Killer driver spared jail.
Discussion
The big problem seems to have been that a dangerous driving charge wouldn't fly. But I can't see why they didn't try a driving without due care charge. I did read somewhere that if the magistrates reckon a dangerous driving charge hasn't been proven they can still convict for without due care on their own initiative, is this right? If so, why not try this charge anyway?
Still seems a mild penalty for drug driving though.
Still seems a mild penalty for drug driving though.
JNW1 said:
I'm sure one of our current or former law enforcement types will be along shortly to explain why a repeat drug-driving offender killing people when high on drugs (again) is nowhere near as bad as attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice by using a laser jammer....
Not sure why you’re comparing the punishments in 2 completely different situations? We see apparent discrepancies in the level of sentence handed down for different offences all the time which causes various levels of outrage depending on someone’s point of view.In this case I’d agree that on the surface it seems completely inappropriate and he’s got off very lightly.
Likewise with a laser jammer/PTCOJ case I have no issue with the courts coming down hard.
Others may disagree...
Zetec-S said:
JNW1 said:
I'm sure one of our current or former law enforcement types will be along shortly to explain why a repeat drug-driving offender killing people when high on drugs (again) is nowhere near as bad as attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice by using a laser jammer....
Not sure why you’re comparing the punishments in 2 completely different situations? We see apparent discrepancies in the level of sentence handed down for different offences all the time which causes various levels of outrage depending on someone’s point of view.In this case I’d agree that on the surface it seems completely inappropriate and he’s got off very lightly.
Likewise with a laser jammer/PTCOJ case I have no issue with the courts coming down hard.
Others may disagree...
JNW1 said:
Surely part of how you evaluate the appropriateness (or otherwise) of the punishment of an offence is by seeing it in the context of punishment for other offences? Two people killed by a repeat drug driver and no prison sentence, laser jammer used and the person ends-up in jail for their first offence; seems entirely the wrong way round to me....
In an ideal world yes, but that’s not the case. I know there are sentencing guidelines but unless you have just one person handing out every punishment it will always be open to interpretation.So in this case the punishments are inconsistent and I’d agree completely inappropriate for the drug death driver, but I don’t have any sympathy for the laser jammer prison sentence.
Look at it another way - the drug driver got behind the wheel with no real consideration about the consequences of his actions. Likewise I’d say the same about the laser jammer driver. We all enjoy a spirited drive and might not always stick to the posted limit, but I’d argue fitting a jammer suggests a complete disregard for the limits and the potential consequences.
You could argue the drug driver should have been jailed already for one of his earlier (lesser) offences, which might have then prevented these deaths. And in which case surely by jailing the jammer driver it sends out a message and might serve to avoid a future incident? Purely hypothetical of course...
Tough one because on one hand you feel for the people who have lost their loved ones and really haven’t seen any sort of consequence, but on the other the police can only prosecute based upon the facts they have gathered. From the article we know he had smoked cannabis and driven (hence the charge) but was not deemed by the police to be impaired, regardless of how irresponsible it was. We know the men were crossing the road late at night but what we don’t know is the road layout, lighting or how fast the driver was going. I would have thought if there was evidence of his speed being wildly in excess of the limit (for example reducing his warning time and leading the pedestrians to misjudge his speed) then the police would have gone down that avenue?
Zetec-S said:
JNW1 said:
Surely part of how you evaluate the appropriateness (or otherwise) of the punishment of an offence is by seeing it in the context of punishment for other offences? Two people killed by a repeat drug driver and no prison sentence, laser jammer used and the person ends-up in jail for their first offence; seems entirely the wrong way round to me....
In an ideal world yes, but that’s not the case. I know there are sentencing guidelines but unless you have just one person handing out every punishment it will always be open to interpretation.So in this case the punishments are inconsistent and I’d agree completely inappropriate for the drug death driver, but I don’t have any sympathy for the laser jammer prison sentence.
Look at it another way - the drug driver got behind the wheel with no real consideration about the consequences of his actions. Likewise I’d say the same about the laser jammer driver. We all enjoy a spirited drive and might not always stick to the posted limit, but I’d argue fitting a jammer suggests a complete disregard for the limits and the potential consequences.
You could argue the drug driver should have been jailed already for one of his earlier (lesser) offences, which might have then prevented these deaths. And in which case surely by jailing the jammer driver it sends out a message and might serve to avoid a future incident? Purely hypothetical of course...
I might take a different view for a repeat as opposed to first offender but in my view prison places ought to be reserved for people who are a danger to society (like drug drivers who kill people for instance!).
I think the DM need to mention he was a police officer's son and it was a 'powerful' A5 a few more times.
Firstly, the fatal collision is irrelevant. Lots of fatal collisions result in no further action being taken.
That leaves the drug driving. This is aggravated by a previous conviction but possibly mitigated by age.
His other juvenile offences aren't particularly relevant.
In terms of PCOJ with a jammer, is drug driving worse? Quite possibly, but the law isn't always consistent with that people consider worse / less worse e.g. people get cautioned for assaults etc.
Firstly, the fatal collision is irrelevant. Lots of fatal collisions result in no further action being taken.
That leaves the drug driving. This is aggravated by a previous conviction but possibly mitigated by age.
His other juvenile offences aren't particularly relevant.
In terms of PCOJ with a jammer, is drug driving worse? Quite possibly, but the law isn't always consistent with that people consider worse / less worse e.g. people get cautioned for assaults etc.
Why?
The police are the first 'gate keepers' when it comes to filtering out investigations.
If the collision investigation concluded, for example, the pedestrians walked out in to the road leaving the driver with little chance to do anything else, why would it go to the CPS?
There are plenty of mechanisms for the family to appeal any decision they feel is unjust, such as complaints to the police, the IPOC and potentially raising the matter at the inquest.
Sounds like you took the DM's implication.
The police are the first 'gate keepers' when it comes to filtering out investigations.
If the collision investigation concluded, for example, the pedestrians walked out in to the road leaving the driver with little chance to do anything else, why would it go to the CPS?
There are plenty of mechanisms for the family to appeal any decision they feel is unjust, such as complaints to the police, the IPOC and potentially raising the matter at the inquest.
Sounds like you took the DM's implication.
La Liga said:
Why?
The police are the first 'gate keepers' when it comes to filtering out investigations.
If the collision investigation concluded that, for example, the pedestrians walked out in to the road leaving the driver with little chance to do anything else, why would it go to the CPS?
There are plenty of mechanisms for the family to appeal any decision they feel is unjust, such as complaints to the police, the IPOC and potentially raising the matter at the inquest.
not sure how they could do that given a passenger said the driver said he saw people in the road but only braked and didn't do anything else like swerve to avoid them (probably due to reaction time/thought processes while being stoned, imo).The police are the first 'gate keepers' when it comes to filtering out investigations.
If the collision investigation concluded that, for example, the pedestrians walked out in to the road leaving the driver with little chance to do anything else, why would it go to the CPS?
There are plenty of mechanisms for the family to appeal any decision they feel is unjust, such as complaints to the police, the IPOC and potentially raising the matter at the inquest.
wc98 said:
not sure how they could do that given a passenger said the driver said he saw people in the road but only braked and didn't do anything else like swerve to avoid them (probably due to reaction time/thought processes while being stoned, imo).
Did a lack of steering change fall below the standard expected of a competent driver in those circumstances? Certainly can't tell from a couple of lines selected to from a statement. What does the rest of the statement say?
What do the technical sides of the investigation conclude?
Etc etc.
However, see below:
ninepoint2 said:
"Thames Valley Police, who according to the Crown Prosecution Service did not consult the CPS over the case, did not prosecute Coopey for causing death by dangerous or careless driving."
Suggests to me that is because he is a coppers son....
In fact, the article contains this direct quote: Suggests to me that is because he is a coppers son....
DM said:
But a police spokesman said: Thames Valley Police liaised with the Crown Prosecution Service regarding this case, after a full and thorough investigation it was concluded that the evidence gathered did not meet the threshold to charge the driver with a standard of driving offence.
Whereas the CPS isn't a direct quote: DM said:
Asked about the charge, the Crown Prosecution Service told MailOnline that Thames Valley had 'not consulted' with them over the case.
Odd how the DM wouldn't get a direct quote from the CPS. On the face of it, it seems like a travesty, but that article is very one sided.
I don't want to sound like I'm victim blaming, but there's no mention of the victims behaviour. Did they step out in front of him? Were their actions in any way part of the problem?
In previous cases where such a seemingly unjust outcome has been reported other facts have come to light to put the sentence into a better perspective.
I don't want to sound like I'm victim blaming, but there's no mention of the victims behaviour. Did they step out in front of him? Were their actions in any way part of the problem?
In previous cases where such a seemingly unjust outcome has been reported other facts have come to light to put the sentence into a better perspective.
ninepoint2 said:
"Thames Valley Police, who according to the Crown Prosecution Service did not consult the CPS over the case, did not prosecute Coopey for causing death by dangerous or careless driving."
Suggests to me that is because he is a coppers son....
Suggests to me that is because he is a coppers son....
La Liga said:
Why?
The police are the first 'gate keepers' when it comes to filtering out investigations.
If the collision investigation concluded, for example, the pedestrians walked out in to the road leaving the driver with little chance to do anything else, why would it go to the CPS?
There are plenty of mechanisms for the family to appeal any decision they feel is unjust, such as complaints to the police, the IPOC and potentially raising the matter at the inquest.
Sounds like you took the DM's implication.
Strikes me your first point answered that really, "first gatekeepers" are police therefore fellow police will be "appropriately filtered out" to use your own example..The police are the first 'gate keepers' when it comes to filtering out investigations.
If the collision investigation concluded, for example, the pedestrians walked out in to the road leaving the driver with little chance to do anything else, why would it go to the CPS?
There are plenty of mechanisms for the family to appeal any decision they feel is unjust, such as complaints to the police, the IPOC and potentially raising the matter at the inquest.
Sounds like you took the DM's implication.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff