Three jailed for dangerous driving

Three jailed for dangerous driving

Author
Discussion

hiccy18

2,624 posts

66 months

Thursday 5th December 2019
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
kestral said:
The conviction is correct. The sentence is wrong.
Wrong as in the sentencing guidelines were not followed, or wrong because dangerous driving shouldn't be an imprisonable offence?
I suspect neither option, more like "Wrong as in heavy handed punishments for the offenses comitted" suspended sentences would surely have been an effective wakeup call to "thoroughly decent young men" so what is the benefit to society to put two behind bars?

vonhosen

40,198 posts

216 months

Thursday 5th December 2019
quotequote all
yonex said:
vonhosen said:
Wrong as in the sentencing guidelines were not followed, or wrong because dangerous driving shouldn't be an imprisonable offence?
The latter, fairly obviously.
Which would mean, fairly obviously, that it was correct within the current legal framework within which the courts have to operate.
That won't change until people successfully campaign for that change.

Hungrymc

6,642 posts

136 months

Thursday 5th December 2019
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
The public don't want their loved ones hurt before the government acts to discourage dangerous driving.That's reactive not proactive. They scream why wait until they are hurt before dealing with dangerous drivers.

The driving, which is what is being the judged in the dangerous driving offence, is the same whether injury happens or not. It is not somehow considered lesser because no collision or injury happened. All injury does is act as an aggravating factor post dangerous driving actions. Dangerous driving is primarily about the behavioural choices/actions, not the outcomes.

Sentencing will always appear inconsistent to us viewing from outside, because we aren't privy to all the information on which the sentencing decisions were based.
Where sentencing is out of kilter with the sentencing guidelines there are grounds for appeal. As such although we see very different outcomes between cases, the outcome (based on the full information available rather than just reported snippets) tends to be in line with the guidelines as set out for the individual circumstances that the case represented.
The public don’t want their houses burgled, cars stolen, terrorist released to murder..... We’re always told about costs and resources being a n issue.

I’m glad you said the driving judgment again. It is a subjective judgment which I honestly find astonishing.

Talking of aggravating circumstances. What would be the upper limit of the guideline? Let’s say they were on Stolen, un insured bikes and not licensed etc? How much longer would they be sentenced ?

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 5th December 2019
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
Which would mean, fairly obviously, that it was correct within the current legal framework within which the courts have to operate.
That won't change until people successfully campaign for that change.
Always lots of words, but you don't say anything? When I said you do not actually have an opinion, the above very much encapsulates it, ever thought about politics?

May as well talk to a book end.

A quick review suggests 90% of replies on here back the 'it's ridiculous' viewpoint when considering if this punishment is suitable, let alone worthwhile for society.

vonhosen

40,198 posts

216 months

Thursday 5th December 2019
quotequote all
Hungrymc said:
vonhosen said:
The public don't want their loved ones hurt before the government acts to discourage dangerous driving.That's reactive not proactive. They scream why wait until they are hurt before dealing with dangerous drivers.

The driving, which is what is being the judged in the dangerous driving offence, is the same whether injury happens or not. It is not somehow considered lesser because no collision or injury happened. All injury does is act as an aggravating factor post dangerous driving actions. Dangerous driving is primarily about the behavioural choices/actions, not the outcomes.

Sentencing will always appear inconsistent to us viewing from outside, because we aren't privy to all the information on which the sentencing decisions were based.
Where sentencing is out of kilter with the sentencing guidelines there are grounds for appeal. As such although we see very different outcomes between cases, the outcome (based on the full information available rather than just reported snippets) tends to be in line with the guidelines as set out for the individual circumstances that the case represented.
The public don’t want their houses burgled, cars stolen, terrorist released to murder..... We’re always told about costs and resources being a n issue.
You can't lock all of them up, you can lock up a proportion of (the more serious) cases.
You similarly lock up a proportion of the serious cases of dangerous driving.
You don't fill the prison with all murderers, then all rapists, then all robbers because you end up with no room for burglars, fraudsters, arsonists, thieves etc etc.
You'll find the more serious cases of all the offences that imprisonable inside & you'll find a larger percentage of murderers, rapists, robbers, burglars, fraudsters, arsonists, thieves etc with only a very small number of the most dangerous drivers.

