130mph, 3 times over the limit, kill someone...
Discussion
Mitigated because the victim was also speeding, I think it is shameful that such a mitigation was accepted by the court.
And no doubt part of the driving ban will be served whilst the perpetrator is at Her Majesties pleasure, surely the ban should start when he gets out and is able to drive again when it will have an effect.
And no doubt part of the driving ban will be served whilst the perpetrator is at Her Majesties pleasure, surely the ban should start when he gets out and is able to drive again when it will have an effect.
In common with all CDDD cases, this is a very sad and tragic case.
It appears that the judge took a starting point of 8 years and after giving D full credit for pleading guilty at the first opportunity, reduced the setentence by approximately one-third. Therefore, 5 years and 3 months immediate custody.
The sentencing judge must have categorised this as a 'level 1' case - "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."
If you, or anyone else, thinks the sentence is too short then you can ask the Attorney General to review the case. https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review
If the AG agrees with you then the case would be referred to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division.
It appears that the judge took a starting point of 8 years and after giving D full credit for pleading guilty at the first opportunity, reduced the setentence by approximately one-third. Therefore, 5 years and 3 months immediate custody.
The sentencing judge must have categorised this as a 'level 1' case - "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."
If you, or anyone else, thinks the sentence is too short then you can ask the Attorney General to review the case. https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review
If the AG agrees with you then the case would be referred to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division.
gottans said:
Mitigated because the victim was also speeding, I think it is shameful that such a mitigation was accepted by the court.
And no doubt part of the driving ban will be served whilst the perpetrator is at Her Majesty's pleasure, surely the ban should start when he gets out and is able to drive again when it will have an effect.
Was it?And no doubt part of the driving ban will be served whilst the perpetrator is at Her Majesty's pleasure, surely the ban should start when he gets out and is able to drive again when it will have an effect.
I have every doubt that the disqualification will be served whilst in prison. The ban will start upon release.
agtlaw said:
Was it?
I have every doubt that the disqualification will be served whilst in prison. The ban will start upon release.
I have every doubt that the disqualification will be served whilst in prison. The ban will start upon release.
guidelines say said:
For offences committed on or after 13 April 2015, where a court imposes a disqualification in addition to a custodial sentence or a detention and training order, the court must extend the disqualification period by one half of the custodial term imposed. This is to take into account the period the offender will spend in custody. This will avoid a driving ban expiring, or being significantly diminished, during the period the offender is in custody (s 30 Criminal Justice and Courts Act, 2015). Periods of time spent on remand or subject to an electronically monitored curfew are ignored.
agtlaw said:
In common with all CDDD cases, this is a very sad and tragic case.
It appears that the judge took a starting point of 8 years and after giving D full credit for pleading guilty at the first opportunity, reduced the setentence by approximately one-third. Therefore, 5 years and 3 months immediate custody.
The sentencing judge must have categorised this as a 'level 1' case - "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."
If you, or anyone else, thinks the sentence is too short then you can ask the Attorney General to review the case. https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review
If the AG agrees with you then the case would be referred to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division.
Thanks, I'll pass on that link to his son, right now he's just angry and can't understand why.It appears that the judge took a starting point of 8 years and after giving D full credit for pleading guilty at the first opportunity, reduced the setentence by approximately one-third. Therefore, 5 years and 3 months immediate custody.
The sentencing judge must have categorised this as a 'level 1' case - "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."
If you, or anyone else, thinks the sentence is too short then you can ask the Attorney General to review the case. https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review
If the AG agrees with you then the case would be referred to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division.
Read the article, I forgot it was so close to Christmas. Such a waste.
agtlaw said:
aka_kerrly said:
agtlaw said:
Was it?
I have every doubt that the disqualification will be served whilst in prison. The ban will start upon release.
I have every doubt that the disqualification will be served whilst in prison. The ban will start upon release.
guidelines say said:
For offences committed on or after 13 April 2015, where a court imposes a disqualification in addition to a custodial sentence or a detention and training order, the court must extend the disqualification period by one half of the custodial term imposed. This is to take into account the period the offender will spend in custody. This will avoid a driving ban expiring, or being significantly diminished, during the period the offender is in custody (s 30 Criminal Justice and Courts Act, 2015). Periods of time spent on remand or subject to an electronically monitored curfew are ignored.
Ok. The disqualification period was 7 years and 3 months. The police press release doesn't actually break this down into the extension and 'discretionary' periods. I suspect that the 'discretionary' disqualfication is period is approx. 5 years with an extension period of approx 2.5 years (less a bit if interim ban imposed during the proceedings). Which means that the 5 year ban takes effect on release (at the half-way point). The sentencing system changed in 2015. Previously, if the judge didn't think about it carefullly then offenders could potentially serve the whole of the ban whilst imprisoned. That no longer happens.
