What the hell is wrong with UK justice??

[Pesty]

I don't know if the sentence was a just one or not because I do not know all the facts of the case and was not there. But obviously the judge/jury thought it serious enough for a long sentence.

The interesting point of this story for me is a bloke got found guilty charged and sentenced.

He then basically got let of because of his job.

I would lose my job too if I went to prison, actually I would lose my job if I got a driving ban. I could lose my job for all mannor reasons, but you or I would not get this second chance.
That seems like an injustice to me, All people shoud be treated equally.

Justice has to be seen to be done. Day after day I see people being let off because of who they are or what they do.
normal plebs get it up the arse and lose their jobs houses wifes gf's etc etc for all mannor of minor things.
At the end of the day two people died he was sent down. to say it does not matter because he was good at is job yet a plumber from Rotherham would have to suck it up does not look like justice to me.

Members of our armed forces get my respect and thanks for doing their job. That does not mean though that they should be treated different in criminal cases to teh rest of us.

Edited by Pesty on Saturday 24th July 12:33

[10 Pence Short]

The jury don't form part of the sentencing. That is down to the Judge.

The lad hasn't appealed the conviction, just the sentence- as is his statutary right. He has argued that the original Judge did not put enough weight on his sentence mitigation in light of all the other evidence at hand.

3 Appeal Court Judges have looked at the case and agreed that more weight should have been placed on the personal circumstances of the offender. More than likely he will have no offending record, an exemplary service record with the RAF and the original Pre Sentence Report from the Probation Service suggesting he is given a suspended sentence.

It's not a specific case about your job being pertinent to your sentence as such; it's about the sentencing Judge putting the appropriate weighting on all the mitigating and aggrevating sentencing features of a case. Where a Defence or Prosecution feels the original sentencing Judge was wrong they can appeal.

[Pesty]

So would they have cut the sentence the same for a plumber carpenter whatever.

Would their mitigating circimstances be held in the same esteem? I don't think so.

It appears to me that he got preferential treatment. They were on his side because of what he does.

The rest of us would be on our own and looking at grey walls for a long time and that stinks.

did your mittigating circumstances keep you ot of prisson? why not did you not face lsoing your job?

Edited by Pesty on Saturday 24th July 12:44

[10 Pence Short]

Pesty said:

did your mittigating circumstances keep you ot of prisson? why not did you not face lsoing your job?

My offence was a more serious charge. I did not choose to use my employment as mitigation.

There will be more to the offence and sentencing than you'll find in the press reporting. The original Judge has seemingly not taken into account things he should have or not weighted them correctly. The Appeal Judges have to make their judgement and reasons public and the press will jump on the most appealing headline writing points.

I don't see it as being a case of where he's employed being the pertinent factor. It's the fact he's employed in a very specific job with the difference between him continuing post-sentence as a productive member of society or having his entire life altered all down to whether his short sentence was suspended or not. I am almost without doubt that the Probation Report would also suggest a suspended sentence, too.

Sentencing is in part down to punishment, but account should also be taken into the effect on the offender in terms of rehabilitation and their future offending patterns. I would imagine its sensible to say continued employment within the RAF is more conducive to remaining legal than being in prison, then released, jobless in the middle of a recession.

[Pesty]

10 Pence Short said:

[Judge has seemingly not taken into account things he should have or not weighted them correctly.

Thanks

This weighting thing is my problem. He seems to have had had more lenient treetment then I or you. Would All people should be weighted the same And it appears to me they are not. Just my feeling

Again just speculation but he has similar circumstances to me. I have never been in trouble etc etc. I do not feel they would have given a st about me losing my job/career. They would not have weigted it as highly as his. We do a similar job but I am not in the RAF. Just my feeling.

My carrer would be finished as well but I would have to change jobs when I got out. There seems to be no punishment at all in his case 100 hours comunity service? two pwople are dead.

10 Pence Short said:

Sentencing is in part down to punishment, but account should also be taken into the effect on the offender in terms of rehabilitation and their future offending patterns. I would imagine its sensible to say continued employment within the RAF is more conducive to remaining legal than being in prison, then released, jobless in the middle of a recession.

It seems wrong that basically the victims are forgotten just so he can continue to be productive member of society. You could say the same about most people with jobs who go before the courts. Where is the pumishment in this case? he carries on as normal same job no time nothing.

does not seem like justice to me even if I am wrong on the weighting. If tehy were my parents I would like to have seem him sent down. I would not be worried about his futrue prospects and career.

Edited by Pesty on Saturday 24th July 13:23

[10 Pence Short]

Pesty said:

10 Pence Short said:

[Judge has seemingly not taken into account things he should have or not weighted them correctly.

Thanks

This weighting thing is my problem. He seems to have had had more lenient treetment then I or you. Would All people should be weighted the same And it appears to me they are not. Just my feeling

Or you could say he was more harshly treated than he should by the original Judge.

[Dunk76]

heebeegeetee said:

I don't think you hit another car hard enough to kill the occupants by accident. The neglect must have been so advanced as to call it criminal irresponsibility at best. I mean come on, you don't just 'mistime' an overtake so badly do you, there has to be a great intent to not care about the other party too, imo.

Nobody would deliberately overtake so as to cause a head-on accident though? Similarly, you can't accurately predict what will kill.

I came off my motorbike at 110mph and survived despite ending up in the scenery. Yet a good mate fell off at 25mph a few weeks later and died instantly without hitting anything other than the tarmac.

Then there's the minor point of what the couple were driving. A classic VW Camper van, for example, is about the worst thing imaginable to have a head-on in.

Finally the age of the deceased must come into it - at 26 years old the human body is still pretty robust, and presumably the overall fitness required by the RAF would improve survivability. Whereas by the time you're 70 your ability to cope with the physical trauma of a car crash is much reduced.

With regards mis-timing an overtake so badly that it could be considered intent to cause harm or danger to others requires a big leap of faith, and how would you prove that intent in court?

I made a mistake once which almost resulted in me getting a flatbed van to the face. I followed several other cars past a stationary lorry on a rural A-Road without properly checking if it was clear. I saw the oncoming van, but didn't judge his speed properly and assumed he would stop for the oncoming traffic now in his lane.

He was going far faster than I thought, and he didn't adjust his speed one bit - not until the car in front of me pulled back into lane and he saw me. It was bloody close that one. There were people who followed me too - it was just we arrived at the same bit of road together, it could have equally been the car behind me who'd got it in the face.

If we had connected, it would have been exceptionally nasty for both of us - although probably worse for him due to the nature of mid-engined vans. Was my move done with intent? Of course not. I made an error of judgement. Was his not slowing down done with intent? Probably he meant to put the wind up the cars who were passing the lorry - intent to cause harm? Again, no. He made an error of judgement.

Both our errors combined to cause a situation to escalate into dangerous situation in a matter of seconds. Had I not made a mistake and passed the lorry, he would have sailed past at 60mph without incident. If he had adjusted his speed earlier, or thought 'big hazard here, I'll slow or stop to let these cars get past the lorry' then again, nothing would have happened.

A newspaper reporting that would have said 'man in car overtaking lorry has head-on with van... van driver dies, car driver seriously injured'.

You're basing your assessment of the RAF chaps circumstances on no more information than that; 26yr old has head on whilst overtaking. elderly couple die, 26yr old airlifted to hospital, later charged with careless driving.

There's plenty of ways of making mistakes on overtakes - mine being an example. Another is a hidden junction or exit. There's the unseen dip in the road. Sunlight can cause distance judgement to be skewed, especially when strobing through trees. Or, he could have just misjudged the speed of the oncoming car, or missed a gearchange on the overtake thus spending longer in the wrong lane, or even the guy he was overtaking may have accelerated (maliciously or not) - again causing him to spend more time out there.

[bonsai]

There seem to be two separate tracks to this that people are discussing

1 - The punishment meted out for causing death by careless driving.

2 - That his original sentence was commuted due to his occupation.


For 1 I am sure that will be beaten back and forth forever more, but I find point 2 to be utterly wrong and incompatible with the view of a evenly applied justice system for all people.

[elster]

bonsai said:

There seem to be two separate tracks to this that people are discussing

1 - The punishment meted out for causing death by careless driving.

2 - That his original sentence was commuted due to his occupation.