Hungrymc said:
I’m glad you said the driving judgment again. It is a subjective judgment which I honestly find astonishing.

Talking of aggravating circumstances. What would be the upper limit of the guideline? Let’s say they were on Stolen, un insured bikes and not licensed etc? How much longer would they be sentenced ?
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/dangerous-driving/

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 5th December 2019
quotequote all
A quick look down this list shows just how daft this is.

https://www.hastingsobserver.co.uk/news/crime/magi...

Same court as the 3 in the original clip.

www.hastingsobserver.co.uk said:
BR, 45, of Powdermill Lane, Battle, pleaded guilty to driving a Land Rover on Mount Pleasant Road, Battle, on May 4, with cocaine in his blood stream. He was fined £150 and banned from driving for one year.
www.hastingsobserver.co.uk said:
CC, 48, of Charles Road West, St Leonards, pleaded guilty to driving a Renault Megane on the A21 at Johns Cross, on July 17, while twice over the drink drive limit. He gave a blood alcohol reading of 167 milligrammes. The legal limit is 80 milligrammes. The court made a community order with an alcohol treatment requirement and banned him from driving for three years.
www.hastingsobserver.co.uk said:
KM, 32, of Duke Road, St Leonards, pleaded guilty to two charges of assault by beating. The offences took place at Hastings on February 17. He also admitted being in breach of a conditional discharge, made by an earlier court for an offence of criminal damage. The court made a community order with a requirement of 80 hours of unpaid work. He was also fined £100 and ordered to pay £200 in prosecution costs.
It's very hard not to say there's an agenda.....

vonhosen

40,198 posts

216 months

Thursday 5th December 2019
quotequote all
yonex said:
vonhosen said:
Which would mean, fairly obviously, that it was correct within the current legal framework within which the courts have to operate.
That won't change until people successfully campaign for that change.
Always lots of words, but you don't say anything? When I said you do not actually have an opinion, the above very much encapsulates it, ever thought about politics?

May as well talk to a book end.

A quick review suggests 90% of replies on here back the 'it's ridiculous' viewpoint when considering if this punishment is suitable, let alone worthwhile for society.
In my opinion there should be an option to imprison for the most serious cases of dangerous driving. Whether this warranted that I don't know because we haven't see all the information available to the court.

Meanwhile on other websites it would no doubt be 90% the other way.

If you want change on how dangerous drivers are dealt with you'll need to garner support on a much wider platform than a motoring website with the tag line 'speed matters'.




Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 5th December 19:23

vonhosen

40,198 posts

216 months

Thursday 5th December 2019
quotequote all
yonex said:
A quick look down this list shows just how daft this is.

https://www.hastingsobserver.co.uk/news/crime/magi...

Same court as the 3 in the original clip.
Was it the same court?
The riders were indicted to the Crown Court, not dealt with at the Magistrates Court.

yonex said:
www.hastingsobserver.co.uk said:
BR, 45, of Powdermill Lane, Battle, pleaded guilty to driving a Land Rover on Mount Pleasant Road, Battle, on May 4, with cocaine in his blood stream. He was fined £150 and banned from driving for one year.
www.hastingsobserver.co.uk said:
CC, 48, of Charles Road West, St Leonards, pleaded guilty to driving a Renault Megane on the A21 at Johns Cross, on July 17, while twice over the drink drive limit. He gave a blood alcohol reading of 167 milligrammes. The legal limit is 80 milligrammes. The court made a community order with an alcohol treatment requirement and banned him from driving for three years.
www.hastingsobserver.co.uk said:
KM, 32, of Duke Road, St Leonards, pleaded guilty to two charges of assault by beating. The offences took place at Hastings on February 17. He also admitted being in breach of a conditional discharge, made by an earlier court for an offence of criminal damage. The court made a community order with a requirement of 80 hours of unpaid work. He was also fined £100 and ordered to pay £200 in prosecution costs.
It's very hard not to say there's an agenda.....
Who'd have thought offences with lower sentencing powers attracted a lower penalty than an offences with higher sentencing powers.

