300 hours and a ban. Should be doing time.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
Today's rubbish sentencing
(262 posts)-
Posted 5 years ago #
-
"guilty to causing death by careless driving"
Is it just me who thinks that's an oxymoron? How can it merely be "careless" if you've killed someone!?
Posted 5 years ago # -
The "causing death by ... driving" charges were made up to let motorists' off the hook.
In a normal world, the charge would be the catch-all manslaughter (or murder, if there was intent).
The worst one is "causing death by dangerous driving" which is so subjective, and hence difficult to prove, that it is almost never applied.
<Knowledgeable legal bods, feel free to correct>
Posted 5 years ago # -
Scotland, ergo 'culpable homicide' rather than 'manslaughter'.
The 'causing death by...' charges were actually made up because it's even more difficult to prove culpable homicide. Seriously, if you think people get off the hook with 'causing death by....' charges, at least they result in a conviction.
If you don't prove culpable homicide, then there's not really a lower offence (other than making it a pure driving offence with no reference to the fact it killed someone). With 'causing death by dangerous driving' there's a starting point that people will usually plea down from (granted, in my mind this shouldn't be allowed, but it then guarantees a guilty plea, rather than the uncertainty of a court case) to 'causing death by careless'.
As you say, a lot of that is caused by it being difficullt to prove the 'dangerous' charge (though looking from the outside it often looks pretty damned easy, but throw a jury into the mix....). So very much the opposite of letting off the hook; rather making sure they're not let off the hook.
(of course in the main driving offences are supposed to be agnostic to the consequences, and rather it's the standard of driving that counts, so in theory 'dangerous driving' SHOULD be treated the same as 'causing death by dangerous driving', but the penalties under the none-death offence were thought too lenient in a case where someone dies, but there was reluctance to up them unless there was a death. So, new offences it was.
Posted 5 years ago # -
So because he lacks the imagination to change a fictional character... If I decided not to pay my taxes because I needed the funds to pay for my commute to work do you think I would be able to weasel my way out of them?
Posted 5 years ago # -
Five years and three months. Because he was remorseful (although never remorseful enough after each of his other criminal convictions to stop committing more crimes).
Sigh.
Posted 5 years ago # -
6 points and £400 fine for skittling schoolkids on a crossing.
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/oap-whose-car-hit-three-school-pupils-in-musselburgh-blamed-faulty-brakes-1-4991331Posted 5 years ago # -
From the above:
"Ms Lavelle said: “As the accused drove he became aware he could not stop his vehicle and he consequently drove onto the opposite carriageway to avoid two vehicles which had stopped at a red light."
So he chose to take the risk of injuring human beings rather than bashing up his metal box. Despicable and the punishment very much doesn't fit the crime. Also no word of the 73yo's license being voluntarily relinquished.
Posted 5 years ago # -
"tests carried out later on his Honda Civic showed no problems with the braking system."
So what exactly was the driver's excuse? Really this person should have been punished severely.
"Steedman had initially pleaded guilty to dangerous driving last month but changed his plea after seeking legal advice."
How are they allowed to get way with this crap?
Posted 5 years ago # -
Ms Moultrie added Steedman “believed his brakes and failed” at the time of the collision but afterwards realised he “must have put his foot under the brake pedal”.
She said Steedman had a clean driving licence for the past 57 years and had been driving at a “very low speed” when he struck the three children.
Ms Moultrie added: “This a genuine one-off, isolated incident that is very regrettable.”Posted 5 years ago # -
"Steedman had initially pleaded guilty to dangerous driving last month but changed his plea after seeking legal advice."
Said legal advice being: "We can get you off this, sir."
Posted 5 years ago # -
It's pathetic and gave me a rage due to the clear lawyering going on. At the very VERY least I would expect a mandatory re-sit of the driving test.
Posted 5 years ago # -
What competent driver puts his foot under the brake pedal?! For me this guy is likely to get confused again and do something similar - should have had his license suspended pending a thorough medical and resit of his test (as Trixie said).