For 1 I am sure that will be beaten back and forth forever more, but I find point 2 to be utterly wrong and incompatible with the view of a evenly applied justice system for all people.

I doubt 2 came into it. His Squadron Leader was probably in court as a character reference, nothing more.

[Willie Dee]

Bill said:

t11ner said:

Probably totally different but if we are going to base the justice system purely on the views of people who are emotionally involved then it's going to look pretty messy.

We're after justice, not revenge.

[Ozzie Osmond]

10 Pence Short said:

Or you could say he was more harshly treated than he should by the original Judge.

Which is exactly the point here.

[Mr Dave]

Pesty said:

There seems to be no punishment at all in his case 100 hours comunity service? two pwople are dead.

Where is the pumishment in this case? he carries on as normal same job no time nothing.

Punishing someone for careless driving will not bring the two people back. He made a mistake and killed two people, could have happened to any of us at some point or another.

Where is the benefit to society of locking this guy up? What sentance would you be happy with?

[Jasandjules]

Willie Dee said:

We're after justice, not revenge.

Part of the Justice system is revenge.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Jasandjules said:

Willie Dee said:

We're after justice, not revenge.

Part of the Justice system is revenge.

Spot on. It has to be otherwise individuals will seek that revenge.

[10 Pence Short]

No, it is punishment, not 'revenge'. Revenge implies there needs to be some equality in the level of sufference. Justice is balanced between protecting the public, punishment and rehabilitation.

[Jasandjules]

10 Pence Short said:

No, it is punishment, not 'revenge'. Revenge implies there needs to be some equality in the level of sufference. Justice is balanced between protecting the public, punishment and rehabilitation.

As Mr Annie quite rightly points out, revenge is a part of the system of the CJS because if it were not so, people would take the law into their own hands (though it is called Retribution in the main by the CJS).

It is also part of the social contract by which we are deemed to accept that the State takes action on our behalf for the wrongs we have suffered. Otherwise we are back to anarchy.

[Dixie68]

Pesty said:

I would lose my job too if I went to prison, actually I would lose my job if I got a driving ban. I could lose my job for all mannor reasons, but you or I would not get this second chance.
That seems like an injustice to me, All people shoud be treated equally.

Whoa there horsey! I think you'll find that personnel from the armed forces are treated MORE harshly than the average civilian, not less. If an alleged offence requires you to go to a civilian court then you can guarantee an additional court martial where, unlike civilian courts, you are already assumed to be guilty and have to prove that you are not. You can quite easily lose your job for offences that civilian employers would find trivial, and may have to serve a military prison sentence at lovely Colchester in addition to any the civilian court passes out - along with additional fines.
In cases like this one I am very surprised his appeal was allowed - it's certainly the first time I've ever heard of it happening.
Like you however I am unsure as to why it was allowed.

[Finlandia]

Bill said:

t11ner said:

Probably totally different but if we are going to base the justice system purely on the views of people who are emotionally involved then it's going to look pretty messy.

We're after justice, not revenge.

A Police Officer said:

Its not about 'justice' or 'truth' in court. Its about what can or cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Seems like we're not after justice either, or even the truth.

[Deva Link]

t11ner said:

I don't know any more of the facts than were in the linked article but he was only prosecuted for careless driving, if there was evidence that his original actions deserved a stronger charge surely he would have been done for dangerous driving or even manslaughter?

There's a bit more detail in this article - he was charged with Dangerous Driving but found guilty on the lesser charge. http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Jail-airman...

I think the OP's outburst is OTT but the circumstances do sound iffy, to say the least.

[Halb]

Pesty said:

Members of our armed forces get my respect and thanks for doing their job. That does not mean though that they should be treated different in criminal cases to teh rest of us.

Edited by Pesty on Saturday 24th July 12:33

Agree with that. Whomever it is.

Jasandjules said:

As Mr Annie quite rightly points out, revenge is a part of the system of the CJS because if it were not so, people would take the law into their own hands (though it is called Retribution in the main by the CJS).

It is also part of the social contract by which we are deemed to accept that the State takes action on our behalf for the wrongs we have suffered. Otherwise we are back to anarchy.

I agree. It's part of that contract. Some people here think that sometimes that contract is not held up by those in charge of society, and we get support for vigilante action.