Should Driver like this face tougher sentencing and Lifetime Driving Ban

[Bernie174]

Intent = You mean to do something, in this case you INTEND to kill or seriously injure.

There is NO evidence to support an INTENT, you are trying to assign a meaning to a word that is not there.

Was what he did reckless or dangerous, yes, so the appropriate offence is the one he was convicted of.

If someone foolish wanted to chuck an offence in involving an intent, he would have walked away laughing, no prison, no disqual.

Disqual him for longer he'd probably still drive, but without insurance, OK, I accept that doesn't make it right, but the idea of courts isn't retribution.

 

[simonblue]

Intent = You mean to do something, in this case you INTEND to kill or seriously injure.

There is NO evidence to support an INTENT, you are trying to assign a meaning to a word that is not there.

Was what he did reckless or dangerous, yes, so the appropriate offence is the one he was convicted of.

If someone foolish wanted to chuck an offence in involving an intent, he would have walked away laughing, no prison, no disqual.

Disqual him for longer he'd probably still drive, but without insurance, OK, I accept that doesn't make it right, but the idea of courts isn't retribution.

Ok how do you deal with people like this,he also has offence 2x driving while using an phone,and an drug offence,do you really think somebody like this is going to change,or that he hasn't driven like this before.
So let just give his licence back again,as for he will probably drive again not if was in prison,he should have got at least 10 years and a lifetime ban,and if he didn't learn from that lesson back to prison for him.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Ok how do you deal with people like this,he also has offence 2x driving while using an phone,and an drug offence,do you really think somebody like this is going to change,or that he hasn't driven like this before.
So let just give his licence back again,as for he will probably drive again not if was in prison,he should have got at least 10 years and a lifetime ban,and if he didn't learn from that lesson back to prison for him.

1. He will drive anyway. He won't have anything to lose if you ban him for life. Driving whilst disqualifed is a jail sentence, but not that long a one. He needs to appreciate he will drive again, and will need to behave.
2. 2x phone and 1 drug offence doesn't make a master criminal. The guy is a scrote with two petty motoring convictions and a minor drug drug offence. There is no disputing that he is not a model citizen, but he isn't fred west. He's made a grave error of judgement through some really shoddy driving that ennded tragically. A short sharp detention in the finest her majesties finest jails is enough hopefully to wisen him up.
3. If he drives whilst disqualified, he will go back to jail, and his ban will be longer. He needs to learn rules are there when he is on parole.

 

[Bernie174]

A drugs conviction that's 10 years old? 2 tickets, for using a mobile while driving. I'm sorry that hardly makes him any competition to Peter Suttcliffe!

You can't know what will happen in terms of his changing, nor can I, but everyone deserves that opportunity.

I'd be surprised if the same things were said had this bloke been a 45 year old business man driving a BMW.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Not like you and I to agree but...

 

[simonblue]

Again no thought for the victim,a young boy lost his life & yes i would feel the same if it was anybody.

You say this guy deserves an opportunity,what did he say as soon as he got out of court you know,10 years it should have been,when you go around driving like that their is a very high chance that this could of happen,their have been enough deaths on the roads.

 

[Bernie174]

I was thinking that myself....Must go and lay down in a darkened room

 

[Bernie174]

You say this guy deserves an opportunity,what did he say as soon as he got out of court you know,10 years it have been,when you go around driving like that their is a very high chance that this could of happen,their have been enough deaths on the roads.

In which case, I can probably collect 20 or 30 car reg numbers who commit the similar offence of dangerous or reckless driving every morning, and another 20 or 30 on the way home in the evening. Of those I don't doubt a percentage will have previous for some sort of minor crime, shoplifting, drunk, criminal damage and drugs. I would be only too happy if they were banned for life. I somehow doubt that would wash with the majority of the population though.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Again no thought for the victim,a young boy lost his life & yes i would feel the same if it was anybody.

Its tragic yes, but it was an unintended consequence of a stupid action. You have to punish the actual action (driving dangerously) not the actual consequence. This isn't Fred West, Harold Shipman etc we are talking about.

No punishment would bring that boys life back, and none would be suitable for the aggrieved family but the bigger picture needs looked at. He was driving too fast and made a terrible error of judgement. He can learn and move on from this.

You say this guy deserves an opportunity,what did he say as soon as he got out of court you know,10 years it should have been,when you go around driving like that their is a very high chance that this could of happen,their have been enough deaths on the roads.

Given the number of journeys undertaken by road, and given we aren't designed to collide into anything more than 10mph, I'd say there is remarkably little deaths of the road.

I actually believe he has a point, life does go on, it doesn't stop. He needs to think closely about he lives the rest of his life and ensure he doesn't do anything like this again. I know if was my friends/family, I wouldn't want the driver put away for life or even banned from driving for life. It wouldn't serve any good. Bad things happen to good people all the time through careless and negligence, it shouldn't mean they are treated the same as murderers.

 

[simonblue]

I wonder if you two would agree if it was your child.

Or would you just say tough s*** happens

 

[SFTPhotography]

I wonder if you two would agree if it was your child.

Or would you just say tough s*** happens

I've not got children, but close family/friends. If it did, I would be able to accept they didn't mean it and although it was a stupid thing to do, they wouldn't deserve to be strung up.

To have a fair legal system, we have to have one that looks mainly at the intent/action, not the outcome. The victims family are never the ones who should dictate what should and shouldn't happen. They can not see things fairly.

 

[Bernie174]

I wonder if you two would agree if it was your child.

Or would you just say tough s*** happens

You are bring emotion into something where it doesn't belong. Law is there to work on the facts of the matter in question, not on the likes and dislikes of consequence or something he wasn't on trial for. He was on trial for causing death by reckless/dangerous. He pleaded guilty to it, so he gets a 'discount' on the tariff. He has got the same as anyone else would have, in fact he probably got a bit more. Justice has been done, and seen to be done. Bringing emotion into it doesn't change that. Sorry, but thats the cold hard facts of life.

 

[simonblue]

In which case, I can probably collect 20 or 30 car reg numbers who commit the similar offence of dangerous or reckless driving every morning, and another 20 or 30 on the way home in the evening. Of those I don't doubt a percentage will have previous for some sort of minor crime, shoplifting, drunk, criminal damage and drugs. I would be only too happy if they were banned for life. I somehow doubt that would wash with the majority of the population though.

Your right on that we are so in love with are cars,we just don't care any more

 

[Bernie174]

Correct, because we all know that breaking driving laws isn't actually criminal is it? Oh....Hang on....Suddenly it is, but only for the yobbery, it's OK if I say break the speed limit, obviously.

 

[simonblue]

You are bring emotion into something where it doesn't belong. Law is there to work on the facts of the matter in question, not on the likes and dislikes of consequence or something he wasn't on trial for. He was on trial for causing death by reckless/dangerous. He pleaded guilty to it, so he gets a 'discount' on the tariff. He has got the same as anyone else would have, in fact he probably got a bit more. Justice has been done, and seen to be done. Bringing emotion into it doesn't change that. Sorry, but thats the cold hard facts of life.

He didn't plead guilty,the jury took 45min to fine him guilty.

 

[simonblue]

I've not got children, but close family/friends. If it did, I would be able to accept they didn't mean it and although it was a stupid thing to do, they wouldn't deserve to be strung up.

To have a fair legal system, we have to have one that looks mainly at the intent/action, not the outcome. The victims family are never the ones who should dictate what should and shouldn't happen. They can not see things fairly.

Say that when it happen to you.

 

[Stuart M]

Is the legal meaning of the word 'intent' the same as the real meaning or does it have slightly different connotations within the framework of the law?

 

[SFTPhotography]

Your right on that we are so in love with are cars,we just don't care any more

No, we just pragmatically assess intent and actions. Sorry if it has happened to you, truly.

However I feel if you are negligent in any other aspect of life (I put some roof tiles up and they fall over killing a child I doubt I'd see jail time) but if I kill a child by accident whilst driving I go to jail for 5 years. Or more likely I have an out of control dog, and it kills a child, I'd probably not see jail. Car drivers actually get a crap deal when it comes to unintended consequences IMHO.

 

[Bernie174]

He didn't plead guilty,the jury took 45min to fine him guilty.

Your right, I apologise.

Say that when it happen to you.

How do you know it hasn't. Either way, it's irrelevent, as I said, Courts are a hearing of facts not emotion, I have the advantage there, I worked with that system, and obviously understand it. Most people, including you don't seem able to do so.

 

[Bernie174]

Is the legal meaning of the word 'intent' the same as the real meaning or does it have slightly different connotations within the framework of the law?

In spite of what some think, most law nowadays in written in straight English, and what it says is what it means, unless, like in the theft act, it defines words used in offences as to what Parliament meant them to mean.
Intent means exactly what it means to you and I. You did something on purpose, 'intending' a consequence. Even if chummy did mean to kill the child, there's no evidence to support that, so you cannot charge with anything other than causing death by reckless or dangerous driving.

 

[simonblue]

No, we just pragmatically assess intent and actions. Sorry if it has happened to you, truly.

However I feel if you are negligent in any other aspect of life (I put some roof tiles up and they fall over killing a child I doubt I'd see jail time) but if I kill a child by accident whilst driving I go to jail for 5 years. Or more likely I have an out of control dog, and it kills a child, I'd probably not see jail. Car drivers actually get a crap deal when it comes to unintended consequences IMHO.

But i feel the same for dog owner if their out in public,if their were more consequences for people action just maybe idiots like him would maybe think twice.

 

[SFTPhotography]

But i feel the same for dog owner if their out in public,if their were more consequences for people action just maybe idiots like him would maybe think twice.

I see no reason for these aggressive dogs etc, but it is just the way the world is.

Listen, lets say I do some wiring in my house, and I do it wrong, and I am babysitting my mates kid and the child electrocutes themselves due to my bad wiring and dies...should I really get jail time for that? Its un-intentional. Maybe better still, I leave exposed wiring out and I know the child is playing in there and he/she dies due to an electic shok.

I see it as careless, and in my view, careless people don't belong in prison.

 

[simonblue]

Your right, I apologise.



How do you know it hasn't. Either way, it's irrelevent, as I said, Courts are a hearing of facts not emotion, I have the advantage there, I worked with that system, and obviously understand it. Most people, including you don't seem able to do so.

Yes i have worked in the courts,and i have a full understanding on how they work,and what always got to me was how the system so often let down the victims.

 

[Bernie174]

Painful as this is for some to understand, the judicial system is there to punish breaches of law. It isn't the social services.
You say people are let down. These threads appear all the time, as we both know, and mostly they are full of misinformed rhetoric. The courts punish to the extent they can in the circumstances. As I keep pointing out, you, the public whined constantly about 'unfair' sentences, usually trying, badly, to compare apples with oranges.
So the end result is what you have now, a standard tariff, with mitigating and aggravating factors. The Courts hands are tied, and they are tied because you, the great British public complained that in Wales you got a £20 fine for speeding and in London you got a £25 fine.
Unintended consequences I accept, but the current system is down to yourselves.

 

[Yves Geza]

Holy moly! As I read down this thread I agreed with [so liked] posts from both Steve and Bernie!




I'm not too scared though! Once, just once, I agreed with "he who must not be named" [J** S*******]. It must have been the kiss of death! A fortnight later, he was gone

 

[Lynton]

Personally, I will go against the grain here. The crime is one of non intent or lack of care/negligence/bad driving not deliberate murder. I feel the sentence is fine to be honest. If it were me or a family member killed I wouldn't want the person put away for life if thats how they went. It does no good. It serves no purpose. I also think the ban is fine if it is the 1st serious offence. Second serious offence like Dangerous/carelsss drive then yes, lifetime bans but we live in a modern society. People need the chance to redeem themselves. He poses no risk to public safety if he doesn't drive for a bit and learns from this mistake whilst off the road.

Right, so I will agree he didn't intend to kill the kid, however he did intend to speed - you don't accidently find yourself doing double the speed limit without knowing it. If that had been my kid killed and he said that within my earshot, he'd have got a severe pummelling! Scum of the earth!

 

[simonblue]

Painful as this is for some to understand, the judicial system is there to punish breaches of law. It isn't the social services.
You say people are let down. These threads appear all the time, as we both know, and mostly they are full of misinformed rhetoric. The courts punish to the extent they can in the circumstances. As I keep pointing out, you, the public whined constantly about 'unfair' sentences, usually trying, badly, to compare apples with oranges.
So the end result is what you have now, a standard tariff, with mitigating and aggravating factors. The Courts hands are tied, and they are tied because you, the great British public complained that in Wales you got a £20 fine for speeding and in London you got a £25 fine.
Unintended consequences I accept, but the current system is down to yourselves.

In this case the maximum sentence is 14 years,so the court had a lot of leeway and I know every trick an legal team can pull to make out their poor client are the victims.
So in this case he got of very lightly.

 

[viv1969]

Painful as this is for some to understand, the judicial system is there to punish breaches of law. It isn't the social services.
You say people are let down. These threads appear all the time, as we both know, and mostly they are full of misinformed rhetoric. The courts punish to the extent they can in the circumstances. As I keep pointing out, you, the public whined constantly about 'unfair' sentences, usually trying, badly, to compare apples with oranges.
So the end result is what you have now, a standard tariff, with mitigating and aggravating factors. The Courts hands are tied, and they are tied because you, the great British public complained that in Wales you got a £20 fine for speeding and in London you got a £25 fine.
Unintended consequences I accept, but the current system is down to yourselves.

I believe you yourself are now "you, the public".
Talking down to people just makes you look like a bit of a berk.

 

[Bernie174]

In this case the maximum sentence is 14 years,so the court had a lot of leeway and I know every trick an legal team can pull to make out their poor client are the victims.
So in this case he got of very lightly.

No, there's very little latitude, Judges have a set of sentencing guidelines. For every given offence there's a tariff, and factors that can very that up or down. 14 years may be the maximum, that does not mean that it is considered.

I believe you yourself are now "you, the public".
Talking down to people just makes you look like a bit of a berk.

I am not and wasn't someone who complained about the 'fairness' of sentencing, the public did. It's them that lost out on the matter, it's all of us that reap the benefits of that. It's not talking down t people, it's simply telling them that their whining is the reason why sentencing is now restricted. A classic case of the public wanting it there own way, and then finding it had unintended consequences.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Gulan Ahmed, defending Payne, said: “He is remorseful and sorry for what he did"

Really?

A driver who knocked down and killed a five-year-old boy while travelling at twice the speed limit callously told the family: ‘‘S**t happens, life goes on.’’

Hmmmm

 

[SFTPhotography]

Right, so I will agree he didn't intend to kill the kid, however he did intend to speed - you don't accidently find yourself doing double the speed limit without knowing it. If that had been my kid killed and he said that within my earshot, he'd have got a severe pummelling! Scum of the earth!

Yeah. He intended to speed and his driving was dangerous which caused an unintended death - hence death by dangerous driving and a suitably short jail sentence as the driving was so dreadfully bad.

Scum of the earth...is that based on his actions or the outcome. Scum of the earth to me are the murders, armed robbers, rapists of this world. He's just a scrote.

 

[the black fox]

yes but a scrote that has killed a child .a lifetime ban would not stop him from driving again as he obviously has no concience ,i know of plenty of locals who drive but have never passed there test ,or drive while banned ,or text while driving and thats just one small part of the u.k .unfortunately in most of these cases the punishment no longer fits the crime .

i do know the answer but it would never be implemented in our so called civilised society .but you can't drive a car with no hands can you ???

 

[Bernie174]

Gulan Ahmed, defending Payne, said: “He is remorseful and sorry for what he did"

The official answer to that would be that his Solicitor is only a mouthpiece, who says what his client tells him.
The reality may well not match that, and there are a few solicitors doing time for telling clients what to say to get the least possible sentence.

In this case, do I believe his solicitor? No. But then I am not sat hearing the case. Judges aren't daft, they have also heard it all before but as I said, whether or not he believed the defence statements, he's constrained in what he can do.

I have seen one judge shoot down mitigating statements from a Barrister, which was very very funny. Although he had given my colleagues evidence a very hard time as well (oddly he didn't give me any aggro!), so at least he was fair about it.

 

[SFTPhotography]

yes but a scrote that has killed a child .a lifetime ban would not stop him from driving again as he obviously has no concience ,i know of plenty of locals who drive but have never passed there test ,or drive while banned ,or text while driving and thats just one small part of the u.k .unfortunately in most of these cases the punishment no longer fits the crime .

i do know the answer but it would never be implemented in our so called civilised society .but you can't drive a car with no hands can you ???

He didn't mean it intentionally, big difference.

 

[andya700]

Driving on to the pavement to deliberately run someone over is intent. This isn't. The fact he didn't brake shows poor obersevstion and/or too high a speed to react to a hazard which he didn't know was there and couldn't react to in time.

Hence it's death by dangerous driving. The sentence sits in line with culpiple homicide and is, given how we sentence that crime and murder totally appropriate.

When you drive at more than twice the limit in a 30 zone, and then kill someone - it really is not an accident in my opinion.
You have ignored all the written and unwritten laws which apply to driving, and as a consequence of the reckless, thoughtless behaviour a person has died - that is not an accident.
The fact that his solicitor has lied in court to attempt to garner a less severe outcome for his client, and then had to listen to what the scumbag had to say to the deceased lad's family, just makes this even more disgusting.
Because of this, I really do hope that a very painfull accident befalls him, and then someone can say about him - s**t happens!

 

[SFTPhotography]

Recklessness and intent are different. Intent is deliberately mounting the pavement whilst driving. Recklessness is this. Because it's so reckless he gets some jail time.

 

[WelshNoob]

As a father if someone killed my child and said "S*** happens get over it" it's the kind of sentence that would put me in prison for murder.

 

[BRASH]

As a father if someone killed my child and said "S*** happens get over it" it's the kind of sentence that would put me in prison for murder.

 

[big soft moose]

Because of this, I really do hope that a very painfull accident befalls him, and then someone can say about him - s**t happens!

indeed if/when he gets shanked in jail for being an arrogant prick (which won't happen as he'll wind up in some cat c country club) i would take great pleasure in saying ah well s*** happens

 

[big soft moose]

When you drive at more than twice the limit in a 30 zone, and then kill someone - it really is not an accident in my opinion.
!

Indeed - the lack of intent defence is a bit like saying well i fired an automatic weapon into a crowded theatre but hey i didnt intend to kill ... if you deliberate drive , or otherwise act like a total bell end , and someone dies as a result , then your intentional actions have caused that death - its not an accident