Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
Aint that the truth
Cycle killer walks free from court.
- Thread starter PaulB
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
PBancroft
Senior Member
- Location
- Winchester
I'm not sure that would really be very appropriate. They've already voiced their disappointment at the sentence - I don't think they need to be contacted by strangers to press them on the matter right now.
The point, surely, is a more general one. Driving without due care and attention resulting in the death of an individual is treated less seriously than manslaughter - though the effect is the same. IANAL - But gross negligence is the test for manslaughter. ALL road users have a duty of care on the road, and this duty was breached causing the death of an individual. Drivers in particular have to be well trained to use their vehicles, so it can be demonstrated that causing death is negligent... but for some reason juries didn't convict people for that, and so causing death by dangerous driving was introduced.
Even though the effect is the same, it is treated as a somewhat lesser crime and the guilty are often given a light tap on the backside and told not to do it again.
This happens time and again and we all should be disgusted by it - not only as cyclists but as other road users as well be it cyclist, driver, rider or pedestrian. However (and this is Good News) Hull MP Karl Turner has asked David Cameron to impose tougher sentences on dangerous drivers. I would urge people to contact their MP to ask them to support this.
XmisterIS
Purveyor of fine nonsense
I find it utterly remarkable that this chap walks free for killing someone - whereas Charlie Gillmour just got 16 months for getting drunk and offending people. And check out the rabid daily wailers: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-acts-drug-fuelled-student-fees-rampage.html
mumbo jumbo
Senior Member
- Location
- Birmingham
Thanks for this - very useful. The cases you link to are all awful but I particularly remember the Rhyl case.
The last link you provide refers to the Sentencing (Reform) Bill (link: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/sentencingreform.html ). It's a private member's bill which is in the very early stages of its parliamentary passage. I think I'll email the bill's sponsor (Philip Hollobone) to find out more about what is covered and lobby for tougher sentencing for these sorts of cases. I will include my exchange of emails with the Attorney General's office (I had the same reply as everyone else).
mj
mumbo jumbo
Senior Member
- Location
- Birmingham
This what I just sent to Mr Hollobone. I'll copy it to my local MP too. Mr Hollobone's email address is philip.hollobone.mp@parliament.uk for anyone else who's interested.
------------------
Dear Mr Hollobone
I understand that you sponsoring a private member's bill on sentencing reform. I confess I know little about it save that I have seen reference to it in an article online.
I imagine that there are an array of offences where you may be looking to alter current sentencing policy. I would be interested to learn more about it. My own interest relates to motoring offences, particularly driving without due care and attention and causing death by careless / dangerous driving. Sentencing policy in this area seems completely cock-eyed and heaps yet more grief on bereaved families which have suffered so much already. I am also concerned about the limited scope of the Attorney General to appeal unduly lenient sentences.
Below are links to a handful of the more shocking cases:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-398901/Fury-driver-killed-cyclists-fined-180.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...list-walks-free-court-ludicrous-275-fine.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4481738.ece
The first is a Welsh case. Part of the problem in this case was the offence the CPS chose to prosecute - driving with defective tyres (apparently). The second one is an English case. The offence here was causing death by careless driving. The final link is to a Scottish case. The available offences are different there but in all three cases the result is the same - drivers who have killed innocent third parties have walked free from the court with derisory fines. In the first case, this was £180 for 4 dead. That's £45 per life.
Clearly the scope for sentencing is limited by the offence which is being prosecuted. That is a whole different issue but it is relevant to your bill. I have seen a suggestion that the tariff for causing death by dangerous driving should be increased. Well - fine. But the CPS are immensely reluctant to prosecute for death by dangerous driving, preferring instead to go for the lesser (and hence easier to convict) death by careless driving. So, if motoring offences are on your hit list, I would encourage you to give greatest consideration to driving without due care and attention and causing death by careless driving. You bill will have far greater impact by imposing stricter sentencing criteria on those offences.
As I understand it, the punishments for causing death by careless driving can range from a mandatory disqualification, extended retest and unlimited fine, to a 5 years prison sentence. A car is a potentially lethal piece of equipment. People require licences to use them. Using them carelessly is therefore a serious matter in itself. Causing loss of life through that carelessness must surely warrant a serious sentencing response. Fines of £500 (the Scottish case) and £275 (the English case) are an affront to the victim and their families. Fines like this (if paid) are an incovenience, not a punishment. Not justice. It's like the offender is getting away with it. If the criminal law has the dual purpose of punishing the offender and acting as a deterrent (to the offender in future and the the public at large in general) then I would ask for the inroduction of minimum tariffs. I would suggest 6 months custodial sentence. With good behaviour they will be out in 3 months but justice will have been done (in some measure), they will be more careful in future and the wider public will start to get the message. Take care on the roads, especially around vulnerable road users.
More recently I have asked the Attorney General to appeal what I, and anyone else I have spoken to about it, considers to be an unduly lenient sentence in a case of causing death by careless driving. It is a truly shocking case. I wont repeat the details here but am copy-pasting at the end of this email the exchange of emails I have had with the Attorney General's office. As you will see from the response, the AG's office said that they do not have power to appeal sentences in relation to death by careless driving cases. This does appear to be borne out by information on the web pages of the AG's office which says that appeal is only available for:
I agree that those are all serious crimes but if we as a society place any value on human life and the protection of it we should add to that list any crime / offence where there has been loss of human life. If this is not already a feature of your Bill, can I ask you to give serious consideration to including it.
I would be grateful for your thoughts on this.
Regards.
------------------
Dear Mr Hollobone
I understand that you sponsoring a private member's bill on sentencing reform. I confess I know little about it save that I have seen reference to it in an article online.
I imagine that there are an array of offences where you may be looking to alter current sentencing policy. I would be interested to learn more about it. My own interest relates to motoring offences, particularly driving without due care and attention and causing death by careless / dangerous driving. Sentencing policy in this area seems completely cock-eyed and heaps yet more grief on bereaved families which have suffered so much already. I am also concerned about the limited scope of the Attorney General to appeal unduly lenient sentences.
Below are links to a handful of the more shocking cases:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-398901/Fury-driver-killed-cyclists-fined-180.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...list-walks-free-court-ludicrous-275-fine.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4481738.ece
The first is a Welsh case. Part of the problem in this case was the offence the CPS chose to prosecute - driving with defective tyres (apparently). The second one is an English case. The offence here was causing death by careless driving. The final link is to a Scottish case. The available offences are different there but in all three cases the result is the same - drivers who have killed innocent third parties have walked free from the court with derisory fines. In the first case, this was £180 for 4 dead. That's £45 per life.
Clearly the scope for sentencing is limited by the offence which is being prosecuted. That is a whole different issue but it is relevant to your bill. I have seen a suggestion that the tariff for causing death by dangerous driving should be increased. Well - fine. But the CPS are immensely reluctant to prosecute for death by dangerous driving, preferring instead to go for the lesser (and hence easier to convict) death by careless driving. So, if motoring offences are on your hit list, I would encourage you to give greatest consideration to driving without due care and attention and causing death by careless driving. You bill will have far greater impact by imposing stricter sentencing criteria on those offences.
As I understand it, the punishments for causing death by careless driving can range from a mandatory disqualification, extended retest and unlimited fine, to a 5 years prison sentence. A car is a potentially lethal piece of equipment. People require licences to use them. Using them carelessly is therefore a serious matter in itself. Causing loss of life through that carelessness must surely warrant a serious sentencing response. Fines of £500 (the Scottish case) and £275 (the English case) are an affront to the victim and their families. Fines like this (if paid) are an incovenience, not a punishment. Not justice. It's like the offender is getting away with it. If the criminal law has the dual purpose of punishing the offender and acting as a deterrent (to the offender in future and the the public at large in general) then I would ask for the inroduction of minimum tariffs. I would suggest 6 months custodial sentence. With good behaviour they will be out in 3 months but justice will have been done (in some measure), they will be more careful in future and the wider public will start to get the message. Take care on the roads, especially around vulnerable road users.
More recently I have asked the Attorney General to appeal what I, and anyone else I have spoken to about it, considers to be an unduly lenient sentence in a case of causing death by careless driving. It is a truly shocking case. I wont repeat the details here but am copy-pasting at the end of this email the exchange of emails I have had with the Attorney General's office. As you will see from the response, the AG's office said that they do not have power to appeal sentences in relation to death by careless driving cases. This does appear to be borne out by information on the web pages of the AG's office which says that appeal is only available for:
- more serious crimes which can be dealt with only in the Crown Court, such as murder, rape and robbery
- some sex crimes, especially those involving children, but also indecent assault and some
other sex crimes - child cruelty
- threats to kill
- some serious frauds
- some drugs crimes
- some racially or religiously aggravated crimes
- attempting or inciting any of these.
I agree that those are all serious crimes but if we as a society place any value on human life and the protection of it we should add to that list any crime / offence where there has been loss of human life. If this is not already a feature of your Bill, can I ask you to give serious consideration to including it.
I would be grateful for your thoughts on this.
Regards.
