Man buys speedboat “to pull women”......

[Derek Smith]

sugerbear said:

I would imagine allowing someone who has never driven before and was intoxicated to drive your car at twice the speed limit (without a seatbelt) who then subsequently crashed the car and died would mean you ended up with a custodial sentence. Probably not helped by you not coming to assist your friend after the accident.

Sentencing is a bit like history; facts don't matter, it is how it is written.

I know of a case where a man deliberately got drunk, stole his mother's car (he was disqualified for DD some time previously), took his cousin, whom he viewed as a brother (according to the chief spin-doctor), out for a ride and crashed the car, running away, leaving his cousin, whom he viewed as a brother remember, to die in the car. The story at CC was embellished somewhat and the chap was found not guilty.

He was sentenced elsewhere for the disqual driving.

They know what to say, how to say it, and how to out-spin Dervishes do these briefs. He'll probably get off and the briefs will get a lot more than the mere £100,000. You know, just like normal for some.

[anonymous-user]

He's a weasel, I hope he gets some prison justice. If he had stuck around might have had shown some back bone, he has shown himself as a spineless scumbag, who blames everyone else for his actions. Wouldn't be surprised he inst a memer on here.

[Schmeeky]

Jack Shepherd said:

I blamed myself at the time and said I was very drunk and driving too fast,

So he was driving at the time of the crash?

I guess we'll never know as the lass is not around to speak for herself, but from everything I've read about this PoS, blaming a dead girl for his mistake/error/fkup seems like his sort of style...

[Macski]

Schmeeky said:

So he was driving at the time of the crash?

I guess we'll never know as the lass is not around to speak for herself, but from everything I've read about this PoS, blaming a dead girl for his mistake/error/fkup seems like his sort of style...

But it was her choice to go on a boat with no life jacket.

[theboss]

I’ll go against the grain here and say I feel sorry for the guy. If I were in my early 20’s facing a 6 year sentence for playing a role in a tragic accident, being vilified as a killer in the media, with the father goading me about prison treatment, I’d be jumping on the nearest plane too.

The girl is partially responsible for her own demise, as well as as being a victim of tragic misfortune. The guy isn’t innocent in all this but it does seem as though he’s being made a scapegoat IMHO.

[Sa Calobra]

theboss said:

I’ll go against the grain here and say I feel sorry for the guy. If I were in my early 20’s facing a 6 year sentence for playing a role in a tragic accident, being vilified as a killer in the media, with the father goading me about prison treatment, I’d be jumping on the nearest plane too.

The girl is partially responsible for her own demise, as well as as being a victim of tragic misfortune. The guy isn’t innocent in all this but it does seem as though he’s being made a scapegoat IMHO.

You were in his court trial and understand the sentence?

[keith333]

theboss said:

I’ll go against the grain here and say I feel sorry for the guy. If I were in my early 20’s facing a 6 year sentence for playing a role in a tragic accident, being vilified as a killer in the media, with the father goading me about prison treatment, I’d be jumping on the nearest plane too.

The girl is partially responsible for her own demise, as well as as being a victim of tragic misfortune. The guy isn’t innocent in all this but it does seem as though he’s being made a scapegoat IMHO.

Have to disagree with you that this was an accident. He owed the poor girl a duty of care and let her down so badly. I'm assuming she knew nothing about speedboats, so had no idea of how risky this excursion was. He knew, or should have known, the risks and despite being "drunker than I've ever been before", his words, took her out at night, exceeded the speed limit, did not suggest she wear a life jacket and after the accident did nothing to ascertain whether she was okay.

He did so many things wrong which lead me to feel that this was due to his overwhelming negligence rather than just an "accident".

And after all that, he didn't have the backbone to stand in front of a jury, explain his version of the events and face the consequences. He deserves everything that will be thrown at him when he returns to the UK. The world needs far less people of his ilk in it.

[Byker28i]

Sa Calobra said:

theboss said:

I’ll go against the grain here and say I feel sorry for the guy. If I were in my early 20’s facing a 6 year sentence for playing a role in a tragic accident, being vilified as a killer in the media, with the father goading me about prison treatment, I’d be jumping on the nearest plane too.

The girl is partially responsible for her own demise, as well as as being a victim of tragic misfortune. The guy isn’t innocent in all this but it does seem as though he’s being made a scapegoat IMHO.

You were in his court trial and understand the sentence?

The only person who knows what really happened got convicted of manslaughter and did a runner, whilst blaming the victim for everything, blaming her father for a nefarious scheme involving the entire uk court process...
It does rather seem that rich white boy didn't want to face up to his actions

[popeyewhite]

Schmeeky said:

So he was driving at the time of the crash?

Apparently not. Police believe him.

Schmeeky said:

I guess we'll never know as the lass is not around to speak for herself, but from everything I've read about this PoS, blaming a dead girl for his mistake/error/fkup seems like his sort of style...

He hasn't blamed a dead girl. Newspaper reports might have influenced you to come to that conclusion.

Just to clarify, no fault on the boat caused it to crash. The two of them were zigzagging slowly across the Thames at 14 mph, with no loss of control. They hit a log (not uncommon on a big river), and capsized. According to him he asked for her to be pulled from the water first. They were both breathalysed afterwards and she was over the drink drive limit, he was not. The Police originally described the unfortunate event as an accident, until the girl's father 'pressurised' the Police (according to the man's lawyer) to bring charges.

[Pesty]

Macski said:

But it was her choice to go on a boat with no life jacket.

Doesn’t matter

Anyway I could be wrong here the Highway Code nazis will be on my back I’m sure if I am.

If a passenger in my car is not wearing a seatbelt don’t I get fined as it’s my responsibility to make sure they wear one

[kev1974]

popeyewhite said:

Just to clarify, no fault on the boat caused it to crash. The two of them were zigzagging slowly across the Thames at 14 mph, with no loss of control. They hit a log (not uncommon on a big river), and capsized. According to him he asked for her to be pulled from the water first. They were both breathalysed afterwards and she was over the drink drive limit, he was not. The Police originally described the unfortunate event as an accident, until the girl's father 'pressurised' the Police (according to the man's lawyer) to bring charges.

Did Daddy rig the trial as well then?

It was fair as far as I know, and based on whatever evidence was presented, they decided to convict him. That's good enough for me.

All I've heard from Captain Skippy is some whining along the lines of "the time that we left the dock and the time that we reached the other end of the journey are both known facts as is the distance inbetween, and this proves we weren't speeding", err no it doesn't matey, it just proves your average speed wasn't speeding.

[yellowjack]

Pesty said:

Doesn’t matter

Anyway I could be wrong here the Highway Code nazis will be on my back I’m sure if I am.

If a passenger in my car is not wearing a seatbelt don’t I get fined as it’s my responsibility to make sure they wear one

I can't recall the exact age, but no. Unless the unbuckled passenger is a child (I think it's under 14 years old), then you, as the driver, are not responsible for the decision of other adults in your car to wear, or not wear a seat belt. Although in my case, if I noticed a passenger not wearing a belt, then there'd be a corresponding loss of drive (provided safe & legal, etc). This would especially be the case if the unbuckled passenger were sat in a rear seat behind someone else.

If your car were stopped for a passenger not wearing a belt (where fitted), then they would be liable for any FPN or summons resulting from the offence. Off the top of my head, for adults it's a £100 FPN, or up to £500 if dealt with by a court. 3 points for drivers failing to buckle up, and 2 points for passengers caught without a seatbelt on. I'd hope the penalties would be stiffer for a driver who failed to secure kids in proper restraints, but I can't remember back to when my kids were under 14.

[Sa Calobra]

popeyewhite said:

He hasn't blamed a dead girl. Newspaper reports might have influenced you to come to that conclusion.

Just to clarify, no fault on the boat caused it to crash. The two of them were zigzagging slowly across the Thames at 14 mph, with no loss of control. They hit a log (not uncommon on a big river), and capsized. According to him he asked for her to be pulled from the water first. They were both breathalysed afterwards and she was over the drink drive limit, he was not. The Police originally described the unfortunate event as an accident, until the girl's father 'pressurised' the Police (according to the man's lawyer) to bring charges.

If you have the court summary could you share it with us? Or were you sat in the court throughout?

If you've taken it from media reporting please, just don't.

