Time after time, the outlandish decisions of some of our so-called Magistrates, along with Crown Prosecutors, a title which used to hold a great deal of respect from the public, get ever stranger.
Imagine you are a ordinary mother walking with your four-year-old son from his nursery school back home. You obey the rules, wait for the traffic to ease, then step forward onto the zebra crossing. In reality, you are fully protected by the Law, which states that all traffic MUST stop if they see a pedestrian commence walking on to the zebra stripes of the crossing.
Rachel Batts was driving on that road, and, despite hitting the small boy, travelled a further 120 feet down the road, hauling that small and helpless body along with her before she eventually stopped. The child was air-lifted to hospital where he underwent three operations and skin grafts.
The woman driver was fined £250, and given SIX penalty points, but was not banned from driving because ‘Mike Allem, chairman of the bench, said a ban would normally have been considered, but Rachel’s village location – and that she needed the car to get to work and take her son to school - was taken into account. “We would normally consider disqualification but we have taken into account where you live,” said Mr Allem. “This was a very unpleasant result of a momentary lapse of concentration. We accept it was a low speed, but aggravated by the injuries to the child and it was on a zebra crossing.”
If truth be told, the Magistrates who delivered this outlandish verdict are culpable, and guilty of extreme stupidity, but the real criminals are both the Police and the Crown Prosecutors, who both failed to get the correct charge onto this particularly silly and dangerous woman, who cannot even see a mother and child walking across a pedestrian crossing in broad daylight, could not drive correctly, and should have been charged with dangerous driving as a minimum; and slung in jail.