New sentencing guidelines and new offence
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27285078
Causing death whilst driving disqualified to have a maximum sentence of 10yrs in jail, up from 2yrs. New crime of causing serious injury while driving disqualified to have maximum sentence of 4yrs in jail.
Do you think this will be a discouragement?
Causing death whilst driving disqualified to have a maximum sentence of 10yrs in jail, up from 2yrs. New crime of causing serious injury while driving disqualified to have maximum sentence of 4yrs in jail.
Do you think this will be a discouragement?
I thought this seemed new when i was looking at the offences table the other day
seems a bit odd
i wonder how many people have been killed by a lack of insurance or valid drivers license
i know there is the theory that someone driving illegally would be more likely to flee rather than stop and report, which could let someone seriously injured die who could have otherwise have been saved
but i suspect it is far less common other causes of accidents being fatal that don't get their own offence
seems a bit odd
i wonder how many people have been killed by a lack of insurance or valid drivers license
i know there is the theory that someone driving illegally would be more likely to flee rather than stop and report, which could let someone seriously injured die who could have otherwise have been saved
but i suspect it is far less common other causes of accidents being fatal that don't get their own offence
I was at a trial of a 22-4 year old disqualified driver who deliberately went out to get drunk and then took his mother's car. A relative, not a brother, possibly cousin, but memory, er, what's the word? Oh, yes, fades.
He indulged in a single vehicle accident, crashing the car at speed, seriously injuring his passenger. The chap legged it from the scene, leaving his relative, who was described at the trial as 'like a brother to him' to die.
He was charged with death by reckless, the evidence being felt to be more than sufficient.
A well known London brief was bought in - the parents were upper middle class - and he was found NG.
He returned to crown court for sentence for the disqual driving and concomitant offences and the judge gave him 6 months.
The defence appealed, saying that death could not be included as an aggravating factor. The judge was of a different opinion because the defence had brought up the defence as a mitigating factor - you couldn't make it up - so the judge reckoned it was fair game. There was one other aggravating factor - again utterly shameless - which the judge felt showed the defendant was not contrite.
He indulged in a single vehicle accident, crashing the car at speed, seriously injuring his passenger. The chap legged it from the scene, leaving his relative, who was described at the trial as 'like a brother to him' to die.
He was charged with death by reckless, the evidence being felt to be more than sufficient.
A well known London brief was bought in - the parents were upper middle class - and he was found NG.
He returned to crown court for sentence for the disqual driving and concomitant offences and the judge gave him 6 months.
The defence appealed, saying that death could not be included as an aggravating factor. The judge was of a different opinion because the defence had brought up the defence as a mitigating factor - you couldn't make it up - so the judge reckoned it was fair game. There was one other aggravating factor - again utterly shameless - which the judge felt showed the defendant was not contrite.
La Liga said:
Drivers driving without insurance, without a driving licence or disqualification are higher risk. Loon's the insurance guy on here, perhaps he has some data.
People are disqualified because they, generally, present a higher risk on the road than non-disqualified drivers.
That is a symptom of their recklessness, not the cause.People are disqualified because they, generally, present a higher risk on the road than non-disqualified drivers.
If i was a charitable chap who ran an insurer and for some reason decided to give out free car insurance to anyone who goes on the Jeremy kyle show, who would otherwise be potentially driving uninsured, would these people then be less likely to drive recklessly ?
If a judge accepts someone's mitigating circumstances claim to avoid a ban, is that person going to present less of a risk to other road users than they would have if there mitigating circumstances were rejected and they were banned?
This law seems fairly targeted at certain drivers who flout the law, but why wait until they've killed someone to do anything about it.
ging84 said:
La Liga said:
Drivers driving without insurance, without a driving licence or disqualification are higher risk. Loon's the insurance guy on here, perhaps he has some data.
People are disqualified because they, generally, present a higher risk on the road than non-disqualified drivers.
That is a symptom of their recklessness, not the cause.People are disqualified because they, generally, present a higher risk on the road than non-disqualified drivers.
If i was a charitable chap who ran an insurer and for some reason decided to give out free car insurance to anyone who goes on the Jeremy kyle show, who would otherwise be potentially driving uninsured, would these people then be less likely to drive recklessly ?
If a judge accepts someone's mitigating circumstances claim to avoid a ban, is that person going to present less of a risk to other road users than they would have if there mitigating circumstances were rejected and they were banned?
ging84 said:
This law seems fairly targeted at certain drivers who flout the law, but why wait until they've killed someone to do anything about it.
You are aware there are other laws, aren't you? Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff