Flood - tractor driver

[motorbiking]

can you share it?

 

[denso13]

Did Louise Preston/Pitter Potter have flood risk insurance? Or any other shops?

There is no embarrassment saying "I don't know", it is quite often the honest and best answer.

 

[motorbiking]

its irrelevant - Claiming against someone else's insurance doesn't involve claiming against your own policy. Hence of course she will run with the "he caused the damage" argument. So would most people.

it doesn't change the fact that the cctv footage of windows smashing seems to be very hard to find.

 

[denso13]

Claiming against someone else's insurance doesn't involve claiming against your own policy

And it could be a genuine claim.

Hence of course she will run with the "he caused the damage" argument.

She might, and could be correct.

So would most people.

Some might.

it doesn't change the fact that the cctv footage of windows smashing seems to be very hard to find.

Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Nothing wrong with admitting you don't actually have all the facts. I don't, and don't pretend to.

 

[Munroast]

In areas where there is a risk of flood, you will need to by additional flood risk insurance for a commercial property. Very few will offer it and usually with very high excesses. Sorry you didn't know this.

out of curiosity, do you happen to own a green tractor ? and were you late for your dinner one day last week?

 

[motorbiking]

out of curiosity, do you happen to own a green tractor ? and were you late for your dinner one day last week?

I'm not defending him.

Driving without due care and possible civil damages claim. Irrelevant of whatever BS he came up with after the fact.

I don't think it's dangerous driving and I don't think it's criminal damage.

There is plenty of case law on causing water spray being driving without due care and I can't find a single example of dangerous driving or careless driving leading to an "accident" or damage resulting in a conviction for criminal damage (where defended/appealed).

 

[blup]

Does this help? : Wikipedia says criminal damage intentional or reckless.

Criminal damage in English law - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

“A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.”

Enough to throw the book at him.

 

[motorbiking]

It's generally best to start with the statute.

Criminal Damage Act 1971

An Act to revise the law of England and Wales as to offences of damage to property, and to repeal or amend as respects the United Kingdom certain enactments relating to such offences; and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

Then look for case law.

Regina v. G & Anor [2003] UKHL 50 (16 October 2003)

www.bailii.org

Commissioner of Police v Caldwell [1982] UKHL 1 (19 March 1982)

www.bailii.org

Enough to throw the book at him.

Where was the criminal malice?

 

[ReganAndCarter]

"NEW CCTV footage has been shared showing a tractor being driven through the flooded streets causing a wave to crash against shops and smash windows."

New CCTV footage as tractor makes wave driving through flooded town

NEW CCTV footage has been shared showing a tractor being driven through the flooded streets causing a wave to crash against shops and smash windows.

www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk

So what are we to do? Chase him down and hang him from the nearest lamppost?

 

[Brigadier]

Let's hope the tw@t gets charged.

And MBK can flex his legal muscles, defending him. Pro bono, natch

 

[motorbiking]

with what? careless driving? it clearly was.

 

[ajohn]

hang him from the nearest lamppost

Plod are currently making their mind up about any charges they may make.

 

[blup]

It's generally best to start with the statute.

Criminal Damage Act 1971

An Act to revise the law of England and Wales as to offences of damage to property, and to repeal or amend as respects the United Kingdom certain enactments relating to such offences; and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

Then look for case law.

Regina v. G & Anor [2003] UKHL 50 (16 October 2003)

www.bailii.org

Commissioner of Police v Caldwell [1982] UKHL 1 (19 March 1982)

www.bailii.org

Where was the criminal malice?

The links suggest recklessness is enough. As to proving it, I could point a loaded shotgun and pull the trigger point blank, then tell the jury i didn't intend to kill anyone. The jury can’t literally read my mind, but can assess whether they believe me and my preposterous defence. In this case they can only do that by looking objectively at the facts - a tractor being driven at high speed through a flooded street over submerged street furniture with complete disregard for the safety of life limb or property. Over to the CPS, being upset about IHT won’t be a defence

 

[denso13]

So what are we to do?

Charge him appropriately, whatever that is, once all the evidence has been examined.

 

[motorbiking]

The links suggest recklessness is enough. As to proving it, I could point a loaded shotgun and pull the trigger point blank, then tell the jury i didn't intend to kill anyone. The jury can’t literally read my mind, but can assess whether they believe me and my preposterous defence. In this case they can only do that by looking objectively at the facts - a tractor being driven at high speed through a flooded street over submerged street furniture with complete disregard for the safety of life limb or property. Over to the CPS, being upset about IHT won’t be a defence

. Have a look at the case law I posted.

You need to understand the origins of the criminal damage Act. It replaced something called the malicious damage act 1861.

There is a lot of guidance on malicious and recklessness in the case law.

Quick summary - there must be maliciousness which is subsequently defined as criminal recklessness. You can see the judges were not too impressed with the drafting of the act.