Article: Ex-diplomat cleared after driving over crossing seconds before train

[tsr]

Here, for your interest, is an article which perhaps shows the placing of a dangerous precedent with regards to consideration of the use of level crossings when they are not open/cleared for road traffic.

The article is too long to post here in full. Here are the first few sentences:

A former High Commissioner to New Zealand drove over an unmanned rail crossing in Lydd just seconds ahead of an oncoming train.

Retired diplomat Robert Alston drove his Chrysler car over the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch line in Taylors Road after warning lights were flashing.

Train driver Andy Hunt - who was in charge of No12 engine - was forced to slam on the brakes after spotting the vehicle.

Mr Alston, 76, of Coast Drive, Lydd On Sea, who denied the offence - had later telephoned the authorities to report what he had done.

But now a judge has ruled the Oxford-educated Mr Alston's driving wasn't dangerous..and ordered the jury to return a verdict of not guilty.

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/folkestone_express/news/retired-diplomat-cleared-after-driving-12898/

 

[Darandio]

Did the quote but then the OP quoted it. Ignore me.

 

[tsr]

Did the quote but then the OP quoted it. Ignore me.

Don't worry. I accidentally clicked the button to start the thread before I completed the original post.

 

[Geezertronic]

I guess it sets a very dangerous precedent for future cases. I would also suggest that had this involved an 18 year old male in exactly the same circumstances, the verdict would be a lot different.

It seems that ignorance has been accounted for in this case which is dangerous in my opinion.

 

[PG]

I wonder if the fact that it involved a non Network Rail line has (wrongly) influenced the judge?

Judge Nigel Van Der Bijl had earlier taken the unusual step of inviting Mr Alston - a former ambassador to Oman and Governor to the Pitcairn Islands - to sit behind his barrister rather than in the dock at Canterbury Crown Court.
{snip}
He then agreed that Mr Alston's privately-funded defence costs be paid by taxpayers.

(my bold) Smacks of 'looking after your own'... and we have now to pay for it

 

[455driver]

And we end up paying tor his (privately funded) defence costs as well, abso-fookin-lutely brilliant!

Who says there is one law for all, he admitted the offence but is found not guilty!

 

[yorksrob]

Must have forgotten his Ferrero Rocher.

 

[jon91]

There must be a new definition for dangerous in the Oxford dictionary that I've missed...

 

[fowler9]

Considering that the Romney Hythe and Dymchurch Railway have had 2 of their drivers killed in similar incidents I think the judges decision is pretty disgusting.

 

[Bishopstone]

And we end up paying tor his (privately funded) defence costs as well, abso-fookin-lutely brilliant!

Who says there is one law for all, he admitted the offence but is found not guilty!

He didn't admit the offence for which he was charged. He admitted to going over the crossing against the red lights.

It sounds as though the lesser charge of careless driving might have stuck.

Everyone is entitled to air their defence and place mitigating factors before the court, and I'm sure on other occasions that right has benefitted railway staff faced with criminal prosecution.

It's dangerous to draw conclusions from a newspaper précis of a relatively complex case, and in this particular matter I'm not entirely clear what the defence was: but that's probably a function of the way it's written-up.

 

[455driver]

Another quality judgement from the same person-

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentish_express/news/speeding-driver-9490

 

[Taunton]

I noticed that the Google Streetview camera car did a similar thing over the crossing at Egham, Surrey. Here it is approaching the crossing with the warning yellow already showing. Step forward, and see how they drive straight across

https://maps.google.com/?ll=51.4288...6_ZQ-6_uSS24AWjqv7mMBw&cbp=12,340.74,,0,10.14

 

[bb21]

Perhaps we could complain to the Ministry of Justice and request that the judge be "suitably retained"?

 

[yorkie]

I'm going to judge Van Der Bijl. I find him GUILTY of being a complete and utter irresponsible buffoon, whose judgements are not fit for purpose.

I found a couple of examples (here and here) of his bonkers judgements.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: our legal system is inadequate, and this buffoon is a prime example.

Is there no way to get people like him sacked? If most of us made such poor judgements, we'd be out of a job!

 

[transmanche]

I noticed that the Google Streetview camera car did a similar thing over the crossing at Egham, Surrey. Here it is approaching the crossing with the warning yellow already showing. Step forward, and see how they drive straight across

https://maps.google.com/?ll=51.4288...6_ZQ-6_uSS24AWjqv7mMBw&cbp=12,340.74,,0,10.14

I wouldn't put that in the same category as driving over a level crossing with red lights already flashing - and I wouldn't want to condemn the camera car driver without further evidence.

For example; we don't know exactly when the amber light came on. Suppose it came on at the precise moment that the photograph was taken. If the car was moving at 30mph, the 'thinking distance' alone would be 9m and the total stopping distance about 23m (approx six car lengths). The distance from the camera car to the stop line is about four car lengths (so closer to 15m). Even a person with quick reactions might struggle to bring the car to a halt before the stop line. So continuing on may well be the safest thing to do.

 

[bb21]

I noticed that the Google Streetview camera car did a similar thing over the crossing at Egham, Surrey. Here it is approaching the crossing with the warning yellow already showing. Step forward, and see how they drive straight across

https://maps.google.com/?ll=51.4288...6_ZQ-6_uSS24AWjqv7mMBw&cbp=12,340.74,,0,10.14

I think Google have a more pressing issue to address than their cars being driven over a level crossing while the barriers were still up.

 

[DownSouth]

I wouldn't put that in the same category as driving over a level crossing with red lights already flashing - and I wouldn't want to condemn the camera car driver without further evidence.

For example; we don't know exactly when the amber light came on. Suppose it came on at the precise moment that the photograph was taken. If the car was moving at 30mph, the 'thinking distance' alone would be 9m and the total stopping distance about 23m (approx six car lengths). The distance from the camera car to the stop line is about four car lengths (so closer to 15m). Even a person with quick reactions might struggle to bring the car to a halt before the stop line. So continuing on may well be the safest thing to do.

I agree. The car is into the crossing still on just the yellow light, and past it by a greater distance than that image linked when the first frame showing the gates beginning to move. Looks like well-judged confident driving to me, and far safer than making a panic stop with another car following not too far behind.

I think Google have a more pressing issue to address than their cars being driven over a level crossing while the barriers were still up.

I agree that is pretty poor, but it ought to be pointed out that image is from 2008 and they've already made improvements on the stitching together of photos since then. The rough surface over the crossing may have caused that anyway (they used Astras in Britain, not exactly vehicles known for a refined ride!) with it being fine on normal roads.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm going to judge Van Der Bijl. I find him GUILTY of being a complete and utter irresponsible buffoon, whose judgements are not fit for purpose.

I found a couple of examples (here and here) of his bonkers judgements.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: our legal system is inadequate, and this buffoon is a prime example.

Is there no way to get people like him sacked? If most of us made such poor judgements, we'd be out of a job!

What options of recourse are available to members of the general public to report their concerns over such matters of legal judgement and what is a suggested method of best achieving this ?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I noticed that the Google Streetview camera car did a similar thing over the crossing at Egham, Surrey.

No it didn't.

The camera stops taking pictures whilst the car is stationary. It stopped at the lights and then set off once the train had passed.

And we end up paying tor his (privately funded) defence costs as well, abso-fookin-lutely brilliant!

He was acquitted, so we should. It is standard procedure.

I suspect that he was prepared to accept careless driving in a "plea bargain" (barristers always negotiate before the start of a trial) and the CPS wouldn't accept it. Foolish of them.

 

[GB]

No it didn't.

The camera stops taking pictures whilst the car is stationary. It stopped at the lights and then set off once the train had passed.

I'm not going to dispute whether the camera car passed a red level crossing signal or not, but given that the the black SUV crossing the road is in the last frame showing the amber level crossing light lit and in the next frame (which was the passed the barriers) completing its move, I find it hard to believe the camera car had stopped. That and the same car in the distance waiting at traffic lights.

 

[Domh245]

I'm not going to dispute whether the camera car passed a red level crossing signal or not, but given that the the black SUV crossing the road is in the last frame showing the amber level crossing light lit and in the next frame (which was the passed the barriers) completing its move, I find it hard to believe the camera car had stopped. That and the same car in the distance waiting at traffic lights.

And the fact that as you follow the road away from the crossing, you can watch the barriers go down

 

[ECML180]

No it didn't.

The camera stops taking pictures whilst the car is stationary. It stopped at the lights and then set off once the train had passed.

http://goo.gl/maps/G7Lgl

Looking there, the camera car has passed the stop line and the pedestrians ahead have moved *slightly* forward, as has the black car turning down the side street. Although by clicking the arrows one at a time approaching the crossing, the photos are closer together implying that the car slowed down first before deciding to cross the crossing.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I guess my point is that you can't tell what happened purely by looking at how the photos were combined. If you click southbound twice you'll see the camera car is parked in the bus stop on the opposite side of the road and there's a queue of traffic waiting to go across the level crossing.

 

[DownSouth]

Although by clicking the arrows one at a time approaching the crossing, the photos are closer together implying that the car slowed down first before deciding to cross the crossing.

It is impossible to deduce anything about the speed from the distance between the frames which made it to the public version of Street View as the images are not selected with equal time intervals between them.

The Google Street View cameras capture many more images between those which end up going online. The ones which do go online are selected according to the location rather than fixed time intervals, there are both 'standard' photos selected as well as those located at junctions.

 

[AndyPJG]

and if you click right/eastbound, you travel along the railway line to Pooley Green LX

 

[DownSouth]

I guess my point is that you can't tell what happened purely by looking at how the photos were combined. If you click southbound twice you'll see the camera car is parked in the bus stop on the opposite side of the road and there's a queue of traffic waiting to go across the level crossing.

That would suggest that the route followed by the camera car involved turning in/out of the side street rather than following all the way along the road in one go.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

and if you click right/eastbound, you travel along the railway line to Pooley Green KX

Really neat feature that, it was a software engineer in California who first came up with the idea of adding the ability to jump between selected level crossings. It would realistically be no harder to arrange than the jumps which occur when there's a section of a road without coverage between segments which are covered.

There are also rumours that it won't be long before you'll be able to follow a rail line properly, probably starting with a couple of the more interesting scenic sections of certain Amtrak routes.

 

[michael769]

And we end up paying tor his (privately funded) defence costs as well, abso-fookin-lutely brilliant!

This is nothing new. In English courts the prosecution pays the defence costs for any not guilty verdict just as the accused has to pay the prosecution costs if there is a guilty verdict.

 

[455driver]

He was acquitted, so we should. It is standard procedure.

Read it again, he actually reported himself for driving over the crossing, ergo he is guilty but his mate the judge ordered the jury to find him not guilty!

Bearing in mind the information available in the article do you consider the verdict correct?
Bearing in mind the other links to the way this judge behaves do you consider him to be acceptable at his job?

 

[Sidious]

From a practical point of view, it is significantly more difficult to prove an offence of Dangerous Driving, over an offence of Driving without Due Care and Attention.

It would have been probable that a due care would have been made out, but belt and braces would have been to charge with failing to conform to a traffic sign as well.

Dangerous Driving really does require a very high burden of culpability and would never really stick for what the defendant probably argued was a momentary lapse in concentration and while it had the potential for very serious consequences, the actual consequences were low.

As for judges allowing defendants not to sit in the dock, and having their legal bills paid by the taxpayer, after ordering the jury to acquit - well that smacks of the judge being in the same Golf Club/Lodge/Gentleman's club as the defendant.

 

[DownSouth]

As for judges allowing defendants not to sit in the dock, and having their legal bills paid by the taxpayer, after ordering the jury to acquit - well that smacks of the judge being in the same Golf Club/Lodge/Gentleman's club as the defendant.

The legal bills being paid by the prosecution is standard where there has been an acquittal, and a judge is entirely correct to instruct a jury as that is their job. Juries rule on the facts of whether events occurred as alleged, it is up to the judge to rule on points of law such as whether the charge is valid, what evidence should or should not be considered and so on.

As for the bit about having the defendant sit with his counsel instead of in the dock, isn't that normal for low-level alleged offences where the alleged has not been remanded in custody due to being non-violent and not a flight risk? It certainly makes for more efficient proceedings when the alleged and their counsel can confer at any time, and shouldn't be reported like it is something exceptional.

Any issue of competence here is on the part of the prosecutor - they pushed for a higher-level charge they had little chance of winning, instead of going for one more likely to get a conviction. If the prosecution has any credible reason to believe that there is corruption involved they can make an appeal if they think it is in the public's interest to spend millions on appealing a traffic misdemeanour, but I doubt they would. After having his name dragged through the press I'm sure the acquitted suspect will be a bit more careful in the future regardless of whether they got hit with a penalty.