Is this sentence appropriate (death by dangerous driving)
Discussion
Sentencing guidelines - https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/up...
He pleaded guilty, so received a discount for that. With that taken into account, its sounds like he's pretty much slap-bang in the middle of a level 2 offence. 5yr starting point, 4-7yr range.
Ignoring his eyesight, don't forget that there's a minimum 2yr ban, with an extended test to regain his licence. He is not going to pass that, is he?
He pleaded guilty, so received a discount for that. With that taken into account, its sounds like he's pretty much slap-bang in the middle of a level 2 offence. 5yr starting point, 4-7yr range.
Ignoring his eyesight, don't forget that there's a minimum 2yr ban, with an extended test to regain his licence. He is not going to pass that, is he?
The guidelines said:
Levels of seriousness
The 3 levels are distinguished by factors related predominantly to the standard of driving; the general description of the degree of risk is complemented by examples of the type of bad driving arising. The presence of aggravating factors or combinations of a small number of determinants of seriousness will increase the starting point within the range. Where there is a larger group of determinants of seriousness and/or aggravating factors, this may justify moving the starting point to the next level.
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. Such offences are likely to be characterised by:
• A prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving
AND/OR
• Consumption of substantial amounts of alcohol or drugs leading to gross impairment
AND/OR
• A group of determinants of seriousness which in isolation or smaller number would place the offence in level 2
Level 1 is that for which the increase in maximum penalty was aimed primarily. Where an offence involves both of the determinants of seriousness identified, particularly if accompanied by aggravating factors such as multiple deaths or injuries, or a very bad driving record, this may move an offence towards the top of the sentencing range.
Level 2 –
This is driving that created a substantial risk of danger and is likely to be characterised by:
• Greatly excessive speed, racing or competitive driving against another driver
OR
• Gross avoidable distraction such as reading or composing text messages over a period of time
OR
• Driving whilst ability to drive is impaired as a result of consumption of alcohol or drugs, failing to take prescribed medication or as a result of a known medical condition
OR
• A group of determinants of seriousness which in isolation or smaller number would place the offence in level 3
Level 3 –
This is driving that created a significant risk of danger and is likely to be characterised by:
• Driving above the speed limit/at a speed that is inappropriate for the prevailing conditions
OR
• Driving when knowingly deprived of adequate sleep or rest or knowing that the vehicle has a dangerous defect or is poorly maintained or is dangerously loaded
OR
• A brief but obvious danger arising from a seriously dangerous manoeuvre
OR
• Driving whilst avoidably distracted
OR
• Failing to have proper regard to vulnerable road users
The starting point and range overlap with Level 2 is to allow the breadth of discretion necessary to accommodate circumstances where there are significant aggravating factors.
Middle of L2 sounds about the right place within those guidelines, IYAM. So if you've got a problem with 4yr, then take it up with the sentencing guidelines council, not the judge.The 3 levels are distinguished by factors related predominantly to the standard of driving; the general description of the degree of risk is complemented by examples of the type of bad driving arising. The presence of aggravating factors or combinations of a small number of determinants of seriousness will increase the starting point within the range. Where there is a larger group of determinants of seriousness and/or aggravating factors, this may justify moving the starting point to the next level.
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. Such offences are likely to be characterised by:
• A prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving
AND/OR
• Consumption of substantial amounts of alcohol or drugs leading to gross impairment
AND/OR
• A group of determinants of seriousness which in isolation or smaller number would place the offence in level 2
Level 1 is that for which the increase in maximum penalty was aimed primarily. Where an offence involves both of the determinants of seriousness identified, particularly if accompanied by aggravating factors such as multiple deaths or injuries, or a very bad driving record, this may move an offence towards the top of the sentencing range.
Level 2 –
This is driving that created a substantial risk of danger and is likely to be characterised by:
• Greatly excessive speed, racing or competitive driving against another driver
OR
• Gross avoidable distraction such as reading or composing text messages over a period of time
OR
• Driving whilst ability to drive is impaired as a result of consumption of alcohol or drugs, failing to take prescribed medication or as a result of a known medical condition
OR
• A group of determinants of seriousness which in isolation or smaller number would place the offence in level 3
Level 3 –
This is driving that created a significant risk of danger and is likely to be characterised by:
• Driving above the speed limit/at a speed that is inappropriate for the prevailing conditions
OR
• Driving when knowingly deprived of adequate sleep or rest or knowing that the vehicle has a dangerous defect or is poorly maintained or is dangerously loaded
OR
• A brief but obvious danger arising from a seriously dangerous manoeuvre
OR
• Driving whilst avoidably distracted
OR
• Failing to have proper regard to vulnerable road users
The starting point and range overlap with Level 2 is to allow the breadth of discretion necessary to accommodate circumstances where there are significant aggravating factors.
s3fella said:
carreauchompeur said:
To me, it seems a pretty reasonable sentence, presumably there was no other 'dangerousness' evidenced in the driving?
Surely driving whilst unable to see is fairly high on the "driving like a 
" scale? Even you must concede that? Derek Smith said:
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.
Oh come now, you know full well what I was saying. To fall below the eyesight standard required by law even wearing spectacles is fairly significant. I think the colloquial use of 'driving blind' applies well enough in the context. 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
Another point or two with regards the punishment:
We are near the top of the European league for imprisonment of offenders. Despite the number of offences dropping significantly, we now imprison twice as many as we did in the early 90s. All this despite the research showing that prison generally doesn't work when compared to other forms of punishment. It is also tremendously expensive.
So spaces are numbered.
I'm not suggesting that prison was not appropriate in this case. From the bare circumstances published I feel that this was, but printed media being printed media, they would have ensured that there was something about the case to wind everyone up. Perhaps there wasn't anything to balance the horrendous outcome. Perhaps there was.
But my feeling is that we need to be particular. If this was as unmitigated as it is reported, then four years, or two in all probability, seems lenient but the guidelines given to judges will take into consideration the fact that our prisons are bursting at the seems.
The desire for retribution is natural and needs to be considered. However there are many other things that must be taken into consideration in sentencing.
Other countries are able to punish and reduce recidivism without resorting to imprisonment to the degree that we do.
The general rule is that most judges use a degree of logic tempered to a reasonable degree of consideration of victims, or in this case the next of kin. I'm willing to bet that the judge picked the right punishment given the limitations imposed on him or her.
They often do.
However, that does not mean it is appropriate. If it is not, it is unlikely to be the fault of his/her honour.
We are near the top of the European league for imprisonment of offenders. Despite the number of offences dropping significantly, we now imprison twice as many as we did in the early 90s. All this despite the research showing that prison generally doesn't work when compared to other forms of punishment. It is also tremendously expensive.
So spaces are numbered.
I'm not suggesting that prison was not appropriate in this case. From the bare circumstances published I feel that this was, but printed media being printed media, they would have ensured that there was something about the case to wind everyone up. Perhaps there wasn't anything to balance the horrendous outcome. Perhaps there was.
But my feeling is that we need to be particular. If this was as unmitigated as it is reported, then four years, or two in all probability, seems lenient but the guidelines given to judges will take into consideration the fact that our prisons are bursting at the seems.
The desire for retribution is natural and needs to be considered. However there are many other things that must be taken into consideration in sentencing.
Other countries are able to punish and reduce recidivism without resorting to imprisonment to the degree that we do.
The general rule is that most judges use a degree of logic tempered to a reasonable degree of consideration of victims, or in this case the next of kin. I'm willing to bet that the judge picked the right punishment given the limitations imposed on him or her.
They often do.
However, that does not mean it is appropriate. If it is not, it is unlikely to be the fault of his/her honour.
99dndd said:
I think age plays a part too in sentencing too. 4 years is just below half of the time before he reaches the UK life expectancy (81.5 years according to Google) so it appears a fairer sentence in the light of that.
I think him dying in jail may be apt punishment for denying a 3 year old the rest of her life; Jail time can be used to punish or rehabilitate, in this case there is no chance of rehabilitating him in my opinion in time for him to be useful/productive.I dont see it as a suitable time in. I would have put 8 years. 10% of his life.
I read also that the parents are unable to have any other children. Such pain they must feel and a sad loss of life of the girl.
I'm sure the Father or Mother will be weighing up if they think the punishment is suitable and perhaps may extract further justice in a few years time if they feel that justice at this time was not suitably served or appropriate.
Fek me - when he gets out - if the father or Mother runs the old guy down in a car, saying you didn't see him - sorry. may get a similar sentence......perhaps worth it to them?
I read also that the parents are unable to have any other children. Such pain they must feel and a sad loss of life of the girl.
I'm sure the Father or Mother will be weighing up if they think the punishment is suitable and perhaps may extract further justice in a few years time if they feel that justice at this time was not suitably served or appropriate.
Fek me - when he gets out - if the father or Mother runs the old guy down in a car, saying you didn't see him - sorry. may get a similar sentence......perhaps worth it to them?
Pacman1978 said:
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. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff