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

[oldstrath]

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

Well, time will tell whether this particular killer actually feels enough remorse to do something about it. Perhaps eventually it will occur to regulators and lawyers that the continual parroting of 'Tragic events' and 'deeply remorseful', accompanied by letting off offenders is achieving exactly nothing to stop the killing.

 

[Pale Rider]

[QUOTE 3958779, member: 9609"]using a mobile phone whilst driving is illegal - surly that is an aggravating factor ?

if for instance the driver had come round a corner, found himself momentarily blinded by a low sun and hit a well camouflaged cyclist, then may be I could understand leniency, but killing someone whilst playing with a mobile phone or drink driving then it is time for long custodial sentence.[/QUOTE]

The guidelines grade the offence, it's already careless, but in your example of the momentarily blinded driver that might be a low level community order.

This driver has been given a high level community order to reflect the 'reaching across' for the mobile.

Actively playing with a mobile, or killing another road user while drunk, would attract more serious charges or a higher penalty for the same charge.

The maximum for death by careless, if tried at the crown court, is five years.

 

[mjr]

I'm e-maiing a reply to Jeremy Corbyn in response to his requests for questions to put from the public at PMQs.
Would suggest others do the same.

Will be interesting to see if a significant number of people did this, would there be a response?

What tack are you taking?

 

[Origamist]

The judge called Noble a "decent man". This is a man who was convicted of exposing himself to children and killing a cyclist whilst reaching for a mobile phone. The judge's comments are a sick joke.

 

[User32269]

What tack are you taking?

I am going to compose e-mail when I've got kids to bed! Need some peace!
Will mention this case in email, but purely as a major point of anger and concern amongst cycling community. PMQs cannot be used as a form of judicial review, so I'm fairly certain the question would have to be more general?

• Cyclists need to be sure government take their safety seriously to encourage healthy and environmentally sound transport.
• Plans for funding infrastructure.
• Government plans to promote a change of aggressive car culture, through tougher enforcement and sentencing?

Need bit of time to collate some figures etc. My thinking is that if enough people send (their own) questions, but quoting concerns over this (and similar) cases, given that JC is a cyclist it may strike a chord.
My inbox is full of requests for my question, so I'm gonna use it.

 

[Origamist]

The judge 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."

Another lesson they might take away from this tragic case is that they can escape jail time if they are distracted by their phone and kill someone in the process. Not much of a deterrent...

 

[Dan B]

Surely if he was as remorseful as he claims to be he'd have pled guilty to death by dangerous?

 

[Drago]

The driver allowed himself to become "distracted" as a consequence o making a conscious decision to commit an unlawful act. He didn't sneeze, get the sun in his eyes or was even eyeing up a pretty lady - he was behaving unlawfully and chose to do so. That nota distraction, that's a deliberate act of criminality which caused him not to be in proper control of his vehicle and he killed someone. Distraction doesn't come into it.

Both legislation and sentencing guidelines are far too lenient for people who perhaps didn't intend to kill someone, but nevertheless chose to commit an unlawful act and someone died as a consequence. There a yawning chasm in terms of both mens rea and actus rea between murder and manslaughter, which is why a murder II/second degree murder (call it what you will) type law is so common in other societies to cover that ground.

 

[Venod]

I was intigrued by @Origamist remark, is this the same person.

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk...rial-flasher/story-11749186-detail/story.html

Edit, User9609 beat me to it,

 

[Origamist]

I was intigrued by @Origamist remark, is this the same person.

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk...rial-flasher/story-11749186-detail/story.html

Edit, User9609 beat me to it,

Yes.

 

[glenn forger]

So, a church-goer who likes to wave his meat and two veg at schoolgirls.