Fatal accident special constable: why WASN'T she prosecuted? (From Bournemouth Echo)
When news happens text pix and video to 80360. Start your message with BE then leave a space.
Fatal accident special constable: why WASN'T she prosecuted?
8:36am Thursday 14th February 2013 in News
Collette Carpenter
COLLETTE Carpenter was not prosecuted for driving while using a mobile phone because there was no evidence that she had handled the phone while driving.
Phone records revealed that she had been involved in a conversation with her partner, Rosemarie Bonny, for more than 12 minutes when the accident took place.
This supported her claim that the conversation had started when she was at home before she got into the car and that she had put it on loud speaker and placed it on her lap before starting the journey.
- Special Constable on phone when she collided with biker David Bartholomew
- She should have faced charges: top traffic cop's verdict on fatal accident Special
The inquest heard from police that it would have been an offence if she had handled the phone in any way while driving, either to make a call or to answer a call.
In a statement CPS Wessex said there was “insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction”.
It read: “In order to charge Ms Carpenter with an offence of death by careless driving or death by dangerous driving we had to prove that her driving fell below or far below the standard required at the time of the collision.
“Two drivers who were the closest to the collision stated that when Ms Carpenter pulled out her manoeuvre was safe and did not inconvenience them. This supported Ms Carpenter’s account, which stated that she checked both ways before pulling out.
“The evidence showed that Ms Carpenter was using her phone whilst driving but Ms Carpenter stated that her phone was positioned on her lap on loud speaker.
“We also took into consideration that there was no evidence to support that Ms Carpenter was holding her phone at the time of the collision.
“Having considered all the available evidence, we decided that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Ms Carpenter’s driving fell below or far below the standard required.
“We fully understand how distressing this is for Mr Bartholomew’s family. We wrote to them in December and took the time at a meeting that same month to explain our decision in detail.”
Comments(28)
rayc
says...
9:01am Thu 14 Feb 13
Wesoblind wrote:It is much easier to get a conviction for that than one for Causing Death By Dangerous Driving. For a start Ms Carpenter had independent witnesses who said " when she pulled out her manoeuvre was safe and did not inconvenience them."
"we had to prove that her driving fell below or far below the standard required at the time of the collision"
huh like ive said before ive been done for a few mph over the speed limit!
valo4life
says...
9:07am Thu 14 Feb 13
arti273
says...
9:40am Thu 14 Feb 13
valo4life wrote:As long as your driving didn't fall below or far below the standard required.
so I'm legally aloud to drive round with my phone on aslong as I start the conversation before getting in the car and having it on loud speaker on my lap, never mind the fact I might not be able to hear the person on the other side of my phone call resulting me to take my eyes of the road to look at my phone for a split second to check if my conversation still connected.
I'm sure most people take their eyes off the road for a split second during a journey ... looking at the speedometer, adjusting the volume of the stereo, checking the fuel tank level.
I'm not condoning anything, I'm just replying to your specific statement.
a.g.o.g.
says...
10:38am Thu 14 Feb 13
step up
says...
11:25am Thu 14 Feb 13
scrumpyjack
says...
11:33am Thu 14 Feb 13
step up wrote:Yeah that's right!
As with everything in this country its one rule for them and another for us but they continue to bleet on about public suppport. We live in a corrupt society. How many examples do you need. Face it,
Trying to get her convicted, supporting the family, publically saying they want her prosecuted.
One rule for them and another for us muppets.
What did the romans ever do for us eh Reg?
jsdorset
says...
12:05pm Thu 14 Feb 13
The woman pulled out of a junction and "didnt see" the motorcyclist. Well clearly the accident is her fault and she should be prosecuted.
As the CPS say she was not touching the phone it was only on her lap and therefore she cannot be prosecuted. Now the CPS have set a precedence in law by not prosecuting. So anyone who has been prosecuted for using a mobile phone or anyone in the future who is prosecuted for mobile phone use (as long as the police don't see it in your hand) should use this case to get the case thrown out. I noticed someone on here yesterday said they got prosecuted for having a mobile in use on their lap. That person should appeal.
This clearly is one rule for them and one for us. I wonder if she knows someone in the CPS???
arti273
says...
12:42pm Thu 14 Feb 13
jsdorset wrote:There's been no precedent set (in law) as the prosecution didn't reach a court. This was an inquest.
What a farce our justice system is. Should change the name as it is not justice.
The woman pulled out of a junction and "didnt see" the motorcyclist. Well clearly the accident is her fault and she should be prosecuted.
As the CPS say she was not touching the phone it was only on her lap and therefore she cannot be prosecuted. Now the CPS have set a precedence in law by not prosecuting. So anyone who has been prosecuted for using a mobile phone or anyone in the future who is prosecuted for mobile phone use (as long as the police don't see it in your hand) should use this case to get the case thrown out. I noticed someone on here yesterday said they got prosecuted for having a mobile in use on their lap. That person should appeal.
This clearly is one rule for them and one for us. I wonder if she knows someone in the CPS???
spooki
says...
1:06pm Thu 14 Feb 13
scrumpyjack
says...
1:51pm Thu 14 Feb 13
spooki wrote:We'll ignore all the actual evidence should we?
Insufficient evidence? She hit someone whilst she was driving and using a phone. Is that not enough evidence? I bet the police who disagree with the official decision are getting themselves ready for a load of backlash when they try to prosecute someone for the same offence.
You know, like the multiple witness accounts and trivial matters like that.
Another one that knows best.
I am not 'supporting' this woman in any way. I do however have the ability to read and take in all the information without being so predjudiced and homophonbic that I can only pick out the dozen random words that suit me.
jill M
says...
4:44pm Thu 14 Feb 13
scrumpyjack wrote:Scrumpyjack, it's like beating your head against a brick wall, the posters don t read the relevant posts, the ones from the family praising the police for their help and support,they just want to join in with the acab parade, Thankyou for being one of the few sensible people on here.
step up wrote:Yeah that's right!
As with everything in this country its one rule for them and another for us but they continue to bleet on about public suppport. We live in a corrupt society. How many examples do you need. Face it,
Trying to get her convicted, supporting the family, publically saying they want her prosecuted.
One rule for them and another for us muppets.
What did the romans ever do for us eh Reg?
Stop Press
says...
5:54pm Thu 14 Feb 13
Deepest sympathy with the family.
Letcommonsenseprevail
says...
6:01pm Thu 14 Feb 13
rayc wrote:Well it certainly inconvenienced the rider of the motorcycle........
Wesoblind wrote:It is much easier to get a conviction for that than one for Causing Death By Dangerous Driving. For a start Ms Carpenter had independent witnesses who said " when she pulled out her manoeuvre was safe and did not inconvenience them."
"we had to prove that her driving fell below or far below the standard required at the time of the collision"
huh like ive said before ive been done for a few mph over the speed limit!
BIGTONE
says...
6:06pm Thu 14 Feb 13
Can't Prosecute Specials.
ifordcherry
says...
7:22pm Thu 14 Feb 13
So everybody with a mobile phone can now drive around all day chatting away as long as it is on loudspeaker ?????........Patheti
c !
Wesoblind
says...
9:13pm Thu 14 Feb 13
rayc wrote:her manoeuvre must have been very safe by the end result.
Wesoblind wrote: "we had to prove that her driving fell below or far below the standard required at the time of the collision" huh like ive said before ive been done for a few mph over the speed limit!It is much easier to get a conviction for that than one for Causing Death By Dangerous Driving. For a start Ms Carpenter had independent witnesses who said " when she pulled out her manoeuvre was safe and did not inconvenience them."
wilkiemini
says...
9:34pm Thu 14 Feb 13
Lets all now drive around talking **** on loud speaker with the mobile phone on our laps whist driving.....as long as we look both ways we won't get prosecuted! The public believe that she got off with this as she worked at the time for the police that is what it looks like....any other person would have been prosecuted, shame on the CPS for messing this one up completely!
BIGTONE
says...
9:58pm Thu 14 Feb 13
The Liberal
says...
8:12am Fri 15 Feb 13
The Liberal
says...
8:27am Fri 15 Feb 13
skydriver
says...
8:59am Fri 15 Feb 13
I bet she has shown no remorse what so ever.
It's a bit of a joke as the police in yesterday's local press say a ZERO tolerance for being on the a mobile.
Was this person disqualified for driving without due care or was the whole case thrown out?
Hs she not thought for the family, I doubt it, I do hope she is no longer employed within the police operation, I doubt if she will get any respect if she is. One word for her Selfish.
ifordanglia
says...
9:16am Fri 15 Feb 13
Similar to the Echo here but with a big smirk on her face.
Whether she is innocent, guilty, a lucky escapee, well-connected or whatever - somebody died here - has she no respect for that?
The Liberal
says...
10:56am Fri 15 Feb 13
She changed her story three times when interviewed by the police: first she said she wasn't on the phone at all, then she said she'd briefly taken a call, then she said admitted she'd been on the phone for the entire journey but had it placed on her lap!
The Liberal
says...
11:24am Fri 15 Feb 13
ifordanglia
says...
12:17pm Fri 15 Feb 13
The Liberal wrote:Maybe that's what's 'special' about being a Special Constable.
Never mind the phone aspect, let me get this straight… If someone pulls out of a side road into another vehicle's path (because they somehow didn't see it), causing a collision, they are not deemed to be at fault?
This whole thing stinks.
'No Excuse'.
jonheat1
says...
10:25pm Fri 15 Feb 13
Username106
says...
6:53pm Tue 19 Feb 13
There was many witnesses there who actually saw what happened, I don't think people should comment on something they don't know all the facts on!
Wesoblind says...
8:53am Thu 14 Feb 13
huh like ive said before ive been done for a few mph over the speed limit!