il padrone wrote: Your concept of 'intent' seems different to mine - but then I have zip legal background.
the kerang level crossing truck-train crash is a good example. from memory, the driver was charged with culpable driving and the prosecution argued he was racing the train to beat it across the crossing. no one suggested he deliberately rammed it. but the intent to disobey the requirement to yield to the train may have been sufficient to prove culpability. again, the defence simply argued he didn't see the train and it was an accident. i'd suggest there would be few people who believed that story, but it was enough to cast doubt on his intent and culpability was not proven.
il padrone wrote:In the case of Raisin-Shaw, I believe that the bunch leaders called out 'stopping' and Raisin-Shaw called 'rolling' and went through, so reckless behaviour was present. He knew the light was red and proceeded, despite the rest of the bunch stopping.
i'm no expert on what charge could be proven there, but i think he actually claimed others behind called 'rolling' and that he had no choice but to continue moving with the bunch.