[News] Just 3 years for killing a boy through dangerous driving

[1066familyman]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-47071273

30 weeks in prison and an 18 and a half month driving ban in this prominent case. Prominent, because it was Chris Boardman's mum, but it could have been anyone's mum.

Note that in that 2017 promise from ministers I mentioned above, they also promised that distraction by mobile phone would also increase the maximum sentence to life. Guess what's happened to that promise so far too?

 

[Fitzcarraldo]

Congratulations to the usual 'i'm not racist but' thickets for managing to shoehorn race into this.

 

[1066familyman]

Oh wow! A supersuperiorracisthunter pontificates! F*** off - a lot of the rest of us oppose racism too you know.



.............. and just how much do you know about racial tensions (both ways) in parts of Birmingham? When were you last there?

If the cap fits, wear it.

I was actually referring to the original poster I was replying to anyway.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Well at least it's 3 years more than Anne Sacoolas got for killing Harry Dunn with her car.

 

[GT49er]

If the cap fits, wear it.

I was actually referring to the original poster I was replying to anyway.

It seems you're quite happy to fling the cap around willy-nilly though - if not, it would have been better to reply to him rather than me. Besides, there is more than one cap that fits ...................
The jumping to (wrong) conclusions cap is one of them.

 

[studio150]

A pathetically short sentence, I thought causing death by dangerous driving now yielded a long sentence?

While the maximum sentence is 14 years, this does depend on the nature of the dangerous driving.

From the report, the only factor that would have contributed to dangerous driving would be exceeding the speed limit (55 in a 40 zone). This means that the offence is in the lowest banding with a 2-5 years sentence, with the starting point being 3 years.

While you mention the hit and run, there was a plea of guilty at Court which immediately reduces the sentence tariff. It would seem therefore that the guilty plea and the hit and run cancelled each other out, hence the 3 years.

While we all have views on whether a sentence is too soft or hard, this one is clearly within the expected guidelines.

 

[schmunk]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-56591632

With good behaviour she’ll be out in 18 months.

A pathetically short sentence, I thought causing death by dangerous driving now yielded a long sentence? This was also a hit’n’run. Wiping out the poor kid’s life, his family will never recover.

Whilst you don't like it, the sentencing is in line with that for manslaughter, remembering that the very highest sentences are reserved for acts just shy of murder - "I just meant to rough him up a bit, scare him" - not this.

Edit: D'oh - just beaten to it!

 

[Acker79]

I follow the secret barrister on twitter and they usually give a decent breakdown of sentencing for cases that have a lot of national attention. When sentencing judges have to allow room to increase the sentence due to aggravating factors (as well as reduce it due to mitigation - much of that is covered in drew's link above), and it can be interesting when they provide judge's remarks that are used to explain the sentence.

But to the point about whether the maximum sentence was increased or not - that the government claim increasing sentences solves anything is a recurring theme on the twitter feed. It is something MPs do to seem tough on crime by promoting the idea of tougher sentences, but when financing of the legal system is going down, courts being close, police being underfunded, CPS being underfunded, causing delays etc. that result in cases being dropped, less reliable evidence (with witnesses having to remember two, three years ago), then sentencing takes into account the amount of time the convicted person has been waiting for trial, etc. They have come to the conclusion there's never been a better time to be a criminal.

There's a thread of tweets starting with this one

[tweet]1371030760501747712[/tweet]

Someone put them into a reader app:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1371030760501747712.html

The incident happened in April. We're currently on 31st March 2021, so it has to have been almost a year ago. And the only reason that there appears to be a decision now is that the driver pleaded guilty. As Drew mentions, pleading guilty is 'mitigation' that results in reduction in sentence (it saves the cost of a trial, it saves the victim/victim's family further truama), but as the secret barrister's thread notes, delays in getting the case to court can be a factor in reducing sentences.

 

[1066familyman]

It seems you're quite happy to fling the cap around willy-nilly though - if not, it would have been better to reply to him rather than me. Besides, there is more than one cap that fits ...................
The jumping to (wrong) conclusions cap is one of them.

If you're going to accuse me of anything, get it right. Yes I'm an anti racist, but I don't waste too much of my time calling out racists on here. I'd be here forever.

Check out all my other posts on this thread, then tell me what my agenda is here.

 

[Weststander]

While the maximum sentence is 14 years, this does depend on the nature of the dangerous driving.

From the report, the only factor that would have contributed to dangerous driving would be exceeding the speed limit (55 in a 40 zone). This means that the offence is in the lowest banding with a 2-5 years sentence, with the starting point being 3 years.

While you mention the hit and run, there was a plea of guilty at Court which immediately reduces the sentence tariff. It would seem therefore that the guilty plea and the hit and run cancelled each other out, hence the 3 years.

While we all have views on whether a sentence is too soft or hard, this one is clearly within the expected guidelines.

I’ll be interested to see if the Attorney General is asked to review this.


To me, driving away with a smashed windscreen (she knew she’d done it) after wiping out a kid, isn’t balanced out by later pleading guilty.

She was only stopped and caught because other motorists went after her and boxed her in a mile down the road.

Only a fool (and I know they do) would’ve pleaded innocent all the way to trial. The evidence was irrefutable.

 

[Sirnormangall]

While the maximum sentence is 14 years, this does depend on the nature of the dangerous driving.

From the report, the only factor that would have contributed to dangerous driving would be exceeding the speed limit (55 in a 40 zone). This means that the offence is in the lowest banding with a 2-5 years sentence, with the starting point being 3 years.

While you mention the hit and run, there was a plea of guilty at Court which immediately reduces the sentence tariff. It would seem therefore that the guilty plea and the hit and run cancelled each other out, hence the 3 years.

While we all have views on whether a sentence is too soft or hard, this one is clearly within the expected guidelines.

You’re probably right about the expected guidelines - if so, the guidelines need reviewing.

 

[GT49er]

If you're going to accuse me of anything, get it right. Yes I'm an anti racist, but I don't waste too much of my time calling out racists on here. I'd be here forever.

Check out all my other posts on this thread, then tell me what my agenda is here.

OK, accept no agenda (other than being against racism, which is something most of us share), but jumping to conclusions and/or selecting the wrong target - one for you to think about.

Goodnight - I'm now going to concentrate on seeing if Moder scores another!

 

[Da Man Clay]

I’ll be interested to see if the Attorney General is asked to review this.


To me, driving away with a smashed windscreen (she knew she’d done it) after wiping out a kid, isn’t balanced out by later pleading guilty.

She was only stopped and caught because other motorists went after her and boxed her in a mile down the road.

Only a fool (and I know they do) would’ve pleaded innocent all the way to trial. The evidence was irrefutable.

Anyone can request the attorney general to review a sentence (although without checking I’m not sure this is an offence can be reviewed under that scheme). Such a request wouldn’t go anywhere here mind. It’s about exactly what is expected. Whatever evidence they have is an irrelevance around guilty plea - get the credit anyway

 

[Weststander]

Anyone can request the attorney general to review a sentence (although without checking I’m not sure this is an offence can be reviewed under that scheme). Such a request wouldn’t go anywhere here mind. It’s about exactly what is expected. Whatever evidence they have is an irrelevance around guilty plea - get the credit anyway

I know.

But in aggravating factors (and a separate offence in its own right) - Failing To Stop After An Accident, particularly as it was a human being, not just a run of the mill metal against metal.

 

[CheeseRolls]

If the judge had given her a longer sentence she may have played the racist card, so judge went soft on her to avoid any further BLM tension .... maybe?

Makes my blood boil, she can F right Off

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-56591632

While I'm at it so can you. Not sure why I need to tell you that though apparently your a mind reader.

With good behaviour she’ll be out in 18 months.

A pathetically short sentence, I thought causing death by dangerous driving now yielded a long sentence? This was also a hit’n’run. Wiping out the poor kid’s life, his family will never recover.

Hard to argue that isn't a possibility. Only a possibility though - no more than that.

No it isn't - a snivelling post. Someone lost their child, why do you feel the need to share this shit? Try thinking before you post, or stop bleating when people take exception when you post utter shit.

 

[Stat Brother]

Luckily nobody was killed in Burgess Hill, last night:-

[tweet]1377642837093842947[/tweet]

 

[Stat Brother]

Heartbreaking - Avoidable - Criminally under reported

[tweet]1378992686707974147[/tweet]

 

[Weststander]

Heartbreaking - Avoidable - Criminally under reported

[tweet]1378992686707974147[/tweet]

Fckn shocking. The poor family, their lives will never be the same. The little one never got a chance of a life.

Now over to the judge, assuming a guilty verdict.

 

[Stat Brother]

Fckn shocking. The poor family, their lives will never be the same. The little one never got a chance of a life.

Now over to the judge, assuming a guilty verdict.

My favourite documentary of the last 12 months is Class Action Park.

One of the contributors said:-

"Nobody should be the second person to die in that wave pool"



Nobody should be the second person to be killed by a car, walking on the pavement.


The fact that this poor little mite is the hundred thousandth (or whatever) makes it all the more horrifying.
But not as horrifying as the acceptance of such 'accidents'.

 

[mikeyjh]

The problem for me is probably not the sentencing of drivers who have ended up killing someone, I can see arguments on all sides for that one. It's all those incidents of terrible driving that don't result in an incident and people get away with day after day after day until such time as they don't and then someone gets killed. Get cameras in as many cars as possible and then shop them constantly - Give out serious bans for each indiscretion. It would stamp out this culture in no time. It'll never happen of course cos everyone wants to drive how they like and consider and idea to clamp down as nanny statism......