"When a life is lost, the court will almost always impose a period of imprisonment." Baby death motorist admits dangerous driving ...
I missed the "almost" on first reading, and wonder how often is "almost always"?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
Today's rubbish sentencing
(262 posts)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Weasel words, designed to subconsciously redirect responsibility in the reader's mind.
Posted 3 years ago # -
@slowcoach "almost" is "almost never" when the victim is a cyclist - we all know this
Posted 3 years ago # -
Never understand why someone who is caught driving whilst banned gets a driving ban as part of their sentence -it clearly doesn't work as a deterrent
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/edinburgh-police-catch-man-driving-19577440
Posted 3 years ago # -
I expect that the title of that should have been "Man who drives every day despite being banned caught for only the 25th time"
Posted 3 years ago # -
Not cars, just dangerous things and disregard for the law -
Posted 3 years ago # -
Sounds Masonic
Posted 3 years ago # -
Drive into a police officer, drag him along the road, speed off, dump the car - back driving in 12 months.
Posted 3 years ago # -
He also admitted to running way from officers and while climbing a fence repeatedly attempting to kick PC Oakes on the head
reckon i'd get two years for that
but i'm not a well connected actuarial sciences student
Posted 3 years ago # -
So:
Failed to comply with the no-entry.
Failed to stop for the police.
Hit a police officer with his car before dragging them along the street.
Fled the scene.
Resisted arrest.
Attempted to assault another police officer.
Failed to stop again.
Ran home and didn't tell anyone, presumably hoping he had got away with it.Yes, I'm sure a £400 donation and some unpaid work is a perfect punishment for that.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Sounds like cocaine thinking?
Posted 3 years ago # -
snow white defense aye
just hi jinks
whole career ahead of him etc
Posted 3 years ago # -
Masons obviously
Posted 3 years ago # -
Possibly not his first drug driving offence? If it's the same young man, he was up for drug dealing as a teenager. Is he related to the royal family or something? Because if I'd been arrested for either of these offences reckon I'd still be doing time at HM pleasure.
Posted 3 years ago # -
@gembo Quite possibly - seems he was charged with possession of drugs as well. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-49330630
He sure learned his lesson. The lesson being that he can (essentially) get away with it, that is.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yeah but that Royal up at Glamis has gone to the chokey for his crimes. And Sarkozy has a jail sentence (but is allowed to serve it at home). This young man is charmed.
Posted 3 years ago # -
“
Mr Boyd added: The date is the the middle of the Edinburgh International Festival and it is a congested area. But he had not driven in that area before or at that time of day.
“
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/6371793/edinburgh-student-police-officer-car-festival/
Posted 3 years ago # -
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-53694538
Killed a pedestrian.
Hit-and-run.
Had been drinking.Disqualified from driving for 12 months.
Four months suspended jail term.
Evening curfew for four months.
£207 victim surcharge and prosecution costs.Posted 3 years ago # -
A judge told him that he had been "for a long period of time a valued member of the community" who had never previously served a sentence of imprisonment.
Posted 3 years ago # -
"a collision investigation confirmed that Mulholland would and should have had a sufficient view of Mr Hunter through his windscreen on his approach to the junction and through the driver's window to his offside."
In which case he should have been more <rule 2> careful, rather than ploughing on regardless. Sounds like a clear breach of Highway Code Rule 170 resulting in a right of way violation - and a death. But it was only "a moment's inattention" so I guess that makes it OK...
I presume this didn't get prosecuted as causing death by dangerous driving because the PF thought they'd be unlikely to get a guilty verdict for that charge. As would seem to be borne out by the unjustifiably lenient sentence.
It occurs to me that we should perhaps consider having special courts for driving offences, where cases could be judged by people properly conversant with driving laws and the responsibilities they impose on people in charge of motor vehicles, and who (hopefully) wouldn't be so prone to allow the "that could have been me" bias to cloud their judgement. Many driving offences are specific to the use of motor vehicles - death by dangerous driving might otherwise be prosecuted as manslaughter, for example - and it's not unusual for laws specifically aimed at specialist areas, such as families & children, and complex financial fraud, to be tried in specialist courts because reaching a fair judgement in those areas does demand a significant level of specialist knowledge of the subject.
