Is this sentence appropriate (death by dangerous driving)
Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/20/pension...
He did not swerve, he did not brake and he did not stop. He was only brought to a stop by a quick-thinking motorist who pulled into his path.
stated in his consultation 'he needed to continue to drive' even though his optometrist explained his eyesight was not good enough
optometrist said he was 'stubborn and would continue to drive'.
Appears to me that 4 years (will serve what?) is a massive kick in the teeth to the dead girls parents. Wasn't even wearing his glasses at the time.
His age doesn't matter to me, a is a no matter what age. Could the pathetic sentence be appealed? I am not laying blame at the ophthalmologist, but if it was so obvious he was not fit to drive then shouldn't there be an appropriate procedure to take away the entitlement to drive? Even if only temporarily?
He he rots.
He did not swerve, he did not brake and he did not stop. He was only brought to a stop by a quick-thinking motorist who pulled into his path.
stated in his consultation 'he needed to continue to drive' even though his optometrist explained his eyesight was not good enough
optometrist said he was 'stubborn and would continue to drive'.
Appears to me that 4 years (will serve what?) is a massive kick in the teeth to the dead girls parents. Wasn't even wearing his glasses at the time.
His age doesn't matter to me, a is a no matter what age. Could the pathetic sentence be appealed? I am not laying blame at the ophthalmologist, but if it was so obvious he was not fit to drive then shouldn't there be an appropriate procedure to take away the entitlement to drive? Even if only temporarily?
He he rots.
carreauchompeur said:
To me, it seems a pretty reasonable sentence, presumably there was no other 'dangerousness' evidenced in the driving?
He drove, literally blind, through a three year old child at speed resulting in her death. How much more dangerous would you like someone's driving to be before you'd consider a harsher sentence? He apparently didn't even see the red light, or the crossing, and he didn't stop after hitting her. Not sure what else you'd have required of him before thinking you needed a book to throw, tbh.Durzel said:
What sentence would be appropriate then?
That's a question for someone else, but I certainly don't see why 15 to life isn't an option on this particular table. He didn't accidentally knock her down after she ran out between parked vehicles. He refused the advice of not one but two ophthalmologists that he was driving both illegally and dangerously, drove anyway (without his glasses), and after fatally injuring her he made off from the scene. It's a premeditated negligence resulting in death, and his actions afterwards were hardly savoury. I really don't see why a much harsher sentence isn't appropriate in cases like this.Pacman1978 said:
Could the pathetic sentence be appealed?
If you feel that strongly then you (or anyone) can potentially do something about it: https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review
Some further info about the ULS scheme:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/unduly-lenient-...
Not that it makes any difference but, if it was a case of a doddering confused old pensioner who accidentally put a foot on the wrong pedal then so be it, a tragic accident that shouldn't have happened, but in this instance it's the exact opposite, he seems to be a nasty horrible arrogant waste of space who placed his own self-importance above the lives others, 4 years is an insult. I see it as no different to him shooting or stabbing the victim to death.
It would be a nice thought that he would have to take responsibility for his actions to have a hope of being released but not going to happen. Should be charged with murder, was told not to but still got behind the wheel.
It would be a nice thought that he would have to take responsibility for his actions to have a hope of being released but not going to happen. Should be charged with murder, was told not to but still got behind the wheel.
Christmassss said:
4 years is a joke. He will be out in 2.
Not exactly justice is it.
And be driving again...Not exactly justice is it.
Level 1 The most serious offences encompassing driving that involved a deliberate decision to ignore (or a flagrant disregard for) the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others
Starting Point - 8 years custody
Sentencing Range - 7–14 years custody
Edited by Foliage on Monday 20th March 16:11
Durzel said:
What sentence would be appropriate then?
They were allowed to go upto 14 years, according to the law. I would have liked to have seen the full extent of the law exercised for the following three reasons:1) He had prior, and recent, testing which confirmed he was no longer fit to drive - so he cannot claim ignorance of the circumstances that led to the collision
2) He continued to drive and was involved in a fatal collision as a result - so there was significant, irreperable harm from his choice to continue driving
3) He failed to stop at the site of the collision - there is no way he could have not known he had been involved in a collision; if he could reasonably claim this, he was doubly damned under 1 and 2
In short - a significant sentence is needed to provide a deterrent for others, perhaps younger than him, to ignore medical issues that prevent them from driving; 4 years is insufficent and sends the wrong signal.
