Mechanic who drove with man on bonnet asks, 'why was I charged?'

gazzae · 20-05-2010, 13:05

Interesting one here.

A man drove away from an argument in fear. He was followed by the people he was arguing with and when stopped at traffic lights one of them jumped onto his bonnet. He drove off and dialled 999.
He told police he was in fear for this life the operator told him there was none available and he should stop the car. When he refused to stop the operator managed to find a police unit who then stopped the car and arrested the man who claimed to be in fear of his life for assault, dangerous driving and wait for it..... using a mobile when driving for calling 999.

Least the judge saw sense....

Quote:

After listening to a recording of the 999 call Gerry Brown made to police, Downpatrick District Judge Mr Mervyn Bates dismissed all charges against the Castlewellan man.

In the recording Mr Brown can be heard shouting: “I’ve got a New Zealander on the bonnet of my car. He’s ******* lost it. He’s going to kill me. I’m not stopping. This man is going to kill me. He’s three times the size of me.”

Clearing Mr Brown, Mr Bates said he was “extremely satisfied that these two men, heavily-built, were intent on intimidating Mr Brown, who is of slight build, into doing something or refunding cash.

“I accept as a fact that Mr Brown drove at moderate speed and did not swerve despite his obvious concern and fear that I could hear in his voice.

“I don’t think he had a choice but to drive on with Mr Quirey on the bonnet of his car.”

Philip Quirey had told Downpatrick District Court that he had approached Mr Brown in his vehicle to talk to him about his nephew’s discontent and said that he was shocked when the defendant drove into him, forcing him onto the bonnet of his car.

Mr Quirey admitted having a Staffordshire bull terrier in the boot of his car, but denied this was to intimidate the defendant. He also denied having an offensive weapon in the boot, saying a pickaxe handle was a toy for the dog.

However, Mr Bates ruled that Mr Quirey’s evidence was “unreliable” and said that he was surprised that no prosecutions had been brought against the Quireys in relation to the contents of their car.

Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...-14812028.html

Derek · 20-05-2010, 13:16

Links not working.

gazzae · 20-05-2010, 13:28

Fixed

Derek · 20-05-2010, 13:32

Seems fair to me. The Police are there to put evidence before a court for them to decide if its reasonable or not, the judge has then decided what he did was reasonable under the circumstances.

Flyboy · 20-05-2010, 13:39

I don't know about the law in Northern Ireland, but here it is not an offence to use a mobile telephone when calling an emergency service.

gazzae · 20-05-2010, 13:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

Seems fair to me. The Police are there to put evidence before a court for them to decide if its reasonable or not, the judge has then decided what he did was reasonable under the circumstances.

Why no charges against the other person though? The judge did remark at his surprise at this.

When one party is calling 999 stating he thinks his life is in danger and he's told no police are avaliable, yet when he refuse to stop until he gets to a police station, police are magically despatched to arrest him.

Derek · 20-05-2010, 13:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by gazzae

Why no charges against the other person though? The judge did remark at his surprise at this.

Lack of evidence? If it was only one person saying they believed the dog and pickaxe handle were in the back of the car to intimidate them is that enough evidence to prosecute? I wouldn't be happy going to court with just that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gazzae

When one party is calling 999 stating he thinks his life is in danger and he's told no police are avaliable, yet when he refuse to stop until he gets to a police station, police are magically despatched to arrest him.

There isn't a magic bag you can pull police officers out of when you get calls.

In this case I personally wouldn't have classed someone on the outside of a moving car a danger to the person inside, when the person driving refuses to stop then it becomes an immediate danger to life and warrants an immediate response even if that entails standing cops down from whatever they are dealing with.

Plus they did have three miles in which to find a patrol car from.

gazzae · 20-05-2010, 14:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

Lack of evidence? If it was only one person saying they believed the dog and pickaxe handle were in the back of the car to intimidate them is that enough evidence to prosecute? I wouldn't be happy going to court with just that.

But does the same not apply in the reverse? I imagine it was just one persons word against the other that he was hit by the car and not that he jumped on and refused to get off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

There isn't a magic bag you can pull police officers out of when you get calls.

In this case I personally wouldn't have classed someone on the outside of a moving car a danger to the person inside, when the person driving refuses to stop then it becomes an immediate danger to life and warrants an immediate response even if that entails standing cops down from whatever they are dealing with.

Plus they did have three miles in which to find a patrol car from.

Yes I agree, while he was on the outside on a moving car he would not have been a danger to the driver but if he stopped as told to by the operator do you not agree that the man could have become a danger? I don't think a car window would put up to much resistance to a pickaxe handle.

Derek · 20-05-2010, 14:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by gazzae

I imagine it was just one persons word against the other that he was hit by the car and not that he jumped on and refused to get off.

Plus the 999 call and other eyewitnesses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gazzae

Yes I agree, while he was on the outside on a moving car he would not have been a danger to the driver but if he stopped as told to by the operator do you not agree that the man could have become a danger? I don't think a car window would put up to much resistance to a pickaxe handle.

Stop. Man gets off. Car drives away either round the man or in reverse. Job done.
The pickaxe handle was in the boot of the car, not in his hands.

gazzae · 20-05-2010, 14:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

Plus the 999 call and other eyewitnesses.

Sorry, which eyewitnesses?

Derek · 20-05-2010, 14:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by gazzae

Sorry, which eyewitnesses?

He drove for three miles with someone on the bonnet. *Someone* will have seen that.

gazzae · 20-05-2010, 14:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

He drove for three miles with someone on the bonnet. *Someone* will have seen that.

I'm sure they will, no-one is denying that the man was on the bonnet.

But how does that relate to wether the man was hit by the car and ended up on the bonnet or if he climbed on and refused to get off? Surely in that case it is one persons word against another.

Or is it a case that it doesn't matter how he ended up on the bonnet?

Derek · 20-05-2010, 14:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by gazzae

But how does that relate to wether the man was hit by the car and ended up on the bonnet or if he climbed on and refused to get off?

From the original link.

Quote:

Mr Brown drove at moderate speed and did not swerve despite his obvious concern

Unless the driver had smeared the bonnet with superglue at some point in three miles you would be able to get off the car.

Regardless the correct decision seems to have been reached. He did something that required explanation in court. He explained himself and was cleared. Whats more surprising is its taken two years to get into court.