Obituaries detail the life and fast times of Mark Langford, the British entrepreneur who founded The Accident Group and rode it to a fortune advertising for “no-win, no-fee” injury claimants, becoming closely identified with the U.K.’s emergent U.S.-style “compensation culture”, before the group collapsed in ignominy four years ago. When his company found itself unable to pay its bills, Langford famously sacked 2,500 employees via text message; “While thousands were left without a penny following TAG’s collapse, Langford and his wife, a fellow director of the firm, were not. As staff began ransacking the company’s offices in Manchester, the couple headed for the Spanish sun.” (“Mark Langford”, The Telegraph, Apr. 11; David Brown & Jon Clarke, “Fugitive boss who sacked his staff by text is killed in Costa car crash”, Times Online, Apr. 11).
Perhaps the most successful instigator of injury litigation in his nation’s history, Langford appeared not to have fully internalized in his own conduct the tort system’s norms about avoidance of needlessly unsafe conduct:
He was at the wheel of his red Ferrari 355 F1 Spider three years ago [i.e., circa 2000] when he hit a 73-year-old war veteran who was crossing the road. The impact that killed Bill Thornley hurled him 15ft into the air and ripped his clothes off, a jury was told at Manchester crown court. However, they cleared Langford of causing death by dangerous driving and convicted him of the lesser offence of careless driving. He was fined £1,000 but retained his driving licence.
Langford, who criticised the dead man in court for trying to cross a busy, wet road in twilight, insisted he was abiding by the 40mph limit, contradicting witnesses who claimed he was doing 55mph. Some jury members, unaware that he had a conviction for drink-driving, covered their faces with their hands on learning he had served a 22-month ban and recovered his licence only six months before the fatal crash.
(“Profile: Mark Langford”, Times Online, Jun. 1, 2003). Our earlier coverage appeared Aug. 5, 2003.
4 Comments
IANAL, but how can the defendant’s prior criminal record for similar offenses not be introduced as evidence?
jb,
Evidence of prior offenses is admissible in only a select number of circumstances, such as to show a unique modus operandi.
I’ve never seen it admissible in a drunk-driving case unless it’s part of the offense (i.e., charging it as a felony rather than a misdemeanor because of prior offenses). In that case, having been convicted of prior offenses is an element of the crime and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt just like any other element.
At least that was the case during my brief stint as a prosecutor in Florida. Your jurisdiction’s rules may vary.
You can’t introduce prior behaviour as evidence in the guilt phase of a trial for the simple reason that it would make criminals unrehabilitatable; every other mmber of society would be able to exceedingly easily blackmail them (Do what I want, or I’ll accuse you of the same crime you’ve been convicted of before).
I think the rules on that are too strict (I sat on a jury where the question of guilt turned on if we believed he didn’t know enough about the situation… after we found him guilty, we learned that he had just been released on parole for the same crime, so the claim that he might have ben naive about it was complete BS), but I can see how loosening the rules even a little without opening the floodgates would be difficult.
if it can show a pattern of behavior it should be fought to be let in. It shows a predisposition, and in this case, would have shown that the late Mr. Langford, has a predisposition towards ignoring the laws of the land.
I’m curious why, after blaming the victim for “trying to cross a busy, wet road in twilight,” why the prosecution didn’t seize upon the opportunity to ask Langford why if conditions weren’t so treacherous, that he did not feel the need to further reduce his speed, especially considering that his vehicle (which is rear wheel drive) is more susceptable towards traction loss in the same said conditions?
Even in Europe, the onus is on the motorist, not the pedestrian…