Probate Company get wrong house and break in to mine!

stator

masterwilde wrote: »

Thats hilarious, kiling another with your car after having say 2 pints then, you didnt intend to hit them therefore it should not be manslaughter by your book and should not be prosecuted

The intent is to drive your car whilst drunk, so yes you get prosecuted.

If someone spiked your drink or drugged you then you might not get prosecuted.

System

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

Yes but only if

the driving has caused the death of another person; and
the driving was without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other road users; and
the driver is either unfit through drink or drugs, or the alcohol concentration is over the prescribed limited, or there has been a failure to provide a specimen in pursuance of the RTA 1988.

If there is no evidence of due care or without reasonable consideration CPS will not authorise a charge.

They are unlikely to charge within 48 hours as they wont have seen the PM report so will have no evidence as to the cause of death.

Taken from the CPS Guidance

The offence of causing death by careless driving under section 2B of the RTA 1988 is committed when the manner of the suspects driving causes the death of another person.
The definition of this offence is linked to the provisions of section 3ZA of the RTA 1988. The section stipulates that a person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he or she drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.
The clear difference between this offence and an offence of causing death by dangerous driving is the standard of driving. For causing death by dangerous driving, the standard of driving must fall far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver; whereas for this offence the standard of driving must merely fall below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.

The fact that the driver caused the accident is normally sufficient to meet that requirement UNLESS there is proof that there was a failure of the vehicle to cause it

The recent series called the Prosecutors had just such a case. No physical defect with the vehicle but the fact that he drifted into the right hand lane into incoming traffic was sufficient to gain a conviction of death by careless driving as his standard fell below that expected. Worth watching because they did discuss whether to go for careless driving or dangerous driving, and they decided that his driving didn't fall FAR below, just that it fell below the standard expected

TBagpuss

Intent is not about what you say, it can be implied from what you do. So if you drink several pints and get behind the wheel, it can be inferred that you intended to drive while under the influence. If you stab someone with a knife it is inferred that you intedned to harm them, you can't get away with claiming it was suhc a frienly stab and you didn't mean to hurt them. (unless of course you were helping them to test a stab vest with their consent!)
There are also a small number of offences of strict liability, where no criminal intent is required.

However, in this instnace, OP, your best bet is to chase the company. If they are presventing you from accessing your own property then taking reasonable steps to secure it (e.g getting a locksmith out to gain access) is likely to be reasonable.

You are not entitled to betterment but you are entitled to be put bback in the poposition you would have ben in had they not messed up, which would include the fact that in those cisrumstnaces you would not have lost time ruunning around after them.

Silver-Surfer_2

!!!!!! wrote: »

Taken from the CPS Guidance
The fact that the driver caused the accident is normally sufficient to meet that requirement UNLESS there is proof that there was a failure of the vehicle to cause it

The recent series called the Prosecutors had just such a case. No physical defect with the vehicle but the fact that he drifted into the right hand lane into incoming traffic was sufficient to gain a conviction of death by careless driving as his standard fell below that expected. Worth watching because they did discuss whether to go for careless driving or dangerous driving, and they decided that his driving didn't fall FAR below, just that it fell below the standard expected

Interesting how you quote the fact the standard of driving must fall below the standard expected. What if you're over the limit and you kill a pedestrian who steps out in front of you, what's the offence? It's excess alcohol and not death by.

Out of interest is all you knowledge from TV or have you some actual experience?

Silver-Surfer_2

TBagpuss wrote: »

Intent is not about what you say, it can be implied from what you do. So if you drink several pints and get behind the wheel, it can be inferred that you intended to drive while under the influence. If you stab someone with a knife it is inferred that you intedned to harm them, you can't get away with claiming it was suhc a frienly stab and you didn't mean to hurt them. (unless of course you were helping them to test a stab vest with their consent!)
There are also a small number of offences of strict liability, where no criminal intent is required.

