Is this sentence enough?

No doubt the judge was restricted on sentencing with the charges he was found guilty of.

Hope he has a pleasant stay at her majesty's pleasure, probably not though
 
Should be doubled and actually serve the full sentence guilty plea or not. The guy lied through his teeth about his driving behaviour and only pleaded guilty to the charges he did as they were indisputable. Hope he has a very hard time in prison.
 
I agree, at least double. It's all there in the vid, total madness.
 
tijuana taxi said:
No doubt the judge was restricted on sentencing with the charges he was found guilty of.

Hope he has a pleasant stay at her majesty's pleasure, probably not though
Click to expand...

neil_g said:
you can use your car as a weapon towards other motorists/cyclists/pedestrians and frankly get away very lightly in this country.

its ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving, max sentence of 5 years. You would have thought the judge felt the max sentence appropriate but I suppose he would have had to reduce the tariff slightly for the guilty plea.

Considering the damage and the lives he has ruined though it definitely feels insufficient. I don't think the article mentioned the driving ban. I hope he is banned for life
 
Driving ban was for 4 or 5 years starting after prison sentence completed. not long enough imo
 
nog said:
Driving ban was for 4 or 5 years starting after prison sentence completed. not long enough imo
Click to expand...
Life ban is appropriate for that type of driving madness. Did you see the dash cam footage, he undertook a car to make that turn!
 
Should have definitely been a lifetime ban, would you even want to drive again?

Daresay he will, sounded like a thoroughly unpleasant character, why was he even chasing after another car anyway
 
jakeblu said:
Life ban is appropriate for that type of driving madness. Did you see the dash cam footage, he undertook a car to make that turn!
Click to expand...

Saw the footage from dash cam, hard to believe anyone would do that on public highway.
 
As mentioned before, the six month less than maximum in all likelihood in reflection of his plea of guilty.
I can understand the parents' anger though.
He'll need to find another job when he gets out because he's certainly buggered that one up.
 
This is a horrendous story. I do fear having little ones in the car on dual carriageway and motorways.

Is children being paralysed in crashes common or are the extremely unlucky?
 
Not knowing the road in question but even if both vehicles were doing at least 40 (looking at the angle of the cornering land rover he was going some), that's a hefty impact speed head on.
 
On the news report the solicitor for the victims of this incident mentioned that Jaguar Landrover were disputing the fact that the girls needed a hydrotherapy pool to aid their rehabilitation. This was a wilful act on behalf of the driver of the LR and much to the amusement of his passenger according to news reports. This has the makings of a PR disaster for Jaguar Land rover if they dont accept full liability for the actions of their employee. Shameful of Jaguar Landrover for battling the parents over the care of the girls injured - Makes me sick watching that video.

Also underlines the importance of a dash cam in your car.
 
Driver of the signum was doing just under 60.

Land Rover driver should be forced to visit the family and make sure those kids know he's the one that has taken their future off them. He should also have to pay half his earnings to them for good. Useless individual.
 
Always difficult where children are involved.

Simple issue is that many think the sentence was 'not enough'.

The maximum sentence for any 'crime' is linked to how the defendent behaves after the event and, when/if, they face court, their behaviour, acceptance of guilt etc.

The judiary exist to interpret the law and, where required, to use experience and any sentencing guidelines. Justice is not about revenge and prison sentences are about punishment and rehabitation.

What this guy did was stupid, vile and irresponsiible, seemingly because a woman driver 'gave him the finger'. He will now have time to reflect on his actions, as kids sere injured, he will possibly face a 'vigilante' moment, thus making hkm the victim.

A very tragic and traumatic event for the victims. Most reports list their being paralysed with life changing injuries. I would hope, for them, that their recovery offers hope of a brighter future.
 
