Amazed he didn't get locked up

[anonymous-user]

Must have had a good solicitor.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/great...

[hyphen]

Wow.

Not even a suspended sentence. Someone could easily have died there.

[easy_rider33]

People like this are scum and should have the book thrown at them and never allowed to drive again. Unfortunately we have a poor judicial system. Pathetic.

[Countdown]

Good thing the Lorry driver had a dashcam.

[carreauchompeur]

Yeah, that’s good defending... sentence however is right near the top end of CS, one step off custody.

Ejiofor Jovita Chijoke, also known as Ejiofor Chijoke Jovita,

[NMNeil]

They call it a 'brake check' here.
Pull in front of another vehicle and slam your brakes on because you were checking them or you say that something ran out in front of you. Then claim whiplash and lots of money.

Doesn't always work though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufQPDJnmgdA

[anonymous-user]

Seems very lenient. It's one thing doing it in an urban environment and another on the motorway.

[Caddyshack]

I think the sentencing judge needs someone to do this to them and maybe the next idiot will get the deserved jail time.

[ambuletz]

deliberately trying to do insurance fraud... so now nobody would ever want to insure him right?

[Caddyshack]

ambuletz said:

deliberately trying to do insurance fraud... so now nobody would ever want to insure him right?

Not sure what they would need to disclose, just a record?

[kestral]

The colision was actually caused by the lorry driving too close to the van. The defendants vehicle was not hit by the van. The lorry driver was at fault for driving too close to the vehicle in front.

[anonymous-user]

kestral said:

The colision was actually caused by the lorry driving too close to the van. The defendants vehicle was not hit by the van. The lorry driver was at fault for driving too close to the vehicle in front.

Not sure I agree. The truck seemed a reasonable distance, however perhaps didn't react on the brakes as soon as he might, but then he could see ahead that there was no reason for the Mercedes to brake in front of the van, so it shouldnt be a surprise that it took him by surprise. I can't see anything in the truck driving that falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver.

[ninepoint2]

kestral said:

The colision was actually caused by the lorry driving too close to the van. The defendants vehicle was not hit by the van. The lorry driver was at fault for driving too close to the vehicle in front.

[aka_kerrly]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

Seems very lenient. It's one thing doing it in an urban environment and another on the motorway.

What? It shouldn't matter one bit what type of road someone deliberately causes a crash on.

article says said:

Chijoke made an insurance claim to AXA for whiplash, stating the van driver had ploughed into the back of his vehicle.

After he was arrested, Chijoke gave police a number of fake addresses to stop officers searching his home, before eventually giving the correct address in Oldham.

A bit of insurance fraud and misleading the police about your home address, doesn't he sound like an upstanding citizen!
I wouldn't let him drive a car again.

[anonymous-user]

aka_kerrly said:

It shouldn't matter one bit what type of road someone deliberately causes a crash on.

You don't believe there's a difference in risk causing a collision between a multi-lane carriageway where many vehicles are in close proximity at high speed and an urban 30mph single carriageway?

[aka_kerrly]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

aka_kerrly said:

It shouldn't matter one bit what type of road someone deliberately causes a crash on.

You don't believe there's a difference in risk causing a collision between a multi-lane carriageway where many vehicles are in close proximity at high speed and an urban 30mph single carriageway?

It shouldn't matter!

When someone has created risk to those around them by deliberately causing an accident in order to defraud an insurance company I want to seem them banned/fined/imprisoned regardless if they tried it to a granny on the b1047 @30mph or the trucker on the M4!

[efcgriswold]

kestral said:

The colision was actually caused by the lorry driving too close to the van. The defendants vehicle was not hit by the van. The lorry driver was at fault for driving too close to the vehicle in front.

Is that you Chijoke?

[Triumph Man]

efcgriswold said:

kestral said:

The colision was actually caused by the lorry driving too close to the van. The defendants vehicle was not hit by the van. The lorry driver was at fault for driving too close to the vehicle in front.

Is that you Chijoke?

He must be Chijoking!

[MontyPythonX]

aka_kerrly said:

I wouldn't let him drive a car again.

article said:

banned from driving for a year

Do you think not being "allowed" to drive will actually stop someone like this from driving?

[carreauchompeur]

MontyPythonX said:

Do you think not being "allowed" to drive will actually stop someone like this from driving?

It has a degree of deterrent and provides another level of enforcement option.

Although current sentence for first offence of driving whilst disqual seems to be 6 points.