130mph, 3 times over the limit, kill someone...

[21TonyK]

Guy I know was killed last November by a speeding drunk driver. Sentencing yesterday, the guy who killed him got 5 years. That's it, mitigated because the guy he killed was also speeding.

Leaves behind a wife and teenage son.

[RSTurboPaul]

What were the circumstances of the incident?

[agtlaw]

This?

https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/news/2020/09...

[21TonyK]

agtlaw said:

This?

https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/news/2020/09...

Yeah.

[anonymous-user]

He should get a few more years for that haircut...

[anonymous-user]

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.

[agtlaw]

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.

[agtlaw]

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?

I have every doubt that the disqualification will be served whilst in prison. The ban will start upon release.

[aka_kerrly]

agtlaw said:

Was it?

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.

[21TonyK]

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.

Read the article, I forgot it was so close to Christmas. Such a waste.

[aka_kerrly]

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.

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.

Yes, as I do this for a living I'm fully aware of how it works, thanks. Legislation rather than 'guidelines.'

I wasn't attempting to undermine your point and am aware of your profession (and the help you have provided on this forum!), i thought it might be helpful for other people to see more so than yourself

[agtlaw]

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.

[anonymous-user]

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.

Read the article, I forgot it was so close to Christmas. Such a waste.

I successfully used the unduly lenient scheme resulting in someone receiving a higher sentence. In those circumstances the sentence was very far from the guidelines. At first glance it doesn't seem to be the case here.

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.

[Teddy Lop]

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?

So long as they weren't racing I don't understand the relevance.

[IroningMan]

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...

[21TonyK]

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.

Read the article, I forgot it was so close to Christmas. Such a waste.

I successfully used the unduly lenient scheme resulting in someone receiving a higher sentence. In those circumstances the sentence was very far from the guidelines. At first glance it doesn't seem to be the case here.

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.

I won't see him for a week or so by which time he might have come to terms with it. He's starting Uni and it may be best for him to just focus on that. Unless he raises it I think I'll just keep quiet, I'm sure he and his Mum are aware anyway.

[Terminator X]

21TonyK said:

agtlaw said:

This?

https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/news/2020/09...

Yeah.

Seems staggeringly lenient from a non lawyer perspective. Out after 2.5 years and carry on with life.

TX.

[Pica-Pica]

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...

[TVR1]

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.

[21TonyK]

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.