Jail and lifetime ban for criminal with 276 convictions.
Discussion
Without even reading the headline I could have guessed he'd be from West Belfast.
If anyone didn't know it's basically scum central full of joyriders.
Anyone mentioned the Divis Hoods car crime gang yet.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-natio...
If anyone didn't know it's basically scum central full of joyriders.
Anyone mentioned the Divis Hoods car crime gang yet.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-natio...
Edited by CMYKguru on Sunday 4th January 01:58
The problem with giving him life time bans is it might open the door to a human rights appeal. If they could have given him 3 10 year bans consecutively, that would have been more than sufficient for life for a 49 year old with a drink problem. And even if they had to be concurrent, you can almost guarantee he'd reoffend before the time was up so never actually come off the ban.
If you were representing him would you bother saying anything ?! It shows that somewhere there can be a reason for his actions but to be honest why can't everyone just agree that: yes, this waste of a life is beyond excuses; using a 'tragic' incident where a child was injured /killed? due to someone elses driving as an excuse for his behaviour is just laughable.
I have no idea how a person like that could be stopped?! What would PH do??
Involuntary disablement?
I have no idea how a person like that could be stopped?! What would PH do??
Involuntary disablement?
LoonR1 said:
It's his third lifetime ban. Not that the others made any difference.
Re-read... His previous ban was "only" ten years. It's in this hearing that he's had three lifetime bans.The local paper said:
the court learned he had previously received a 10-year ban for drink-driving.
He was charged with driving while disqualified - following the previous drink-driving offences - and driving without insurance, receiving concurrent five-month prison sentences for each. Both sentences were accompanied by a lifetime driving ban.
District Judge Mark Hamill imposed a further lifetime driving ban and five-month prison sentence for driving while unfit through drink or drugs - to run consecutively - giving him a total of 10 months in jail.
The sentences related to the manner of his driving at Belvoir Road in Belfast on July 1, 2014.
But you're right that he doesn't seem to regard a ban as a great deterrent, although it does seem to have been a bit of one. Allegedly.He was charged with driving while disqualified - following the previous drink-driving offences - and driving without insurance, receiving concurrent five-month prison sentences for each. Both sentences were accompanied by a lifetime driving ban.
District Judge Mark Hamill imposed a further lifetime driving ban and five-month prison sentence for driving while unfit through drink or drugs - to run consecutively - giving him a total of 10 months in jail.
The sentences related to the manner of his driving at Belvoir Road in Belfast on July 1, 2014.
The local paper said:
Counsel for Tully said there had been a gap of a number of years between his 10-year driving ban and reoffending, showing "there has been some restraint and compliance" with the ban.
Well, that's OK, then...The local paper said:
The judge expressed concern that Tully's case had been brought before a Magistrates Court, where the maximum sentence for dangerous driving was six months, in contrast to the maximum of 10 years at Crown Court.
The judge continued by insisting the directing PSNI officer in charge of the case be asked why Tully's case hadn't been brought before the higher court.
Does seem a bit odd.The judge continued by insisting the directing PSNI officer in charge of the case be asked why Tully's case hadn't been brought before the higher court.
The local paper said:
On Monday Tully was jailed for 15 months for his part in a shoplifting spree in December 2013.
Judge Piers Grant QC said on Monday that after hearing "eloquent pleas" it was clear that Tully had learned "absolutely nothing" from his previous offending, and continued with his lifestyle choices, leaving others to pick up the pieces.
Still, he's probably not going to get too much chance to be driving at this rate.Judge Piers Grant QC said on Monday that after hearing "eloquent pleas" it was clear that Tully had learned "absolutely nothing" from his previous offending, and continued with his lifestyle choices, leaving others to pick up the pieces.
Pope said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Can't drive if he's inside...
He'll be out in? Eight months?? Then what?? Pope said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Can't drive if he's inside...
He'll be out in? Eight months?? Then what?? Once his sentence is over, then he'll still be driving whilst disqual, for which jail is an option at trial. He's either going to spend a LONG time shuttling back-and-forth, inside-and-outside or he's going to get the clue.
TooMany2cvs said:
Pope said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Can't drive if he's inside...
He'll be out in? Eight months?? Then what?? Once his sentence is over, then he'll still be driving whilst disqual, for which jail is an option at trial. He's either going to spend a LONG time shuttling back-and-forth, inside-and-outside or he's going to get the clue.
Steffan said:
Indeed. With all such self serving recalcitrant offenders long term exclusion from society is the only effective preventative. Since our legal system does not provide that method the offender will reoffend repeatedly within days of release. Such individuals cannot be offered freedom if they are to be prevented from constantly reoffending. Our rehabilitation of offenders has been ineffective for most of out history. Regrettably unless exclusion from society and therefore exclusion of risk to society is achieved these cases will continue.
Is rehabilitation any less effective than simply locking people up? Despite having a high prison population relative to other European countries we don't have lower crime levels.Steffan said:
Given the history I think reoffending is the high probability. Given the danger to other road users and the even higher probability the reoffender will ignore details like insurance (if honest On the application he will get one) I think this s a serious risk to other road users. That is mm concern and I do not think he should be released until he changes his ways. Sadly our judicial system is wholly ineffective against recalcitrant miscreants. As the retreated reoffending rates confirm.
So you like the idea of living in a country where any judge can impose what is effectively an indefinite prison sentence for any offence, because he doesn't much like the accused...? I don't.Offences have maximum sentences, and they have sentencing guidelines. Any sentencing outside those guidelines is going to get taken to appeal, and is going to get taken back to a less atypical sentence. Nothing at all would be achieved by the judge having a rant and throwing the key away, other than ensure an (successful) appeal.
Maximum sentences are surely meant to be a deterrent? The threat of returning to prison obviously isn't going to phase this offender (and are we naive enough to think the 'only time' he reoffended was the time he was caught?!?)
The tool that entered a live race circuit in his gf's car got seven years; are his actions worse than this serial disregard towards a civil society??
The tool that entered a live race circuit in his gf's car got seven years; are his actions worse than this serial disregard towards a civil society??
Pope said:
The tool that entered a live race circuit in his gf's car got seven years; are his actions worse than this serial disregard towards a civil society??
He was tried in a crown court. This guy was tried in a magistrate's court, where the length of prison sentence that can be imposed is much more limited... <points up to article quote in earlier reply>The local paper said:
The judge expressed concern that Tully's case had been brought before a Magistrates Court, where the maximum sentence for dangerous driving was six months, in contrast to the maximum of 10 years at Crown Court.
The judge continued by insisting the directing PSNI officer in charge of the case be asked why Tully's case hadn't been brought before the higher court.
The judge continued by insisting the directing PSNI officer in charge of the case be asked why Tully's case hadn't been brought before the higher court.
Pope said:
Maximum sentences are surely meant to be a deterrent? The threat of returning to prison obviously isn't going to phase this offender (and are we naive enough to think the 'only time' he reoffended was the time he was caught?!?)
The tool that entered a live race circuit in his gf's car got seven years; are his actions worse than this serial disregard towards a civil society??
Where did you get that from? He got 8 months. The tool that entered a live race circuit in his gf's car got seven years; are his actions worse than this serial disregard towards a civil society??
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff