For an accident that did not result in death think the judge gave a stiffer tariff than often 3 year ban, 16 month suspended sentence, 100 hours.
Of course reading the article and comments below there may be some doubts amongst some people as to was it really an accident rather than "redmist". If it was not an accident then it would be how it was brought and tried, the case that is rubbish rather than the sentencing.
Just guessing quite likely wrong, but do wonder if the much stiffer sentence is because judge really had their doubts about intent, and was a bit of a fudge or was consider safer to proceed this was by prosecution etc. or led this way from beginning with the charge etc; then tried under a lesser offense, and given a strong tariff for that offense (strong compared to typical), rather than do it on the basis of it not having been an accident. Of course failing to stop possibly relates to the increased tariff so may be treated as accident where driver did not stop. If driver had stop may have been much lesser sentence.
It may have been risky to do it as not an accident harder to prove or something if it was or was not the case.
posts
