Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Let's catch the scumbag who did this



surrey jim

Not in Surrey
Aug 2, 2005
18,085
Bevendean

To all those that said he might not be a scumbag!


Brighton hit and run suspect grins as he leaves court after being freed on bail - The Sun



Smirker ... suspect McDermott

SUSPECT Adam McDermott grins as he walks free on bail after being arrested over a hit-and-run in which a pedestrian was flipped 15ft in to the air.

McDermott, 31, and his unnamed girlfriend told The Sun her Fiat 500 had been stolen when it hit Andy in Brighton. It was later found abandoned.

He insisted: “I am totally innocent.”

Adam McDermott FB Link

Maintaining his innocence (last post).

Just curious as to why he was hiding on the roof whilst his Mum stopped the OB going in for him though.



All open source info - for reference.

Is this the same Adam McDermott ? http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/8390735.Brighton_thief_does_time_for_watch_raids/
 




dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Mar 27, 2013
52,005
Burgess Hill
Amazed at the relative condition of the victim........must say something for the design of the Fiat 500 and bumpers etc (can see the front of the car clearly crumpling on impact). Remarkable. If it had been a 4x4 (for example) at that speed he wouldn't have stood a chance.
 




Sheebo

Well-known member
Jul 13, 2003
29,226
Adam McDermott FB Link

Maintaining his innocence (last post).

Just curious as to why he was hiding on the roof whilst his Mum stopped the OB going in for him though.

Capture.jpg


All open source info - for reference.

Thanks for posting. Reminds me why I don't use FB, never have used FB and never intend to use it. For various different reasons, my eyes hurt. :lol:
 




Sheebo

Well-known member
Jul 13, 2003
29,226


SIMMO SAYS

Well-known member
Jul 31, 2012
11,702
Incommunicado
There's no real "why" to my angle, more a case of "how". How did that poor bloke end up getting hit.
Sure the video shows him getting clobbered by the Fiat that is clearly being driven too fast and in a dangerous manner for the environment its travelling in.
But when you look at the 5 seconds leading up to it there is a huge element of "fate" in that final split second reaction of the driver to take the left turn.
So my angle is, if the taxi had stayed put, or pulled out quicker might the collision with the pedestrian have never happened?

Our lives are full of split-second decision making and it's fortunately rare where the consequences of such decisions will have a life changing impact, as is the case with this incident, on both the victim and the perpetrator.

I guess I'm just exploring the fate element of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, aspect.




You are on the wrong thread at the wrong time so doodle off and knit a sweater out of noodles :moo:




Oh and please don't post any more lilly liberal views:shutup:
 


Leekbrookgull

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2005
16,236
Leek
Amazed at the relative condition of the victim........must say something for the design of the Fiat 500 and bumpers etc (can see the front of the car clearly crumpling on impact). Remarkable. If it had been a 4x4 (for example) at that speed he wouldn't have stood a chance.

and that Bull Bars are banned.
 




happypig

Staring at the rude boys
May 23, 2009
7,934
Eastbourne
Do you work in the courts?

I was a magistrate for 9 years

7 years max, Dangerous driving combined with GBH.
14 years if a fatality has occurred.

Don't forget the GBH when sentencing.

My money's on 5 years.

Don't think he'll be charged with GBH, the injury element is included in Aggravated vehicle taking.
 


wellquickwoody

Many More Voting Years
NSC Patreon
Aug 10, 2007
13,584
Melbourne
Got a feeling Mr McDermott will get his come uppance at some point.
 






Wrong-Direction

Well-known member
Mar 10, 2013
13,395
I can't wait to hear the news that his house has burnt down with him in it[emoji23]
 


StonehamPark

#Brighton-Nil
Oct 30, 2010
9,762
BC, Canada
Don't think he'll be charged with GBH, the injury element is included in Aggravated vehicle taking.

But the aggravated vehicle taking is an entirely separate offence to the injury caused to the victim.
Also, there's no AVT if the current suspect is the perpetrator (if it's a story/fob).

I can't wait to hear the news that his house has burnt down with him in it[emoji23]

He lives in a block of flats so not a wise move! :whistle:
 






Wrong-Direction

Well-known member
Mar 10, 2013
13,395
But the aggravated vehicle taking is an entirely separate offence to the injury caused to the victim.
Also, there's no AVT if the current suspect is the perpetrator (if it's a story/fob).



He lives in a block of flats so not a wise move! :whistle:
Whoopsidaisy[emoji50]
 


happypig

Staring at the rude boys
May 23, 2009
7,934
Eastbourne
If you were to hazard a guess, what will be difference in sentence if he pleads guilty or not guilty?

If you plead guilty at the first opportunity, you are entitled to a one third reduction in sentence; this reduces on a sliding scale down to 10% if you plead guilty at the start of a trial.
This means that for a summary only offence (ie triable only in a magistrate's court), if you go guilty at first hearing, the maximum you can be given is four months (two thirds of the six months maximum). Government policy called early release means you'll serve half then be released on license. Prison governors also have the authority to release prisoners early but I'm not sure how early.
For Dangerous Driving, its triable "Either way" meaning it can be sent to Crown court if serious enough. In that situation magistrates can impose a full 6 months, the early guilty reduction being not sending it to Crown court where the sentence would have been higher (if that makes sense).

Of course magistrates never say (out the back of course) "this feller deserves about a month inside" then go out and say "if you hadn't pleaded guilty it would have been three months, we've reduced that to two, so you'll actually serve a month"
 


Buzzer

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121
If you plead guilty at the first opportunity, you are entitled to a one third reduction in sentence; this reduces on a sliding scale down to 10% if you plead guilty at the start of a trial.
This means that for a summary only offence (ie triable only in a magistrate's court), if you go guilty at first hearing, the maximum you can be given is four months (two thirds of the six months maximum). Government policy called early release means you'll serve half then be released on license. Prison governors also have the authority to release prisoners early but I'm not sure how early.
For Dangerous Driving, its triable "Either way" meaning it can be sent to Crown court if serious enough. In that situation magistrates can impose a full 6 months, the early guilty reduction being not sending it to Crown court where the sentence would have been higher (if that makes sense).

Of course magistrates never say (out the back of course) "this feller deserves about a month inside" then go out and say "if you hadn't pleaded guilty it would have been three months, we've reduced that to two, so you'll actually serve a month"

Unfortunately, criminals can play the system and win. I once went to Chichester Crown Court as a witness in an assault case. Drunk bloke was bashing his girlfriend in Worthing Station car park one night. Myself and the 50-something year old train guard ran at him to stop him. I've no idea what I was going to do when I got to the bloke as he was absolutely huge and I was very scared but fortunately (?) the bloke resolved the issue by pulling out a metal bar, swinging and missing the guard's head by inches. Bloke drives away with gf back home where he beat her up some more. The babysitter notices she's bleeding from between the legs (victim was 4 months pregnant) so bloke drives to Southlands with gf. Police arrest bloke at hospital and he's later bailed with instructions not to contact her.

She didn't want to press charges and he broke his bail conditions and he pleaded not guilty but police had enough evidence so we all went to Chichester Crown Court. The bloke changed his plea to guilty at the very last minute. He got a pre-sentence psychiatric evaluation and then later a conditional discharge on the condition that he attended anger management sessions because in mitigation he was back with his girlfriend, the baby had been born by that stage and he was the breadwinner. And just to rub salt into the wounds, she had a right go at the guard and me outside the courts for being grasses! The bloke even asked for his metal pipe back as he was a roofer and said it was part of his equipment!

I really hope they throw the book at this McDermott chap if he's found guilty.
 








StonehamPark

#Brighton-Nil
Oct 30, 2010
9,762
BC, Canada
7 years max.
Dangerous driving (2 years) w/ S20 (5 years).

14 years max if a fatality has occurred.

A realistic sentence for that hit and run bloke should be no less than 5 years.

Maximum sentence is two years.

Don't think he'll be charged with GBH

Not sure what you're referencing.
I'm looking at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/12A which seems to fit the bill. However, I'm not a lawyer and don't know the details so we'll have to wait and see what (if) the CPS charge it as.

I'm talking about Charging GBH (Max 5) alongside Dangerous Driving (Max 2).
For anyone else interested and unaware, S20 = Section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

Case references:

R v Collins [2010] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.) 35 - D pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and to causing grievous bodily harm. During a police chase in which D drove dangerously he collided with a taxi, gravely injuring the driver. It was entirely appropriate for the Judge to have considered that D had, in effect, used his car as a guided missile. A sentence of 21 months for dangerous driving concurrent to 4 years for s20 was not excessive. However, a period of disqualification which would extend for a substantial period of time after an offender's release from prison might invite the offender to commit further offences in relation to motor vehicles; 8 years disqualification reduced to 5 years.

R v Kaeppner [2012] EWCA Crim 158 - D pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and s20 where serious injury was caused to another person as a result of the dangerous driving. A sentence of 2 years for the s20 concurrent to 12 months for the dangerous driving with 4 months concurrent for excess alcohol was not manifestly excessive. The Court held that "This was on any view a bad case which was rightly charged under the section 20 provisions to reflect the appalling injuries sustained by Mr S (see R v Baines [2005] EWCA Crim. 107 and R v Stranney [2007] EWCA Crim. 2847). Severe though the sentence was for a 20-year-old of effective good character, it was purely a matter of chance that Mr S was not killed in which case the appellant would have faced a significantly longer sentence".
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here