Kill, lie... and get suspended sentence and a fine...

[briantrumpet]

...although I'm not sure anyone has used an involuntary fart as an excuse yet.

Voluntary farts are what the judges are when they take already derisory guidelines and then go for the minimum sentence possible. We are a long way from the position where it is recognised that if you use something which can kill if you don't pay attention, you should bloody well pay attention, or pay the price. Every time one of these sentences is given, the message is "It's relatively OK to kill if it was inattention". The bar must be raised.

 

[doog]

Once again, the finger of blame can be pointed at our criminal justice system from start to finish. If we start off with people who see nothing wrong with overtaking vulnerable road users without sufficient clearance, and that gets viewed by police officers, CPS lawyers, and courts the same way, then that reinforces the general perception.

Hang on.a minute...thats a hell of a presumption...the Police and CPS for example dont make the law.. .so hardly fair to tar the whole system with the same brush...the person at fault here is the Judge who sentenced him, everyone else did their job including the jury.

The sentence should be appealed, if it isnt feel free to have a crack at the CPS.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Once again, the finger of blame can be pointed at our criminal justice system from start to finish. If we start off with people who see nothing wrong with overtaking vulnerable road users without sufficient clearance, and that gets viewed by police officers, CPS lawyers, and courts the same way, then that reinforces the general perception.

He was charged, in itself not always a guaranteed outcome, and charged with an appropriate offence, which isn't always the case, and he was found guilty of that charge, which all too often doesn't happen. So Plod, CPS, and jury all did right by the bike riding public. The clot of judge then took a dump on everyone else's good judgement. imo.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Choosing to pass a cyclist close enough that a slight error, or movement by either party, is not careless. This death happened because the driver made a conscious choice to pass too close.

I'd say it was careless. A could not care less judgement. The jury decided it was careless and caused death. They can only decide on the basis of the charge. They found him guilty.

Had he faced a higher charge he may not have been convicted. As I have said here before we need a simple "manslaughter whilst driving a motor vehicle" charge on the statue books so prosecutors and juries focus on outcomes and facts and not on subjective judgements about carelessness or dangerousness.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

And what are we doing about it? Who else has written to the CPS asking them to seek a review?

Give me the name and the address and I will happily do so. cc'ing my MP.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Which brings me back to my earlier judgement, it is a systematic failure.

It is a failure of parliament to enact adequate laws. I agree with the principle of your argument but in your earlier post you seemed to be singling out (groups of) the actors as being at fault. With the exception of the judge, who is a nobber, I'd say the system worked well within its current boundaries.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Consider it done.

 

[Vantage]

I think I'll be writing to this lady myself regarding this case and the many others where they literally just couldn't be ars*d doing their job. Remember that Volvo fiasco? Gah!

 

[doog]

He might have a point. Charging standards and sentencing guidelines - despite not getting paid to worry about this any more (and at the risk of being accused of talking bollox) this does look borderline death by dangerous in that the defendant failed to have proper regard to vulnerable road users...albeit its the lowest scale. The CCP was probably vindicated in their decision to charge death by careless by the resulting pathetic sentence.

I can understand the need for mitigation in sentencing but I'd be interested to read the summing up in this case (not that we'll ever see it), particularly in light of forensic and witness evidence that showed the defendant didn't deviate before hitting the victim....

 

[Pale Rider]

Criticism of the judge is mis-placed.

He is obliged to follow the sentencing guidelines from the Sentencing Guidelines Council.

These start at page 14 of the linked document.

If you look at the table, it appears the judge put the case in the middle band, sentencing range community order to two years.

We don't have all the relevant information, but - under the guidelines - if this young man had led a blameless life in other respects, a suspended sentence looks about right.

If you don't like judges, look at it another way.

This judge had all the information and it is in his interests to do his job correctly to protect his large salary and absurdly generous pension.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...ing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf

 

[briantrumpet]

Criticism of the judge is mis-placed.

He is obliged to follow the sentencing guidelines from the Sentencing Guidelines Council.

So again we end up with a situation where it's no-one's fault, people shrug and move on.

So if there is consensus enough to say that the practical outcome - that killing with a vehicle because of bad driving is socially more acceptable than pretending an aerosol is a gun, for instance - is farcical, it needs systemic change.

It needs systemic change. This law is an ass.

 

[doog]

Criticism of the judge is mis-placed.

He is obliged to follow the sentencing guidelines from the Sentencing Guidelines Council.

These start at page 14 of the linked document.

If you look at the table, it appears the judge put the case in the middle band, sentencing range community order to two years.

Why is it misplaced when the Judge put the case in the middle band? Why didnt he put it in the upper band bearing in mind my earlier comment from the same guidelines that suggest this may have fallen into band 3 if the charge had been death by dangerous. My guess is that mitigation played a big part.

 

[Pale Rider]

Why is it misplaced when the Judge put the case in the middle band? Why didnt he put it in the upper band bearing in mind my earlier comment from the same guidelines that suggest this may have fallen into band 3 if the charge had been death by dangerous. My guess is that mitigation played a big part.

For banding, the death is irrelevant because it's present in all cases.

The crucial point is the manner of the driving.

In terms of careless, how careless was it?

We do lack information, but on the face of it swerving in windy conditions in a high-sided vehicle is at the lower end of the legal definition of careless which is 'a momentary lapse of attention'.

Perhaps not the lowest, it may have been a big swerve, which could explain why the judge has put the case in the middle band.

Aggravating features and mitigation then play a big part.

No suggestion the driver fled the scene, so he may have stopped to offer assistance, which under the guidelines, goes in his favour.

Personal mitigation could have been strong, young man, in work, previous good character, genuine remorse.

It is easy to say 'sorry' and be cynical about that, but I have seen killer drivers who are genuinely devastated by what they have done.

 

[Pale Rider]

@Pale Rider, in your eagerness to explain hhow courts work you miss the point. The driver chose to drive close enough that, coupled with a gust of wind that may or may not have caused the collision, he was too close to avoid killing someone. The wind is not mitigation whatsoever, if it was a windy day, that is just even more reason to pass wide and slow. His original decision was dangerous, and consciously so. The charge was weak.

In your usual eagerness to have a swipe at a poster with whom you disagree, you are confusing fact and opinion.

Your take on the case is purely your opinion.

Swerving as the driver did does not amount to the legal definition of dangerous driving.

That is a matter of fact.

If you think the sentence is too light, then a reform of the law is what's required, or at the very least a rewrite of the sentencing guidelines, which are not law, but the judge is all but obliged to follow them.

 

[Pale Rider]

No it is the passing too close in the first place that is dangerous

He didn't pass too close, did he?

If he'd done that we wouldn't be here.

The wind explanation will be regarded by some as fortunate for the driver, but the fact it was windy is just that, a fact.

Legally, it was careless of him not to take sufficient account of the possibility of a gust, but the legal definition of dangerous driving - a prolonged period of inattention or driving falling far below the standard of a careful and competent driver - is not met.

If this case was dealt with in the court of public opinion, there may have been a different outcome.

But it wasn't, it was dealt with in a court of law.