Suspended sentence for lorry driver who reached for phone and killed cyclist

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Tin Pot

Guru
Are judges explaining their thinking?

I'm guessing that they see the action itself wasn't heinous, but the impact was due to bad luck. Hence a light penalty.

If that's the case then it strengthens the argument for segregating road use, and automating trucks.

Without the law to protect cyclists and enforce safe driving, it's becoming a folly.
 
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Lor...ist-A38-near/story-27991629-detail/story.html

banned from driving for 18 months.

So he is back driving before his suspended sentence is over?
 

winjim

Smash the cistern
"The court heard that both men were committed churchgoers, reports the Plymouth Herald, as Recorder Donald Tait sentenced Noble"

WTF relevance has that got to the case, the lorry driver was in the wrong & got off very lightly, disgusting outcome.
It appears to have been mentioned by the judge when sentencing. So working as a bit of an old boys network.
 
also this bit ....
While Noble did not himself testify to the court, one of his work colleagues said that he had confided that immediately before the collision he had reached for his mobile phone to play a sermon.

I wonder why he didn't testify? I suspect because he's a "Christian" he is superstitious about lying under oath, so got a friend to do it for him. He probably rightly believed that wanting to listen to a sermon would play well with this judge.
 

oldstrath

Über Member
Location
Strathspey
Are judges explaining their thinking?

I'm guessing that they see the action itself wasn't heinous, but the impact was due to bad luck. Hence a light penalty.

If that's the case then it strengthens the argument for segregating road use, and automating trucks.

Without the law to protect cyclists and enforce safe driving, it's becoming a folly.
The action itself was an accident precursor, which is exactly why it is illegal.
Until lawyers and judges understand risks properly there is no possibility of useful protection.
 

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
The judge was following the national sentencing guidelines for death by careless.

Quoting:

Nature of offence: Careless or inconsiderate driving arising from momentary inattention with no aggravating factors

Starting Point: Community order (MEDIUM)
Sentencing range: Community order (LOW) - Community order (HIGH)

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/...g_death_by_careless_or_inconsiderate_driving/

In court speak, the sentence passed was a high level community order.
 
OP
OP
andyfraser

andyfraser

Über Member
Location
Bristol
The judge was following the national sentencing guidelines for death by careless.

Quoting:

Nature of offence: Careless or inconsiderate driving arising from momentary inattention with no aggravating factors

Starting Point: Community order (MEDIUM)
Sentencing range: Community order (LOW) - Community order (HIGH)

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/...g_death_by_careless_or_inconsiderate_driving/

In court speak, the sentence passed was a high level community order.
Careless driving is hitting a lamppost. If the outcome of "careless" driving is the death of someone then it should be manslaughter.
 

numbnuts

Legendary Member
Careless driving is hitting a lamppost. If the outcome of "careless" driving is the death of someone then it should be manslaughter.
Constructive manslaughter
For example, a person who runs a red light driving a vehicle and hits someone crossing the street could be found to intend or be reckless as to assault or criminal damage.
There is no intent to kill, and a resulting death would not be considered murder, but would be considered involuntary manslaughter.
 

machew

Veteran
He hit a person with a bike lock. It's even in the link.

If you hit someone with something as heavy as a bike lock, you should go to jail.
Sorry I missed that bit, but hitting someone with a lock and killing someone gets the same jail term. WTF
 

oldstrath

Über Member
Location
Strathspey
The judge was following the national sentencing guidelines for death by careless.

Quoting:

Nature of offence: Careless or inconsiderate driving arising from momentary inattention with no aggravating factors

Starting Point: Community order (MEDIUM)
Sentencing range: Community order (LOW) - Community order (HIGH)

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/...g_death_by_careless_or_inconsiderate_driving/

In court speak, the sentence passed was a high level community order.
I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of your comment. But, leaving aside the legalisms, can you not see why many of us are angry that this man did something illegal, killed someone as a consequence, and essentially got let off?

At the very least he should never be allowed to drive again.

Mind, if he is such a devout believer maybe he'll be so overcome with remorse he'll stop driving and devote his life to telling others of his errors. Well, we can all hope.
 

theclaud

Openly Marxist
Location
Swansea
I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of your comment. But, leaving aside the legalisms, can you not see why many of us are angry that this man did something illegal, killed someone as a consequence, and essentially got let off?

At the very least he should never be allowed to drive again.

Mind, if he is such a devout believer maybe he'll be so overcome with remorse he'll stop driving and devote his life to telling others of his errors. Well, we can all hope.

You're wasting your time - Pale Rider is a legal absolutist and the forum's principle apologist for the courts' failure to take dangerous driving seriously.
 

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of your comment. But, leaving aside the legalisms, can you not see why many of us are angry that this man did something illegal, killed someone as a consequence, and essentially got let off?

At the very least he should never be allowed to drive again.

Mind, if he is such a devout believer maybe he'll be so overcome with remorse he'll stop driving and devote his life to telling others of his errors. Well, we can all hope.

The judge followed the sentencing guidelines, so the correct sentence was passed - that's a matter of fact.

The anger is understandable, although in this case I don't share it - that's a matter of comment.

Sentencing has always been based on a mixture of the level of criminality and consequences.

The criminality of the driver in this case was he allowed himself to be momentarily distracted while driving, the consequences were he killed someone.

It's not easy to balance a sentence when the two factors - criminality and consequences - are at opposite ends of their scales.

Your remarks about remorse may have been sarcastic, but you may accept a law abiding working family man will be severely troubled by having the death on his conscience.

That is what the judge was on about in his sentencing remarks:

Recorder Donald Tait said: “I hope this case will send a message to other road users, who we see day in and day out using mobile phones or other devices.

“It perhaps takes the tragic circumstances of this case to bring home the seriousness of doing this and I just hope other people will learn the lesson.”
Read more: http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Lor...tory-27991629-detail/story.html#ixzz3oqIH5pue
Follow us: @heraldnewslive on Twitter | theplymouthherald on Facebook
 
Top Bottom