Concurrent Sentencing - Causing Death by Dangerous.

[Red 4]

Here we have the tale of a dangerous career criminal.

If you are the typical PH well built, company directing Audi S3 owner who likes to dominate the stairs should a merry band of armed, balaclava clad men come calling at daft o'clock in the morning - this guy may be typical of your unwelcome house guests.

Anyhoo, Patrick Smeda was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment for armed robbery in 2010.
He was released on licence.

In November last year he killed a 16 year old pedestrian - Thomas Edwards.
He was convicted of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.
On Friday he was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.

However, due to the rules on concurrent sentencing, and depending on how you look at it, you could argue that he will not serve any of this 8 year sentence.
He is simply recalled to prison to complete the original 14 year sentence for armed robbery.

The max sentence for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving is 14 years imprisonment btw.
This hardly seems like justice to me.
I don't think it will seem like justice to Thomas Edwards' family and friends.

Previous;
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-new...

Sentence;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-42...

Edited by Red 4 on Sunday 28th January 22:29

[mac96]

So the consequences for Smeda are the same for any offence he might commit whilst on license, provided he got a sentence of less than 14 years for the new offence- ie he serves 7 years. Whether he kills someone on the road, commits a serious assault, or just got himself involved in something trivial. That is as you say, not justice.

Apart from Smeda's case, this system seems to leave no disincentive to the use of violence (short of murder) if interrupted in commission of say a break in whilst on licence with a long previous sentence-if I am understanding it correctly, it's ridiculous

[TooMany2cvs]

No, the consequences aren't the same.

He was sentenced in 2010 to 14 yrs. After 7yrs, he was eligible for parole. He got parole, and was released on licence.
He has now been recalled to prison following another offence. But he is still eligible for parole. He could be released on licence again any time he gets parole. That licence expires in 2024.

BUT...
He has now been sentenced to 8 years. After 4yrs, he will be eligible for parole. He cannot be released on licence from the 2010 sentence before then. That licence expires in 2026.

So he will DEFINITELY serve four years in prison that he might not serve from the original offence.
He will DEFINITELY be on licence for two years longer than he would have been.

[Red 4]

The Judge said if it was up to him then he would have started Smeda's 8 year sentence for Death by Dangerous at the end of his 14 year sentence for Armed Robbery.

However, the Concurrent Sentencing Rules prevent him doing that.

The point is that this sentence doesn't add anything to the time actually served.

He's been recalled to prison but there's nothing added to the original sentence.

Remember, he's taken someone's (a 16 year old's) life.
Smeda was reported to be racing another car.
At the point of impact his speed was 3 times the speed limit.
He fled the scene and left his victim dying in the road.
His previous may give an indication of what sort of person he is.
He was on licence. That didn't seem to bother him or affect his behaviour that night.

This is what the Judge said;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5322013/Ju...

[TooMany2cvs]

Red 4 said:

The point is that this sentence doesn't add anything to the time actually served.

But it does.

Red 4 said:

He's been recalled to prison but there's nothing added to the original sentence.

Yes, and he's now ineligible for parole for four more years, and will be on licence for two more years.

Red 4 said:

He was on licence. That didn't seem to bother him or affect his behaviour that night.

And he'd be back inside for breaching that licence, no matter what happened in the court case. And eligible for parole still.

[Boydie88]

Red 4 said:

The Judge said if it was up to him then he would have started Smeda's 8 year sentence for Death by Dangerous at the end of his 14 year sentence for Armed Robbery.

However, the Concurrent Sentencing Rules prevent him doing that.

The point is that this sentence doesn't add anything to the time actually served.

He's been recalled to prison but there's nothing added to the original sentence.

Remember, he's taken someone's (a 16 year old's) life.
Smeda was reported to be racing another car.
At the point of impact his speed was 3 times the speed limit.
He fled the scene and left his victim dying in the road.
His previous may give an indication of what sort of person he is.
He was on licence. That didn't seem to bother him or affect his behaviour that night.

This is what the Judge said;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5322013/Ju...

Another piss boiler of a case that becomes more depressing the more you read. It's about time sentences in this country are overhauled so people like this don't walk the street again.

[agtlaw]

He killed a child in a road traffic accident and as a consequence will spend at least the next 4 years in prison. The judge could have imposed a longer sentence but there are guidelines to follow. Even though the maximum is 14 years, 8 years is quite heavy for CDDD. It's typically 2-6. The judge may have taken a starting point of 12 years and applied the usual one-third discount for an early guilty plea.

[ElectricPics]

I wouldn't be overly concerned. When he eventually gets released on licence he's bound to start reoffending, and as his track record shows, he'll end up back inside sooner or later. If he doesn't, let's hope one of his competitors removes him from the scene permanently.

[vikingaero]

It's up to us collectively if we want the law changed to reflect tougher sentences. You'll struggle to get anywhere near realistic justice because of the sheer industry of do-gooders

[Red 4]

agtlaw said:

He killed a child in a road traffic accident and as a consequence will spend at least the next 4 years in prison.

.... or alternatively he has breached the terms of his licence and has been recalled to prison with no punishment for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.

Even the Judge passing sentence thinks so.

"It is my task and my duty to apply the law as it stands. It is for parliament to alter it if it is, as it would appear, unjust and contrary to the principles of punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation".

Smeda will be released "having served not a single day in prison preferable solely for this offence".

"That restriction on the court's sentencing powers may well be said by many right thinking people to be adding a gross insult to the incalculable injury already suffered and to be suffered by Thomas Edwards' grieving family".

There is no thought for the victim or his family reflected in this sentence/ the rules.
That should be the main priority.
Not giving pond life like Smeda a break.

[pip t]

Alternatively he's now serving that time for both crimes rather than one or the other.

[agtlaw]

Red 4 said:

.... or alternatively he has breached the terms of his licence and has been recalled to prison with no punishment for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.

Even the Judge passing sentence thinks so.

"It is my task and my duty to apply the law as it stands. It is for parliament to alter it if it is, as it would appear, unjust and contrary to the principles of punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation".

Smeda will be released "having served not a single day in prison preferable solely for this offence".

"That restriction on the court's sentencing powers may well be said by many right thinking people to be adding a gross insult to the incalculable injury already suffered and to be suffered by Thomas Edwards' grieving family".

There is no thought for the victim or his family reflected in this sentence/ the rules.
That should be the main priority.
Not giving pond life like Smeda a break.

Crime committed. Imprisoned as a direct consequence. You say ‘no punishment’ but that’s plainly not what the sentencing judge said. He, quite carefully, said ‘solely for this offence’ - because the defendant is subject to recall for another offence. The judge has expressed an opinion that parliament ought to consider changing the law and that’s probably a sensible suggestion.

[Red 4]

agtlaw said:

Crime committed. Imprisoned as a direct consequence. You say ‘no punishment’ but that’s plainly not what the sentencing judge said. He, quite carefully, said ‘solely for this offence’ - because the defendant is subject to recall for another offence.

Er. No.

The Judge said Smeda "will not serve a single day in prison preferable solely for this offence".

In other words it was preferable, in the Judge's opinion, for Smeda to serve a sentence solely for the D by DD.

Judge Goldstone did choose his words carefully.

I can explain them to you.

But I can't understand them for you.

Alternatively, if you are trying to spin the meaning - 2/10 for that effort.

Edited by Red 4 on Monday 29th January 21:25

[agtlaw]

I have a far better understand of the sentencing regime than a low level police officer.

[Red 4]

agtlaw said:

I have a far better understand of the sentencing regime than a low level police officer.

..... just English that isn't your forte then.

Oh well, nobody's perfect.

Loving the arrogance btw.

Can't say I'm surprised.

Edited by Red 4 on Monday 29th January 21:52