the very missunderstood aspects of law.

cyclonebri1

sebdangerfield wrote: »

To start with, it doesn't matter nothing was damaged and there were no other people injured.... owing to the presence of that vehicle injury was caused to anyone other than the driver. That fits doent it?

Where have you got the bits you added? The case law Hallinan v DPP1 is regarding the bus driver claiming he could continue his journy without stopping and exchanging details with the injured passenger as he claimed the bus itself was the scene rather than the roas it was on. To satisfy the act he must have stopped the bus and exchanged details with the injured passenger before continuing the journey. The stop needs to be long enough to do the above.

It does not say that Seb, it says he stopped and decided to carry on. Back to the above post

Inactive

Glad I never got involved in this thread .. :rotfl::eek:

cyclonebri1

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Nothing to do with the fact that your were claiming Nige was harrasing you with PMs then? And the fact that you got drawn into this as easily as I did?

So we have two people that had being going at it hammer and tongue, who then joined sides, denied the rift and were aided by a newcomer with no additional input? Both of you for whatever reason then left the arena for a while leaving Paul on the seat?

I do have something else that may just allow you to explain why many people cannot understand the issues of stopping and failing to report, back in a minute

Here we are, not the one I was going to post but the same rule:
Part E The rules of statutory interpretation

The golden rule

This rule is a modification of the literal rule. It states that if the literal rule produces an absurdity, then the court should look for another meaning of the words to avoid that absurd result. The rule was closely defined by Lord Wensleydale in Grey v Pearson (1857) HL Cas 61, who stated:
The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther.

The rule was used in the case of Adler v George (1964) to avoid an absurd result. Under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1920, it was an offence to obstruct HM Forces in the vicinity of a prohibited place. Mr Frank Adler had in fact been arrested whilst obstructing such forces within such a prohibited place (Markham Royal Air Force Station, Norfolk). He argued that he was not in the vicinity of a prohibited place as he was actually in a prohibited place. The court applied the golden rule to extend the literal wording of the statute to cover the action committed by the defendant. If the literal rule had been applied, it would have produced absurdity, as someone protesting near the base would be committing an offence whilst someone protesting in it would not.
Re Sigsworth (1935) concerned a case where a son had murdered his mother. The mother had not made a will and under the Administration of Justice Act 1925 her estate would be inherited by her next of kin, i.e. her son. There was no ambiguity in the words of the Act, but the court was not prepared to let the son who had murdered his mother benefit from his crime. It was held that the literal rule should not apply and that the golden rule should be used to prevent the repugnant situation of the son inheriting.
The golden rule provides no clear means to test the existence or extent of an absurdity. It seems to depend on the result of each individual case. Whilst the golden rule has the advantage of avoiding absurdities, it therefore has the disadvantage that no test exists to determine what is an absurdity.


:eek::eek:
This is the reason that even a copper cannot get his head round the true meaning of the act. In short we have a written law, but if this law cannot be taken literally, ie, word for word, we have a little known "rule" that states the courts can apply the initial intention of parliment rather than that which was stated in the act. Where does that leave the man in the street, me for example?

cyclonebri1

Inactive wrote: »

Glad I never got involved in this thread .. :rotfl::eek:

So am I, sorry couldn't resist;)

sebdangerfield

It does not say that Seb, it says he stopped and decided to carry on.

exactly, stopped and decided to carry on. As opposed to what the law requires, stop and exchange details.

It's getting confusing while you keep going back and editing posts Bri. I answer something and before i've finished typing, you're saying something different!

The above is totally meaningless in this sense, It is used for when the law produces an absurdity. In the case of the RTA 1988 the requirment is clear. No absurdity, no use of for the above to be applied.

paulkenton

I'm not bothered about embarrasing him.

Shall I explain why i'm here for you to keep calling me names Bri?

cyclonebri1

paulkenton wrote: »

I'm not bothered about embarrasing him.

Shall I explain why i'm here for you to keep calling me names Bri?

Fine Paul, read my last post to you where I did accept what you said when you posted in a less agressive manner.

And, I don't think I have actually called you anything offensive have I ?

You won't embarrass me. Feel free