Another cyclist killed by motorist on the phone.

[matticus]

<ahem>

I think you mean a Hardworking Family Man (who needs a car to commute, and for his share of the school-run ... )

 

[icowden]

As I'm sure you know, the beaks have long valued property more highly than plebs.

As I am sure you know, this is not true. The "beaks" have to follow sentencing guidelines.
For the offence, it looks like it has been classified as level 3 - driving that created a significant risk of danger.
That has a starting point of 3 years custody, a max of 5 years and a minimum of 2 years. A guilty plea knocks of 1/3rd and the rest is about mitigation and aggravating factors.

If you have a problem with the length of the sentence, lobby your MP to ask for tougher sentences. The risk of that is that MPs only go for tougher sentencing where it makes them look good.

Given that none of us were there for the trial nor have seen the summing up, we cannot know the decisions that the Judge took to determine the sentence. As she is heavily pregnant, the Judge may have reluctantly considered that (given a guilty plea) the sentence should be set such that she is able to complete her sentence in the community so that she is not separated from her baby (mothers can stay with babies until they are 18 months).

As it is, lets stop blaming Judges for the state of the legal system and start blaming those who are actually at fault.

 

[mjr]

As I am sure you know, this is not true. The "beaks" have to follow sentencing guidelines.

As I'm sure you know, that doesn't contradict my statement. All you're doing is pointing out who's to blame for setting the values. I don't disagree.

For the offence, it looks like it has been classified as level 3 - driving that created a significant risk of danger.

How on earth is that the correct charge for vehicular homicide anyway? Do they now charge an axe murderer with "forestry that created significant danger"?

 

[icowden]

As I'm sure you know, that doesn't contradict my statement
How on earth is that the correct charge for vehicular homicide anyway? Do they now charge an axe murderer with "forestry that created significant danger"?

I know it doesn't contradict it, but you do seem to be suggesting that somehow the judges give tougher sentences for damage of property (presumably referring to the monuments law).

As for vehicular homicide, It isn't and it wasn't. Again you are misattributing.

Homicide is the deliberate intent to kill someone. This was no such thing. This was the accidental and unintended death of a cyclist through poor driving. There was no intent to kill or even injure.

 

[classic33]

I know it doesn't contradict it, but you do seem to be suggesting that somehow the judges give tougher sentences for damage of property (presumably referring to the monuments law).

As for vehicular homicide, It isn't and it wasn't. Again you are misattributing.

Homicide is the deliberate intent to kill someone. This was no such thing. This was the accidental and unintended death of a cyclist through poor driving. There was no intent to kill or even injure.

Isn't that Death by dangerous driving in the UK.

 

[icowden]

Isn't that Death by dangerous driving in the UK.

Yes - hence the driver was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.

 

[classic33]

Yes - hence the driver was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.

Not "vehicle homicide", as given by you, which doesn't actually exist in the UK as a seperate offence.

 

[icowden]

Not "vehicle homicide", as given by you, which doesn't actually exist in the UK as a seperate offence.

Not by me - by @mjr

I did look it up and apparently vehicular homicide doesn't require intent, but to British ears homicide does tend to become a synonym for murder.
All those US detective series y'see!

 

[matticus]

I think we (UK) have "man-slaughter" to cover unintended (but predictable) killings.

 

[mjr]

I think we (UK) have "man-slaughter" to cover unintended (but predictable) killings.

Yes but that implies it wasn't murder, whereas homocide makes no judgment on intent.

 

[mjr]

I know it doesn't contradict it, but you do seem to be suggesting that somehow the judges give tougher sentences for damage of property (presumably referring to the monuments law).

Not referring to that law. It's long been the case that crimes against property carry longer sentences than crimes against people. I don't say the judges choose the sentence ranges allowed, but they are what they are.

As for vehicular homicide, It isn't and it wasn't. Again you are misattributing.

Homicide is the deliberate intent to kill someone. This was no such thing.

I think you misunderstood and have since corrected yourself.

This was the accidental and unintended death of a cyclist through poor driving. There was no intent to kill or even injure.

That seems rather like saying that throwing knives into a crowd lacks intent. There comes a point where conduct is sufficiently reckless that killing is reasonably possible, so it's basically Russian Roulette with other people's lives. That's not on and should be dealt with more stiffly than the current driver's friend laws.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

to British ears homicide does tend to become a synonym for murder

Murder is quite specific and is one category of homicide but you can also have justifiable homicide, casual homicide, and culpable homicide (equivalent to English manslaughter). This is relative to Scots law so it's not ideal to speak of how legal definitions might be interpreted by 'British' ears.

 

[icowden]

This is relative to Scots law so it's not ideal to speak of how legal definitions might be interpreted by 'British' ears.

I take your point, but I'd still have thought that if you asked the average Scotsman, Welshman, Englishman or NorthernIrishman (or woman) that their perception of homicide is someone deliberately killing someone else.

Anyway - as @mjr pointed out, I did correct myself.

 

[Badger_Boom]

How on earth is that the correct charge for vehicular homicide anyway? Do they now charge an axe murderer with "forestry that created significant danger"?

My understanding is that motoring law is framed in this manner because if there was a chance of being charged with vehicular murder or manslaughter it would make driving far too unpopular. Think of the lost tax revenue and profits.

 

[winjim]

Anybody considering separating a child from its mother needs to have a really good think and a really extraordinarily good justification for that course of action. I'm not giving an opinion on whether this case provides that justification but it is not a trivial matter.