21TonyK said:
agtlaw said:
In common with all CDDD cases, this is a very sad and tragic case.
It appears that the judge took a starting point of 8 years and after giving D full credit for pleading guilty at the first opportunity, reduced the setentence by approximately one-third. Therefore, 5 years and 3 months immediate custody.
The sentencing judge must have categorised this as a 'level 1' case - "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."
If you, or anyone else, thinks the sentence is too short then you can ask the Attorney General to review the case. https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review
If the AG agrees with you then the case would be referred to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division.
Thanks, I'll pass on that link to his son, right now he's just angry and can't understand why.It appears that the judge took a starting point of 8 years and after giving D full credit for pleading guilty at the first opportunity, reduced the setentence by approximately one-third. Therefore, 5 years and 3 months immediate custody.
The sentencing judge must have categorised this as a 'level 1' case - "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."
If you, or anyone else, thinks the sentence is too short then you can ask the Attorney General to review the case. https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review
If the AG agrees with you then the case would be referred to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division.
Read the article, I forgot it was so close to Christmas. Such a waste.
Can't hurt to try but the son will need to manage his expectations as the vast majority are rejected. Just wound't want his hopes pinning on a specific result.
gottans said:
Mitigated because the victim was also speeding, I think it is shameful that such a mitigation was accepted by the court.
And no doubt part of the driving ban will be served whilst the perpetrator is at Her Majesties pleasure, surely the ban should start when he gets out and is able to drive again when it will have an effect.
wouldn't the fact the car he hit was also speeding mitigate the severity of the accident?And no doubt part of the driving ban will be served whilst the perpetrator is at Her Majesties pleasure, surely the ban should start when he gets out and is able to drive again when it will have an effect.
So long as they weren't racing I don't understand the relevance.
Perhaps if he had held out against causing death by dangerous driving and offered to plead guilty to causing death by careless driving he could have escaped jail altogether.
https://road.cc/content/news/driver-killed-cyclist...
https://road.cc/content/news/driver-killed-cyclist...
La Liga said:
21TonyK said:
agtlaw said:
In common with all CDDD cases, this is a very sad and tragic case.
It appears that the judge took a starting point of 8 years and after giving D full credit for pleading guilty at the first opportunity, reduced the setentence by approximately one-third. Therefore, 5 years and 3 months immediate custody.
The sentencing judge must have categorised this as a 'level 1' case - "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."
If you, or anyone else, thinks the sentence is too short then you can ask the Attorney General to review the case. https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review
If the AG agrees with you then the case would be referred to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division.
Thanks, I'll pass on that link to his son, right now he's just angry and can't understand why.It appears that the judge took a starting point of 8 years and after giving D full credit for pleading guilty at the first opportunity, reduced the setentence by approximately one-third. Therefore, 5 years and 3 months immediate custody.
The sentencing judge must have categorised this as a 'level 1' case - "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."
If you, or anyone else, thinks the sentence is too short then you can ask the Attorney General to review the case. https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review
If the AG agrees with you then the case would be referred to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division.
Read the article, I forgot it was so close to Christmas. Such a waste.
Can't hurt to try but the son will need to manage his expectations as the vast majority are rejected. Just wound't want his hopes pinning on a specific result.
21TonyK said:
agtlaw said:
Yeah.TX.
Or in this case, the company’s operating licence was revoked, because it knew about the cab conditions and obscuration. The driver himself got 21 months.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-5...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-5...
gottans said:
Mitigated because the victim was also speeding, I think it is shameful that such a mitigation was accepted by the court.
A very sad, tragic story. As these always are.However, take a second and think about why?
Let’s say, for example, I’m in a bit of a hurry and decide to push on a little bit on my High Road. It’s early, no one’s around so should be all good.
I got to 40 in a 20.
not the end of the world.
However, there’s another driver, whose had a few beers last night and thought the same thing. He was going too fast at the end of his road and missed the stop. Maybe he would’ve done it anyway.
I happened to be speeding as I approached the junction, not expecting anyone to be there.
He hits me. I’m now dead.
He’s now breathalysed. He’s over the limit.
If either of us had not being travelling at that speed, in those circumstances, we would have never met.
That’s mitigation.
TVR1 said:
That’s mitigation.
I won't go into details but what you say pretty much sums it up. He was over the speed limit himself when hit. If he had been under he might have survived, he might not, but his speed contributed to the severity of the accident.Still difficult to take that such a light sentence is right especially since the guilty plea only happened in court, up to then it was all the victims fault.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff