Post by Administrator on Jul 8, 2019 0:42:41 GMT
Can you seriously believe this???
Somebody was actually charged with that Wanton & furious driving charge in September 2017? for real?
I thought the law had been revoked??
www.thesun.co.uk/news/4306251/wanton-and-furious-driving-1861-law-charlie-alliston-kim-briggs/
It seems ridiculous as it meant a horse crawn carriage or cart. It says "vehicle" so why do they not use it more often?
And why are people being prosecuted with the (modern) offence when not even hurting or injuring anyone? It seems ridiculous and unjust.
Can you even charge this against bicycle?
Have these old laws not even been revoked or replaced by the modern acts of law?
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/35
Looks like they abolished the penal servitude part of the sentence. in 1948
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/introduction
That act is in the Short Titles act, as of 1896 which means it is as valid as the 1688 Bill of Rights, Right to Petition.
Why do the Crown prosecution service & police just "do what they want" with the law & do not uphold or respect anyone's rights or Freedoms.
They will try anything. They do not obey any laws at all. When people claim them, legitimately.
I think PC Craig Sutherland of Derbyshire police headquarters should read this.. who is Simon Coles Personal solicitor.
I think they created the law for the police to use, not anyone else.
Its like the Prodigy song "Their law"
Somebody was actually charged with that Wanton & furious driving charge in September 2017? for real?
I thought the law had been revoked??
www.thesun.co.uk/news/4306251/wanton-and-furious-driving-1861-law-charlie-alliston-kim-briggs/
It seems ridiculous as it meant a horse crawn carriage or cart. It says "vehicle" so why do they not use it more often?
And why are people being prosecuted with the (modern) offence when not even hurting or injuring anyone? It seems ridiculous and unjust.
Can you even charge this against bicycle?
GROUNDBREAKING CASE What is
‘wanton and furious driving’? Offence
from 1861 used to convict cyclist
Charlie Alliston over Kim Briggs’ death
Obscure 19th century offence covers incidents where a
victim is injured by a non-motor vehicle like a carriage or a
bicycle
By Neal Baker
18 Sep 2017, 12:20Updated: 18 Sep 2017, 12:42
ON 23 August 2017 20-year-old cyclist Charlie Alliston was convicted of
"wanton and furious driving" over the death of Kim Briggs.
But what is the obscure law that he was found guilty of breaching when he knocked over the mum-of-two?
Charlie Alliston was found guilty of wanton and furious driving after knocking down pedestrian Kim Briggs as she crossed a London road on her lunch breakCredit: PA:Press Association
What is wanton and furious driving?
Causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving is an offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
It was created by section 35 of the Offences Against the Persons Act which dates from 1861.
It reads: "Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..."
The law is used to convict persons who cause bodily harm with a vehicle that is not motorised, like a bicycle, horse-drawn carriage or in a car that is not being driven on a public road.
What is the maximum sentence for causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving?
The maximum sentence for causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving is two years imprisonment.
There is an offence for attempting to cause harm by wanton and furious driving which requires an intent to cause bodily harm.
In 2008 cyclist Darren Hall, 20, fatally injured 84-year-old pedestrian Ronald Turner in Weymouth, Dorset.
He was jailed in 2009 for seven months.
Who is Charlie Alliston?
Alliston, 20, was charged with manslaughter and causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving after he fatally crashed into Kim Briggs, 44, as she crossed Old Street in East London on 12 February 2016.
Then aged 18, Alliston was said to have been travelling at nearly 20mph when he mowed down the mum-of-two during her lunch break.
Alliston was riding a fixed-gear track bicycle with no front brake, which is illegal to take on the road without modification.
Hours after the crash, he posted a comment online after seeing a newspaper report about the incident.
He wrote: “It was her fault, but no she did not deserve it. Hopefully it is a lesson to be learned on her behalf."
He went on to claim Briggs had been on her mobile phone: “I refuse to accept any responsibility in this whatsoever… It’s not my fault people think they are invincible or just have zero respect for cyclists.
“What makes it worse is that, even when people were helping her, her phone was going off continuously with texts showing she was on it at the time. If you value your phone more than your life maybe this is the type of wake up call you need.”
