Anna Raccoon and Dizzy have both expressed their surprise that the Solicitor General Vera Baird QC appears to have commented on Anna’s blog: she was correcting the fairly common belief that Lord Ahmed was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. He was in fact convicted of dangerous driving, pure and simple.
Just in case anyone thinks I’m inclined to support or defend Lord Ahmed in any way – let me stress that I’m certainly not. I’m against him. But Vera’s comment is quite true, highly relevant to her responsibilities, which include taking the lead on contesting unduly lenient sentences, and was made after eight o’clock in the evening. So while Anna criticises the Solicitor General for spending time on blogs and “supporting” Lord Ahmed , and Dizzy criticises her for failing sufficiently to mention the death of Martyn Gombar, my reaction is quite different.
I’m pleased the minister reads blogs and takes time to comment on issues she cares about or which relate to her job: one day, all ministers may do so, if they’re encouraged to. I just hope Vera keeps up with the blawgosphere as well as political and media blogs – otherwise I will think she’s falling down on the job.
Indeed Head of Legal.. Nice to know that some of our comments are noticed in higher places.
Read – Yes. Comment – No.
Dignity of Office? This is simply proof that her stance is Political rather than Legal. Vera Baird should have left it to others to correct any misunderstandings. Does she not have any underlings or, indeed, a press office? I think she has demeaned herself and her office.
I don’t have a problem with Vera Baird commenting on a blog. However, I do have a problem with trying to defend the indefensible. Given the circumstances, it beggars belief that Lord Ahmed was not charged with death by dangerous driving. And only charged with the lesser offence of dangerous driving. It leaves a death unaccounted for.
Even allowing for Mr Gombar’s drinking and driving and having already crashed into the central reservation barrier, and leaving the safety of the hard shoulder to go and retrieve his mobile phone from the crashed car. There is Lord Ahmed’s own conduct. Had he instead been driving in the correct lane at the time, ie, the inside lane, rather than the outside lane, and not paying attention to his mobile phone but instead paying attention to the road ahead, in all liklihood, Lord Ahmed could have avoided crashing into Mr Gombar and the crashed car.
Whilst I appreciate giving a defendant the benefit of doubt in a trial, I doubt that justice was done in this case.
@jailhouselawyer – I entirely agree with you. I would have no doubt that Ahmed’s driving caused (on criminal law principles) the death. I note that Ahmed will retain his peerage. I also note that he was appointed Justice of the Peace in 1992. I hope that he is removed from the office.
Unlike Unsworth (whose views I respect) I do not think it was wrong for Vera Baird to go on the blog and correct a straightforward error.
Lord Ahmed’s jail term lifted
The sentencing judge, Mr Justice Wilkie, made it clear his text messaging had finished two minutes before the accident took place and was not connected. The Court of Appeal has now suspended the prison sentence.
It would appear that there was no causal link between the use of the phone and the death.