Consider the Hatton Garden Robbery sentences of similar aged gentlemen .... 7 years, and no one died as a result.
agtlaw said:
If you feel that strongly then you (or anyone) can potentially do something about it
I never knew any of the above. Thank you for posting the links. I just don't think 4 years is proportionate. A child taken, a set of parents who I'll bet don't feel like parents and many other family members affected. Time isn't a healer and it won't get any easier for them. 4 years is a joke, not much of a deterrent either is it. Not one for doing such things but I'll make use of the links cheers. In such matters the judge has to take into account a number of factors, one of which is the bloke's plea of guilty. The judge it bound by law to treat this as a mitigating factor. In the absence of any specific reason not to, the amount is one third if the plea was early enough. There was some argument when this was changed a year or so ago.
There are other possible mitigating factors as well, which the defence would be obliged, under their codes of practice, to suggest to the court if they are present. The report in the paper does not cover such matters, but then they don't make for good reading and click-bait.
The prosecution can put various aggravating factors forward as well and, one assumes, they did so. The judge will have to balance these when coming to a decision.
I'm not suggesting the penalty is just, reflects the nature of the crime nor is 'right'. I'm just pointing out.
Edited to add:
I don't know if it is still possible, but up until a few years ago if you were registered blind you could still drive in certain, very limited, circumstances. This could well have been a factor in the sentence. I don't know though of course.
There are other possible mitigating factors as well, which the defence would be obliged, under their codes of practice, to suggest to the court if they are present. The report in the paper does not cover such matters, but then they don't make for good reading and click-bait.
The prosecution can put various aggravating factors forward as well and, one assumes, they did so. The judge will have to balance these when coming to a decision.
I'm not suggesting the penalty is just, reflects the nature of the crime nor is 'right'. I'm just pointing out.
Edited to add:
rainmakerraw said:
He drove, literally blind,
The chap was not blind.I don't know if it is still possible, but up until a few years ago if you were registered blind you could still drive in certain, very limited, circumstances. This could well have been a factor in the sentence. I don't know though of course.
Edited by Derek Smith on Monday 20th March 16:42
I had issues stopping my FiL driving when he couldn't see due to cataracts etc. Final straw was the third call from the police to say he had had an accident. I disabled his car and the police put the wind up him.
When I contacted DVLA, they said he had to voluntarily give up driving. I glad he didn't hurt anyone, but he also fell into the self centered old tt category.
I feel for the family involved in this incident, the sentence is way too short
When I contacted DVLA, they said he had to voluntarily give up driving. I glad he didn't hurt anyone, but he also fell into the self centered old tt category.
I feel for the family involved in this incident, the sentence is way too short
I tend to be of the opinion that no sentence is going to undo the damage done, so is purely punitive. The question then becomes how many years sates the desire for vengeance?
I also don't believe that the guy knew, as many don't, the absolute worst thing that could happen if he carried on driving. Now I imagine he's starting to realise.
If circumstances were different and he hit a parked car it would be a complete non event (outside of the person whose car he hit). As it was, he hit & killed a person. My point, I guess, is that his choice to carry on driving wasn't framed in the context of the absolute worst case scenario. I don't even believe he imagined he would have any accident at all, that's part and parcel of being stubborn. He didn't make the choice to carry on driving earnestly believing that there was any chance he could kill someone, in fact the opposite is clearly the case. No one ever makes those decisions with that in mind.
4 years does instinctively feel light, and the lack of remorse, if as reported, is disheartening, but at the same time I can't for a moment accept that there was any premeditation or malice aforethought, certainly no more than any other person who breaks a Law they genuinely feel is victimless at the time.
I also don't believe that the guy knew, as many don't, the absolute worst thing that could happen if he carried on driving. Now I imagine he's starting to realise.
If circumstances were different and he hit a parked car it would be a complete non event (outside of the person whose car he hit). As it was, he hit & killed a person. My point, I guess, is that his choice to carry on driving wasn't framed in the context of the absolute worst case scenario. I don't even believe he imagined he would have any accident at all, that's part and parcel of being stubborn. He didn't make the choice to carry on driving earnestly believing that there was any chance he could kill someone, in fact the opposite is clearly the case. No one ever makes those decisions with that in mind.
4 years does instinctively feel light, and the lack of remorse, if as reported, is disheartening, but at the same time I can't for a moment accept that there was any premeditation or malice aforethought, certainly no more than any other person who breaks a Law they genuinely feel is victimless at the time.
It's a bit too low IMO. For comparison I know a lad who went inside for 1 punch manslaughter, also sentenced to 4 years. Whilst the end result of a life lost was the same there are two significant differences as far as I can see. One, the lad I know handed himself in and admitted guilt, this guy tried to flee, and two he was genuinely remorseful, this guy seemingly isn't. I'd say 6 years would be more apt.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff