|
Pioneer
Original Poster
1,185 posts
68 months
|
LoonR1 said: I had a similar thing happen to a mate of mine too. He was walking down the street and a bloke jumped out in front of him and onto a knife my mate was holding.
When my mate got sent down for murder I thought it was a bit harsh too, as my mate always tells me the whole truth without playing down anything that happened.
Luckily I got to post the story on the internet and when I showed the results to the judge he let him out.
Hope you get the same result. Not trying to get him off, it's no skin off my nose. Just if what he said he did I find the punishment very harsh compared to say stolen car/ no insurance / drunk driving....
|
|
|
thinfourth2
23,539 posts
73 months
|
Pioneer said: Not trying to get him off, it's no skin off my nose. Just if what he said he did I find the punishment very harsh compared to say stolen car/ no insurance / drunk driving.... i don't doubt he would of got less is he was pissed and had stolen the car
|
|
|
streaky
18,230 posts
118 months
|
Snowboy said: I’ve always considered painted or speedbump roundabouts to be more of an indication of priority rather than a thing to go round, and I’ll happily drive over them. IIRC, when we did this before the informed opinion was that a painted roundabout was the equivalent of a continuous white line. Streaky
|
|
|
Snowboy
3,195 posts
20 months
|
streaky said: Snowboy said: I’ve always considered painted or speedbump roundabouts to be more of an indication of priority rather than a thing to go round, and I’ll happily drive over them. IIRC, when we did this before the informed opinion was that a painted roundabout was the equivalent of a continuous white line. Streaky So what I said then. We know we’re not supposed to drive over them, but most of us do occasionally when it’s the safer choice. Especially if they have been painted in a way that would be more dangerous to use ‘correctly’. 
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
In the case of the painted ones, they are opften that small and fiddly that larger vehicles (e.g goods vehicles) can do nothing BUT drive over them at least in part.
I guess the test though is whether an attempt to go round can be seen.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Durzel
1,509 posts
37 months
|
Pioneer said: Not trying to get him off, it's no skin off my nose. Just if what he said he did I find the punishment very harsh compared to say stolen car/ no insurance / drunk driving.... He pleaded guilty to Dangerous Driving though. He was always going to get a ban of at least 12 months. As has been said already bearing in mind the circumstances - i.e. he was in convoy with someone else who did the same thing, which is an aggravating factor, a 20 month ban is not exceptional.
|
|
|
aw51 121565
2,694 posts
102 months
|
|
|
sim16v
661 posts
70 months
|
aw51 121565 said: Not saying this is right or wrong, but if they refused to go in for interview and basically denied everything, it probably wouldn't have gone any further. The fact they admitted everything made it very easy for the Police and CPS.
|
|
|
garyhun
13,986 posts
97 months
|
sim16v said: Not saying this is right or wrong, but if they refused to go in for interview and basically denied everything, it probably wouldn't have gone any further.
The fact they admitted everything made it very easy for the Police and CPS. It's the same old story. (assumingly) honest, decent chaps have a moment
|
|
|
garyhun
13,986 posts
97 months
|
sim16v said: Not saying this is right or wrong, but if they refused to go in for interview and basically denied everything, it probably wouldn't have gone any further.
The fact they admitted everything made it very easy for the Police and CPS. It's the same old story. (assumingly) honest, decent chaps have a moment of madness and, because they are decent, admit to the crime. Rather than previous good standing being seen as a reason to give reduced sentence they have book thrown at them - easy catch. Meanwhile criminal bad lads do worse time and time again and because they just deny and deny they get away with it.
|
|
|
Lunablack
2,839 posts
31 months
|
I think it's a good thing that 2 guys whom think the rules don't apply to them, get a costly reminder that they're wrong
|
|
|
Durzel
1,509 posts
37 months
|
aw51 121565 said: That has to be the same case surely. Too many variables (off duty cop report, in convoy, etc) are identical. The only diff is the story on here is from a "friend of a friend", and also neglects to mention that both cars were also travelling, by their own admission, in excess of the speed limit as well. As for garyhun's comment - they pleaded guilty to an offence that carries, at minimum, a MANDATORY ban of at least 12 months! What did they expect? Slap on the wrists?