That's before we get onto the headlines tell us very little about the full circumstances that had to be considered during sentencing. Each case rests on it's own facts.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 5th December 2019
quotequote all
Yes, hard to believe assault, serious drink and drug driving are not deemed as serious as dangerous driving.


vonhosen

40,198 posts

216 months

Thursday 5th December 2019
quotequote all
yonex said:
Yes, hard to believe assault, serious drink and drug driving are not deemed as serious as dangerous driving.
Some assaults are more serious, some less serious, each case rests etc etc, so some have/result in higher sentencing & some in lower.

Drink & drug driving is generally regarded as less serious than dangerous driving . There is no requirement for there to be any evidence of impairment/danger, so they can be driving perfectly well just happen to be over a line drawn in the sand). If they drove dangerously whilst drunk then you have your dangerous driving.

Dangerous driving on the other hand does require danger of injury/serious damage, as well as the driving falling far below the standards expected.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 5th December 2019
quotequote all
Hmm. So no danger of poor driving whilst your nose is full of coke, or being twice over the limit.

vonhosen

40,198 posts

216 months

Thursday 5th December 2019
quotequote all
yonex said:
Hmm. So no danger of poor driving whilst your nose is full of coke, or being twice over the limit.
There is a risk of it, but if you are not actually driving dangerously you are not driving dangerously, so you are only committing the lesser offence. In exactly the same way that if you are exceeding the speed limit (rather than say the drink drive limit) you are only guilty of driving dangerously if you are actually driving dangerously. If you aren't it's the lesser offence of exceeding the speed limit.

hiccy18

2,624 posts

66 months

Thursday 5th December 2019
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
Some assaults are more serious, some less serious, each case rests etc etc, so some have/result in higher sentencing & some in lower.

Drink & drug driving is generally regarded as less serious than dangerous driving . There is no requirement for there to be any evidence of impairment/danger, so they can be driving perfectly well just happen to be over a line drawn in the sand). If they drove dangerously whilst drunk then you have your dangerous driving.

Dangerous driving on the other hand does require danger of injury/serious damage, as well as the driving falling far below the standards expected.
Careful there: drink driving limits aren't an arbitary "line drawn in the sand", it's a statistically proven level beyond which driving is impaired, reactions are slower and coordination is more clumsy coupled with a false feeling of confidence.

vonhosen

40,198 posts

216 months

Thursday 5th December 2019
quotequote all
hiccy18 said:
vonhosen said:
Some assaults are more serious, some less serious, each case rests etc etc, so some have/result in higher sentencing & some in lower.

Drink & drug driving is generally regarded as less serious than dangerous driving . There is no requirement for there to be any evidence of impairment/danger, so they can be driving perfectly well just happen to be over a line drawn in the sand). If they drove dangerously whilst drunk then you have your dangerous driving.

Dangerous driving on the other hand does require danger of injury/serious damage, as well as the driving falling far below the standards expected.
Careful there: drink driving limits aren't an arbitary "line drawn in the sand", it's a statistically proven level beyond which driving is impaired, reactions are slower and coordination is more clumsy coupled with a false feeling of confidence.
But not for all people, you'll see people who are over the prescribed limit who show no visible signs of impairment in their driving. It's done on averages but not all people react in the same way.
The reason the offence was introduced was so that you can bring prosecutions without having to show that, just as with exceeding the speed limit there is no need to show evidence that it was to the detriment of safety or anything else.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 5th December 2019
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
There is a risk of it, but if you are not actually driving dangerously you are not driving dangerously, so you are only committing the lesser offence. In exactly the same way that if you are exceeding the speed limit (rather than say the drink drive limit) you are only guilty of driving dangerously if you are actually driving dangerously. If you aren't it's the lesser offence of exceeding the speed limit.
rofl

hiccy18

2,624 posts

66 months

Thursday 5th December 2019
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
hiccy18 said:
vonhosen said:
Some assaults are more serious, some less serious, each case rests etc etc, so some have/result in higher sentencing & some in lower.

Drink & drug driving is generally regarded as less serious than dangerous driving . There is no requirement for there to be any evidence of impairment/danger, so they can be driving perfectly well just happen to be over a line drawn in the sand). If they drove dangerously whilst drunk then you have your dangerous driving.

Dangerous driving on the other hand does require danger of injury/serious damage, as well as the driving falling far below the standards expected.
Careful there: drink driving limits aren't an arbitary "line drawn in the sand", it's a statistically proven level beyond which driving is impaired, reactions are slower and coordination is more clumsy coupled with a false feeling of confidence.
But not for all people, you'll see people who are over the prescribed limit who show no visible signs of impairment in their driving. It's done on averages but not all people react in the same way.
The reason the offence was introduced was so that you can bring prosecutions without having to show that, just as with exceeding the speed limit there is no need to show evidence that it was to the detriment of safety or anything else.
That's not true: people may cope with alcohol impairment differently and have different ways of coping with it but their reactions, coordination and judgement are still impaired. No one is as capable drunk as they are sober; that's the same for all people.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 5th December 2019
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
But not for all people, you'll see people who are over the prescribed limit who show no visible signs of impairment in their driving. It's done on averages but not all people react in the same way.
The reason the offence was introduced was so that you can bring prosecutions without having to show that, just as with exceeding the speed limit there is no need to show evidence that it was to the detriment of safety or anything else.
So if one of the guys in the clip was a WSB rider we could safely say that there was actually no risk?

trickywoo

11,701 posts

229 months

Thursday 5th December 2019
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
But not for all people, you'll see people who are over the prescribed limit who show no visible signs of impairment in their driving.
I think we’ve found the measure of vonhosen.

It’s ok to be pissed or drugged off your nut on the road, if you look ‘normal’, but pop a wheelie in full control and it’s off to jail with you.

Idiot. Everyone should just ignore him until he goes away.

Prof Prolapse

16,160 posts

189 months

Thursday 5th December 2019
quotequote all
Some of us did...

Countdown

39,689 posts

195 months

Thursday 5th December 2019
quotequote all
hiccy18 said:
vonhosen said:
hiccy18 said:
vonhosen said:
Some assaults are more serious, some less serious, each case rests etc etc, so some have/result in higher sentencing & some in lower.

Drink & drug driving is generally regarded as less serious than dangerous driving . There is no requirement for there to be any evidence of impairment/danger, so they can be driving perfectly well just happen to be over a line drawn in the sand). If they drove dangerously whilst drunk then you have your dangerous driving.

Dangerous driving on the other hand does require danger of injury/serious damage, as well as the driving falling far below the standards expected.
Careful there: drink driving limits aren't an arbitary "line drawn in the sand", it's a statistically proven level beyond which driving is impaired, reactions are slower and coordination is more clumsy coupled with a false feeling of confidence.
But not for all people, you'll see people who are over the prescribed limit who show no visible signs of impairment in their driving. It's done on averages but not all people react in the same way.
The reason the offence was introduced was so that you can bring prosecutions without having to show that, just as with exceeding the speed limit there is no need to show evidence that it was to the detriment of safety or anything else.
That's not true: people may cope with alcohol impairment differently and have different ways of coping with it but their reactions, coordination and judgement are still impaired. No one is as capable drunk as they are sober; that's the same for all people.
I think you're both agreeing with each other. People who may have drunk the same amount of alcohol will probably not suffer the same level of impairment, some may be seriously impaired, others hardly at all.

The thing is, we all know what the alcohol limit is, but hardcore drinkers will argue that they're "perfectly safe" even when they're over the limit, and the Police are picking on them unfairly, it's not as if they've killed anybody, why aren't the cops concentrating on real criminals......