I don't know... there but for the grace of god... I know that I have lapsed concentration/been angry/done something silly at some point in my life and by pure chance has had no effect, I remember at 17, overtaking on a bend up a hill - had a car been coming then who knows... Part of me thinks he should have had 10 years+, part of me thinks less than he got. While we can all criticise, can we all 100% say we have not lost it for just a few seconds which is all it takes...
 
scum who deserves double what he got......poor girls with a ruined life
 
cambsno said:
While we can all criticise, can we all 100% say we have not lost it for just a few seconds which is all it takes...
Click to expand...
I think most of us can, yes. I certainly can, and I don't feel I'm being in the slightest bit sanctimonious. What he did was so far outside the bounds of normal behaviour, I can't even begin to imagine behaving like that.
 
Ok the girls are paralysed and their future lives will be changed, but it was not the LR driver's intention to hurt the girls so it was not a wilful act as someone else has already stated. If it is true that he was chasing someone as a result of road rage, adrenaline kicks in and the majority of people do stupid things as a result.

There was a few years ago who was driving a van transporting his race car on a trailer, exiting a roundabout he hit and killed a cyclist, it was proved from phone records that the driver was on his phone at the time. He got a 2 year custodial sentence and was out after 18 months.

Neither act was a malicious or wilful act to cause harm to the victims, they were just both unfortunate outcomes, so in answer to the original question, yes the sentence is enough.
 
I'm surprised there are some on here defending the driver, 'it was the red mist guv'. but then I remembered where I am.

Its worth noting that he harassed this woman for miles tailgating her because apparently she gave him the finger, it probably insulted his masculinity, but he also tailgated another driver she had managed to pass, probably to overtake that car to be behind the woman again. It was a reckless criminally negligent act that went on for miles, not just a split second decision. I thought the comments from the judge were telling, who said he was guilty of a “prolonged, persistent and dangerous course of very bad driving.” The law says five years max but it seems woefully inadequate in this case.

And yeah, I've done stupid things on the road, made crazy decisions that could be viewed as dangerous but If I had done that, or if any of my driving had resulted in death or serious injury of someone then I would be expecting a long time in prison
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
I'm surprised there are some on here defending the driver, 'it was the red mist guv'. but then I remembered where I am.

Its worth noting that he harassed this woman for miles tailgating her because apparently she gave him the finger, it probably insulted his masculinity, but he also tailgated another driver she had managed to pass, probably to overtake that car to be behind the woman again. It was a reckless criminally negligent act that went on for miles, not just a split second decision. I thought the comments from the judge were telling, who said he was guilty of a “prolonged, persistent and dangerous course of very bad driving.” The law says five years max but it seems woefully inadequate in this case.

And yeah, I've done stupid things on the road, made crazy decisions that could be viewed as dangerous but If I had done that, or if any of my driving had resulted in death or serious injury of someone then I would be expecting a long time in prison
Click to expand...
The charge carried a maximum 5 year penalty.

If you feel it was not enough then take measures and get the laws changed. Being 'outraged' on the internet will achieve what exactly?

So use the system to get a debate in parliament, engage you own MP, publicise why you feel as you do.....

The system is meant to be dynamic and responsive to public concern, as a citizen you can lead tbat change.

But wait..... there will be another travesty in justic along any time now......
 
nilagin said:
Ok the girls are paralysed and their future lives will be changed, but it was not the LR driver's intention to hurt the girls so it was not a wilful act as someone else has already stated. If it is true that he was chasing someone as a result of road rage, adrenaline kicks in and the majority of people do stupid things as a result.

There was a few years ago who was driving a van transporting his race car on a trailer, exiting a roundabout he hit and killed a cyclist, it was proved from phone records that the driver was on his phone at the time. He got a 2 year custodial sentence and was out after 18 months.

Neither act was a malicious or wilful act to cause harm to the victims, they were just both unfortunate outcomes, so in answer to the original question, yes the sentence is enough.
Click to expand...
Well there's a surprise...
If you drive like he did, then it's not an accident in my book. It's a catastrophe waiting to happen, and it did.
 
Last edited:
Hugh Jarse said:
The charge carried a maximum 5 year penalty.

If you feel it was not enough then take measures and get the laws changed. Being 'outraged' on the internet will achieve what exactly?