|
|
|
Busa mav
927 posts
23 months
|
Pioneer said: Anyway 18 month ban, fine, and quite a few hours community service - seems incredibly harsh to me! That's encouraging to hear , I may now make the effort to photograph and report a subaru clad prick near us that likes to do donuts on the main A4 in the middle of the night
|
|
|
garyhun
13,986 posts
97 months
|
Durzel said: As for garyhun's comment - they pleaded guilty to an offence that carries, at minimum, a MANDATORY ban of at least 12 months! What did they expect? Slap on the wrists? Not at all. I just wonder if any of us in our younger days appreciated the consequences of some tomfoolery in our cars. Obviously in this case it appears they were doing a fair amount of unsafe driving and deserve all they got BUT I do wonder if a stern talking too and a suspended sentence may have the same affect in stopping a repeat offencw in certain circumstances. Just a thought!!
|
|
|
LoonR1
12,460 posts
46 months
|
garyhun said: Not at all. I just wonder if any of us in our younger days appreciated the consequences of some tomfoolery in our cars. Obviously in this case it appears they were doing a fair amount of unsafe driving and deserve all they got BUT I do wonder if a stern talking too and a suspended sentence may have the same affect in stopping a repeat offencw in certain circumstances. Just a thought!! Which bit of MANDATORY is passing you by? Would you recommend the same course of action for a drink driver, as that carries the same mandatory ban?
|
|
|
aw51 121565
2,694 posts
102 months
|
Durzel said: That has to be the same case surely. Too many variables (off duty cop report, in convoy, etc) are identical.
The only diff is the story on here is from a "friend of a friend", and also neglects to mention that both cars were also travelling, by their own admission, in excess of the speed limit as well.
As for garyhun's comment - they pleaded guilty to an offence that carries, at minimum, a MANDATORY ban of at least 12 months! What did they expect? Slap on the wrists?
The point garyhun is making is that a frank admission just makes it easy for the prosecution; they just have to work harder if the accused don't admit their wrongdoings - the accused helpfully clears up any gaps in the version of events as well as giving more evidence that the prosecution can distil to reinforce the nature of the event and the offences committed to the magistrates  . I suspect the phrase that pays here is "a slamdunk" because of the accused admitting all. Rhetorically, why did he do this? (Expecting a slap on the wrists in the light of what he had to say seems misguided at best .) And yes, I think this is the same case .
|
|
|
Durzel
1,509 posts
37 months
|
True, they should've got legal representation. I agree with garyhun's sentiment that admitting guilt is a morally positive act, but it's a foolish one legally...
The CPS aren't their friends and at the point they were charged with DD, having been in for an interview and buried themselves under caution, it sounds as if the CPS only had to turn up for the formalities.
The sentence isn't that outlandish given the aggravating circumstances and the fact that, as said previously, they were looking at a guaranteed minimum 12 month ban + extended retest before they'd even set foot in the courtroom.
With representation, and given the evidence the Police/CPS had prior to interview was an off duty cop statement I'm sure a half decent motoring solicitor could've got it busted down to Careless or DWDCA. That's moot now though.
If my understanding is correct (I'm not a lawyer) they can appeal the sentence but not the verdict, but since they pleaded guilty and validated the aggravating factors (racing, speeding) I can't imagine the punishment would change, and it can't be less than 12 months.
|
|
|
billybob69
672 posts
14 months
|
quote from linked story 'I had not requested a Duty Solicitor (I was offered one) and explained under interview that the reason was because I was guilty' 
|
|
|
garyhun
13,986 posts
97 months
|
That was the gist of what I was trying (badly) to say
|
|
|
Observer2
702 posts
94 months
|
A very important and little known or overlooked fact: DD is an 'each way' offence. The defendant can choose summary trial at magistrates court or trial on indictment at Crown Court. If the latter, the written response to s.172 notice CANNOT be used to prove identity. So if driver did not make an admission in interview that confirms he was the driver, the DD charge cannot succeed (in fact it never gets off the ground).
I don't know in this case whether identification relied upon s.172 response but it apparently did in the Pepipoo case (whose facts appear so similar I wonder if it is actually the same case).
So the smart thing to do would have been to respond to s.172 naming oneself as driver, refuse to answer questions at interview and elect for trial on indictment. No proof of driver identity so no case to answer.
Of course CPS may reduce the charge to DWDC, which is summary only, meaning the s.172 response can be used. That still carries possible suspension, so the safer course may have been to 'fail to provide' and accept 6 points.
|
|