Posted 5 years ago # -
I'm not sure what he passed all those years ago could be called a test when compared to modern standards. I wonder how many pedestrian crossings were in Scotland at the time.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I'm in favour of compulsory re-tests every 5 years but it's not a popular opinion in many parts.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Reading this, it would seem that seems the key to sentencing lies in the intent being 'terrorist'
so might I suggest that every time we report being knocked down or close passed we just say we heard the driver shouting some terrorist slogan?
Posted 5 years ago # -
Clearly a fit up; do we really believe that 'cyclists were stopped at a red light'?
Posted 5 years ago # -
Probably more like this:
Posted 5 years ago # -
“
Sheriff James MacDonald said: “You chose to drive away from the scene of an accident when a member of the public had been injured.
“You shouldn’t have been behind the wheel in the first place because you don’t have a licence.”
He fined Renwick £300 and banned him from driving for nine months.
“
Posted 4 years ago # -
Banned from driving, when he already shouldn't have been driving, so just a £300 fine.
What a joke.
Posted 4 years ago # -
i've met the victim of that travesty, he was off the bike for a long time
if you're reading this mate, hope your injuries are fast improving
Posted 4 years ago # -
Drove through a red light, hit a car, killed a woman getting something from the boot of her car. 4 year ban and sentenced to watch TV in the evenings for 6 months.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-51331262
Posted 4 years ago # -
When are we going to get our act together in this country and actually punish dangerous driving as dangerous driving?!
Careless driving should be things like misjudgement causing minor crashes not failing to notice a red light!
Ironically if you drive through a red light camera it is classed as dangerous driving regardless if there are no other vehicles on the road - why wasn't that principle applied?
Posted 4 years ago # -
There is a collective amnesia around dangerous/careless driving. Jails would start to fill up with drivers if the dangerous driving charges started sticking. Drivers likely to plead guilty to the lesser charge which allows for the wheels of justice to turn a fraction without any impact except upon the victims. Cars are also safer to drive for the driver. But not for pedestrians and cyclists. Drivers no longer follow the Highway Code. All amber lights are jumped. All giveway lines are accelerated at. You would think it would be a massive issue. Kills more than drugs but only a fraction of society take drugs We all continue to drive despite the risks. Knowing the lawyers will get us off.
Climate change also related. The Scottish driver has no concern for Australia’s Inferno. Too far away and would be an inconvenience not to take the car to the shop. I have weighed this up and the inconvenience out weighs the destruction of the environment and the increase in respiratory problems.
Pointing this out to people does not go down well. Even people who post on the internet how sorry they feel about Australia and then in their next post whinge about bus lanes.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I think some, maybe quite lot of drivers feel utter impunity and no responsibility for others. In Dundee yesterday I witnessed an elderly couple being driven at aggressively by a driver who presumably felt justified as the lights on the pelican crossing had started to change from red to amber. Could have easily caused serious injury or death. All for the sake of a few seconds' delay saved...
Posted 4 years ago # -
Deliberately swerving your car towards a cyclist: £300 fine and a year ban.
Posted 4 years ago # -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-wales-54056731
A driver has been cleared of killing a cyclist after claiming he was dazzled by the sun.
Paul James, 61, died after being hit by two cars on the A487 in Aberystwyth in April last year.
On Monday, Christopher Jones, 40, from Devil's Bridge, was found not guilty of causing death by careless driving by a jury at Swansea Crown Court.
A second driver, Lowri Powell, 43, from Penrhyncoch, also denies causing Mr James' death.
Both defendants told police they had not seen Mr James because they had been dazzled by the low sun.
Mr Powell, a well-known Ceredigion councillor, was training for a charity bike ride when he was knocked off his bike and run over on 11 April 2019.
The court heard Ms Powell clipped Mr James with her Ford Galaxy car, knocking him off his bike, while Mr Jones' Vauxhall Vectra ran over him, dragging him about 115ft (35m) down the road
Posted 4 years ago # -
News item seems to mix the names.
But does point out how vital it is to get witnesses to testify there was no dazzling sun
Posted 4 years ago # -
How the hell is it even a defence!? Surely if you can’t see you should slow down - like any competent driver would do.
Posted 4 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