So use the system to get a debate in parliament, engage you own MP, publicise why you feel as you do.....

The system is meant to be dynamic and responsive to public concern, as a citizen you can lead tbat change.

But wait..... there will be another travesty in justic along any time now......
Click to expand...
Are people not allowed to say how they feel without someone mocking their "Outrage" or telling them to write to their MP, or start an online petition etc etc???
 
Last edited:
Sentencing for serious injury or death on the road is a joke to be fair.

And "really?" to the suggestion that 2 years for killing a cyclist while paying more attention to a mobile phone was adiqute because it wasn't malicious..

As for land rover, to be fair i don't think his employer should be held accountable for his actions. Beyond maybe a good will jesture.
 
The prison sentence is the maximum applicable to the offence (once the guilty plea discount's been taken into account) so is as much as could be given. I doubt his insurers will be happy with the financial claim(s) that will almost certainly be made against them.
 
I think it was a company vehicle. They may self insure. They are arguing over how much they want to pay out for care.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Are people not allowed to say how they feel without someone mocking their "Outrage" or telling them to write to their MP, or start an online petition etc etc???
Click to expand...
You have EVERY right to write whatever you want as do I.

All I did was point out the process for CHANGING something you are unhappy with. That includes the government system to get Parliament to discuss matters that can and have influenced change - it's via an online petition.

So instead of moaning about things you are unhappy with, create change, lead the movement for change. It's democracy in action.

You might find visiting a Crown Court interesting. I did, originally for my law exams and later for my magistrate training. We are where we are at in the legal process after hundreds of years of change. That brought transpatency into the process and so my comments are valid. If you do not like something amd enough people agree with you.... change it.
 
nilagin said:
Ok the girls are paralysed and their future lives will be changed, but it was not the LR driver's intention to hurt the girls so it was not a wilful act as someone else has already stated. If it is true that he was chasing someone as a result of road rage, adrenaline kicks in and the majority of people do stupid things as a result.

There was a few years ago who was driving a van transporting his race car on a trailer, exiting a roundabout he hit and killed a cyclist, it was proved from phone records that the driver was on his phone at the time. He got a 2 year custodial sentence and was out after 18 months.

Neither act was a malicious or wilful act to cause harm to the victims, they were just both unfortunate outcomes, so in answer to the original question, yes the sentence is enough.
Click to expand...

Rubbish, Both wilful negligence


WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE. Intentional performance of an unreasonable act in disregard of a known risk, making it highly probable that harm will be caused. Willful negligence usually involves a conscious indifference to the consequences. There is no clear distinction between willful negligence and gross negligence.

Bloke is a moron as are people who drive while making a telephone call - I could not give a rats bottom the law will be changing to reflect trends and road rage is on the rise as is mobile phone use! I for one hope the penalties are huge and financially damaging for the perpetrator.

I Sincerely hope this fool is the subject of a civil action! I also hope he is stripped of his job at Jaguar Landrover and the person who was reported to be laughing at his antics also dismissed from their employment
 
neil_g said:
Sentencing for serious injury or death on the road is a joke to be fair.

And "really?" to the suggestion that 2 years for killing a cyclist while paying more attention to a mobile phone was adiqute because it wasn't malicious..

As for land rover, to be fair i don't think his employer should be held accountable for his actions. Beyond maybe a good will jesture.
Click to expand...

Well IF he is a contractor doing a job for LR then they are responsible for the contractors actions, plenty of precedence to support that afaik
 
neil_g said:
And "really?" to the suggestion that 2 years for killing a cyclist while paying more attention to a mobile phone was adiqute because it wasn't malicious..
Click to expand...
That suggestion was never made.
 
LASTOLITE said:
Rubbish, Both wilful negligence


WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE. Intentional performance of an unreasonable act in disregard of a known risk, making it highly probable that harm will be caused. Willful negligence usually involves a conscious indifference to the consequences. There is no clear distinction between willful negligence and gross negligence.

Bloke is a moron as are people who drive while making a telephone call - I could not give a rats bottom the law will be changing to reflect trends and road rage is on the rise as is mobile phone use! I for one hope the penalties are huge and financially damaging for the perpetrator.

I Sincerely hope this fool is the subject of a civil action! I also hope he is stripped of his job at Jaguar Landrover and the person who was reported to be laughing at his antics also dismissed from their employment
Click to expand...

Except neither you, nor I mentioned wilful negligence. The term originally used was wilful act. Which means it would have been his intention to cause harm to the girls, which he didn't.

Also, as stated in the article, he no longer works for JLR. Is there any evidence to suggest the passenger also worked for JLR, I haven't seen any, but he wasn't in control of the vehicle so can hardly be held accountable for the drivers actions
 
LASTOLITE said:
Rubbish, Both wilful negligence


WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE. Intentional performance of an unreasonable act in disregard of a known risk, making it highly probable that harm will be caused. Willful negligence usually involves a conscious indifference to the consequences. There is no clear distinction between willful negligence and gross negligence.

Bloke is a moron as are people who drive while making a telephone call - I could not give a rats bottom the law will be changing to reflect trends and road rage is on the rise as is mobile phone use! I for one hope the penalties are huge and financially damaging for the perpetrator.

I Sincerely hope this fool is the subject of a civil action! I also hope he is stripped of his job at Jaguar Landrover and the person who was reported to be laughing at his antics also dismissed from their employment
Click to expand...
Well then your interpretation is not one that the CPS had in mind to use. The definition of negligence is the descriptor, it is not the legal translation into determination of the act itself.

As for the hope that the convicted person should suffer civil action etc... best of luck as you are now drifting into 'double jeopardy'. What next - Weekly flogging in the town centre AFTER he has served his sentence? For the full wrathful punishment, why not place him in a gibbet and hang the whole contraption near his victims' home so they can watch him die slowly and his bones bleach.... a little too 17th Century perhaps? Do you want justice and redemption or just revenge?
 
Last edited:
LASTOLITE said:
Well IF he is a contractor doing a job for LR then they are responsible for the contractors actions, plenty of precedence to support that afaik
Click to expand...

LR can't possibly be accountable for the driver as they had no control of the vehicle when the collision occurred. The Driver was entirely responsible for the tragic collision and that's been proved in Court.
 
Double jeopardy? Surely that means you can't be retried for the same offence rather than not be held accountable financially after being found guilty of an offence?

From a different angle, had he caused similar injuries (or even just run them off the road) to the driver he was chasing, could/should the charge have been attempted murder?
 
Nod said:
From a different angle, had he caused similar injuries (or even just run them off the road) to the driver he was chasing, could/should the charge have been attempted murder?
Click to expand...
Quite possibly as she was the one being subjected to a wilful act.
 
Nod said:
Double jeopardy? Surely that means you can't be retried for the same offence rather than not be held accountable financially after being found guilty of an offence?

From a different angle, had he caused similar injuries (or even just run them off the road) to the driver he was chasing, could/should the charge have been attempted murder?
Click to expand...
Not in terms of a retrial but that punishment is perceived as being extended after the term is served.

It is a difficult one as damages and compensation are different.

Essentially, by demanding what could be a never ending 'payment' in compensation for the victims' potential 'needs' into adulthood you would indenture the criminal for a life of servitude, that would open a whole new can of worms into the legalities of compensation. Damages again could prove inadequate to support the victims immediate needs.

The driver involved is unlikely to have 'assets' at a level that would even make it possible to make meaningful alterations to the home the victims may need. (Floor level showers, stair lifts or, as in one case I have been involved in, an internal elevator capable of taking a cheelchair).

It's one of tge issues that the CICA will have a part to play in (as the parents will have their own claims too).

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/criminal-injuries-compensation-authority.

Essentially we all could be in a similsr situation either as a protagonist or a victim. I have been in an accident where a driver struck my car at high speed whilst she was involved in a bout of road rage. She died instantly but my then wife was in hospital for 3 months. My insurance company dealt with the main stuff but the compensation claim for injury was messy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top