Alliston was cleared of manslaughter at the Old Bailey on 23 August 2017, but found guilty of causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving.
He was jailed at the Old Bailey on 18 September for 18 months.
The 44-year-old mum-of two was on her lunch break when she was knocked down while crossing the road.
Alliston allegedly shouted at Mrs Briggs to “get out of the way” twice before their heads smashed together.
She suffered catastrophic head injuries in the collision and died a week later in hospital.
Mrs Briggs had just started a new job as head of HR at a company close to where she was knocked down
‘wanton and furious driving’? Offence
from 1861 used to convict cyclist
Charlie Alliston over Kim Briggs’ death
Obscure 19th century offence covers incidents where a
victim is injured by a non-motor vehicle like a carriage or a
bicycle
By Neal Baker
18 Sep 2017, 12:20Updated: 18 Sep 2017, 12:42
ON 23 August 2017 20-year-old cyclist Charlie Alliston was convicted of
"wanton and furious driving" over the death of Kim Briggs.
But what is the obscure law that he was found guilty of breaching when he knocked over the mum-of-two?
Charlie Alliston was found guilty of wanton and furious driving after knocking down pedestrian Kim Briggs as she crossed a London road on her lunch breakCredit: PA:Press Association
What is wanton and furious driving?
Causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving is an offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
It was created by section 35 of the Offences Against the Persons Act which dates from 1861.
It reads: "Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..."
The law is used to convict persons who cause bodily harm with a vehicle that is not motorised, like a bicycle, horse-drawn carriage or in a car that is not being driven on a public road.
What is the maximum sentence for causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving?
The maximum sentence for causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving is two years imprisonment.
There is an offence for attempting to cause harm by wanton and furious driving which requires an intent to cause bodily harm.
In 2008 cyclist Darren Hall, 20, fatally injured 84-year-old pedestrian Ronald Turner in Weymouth, Dorset.
He was jailed in 2009 for seven months.
Who is Charlie Alliston?
Alliston, 20, was charged with manslaughter and causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving after he fatally crashed into Kim Briggs, 44, as she crossed Old Street in East London on 12 February 2016.
Then aged 18, Alliston was said to have been travelling at nearly 20mph when he mowed down the mum-of-two during her lunch break.
Alliston was riding a fixed-gear track bicycle with no front brake, which is illegal to take on the road without modification.
Hours after the crash, he posted a comment online after seeing a newspaper report about the incident.
He wrote: “It was her fault, but no she did not deserve it. Hopefully it is a lesson to be learned on her behalf."
He went on to claim Briggs had been on her mobile phone: “I refuse to accept any responsibility in this whatsoever… It’s not my fault people think they are invincible or just have zero respect for cyclists.
“What makes it worse is that, even when people were helping her, her phone was going off continuously with texts showing she was on it at the time. If you value your phone more than your life maybe this is the type of wake up call you need.”
Alliston was cleared of manslaughter at the Old Bailey on 23 August 2017, but found guilty of causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving.
He was jailed at the Old Bailey on 18 September for 18 months.
The 44-year-old mum-of two was on her lunch break when she was knocked down while crossing the road.
Alliston allegedly shouted at Mrs Briggs to “get out of the way” twice before their heads smashed together.
She suffered catastrophic head injuries in the collision and died a week later in hospital.
Mrs Briggs had just started a new job as head of HR at a company close to where she was knocked down
Have these old laws not even been revoked or replaced by the modern acts of law?
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/35
Looks like they abolished the penal servitude part of the sentence. in 1948
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/introduction
That act is in the Short Titles act, as of 1896 which means it is as valid as the 1688 Bill of Rights, Right to Petition.
Why do the Crown prosecution service & police just "do what they want" with the law & do not uphold or respect anyone's rights or Freedoms.
They will try anything. They do not obey any laws at all. When people claim them, legitimately.
I think PC Craig Sutherland of Derbyshire police headquarters should read this.. who is Simon Coles Personal solicitor.
I think they created the law for the police to use, not anyone else.
Its like the Prodigy song "Their law"