It is perhaps symptomatic of the way that driving has been so completely normalised and is now treated as a right rather than a privilege that society as a whole seems to accept that such cases can be judged by ordinary people. Which really doesn't seem very sensible when an hour or so's observation of general driving behaviours would show that most "ordinary" people are regularly either unable or unwilling to abide by the laws in question themselves. (In comparison, I suspect a prosecution counsel in a murder case would have little hesitation in objecting to a jury member who had a previous conviction for such a crime.)
Posted 3 years ago # -
In my experience, counsel has no input into jury selection.
I don't really support prison sentences for many of these types of crimes. I think prison should be reserved for people who are an active danger, rather than those who are lazy/stupid.
I'd support house arrest, driving bans, vehicle impounding, retraining/retesting, volunteer work of some sort, victim impact awareness, fines.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The prisons would become quite overcrowded if bad drivers were prosecuted without ultra leniency.
Just heard of a kid doing 72mph through Juni Green pursued by polis who got a four month ban but no points on his licence. even the defence solicitor was surprised.
Posted 3 years ago # -
“The prisons would become quite overcrowded if bad drivers were prosecuted without ultra leniency.“
Depends
Routine confiscation of vehicles for relatively minor infringements would work.
Additionally fit all cars with a card reader (for license validation) plus facial recognition that confirmed who is driving.
Posted 3 years ago # -
What if you still have a paper one? :)
Posted 3 years ago # -
It was a while ago now but I've only just found the report of this case while digging in to something else:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51707616
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/e-bike-cyclist-cleared-collision-pedestrian-killed-dalston-hackney-london-a9371141.html
https://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/crime/cyclist-acquitted-of-careless-driving-after-death-of-sakine-cihan-3652146What I really don't get about this case is that the defendant apparently accepted that they were driving unlicensed (and uninsured), but the jury cleared him of that as well.
The defence counsel's weasel words as reported in the Hackney Gazette article make me angry. Perhaps it's just as well that they didn't provide any detail about her excuse for him fleeing the scene.
Compare if you will with this (reported previously in this thread):
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/fife/1045644/unlicensed-fife-motorist-49-panicked-and-fled-after-severely-injuring-cyclist/Posted 3 years ago # -
@the canuck: In my experience, counsel has no input into jury selection.
I'm certain that the information that accompanied my jury service citations* mentioned that the selection of individual jurors might be challenged. It might even have been a copy of this leaflet: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/coming-to-court/jurors/guidetojuryservice.pdf?sfvrsn=8 which states:
Unless good reason is given, or an objection to the balloted juror is allowed, the first fifteen jurors balloted will make up the jury for the trial.
Please do not be worried if your name is objected to. If the judge decides you should not be part of the jury, you should return to your original seat in court.
This CPS web page describes the jury vetting process but I assume the information therein is only definitive for England & Wales; the process may well a bit be different in Scotland.
* Three times in 23 years living in Scotland. Twice ended up not being required, once was called to attend but was excused by the Clerk of the Court on day one due to a family medical emergency.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The time I was on a Sheriff Court jury, after 15 had been selected, but before the remaining jury pool had been dismissed, the Sheriff read a list of names and addresses (presumably the defendant and witnesses) and asked us to make it known if we knew any of them. No-one did, and that was that.
Posted 3 years ago # -
“
Following Katie's punishment being revealed James Collis, head of roads policing for Sussex Police and Surrey Police, released a statement stating that cops are 'exploring an appeal.'
“
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/police-exploring-appeal-after-katie-25710287.amp
Posted 2 years ago # -
It really is rules for thee not for me ain't it. Comically depressing nonsense - if she needs help, she should rely on the <rule 2> rehab services in prison like the rest of us would have to if we were caught drink driving on a suspended license for the umpteenth time.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
