Drink driver Beth Mackie only gets 5 years

Turbo Rider

Just can't reMember
Heart breaking story. Don't know what to make of the sentence. Doesn't seem nearly long enough, but on the other hand, I can't see jail time doing her any good. Tragic. RIP.
 

Roadrider48

Voice of the people
Location
Londonistan
This is an absolutely dreadful story!
I feel for his wife and children.
I hate the excuses these people seem to come out with after all the damage they do through their own stupid actions.
 

young Ed

Veteran
awful! it says he lives in Ashford which is my nearest town at only 10 or 15 miles away, makes it really hit home if you know what i mean. tragic and terrible
hopefully when Mackie has served her 5 years and had her 5 year driving ban she will take a bit longer to get behind the wheel again on her own conscience, but probably not :sad:
hopefully this will scar her for life and she will never even imagine drinking and driving again, or speeding, again probably not :sad:

2 things i have always sworn is that when i start driving i will never drink and drive and will never speed, ever!

i remember when the incident was posted about on here when it first happened this spring
Cheers Ed
 

oldstrath

Über Member
Location
Strathspey
Heart breaking story. Don't know what to make of the sentence. Doesn't seem nearly long enough, but on the other hand, I can't see jail time doing her any good. Tragic. RIP.
Even if it did her no good, a serious length sentence might at least cause other cretins to engage a neuron or two. And it would keep her off the road, which would be a good thing.
 

Mobytek

Well-Known Member
A Life-time driving ban is availabl as an option for some convicitons.

When someone is faced with having commited a crime of which there are miltiple chargers available, the CPS will aim for the highest charge that has the best chance of conviction. She could have been charged with Murder or manslaughter but the chance of a convicition would have been too slim to make chasing it a possability - bearing in mind the "beyond all reasonalbe doubt" benchmark needed in a court of law.

What does happen a lot of the time though is that th person themselves will admit, or plead guilty to a lesser charge. This is where it becomes tricky. If the CPS decide to decline this lesser charge admitance and push for a higher charge, then they are in fo all or nothing. Fail to get the higher charge and they walk, get the higher and they are banged.

So in the case of a lot of Drink Driving that involves a death of someone, manslaughter would prob be the highest that on paper they could go for (someone causing or permitting the death of another, but without pre-medietation - to paraphrase),

But when they please guilty to TWOC, DD or dangerous driving then CPS will often look at he balances of probabilities, the preseidents set by previous cases, and see what they can go with.

If punishments scaled from 1 (slap on the wrist /suspended sentence) through to 10 (life without parole) then a higher charge conviction could get you a level 6 - 8, but the chance of getting it is 10 - 20%, but guilty admittance to the lesser charge with a convicition level of 3 - 5 that is 100% then where are they going to go?

It is not nice, nor right, but it is how they system works, and how Mr Loophole Lawyer earns his living.

As for the 50% rule, the other 50% is on licence, whereby they can be racalled to serve the rest should anything happen during their out half. So, maybe she might get out, and 6 months later go out and something happend for which normally a caution, ora fin, but no - pulled back for the other 2 1/2 years.

Not to detract that the families have my sympathies due to one young persons' minute of drunken stupidity, which no imprisinment etc can ever bring them back.

People scoff when people are not "sent down" but in reality, if you do, they will cost the tax payer £40,000 + PA to keep them there, they are secured away and protected from the general public, do not have to face their daily scorn, the living without a car, taking public transport, turned down from jobs, being refued this and that and eventualy, when they do come out (besides an involved few) who will remember who they are? Will there be a new thread on here that "Beth Makay has been released"?

Sending someone down should, and is, only reserved for those that pose a danger to the public. Most sentences can be served "in the public", open prisions etc etc as although what they have done is wrong, very wrong, but in general they are not a risk to the general public, people they pass in the street etc. Is someone who embessled £4m from a bank a threat to the people in the park?
 

Turbo Rider

Just can't reMember
Even if it did her no good, a serious length sentence might at least cause other cretins to engage a neuron or two. And it would keep her off the road, which would be a good thing.
It may actually do her and the rest of society bad, as well as not doing her any good though. She doesn't sound like a career criminal but she's about to be exposed to a fair few, so she can't help but pick up new tricks. I doubt if it will put anyone off either. It was a drunken decision that she made and she was persuaded into doing so, if the story is to be believed, and people are more prone to making silly, often catastrophic decisions when they're drunk. It would keep her off the road though and you can't argue with that. I'd go with a lifetime driving ban, community service and some time around the families of victims, with a suspended sentence if she's ever caught driving again, personally. Think it would achieve more positivity.
 

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
Leaving aside the offence for a moment, five years is a long stretch for an 18-year-old who may have been 17 and a youth in law when the offence was committed.

She has been dealt with correctly as an adult - that time marker is the date of sentence - but had she been a youth the sentence would have been very different.

Don't get me wrong, there would be no complaints from me had she got a lot more.

But her young age, previous good character, and the fact the offence was the result of only one admittedly very poor decision makes a big difference.

Whichever way you look at it, she will be released at a relatively young age, and it is in everyone's best interest the 60-odd years she spends at liberty are done so to in a law abiding manner.

Criminalising a young person for life helps no one.
 

oldstrath

Über Member
Location
Strathspey
5 years for her isn't nearly as long as what she inflicted on others. And sorry, but she did not have to drink, nor break the law by driving after doing so, nor did she have to drive off after hitting the guy, nor did she have to lie. Sounds to me like someone who is already a criminal.

Maybe imprisonment isn't the best option for her development, but it would be rather nice if our criminal system could find a way to indicate some disapproval of those who use their cars to kill people.
 
Yes, it's not a straightforward penitent young woman who made an error, as the court noted. She chose to drive, she could have got a cab. She tried to get away-she left a man dying in the road and tried to save her skin. She then tried to blame the dead man for his own death by lying to the police. She KNEW she had a black box fitted and still broke the speed limit. And she was twice the limit two and a half hours AFTER she killed Mr Christian. Her passenger was arrested and presumably faces no charges but his actions were pretty disgusting too, just not criminal. Mackie's actions after she killed a man were contemptible.
 

Arrowfoot

Veteran
Yes, it's not a straightforward penitent young woman who made an error, as the court noted. She chose to drive, she could have got a cab. She tried to get away-she left a man dying in the road and tried to save her skin. She then tried to blame the dead man for his own death by lying to the police. She KNEW she had a black box fitted and still broke the speed limit. And she was twice the limit two and a half hours AFTER she killed Mr Christian. Her passenger was arrested and presumably faces no charges but his actions were pretty disgusting too, just not criminal. Mackie's actions after she killed a man were contemptible.
5 years for a moment of folly at such young age. No doubt impaired judgement due to alcohol. Well aware that it caused a death but the sentence is quite something. We give career criminals engaged in repeated cycles of violence less than that.

On the other I would like to see her passenger charged as well and penalised. He must have known that she was drinking.
 

oldstrath

Über Member
Location
Strathspey
The solution to drink driving exists already. Fit something such as this https://www.smartstartinc.com, to every car, make tampering in way with it a criminal offence punished by automatic imprisonment, loss of licence and confiscation of the car. Problem gone.

Oh, you probably have to reduce the alcohol limit to effectively zero, as in Scotland now, and allow random stops by police to check the device, and other stuff. But these seem good ideas anyway.
 
Last edited:

oldstrath

Über Member
Location
Strathspey
5 years for a moment of folly at such young age. No doubt impaired judgement due to alcohol. Well aware that it caused a death but the sentence is quite something. We give career criminals engaged in repeated cycles of violence less than that.

On the other I would like to see her passenger charged as well and penalised. He must have known that she was drinking.
Not 'a moment of folly'. Either she is too sick with alcohol dependency ever to drive, or she made a conscious decision to drink, a conscious decision to drive, and a conscious decision to lie.
 
Top Bottom