[theboss]

keith333 said:

Have to disagree with you that this was an accident. He owed the poor girl a duty of care and let her down so badly. I'm assuming she knew nothing about speedboats, so had no idea of how risky this excursion was. He knew, or should have known, the risks and despite being "drunker than I've ever been before", his words, took her out at night, exceeded the speed limit, did not suggest she wear a life jacket and after the accident did nothing to ascertain whether she was okay.

He did so many things wrong which lead me to feel that this was due to his overwhelming negligence rather than just an "accident".

And after all that, he didn't have the backbone to stand in front of a jury, explain his version of the events and face the consequences. He deserves everything that will be thrown at him when he returns to the UK. The world needs far less people of his ilk in it.

I agree he was careless and should be held responsible for his actions to a certain degree, but do not confuse him breaching a duty of care with intentionally killing the girl - it was an accident, by definition, unless intentional.

I agree she didn't know anything about speedboats but I also suspect the guy didn't either. There's no legally mandated competency test associated with boat ownership, is there? He was an ignorant of the risks as she was and presumably his life was also at risk when they ended up in the water.

What if it had gone the other way, he had died and she had survived, yet it was ascertained that she was driving at the time? Should she get 6 years?

It just seems like a very harsh sentence in my opinion.

[konark]

Pesty said:

Macski said:

But it was her choice to go on a boat with no life jacket.

Doesn’t matter

Anyway I could be wrong here the Highway Code nazis will be on my back I’m sure if I am.

If a passenger in my car is not wearing a seatbelt don’t I get fined as it’s my responsibility to make sure they wear one

Yes, you are wrong, the passenger gets fined.

[poo at Paul's]

theboss said:

I The guy isn’t innocent in all this but it does seem as though he’s being made a scapegoat IMHO.

I'm not sure who else they can hold to account though!? His boat, his booze, his attempt to impress her, his choice to flee.

[popeyewhite]

Sa Calobra said:

If you have the court summary could you share it with us? Or were you sat in the court throughout?

If you've taken it from media reporting please, just don't.

I've taken it from the same sources as everyone else on this thread you wazzock, the only difference is I'm trying to cast an objective eye on it.

[popeyewhite]

poo at Paul's said:

I'm not sure who else they can hold to account though!? His boat, his booze, his attempt to impress her, his choice to flee.

If it was, in fact, a tragic accident then no one would be held to account.

[Terzo123]

theboss said:

keith333 said:

Have to disagree with you that this was an accident. He owed the poor girl a duty of care and let her down so badly. I'm assuming she knew nothing about speedboats, so had no idea of how risky this excursion was. He knew, or should have known, the risks and despite being "drunker than I've ever been before", his words, took her out at night, exceeded the speed limit, did not suggest she wear a life jacket and after the accident did nothing to ascertain whether she was okay.

He did so many things wrong which lead me to feel that this was due to his overwhelming negligence rather than just an "accident".

And after all that, he didn't have the backbone to stand in front of a jury, explain his version of the events and face the consequences. He deserves everything that will be thrown at him when he returns to the UK. The world needs far less people of his ilk in it.

I agree he was careless and should be held responsible for his actions to a certain degree, but do not confuse him breaching a duty of care with intentionally killing the girl - it was an accident, by definition, unless intentional.

I agree she didn't know anything about speedboats but I also suspect the guy didn't either. There's no legally mandated competency test associated with boat ownership, is there? He was an ignorant of the risks as she was and presumably his life was also at risk when they ended up in the water.

What if it had gone the other way, he had died and she had survived, yet it was ascertained that she was driving at the time? Should she get 6 years?

It just seems like a very harsh sentence in my opinion.

I'm of a similar mind.

What if she had died in his car instead of his boat. She was the one driving, she was the one who crashed. She wasn't forced to do this. They both took a daft risk and unfortunately she lost her life.

[anonymous-user]

popeyewhite said:

If it was, in fact, a tragic accident then no one would be held to account.

I don’t think you understand that a tragic accident can still land you in prison.

You can be involved in a tragic accident, and if you were found to be reckless in some way, you can be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

The maximum penalty is life in prison, but more common sentences for involuntary manslaughter are 2-10 years.

People are free to lark around and have fun in any way they want with all the best intentions, but if someone is killed, there is a chance that a court may send you to prison for what is essentially an accident that no one ever intended to happen.

Which is all perfectly fair enough. We all have a responsibly to not do anything that may possibly result in a death or injury, to ourselves or to others.