However, in this instnace, OP, your best bet is to chase the company. If they are presventing you from accessing your own property then taking reasonable steps to secure it (e.g getting a locksmith out to gain access) is likely to be reasonable.

You are not entitled to betterment but you are entitled to be put bback in the poposition you would have ben in had they not messed up, which would include the fact that in those cisrumstnaces you would not have lost time ruunning around after them.

Excess alcohol offences don't require intent but you'd still need to prove careless for the example used. No careless = no offence for causing death by whilst over the limit.

I'd say there are a large number of criminal offences where you don't need to prove intent.

System

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

Out of interest is all you knowledge from TV or have you some actual experience?

I was using the Prosecutors reference as a visible example that anybody can watch of how the people who actually decide on the offence come to their decision. Rather than taking words on a page you actually watch the discussion by senior prosecutors on the decision of which route to take.

System

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

Interesting how you quote the fact the standard of driving must fall below the standard expected. What if you're over the limit and you kill a pedestrian who steps out in front of you, what's the offence? It's excess alcohol and not death by.

It all depends on the evidence of whether a person not under the influence could have reasonably stopped. If so then it is causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs. RTA s3a

However if that can't be proved then I agree it would just be excess alcohol. Evidence is the key.

Silver-Surfer_2

!!!!!! wrote: »

I was using the Prosecutors reference as a visible example that anybody can watch of how the people who actually decide on the offence come to their decision. Rather than taking words on a page you actually watch the discussion by senior prosecutors on the decision of which route to take.

So on tv then, you've never been party to a real scenario or discussion?

!!!!!! wrote: »

It all depends on the evidence of whether a person not under the influence could have reasonably stopped. If so then it is causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs. RTA s3a

However if that can't be proved then I agree it would just be excess alcohol. Evidence is the key.

So it's all down the the evidence that there standard of driving fell below what is expected. Reasonableness has nothing to do with it.

System

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

So on tv then, you've never been party to a real scenario or discussion?

You are correct that I have never been party to it. You also totally miss the point where I explained that the program was a good example of how real-life as opposed to forum-life decisions are made on this subject.

As any discussion on the charge would have taken place between police, CPS and other involved in law I would never have been party to it as I don't work for any of those, a fact that applies to probably 99% of the contributors on these forums.

I assume from your comments that you would be one of those involved in the decision then?

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

So it's all down the the evidence that there standard of driving fell below what is expected. Reasonableness has nothing to do with it.

It always is about the evidence.
The standard is based on what a reasonable person would do. And if the evidence of the situations points to that standard not being met then that is what would be put in front of the jury

Those are the directions in CPS guidance, not my view. But of course you know better. so need to tell the lawmakers that they are giving out bad advice to their prosecutors.

Silver-Surfer_2

!!!!!! wrote: »

You are correct that I have never been party to it. You also totally miss the point where I explained that the program was a good example of how real-life as opposed to forum-life decisions are made on this subject.

As any discussion on the charge would have taken place between police, CPS and other involved in law I would never have been party to it as I don't work for any of those, a fact that applies to probably 99% of the contributors on these forums.

I assume from your comments that you would be one of those involved in the decision then?



It always is about the evidence.
The standard is based on what a reasonable person would do. And if the evidence of the situations points to that standard not being met then that is what would be put in front of the jury

Those are the directions in CPS guidance, not my view. But of course you know better. so need to tell the lawmakers that they are giving out bad advice to their prosecutors.

No it's not and you've even posted the fact it's not. Carless and dangerous are judged against a competent driver and not reasonable person.

Your guidelines.

The offence of causing death by careless driving under section 2B of the RTA 1988 is committed when the manner of the suspects driving causes the death of another person.
The definition of this offence is linked to the provisions of section 3ZA of the RTA 1988. The section stipulates that a person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he or she drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.
The clear difference between this offence and an offence of causing death by dangerous driving is the standard of driving. For causing death by dangerous driving, the standard of driving must fall far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver; whereas for this offence the standard of driving must merely fall below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver