HGV driver kills child and teacher, due to playing on phone
Discussion
https://news.sky.com/story/distracted-hgv-driver-k...
Will be interesting to see the length of sentence imposed by the courts for this.
Will be interesting to see the length of sentence imposed by the courts for this.
un1corn said:
https://news.sky.com/story/distracted-hgv-driver-k...
Will be interesting to see the length of sentence imposed by the courts for this.
Max 14 yrs so he would do 7yrs. He will most likely get 9 yrs and do 4 and a half.Will be interesting to see the length of sentence imposed by the courts for this.
I sometimes think the penalties for dangerous driving are excessive but this is the perfect example of what Dangerous Driving / Death by Dangerous Driving should be used for - he knew he was driving dangerously, and carried on regardless.
His reason, if you can call it that, was not pressure of work or anything of that sort - he just thought amusing himself was more important than others' safety.
Not a question of opinion, like the high speed cases. Not an error, like taking a corner too fast.Surely deserving the top end of the tariff.
His reason, if you can call it that, was not pressure of work or anything of that sort - he just thought amusing himself was more important than others' safety.
Not a question of opinion, like the high speed cases. Not an error, like taking a corner too fast.Surely deserving the top end of the tariff.
poo at Paul's said:
playing f
king fantasy game on his phone when in an HGV!!!! A fking fantasy game..... FFS
Shame he cant get 30 years. what a bellend.
I really don’t understand the banding of time for a sentence. king fantasy game on his phone when in an HGV!!!! A fking fantasy game..... FFSShame he cant get 30 years. what a bellend.
You have done this so you can only get from x to y years as punishment. With the judges hands tied.
Why not have a suggestion of x to y years for a crime but if the judge thinks an exception should be made ie less than x or more than y then it is automatically put to a review after the sentence is passed.
I would imagine 95% of sentences would fall between the proposed banding resulting in no need for an extra review and when some f
ktard like this lorry driver deserves a harsher sentence it can be given but subject to a review by a panel of judges to see if it is too harsh or lenient depending on the circumstances. It seems ludicrous to me that you can only go between the banding points.
Legal folks on here is there in fact such a system. Can the judge go outside the recommendations for death by dangerous driving or are there hands tied.
MB140 said:
I really don’t understand the banding of time for a sentence.
You have done this so you can only get from x to y years as punishment. With the judges hands tied.
Why not have a suggestion of x to y years for a crime but if the judge thinks an exception should be made ie less than x or more than y then it is automatically put to a review after the sentence is passed.
I would imagine 95% of sentences would fall between the proposed banding resulting in no need for an extra review and when some fktard like this lorry driver deserves a harsher sentence it can be given but subject to a review by a panel of judges to see if it is too harsh or lenient depending on the circumstances.
It seems ludicrous to me that you can only go between the banding points.
Legal folks on here is there in fact such a system. Can the judge go outside the recommendations for death by dangerous driving or are there hands tied.
Sentence length is determined by following the guidelines of the sentencing council. You have done this so you can only get from x to y years as punishment. With the judges hands tied.
Why not have a suggestion of x to y years for a crime but if the judge thinks an exception should be made ie less than x or more than y then it is automatically put to a review after the sentence is passed.
I would imagine 95% of sentences would fall between the proposed banding resulting in no need for an extra review and when some f
ktard like this lorry driver deserves a harsher sentence it can be given but subject to a review by a panel of judges to see if it is too harsh or lenient depending on the circumstances. It seems ludicrous to me that you can only go between the banding points.
Legal folks on here is there in fact such a system. Can the judge go outside the recommendations for death by dangerous driving or are there hands tied.
If a sentence is imposed that doesn't follow the guidelines then that leaves it open for an appeal against sentence.
The maximum sentence for an offence is prescribed in the actual legislation & that sets the maximum fine/term of imprisonment that a Judge can impose. There have been cases where a Judge has openly stated that they felt an offender should have had a longer sentence but their hands are tied.
You may recall that there were moves to increase death by dangerous to life imprisonment but nothing has come of it.
MB140 said:
I really don’t understand the banding of time for a sentence.
You have done this so you can only get from x to y years as punishment. With the judges hands tied.
Why not have a suggestion of x to y years for a crime but if the judge thinks an exception should be made ie less than x or more than y then it is automatically put to a review after the sentence is passed.
I would imagine 95% of sentences would fall between the proposed banding resulting in no need for an extra review and when some fktard like this lorry driver deserves a harsher sentence it can be given but subject to a review by a panel of judges to see if it is too harsh or lenient depending on the circumstances.
It seems ludicrous to me that you can only go between the banding points.
Legal folks on here is there in fact such a system. Can the judge go outside the recommendations for death by dangerous driving or are there hands tied.
the judges hands are tied with respect to giving credit for a guilty plea, how much is slightly flexible based on timing etc. but is up to a third which potentially brings the maximum sentence down to less than 10. You have done this so you can only get from x to y years as punishment. With the judges hands tied.
Why not have a suggestion of x to y years for a crime but if the judge thinks an exception should be made ie less than x or more than y then it is automatically put to a review after the sentence is passed.
I would imagine 95% of sentences would fall between the proposed banding resulting in no need for an extra review and when some f
ktard like this lorry driver deserves a harsher sentence it can be given but subject to a review by a panel of judges to see if it is too harsh or lenient depending on the circumstances. It seems ludicrous to me that you can only go between the banding points.
Legal folks on here is there in fact such a system. Can the judge go outside the recommendations for death by dangerous driving or are there hands tied.
They are unlikely to be able to issue consecutive sentences in cases like this. The things that are not set in stone are what the judge can justify as aggravating and mitigating factors and what weight they give to them. This ticks some major aggravating factors and few of the mitigating. Good character is hard for a judge to ignore. He will not automatically be released after half the sentence but will be eligible to apply after half. NB that usually means they serve more than half as the process starts after the application.
There's a bigger issue here, arguing over the idiot's sentence is a bit like discussing how best to shut the door after the horse has bolted.
There's plenty of drivers out there who are behaving just as badly as this guy did, because they know it isn't going to happen to them. Being as they know that, there's no point appealing to their better nature or increasing the sentence for those who cause crashes. What's needed is stricter enforcement, and catching many more culprits.
There's plenty of drivers out there who are behaving just as badly as this guy did, because they know it isn't going to happen to them. Being as they know that, there's no point appealing to their better nature or increasing the sentence for those who cause crashes. What's needed is stricter enforcement, and catching many more culprits.
poo at Paul's said:
playing fking fantasy game on his phone when in an HGV!!!! A grown man, playing a fking fantasy game..... FFS
Shame he cant get 30 years. what a selfish bellend.
playing a fantasy game isn't an issue, it's a bit of fun - playing ANY game whilst driving marks him out as a total bellend king fantasy game on his phone when in an HGV!!!! A grown man, playing a fking fantasy game..... FFSShame he cant get 30 years. what a selfish bellend.
singlecoil said:
There's a bigger issue here, arguing over the idiot's sentence is a bit like discussing how best to shut the door after the horse has bolted.
There's plenty of drivers out there who are behaving just as badly as this guy did, because they know it isn't going to happen to them. Being as they know that, there's no point appealing to their better nature or increasing the sentence for those who cause crashes. What's needed is stricter enforcement, and catching many more culprits.
oh but it's ok because he wasn't speeding... what a sad state of affairs, our driving has been so dumbed down that a 'professional' driver feels he can play games whilst driving There's plenty of drivers out there who are behaving just as badly as this guy did, because they know it isn't going to happen to them. Being as they know that, there's no point appealing to their better nature or increasing the sentence for those who cause crashes. What's needed is stricter enforcement, and catching many more culprits.
(mind you people tweet and up-date facebook rather than concentrate on driving so it's, sadly, not an isolated case). More black-rats would, possibly, mean people concentrate on driving more thoughpaintman said:
MB140 said:
I really don’t understand the banding of time for a sentence.
You have done this so you can only get from x to y years as punishment. With the judges hands tied.
Why not have a suggestion of x to y years for a crime but if the judge thinks an exception should be made ie less than x or more than y then it is automatically put to a review after the sentence is passed.
I would imagine 95% of sentences would fall between the proposed banding resulting in no need for an extra review and when some fktard like this lorry driver deserves a harsher sentence it can be given but subject to a review by a panel of judges to see if it is too harsh or lenient depending on the circumstances.
It seems ludicrous to me that you can only go between the banding points.
Legal folks on here is there in fact such a system. Can the judge go outside the recommendations for death by dangerous driving or are there hands tied.
Sentence length is determined by following the guidelines of the sentencing council. You have done this so you can only get from x to y years as punishment. With the judges hands tied.
Why not have a suggestion of x to y years for a crime but if the judge thinks an exception should be made ie less than x or more than y then it is automatically put to a review after the sentence is passed.
I would imagine 95% of sentences would fall between the proposed banding resulting in no need for an extra review and when some f
ktard like this lorry driver deserves a harsher sentence it can be given but subject to a review by a panel of judges to see if it is too harsh or lenient depending on the circumstances. It seems ludicrous to me that you can only go between the banding points.
Legal folks on here is there in fact such a system. Can the judge go outside the recommendations for death by dangerous driving or are there hands tied.
If a sentence is imposed that doesn't follow the guidelines then that leaves it open for an appeal against sentence.
The maximum sentence for an offence is prescribed in the actual legislation & that sets the maximum fine/term of imprisonment that a Judge can impose. There have been cases where a Judge has openly stated that they felt an offender should have had a longer sentence but their hands are tied.
You may recall that there were moves to increase death by dangerous to life imprisonment but nothing has come of it.
speedyguy said:
Unfortunately more deaths on the motorway.
But it's a good job the motorway had a hard shoulder or that would have been another 2 fatalities to add to the smart motorways bodycount figures.
I wonder if there was a queue on the exit slip road, and traffic queued back into lane 1? People have often on here said they would queue onto the hard shoulder rather than in lane 1, and other have said no, stop in lane 1.....But it's a good job the motorway had a hard shoulder or that would have been another 2 fatalities to add to the smart motorways bodycount figures.
irocfan said:
singlecoil said:
There's a bigger issue here, arguing over the idiot's sentence is a bit like discussing how best to shut the door after the horse has bolted.
There's plenty of drivers out there who are behaving just as badly as this guy did, because they know it isn't going to happen to them. Being as they know that, there's no point appealing to their better nature or increasing the sentence for those who cause crashes. What's needed is stricter enforcement, and catching many more culprits.
oh but it's ok because he wasn't speeding... what a sad state of affairs, our driving has been so dumbed down that a 'professional' driver feels he can play games whilst driving There's plenty of drivers out there who are behaving just as badly as this guy did, because they know it isn't going to happen to them. Being as they know that, there's no point appealing to their better nature or increasing the sentence for those who cause crashes. What's needed is stricter enforcement, and catching many more culprits.
(mind you people tweet and up-date facebook rather than concentrate on driving so it's, sadly, not an isolated case). More black-rats would, possibly, mean people concentrate on driving more thoughsinglecoil said:
irocfan said:
singlecoil said:
There's a bigger issue here, arguing over the idiot's sentence is a bit like discussing how best to shut the door after the horse has bolted.
There's plenty of drivers out there who are behaving just as badly as this guy did, because they know it isn't going to happen to them. Being as they know that, there's no point appealing to their better nature or increasing the sentence for those who cause crashes. What's needed is stricter enforcement, and catching many more culprits.
oh but it's ok because he wasn't speeding... what a sad state of affairs, our driving has been so dumbed down that a 'professional' driver feels he can play games whilst driving There's plenty of drivers out there who are behaving just as badly as this guy did, because they know it isn't going to happen to them. Being as they know that, there's no point appealing to their better nature or increasing the sentence for those who cause crashes. What's needed is stricter enforcement, and catching many more culprits.
(mind you people tweet and up-date facebook rather than concentrate on driving so it's, sadly, not an isolated case). More black-rats would, possibly, mean people concentrate on driving more thoughpoo at Paul's said:
playing fking fantasy game on his phone when in an HGV!!!! A grown man, playing a fking fantasy game..... FFS
Shame he cant get 30 years. what a selfish bellend.
nothing wrong with him playing the game, except whilst driving ofcking fantasy game on his phone when in an HGV!!!! A grown man, playing a fking fantasy game..... FFSShame he cant get 30 years. what a selfish bellend.
agree the sentencing range should be a lot bigger
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff