Should Driver like this face tougher sentencing and Lifetime Driving Ban

big soft moose said:
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
Click to expand...

The intentional actions being what "driving too fast" or "killing someone"

Driving a car at someone deliberately or swerving to hit them with a car is murder.

Driving like a twonk, being unlucky isn't despite the tragic outcome. If he hasn't hit the child the crime is to me just the same speeding probably dangerous driving and it should be punished as thus. Hence I feel the sentence etc is appropriate in the context of how we deal with other crimes.

You could maybe argue such wanton speed in an urban area shows an intent not to preserve life or a lack of intent to be safe which comes under dangerous driving/negligence/culpiple homocide.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Driving like a twonk, being unlucky
Click to expand...

If you are driving like a reckless "twonk", then luck has very little part to play in the matter, because you have already stacked the odds against yourself.
Surprise, surprise - if you drive sensibly and have consideration for those around you, then the odds are stacked in your favour.
 
It would be interesting to have a transcript of the entire 'discussion' that took place with the family outside the court. The news states there was an argument, who instigated that? What was said? It is quite possible, unpleasant character that he is, that he was goaded into saying something stupid by circumstance. We have no idea if he is truly remorseful or not, he does however have some time to think about it.

As for the sentence. Fits the offence as it should. The driving ban, if he does indeed get out early, is still a good few years. More importantly it could make driving prohibitively expensive for him on insurance for some time.

Overall, I don't see a problem with the sentence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
andy700 said:
If you are driving like a reckless "twonk", then luck has very little part to play in the matter, because you have already stacked the odds against yourself.
Surprise, surprise - if you drive sensibly and have consideration for those around you, then the odds are stacked in your favour.
Click to expand...

Which is why we have section 3, section 2 charges depending on the level of twonk behaviour....
 
WelshNoob said:
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.
Click to expand...

Err, wouldn't that be manslaughter? after all you wouldn't have left your house in the morning with the intent to remove someone from the gene pool.............you may even get a round of applause.
 
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
Click to expand...

No, it is not.

A firearm has only one use and that is to kill. To shoot into a crowd there is either something not sparking right in your head, in which case there may be a defence on the grounds of diminished responsibilities, or you meant to kill someone.
It's unarguable.
Someone driving car, a normal thing which most of us use often, and designed to take you from point a to point b is entirely different.
There was no 'defence' regarding intent simply because the matter had not and does not arise.
Even if he did intend to kill, there is not one shred of evidence, thats real evidence, not imagined as seems to be happening on here, to support that, nowt, narda, bugger all, nothing. No evidence, no conviction!
There is an appropriate charge, and that was what was used. He was found guilty and sentenced under the guidelines that you, the public pressed your MP's for.
Nothing here that's strange, odd or unusual.
Had anyone been stupid enough to charge him with anything more than death by dangerous, then he would be walking now, and you'd all be whining about that!
Good god, it's like pulling teeth with some of you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Bernie174 said:
No, it is not.

A firearm has only one use and that is to kill. To shoot into a crowd there is either something not sparking right in your head, in which case there may be a defence on the grounds of diminished responsibilities, or you meant to kill someone.
It's unarguable.
Someone driving car, a normal thing which most of us use often, and designed to take you from point a to point b is entirely different.
There was no 'defence' regarding intent simply because the matter had not and does not arise.
Even if he did intend to kill, there is not one shred of evidence, thats real evidence, not imagined as seems to be happening on here, to support that, nowt, narda, bugger all, nothing. No evidence, no conviction!
There is an appropriate charge, and that was what was used. He was found guilty and sentenced under the guidelines that you, the public pressed your MP's for.
Nothing here that's strange, odd or unusual.
Had anyone been stupid enough to charge him with anything more than death by dangerous, then he would be walking now, and you'd all be whining about that!
Good god, it's like pulling teeth with some of you.
Click to expand...

So is reading posts like that :)
 
Only Ruth, because you don't like the content.
The justice system is a product of public opinion, based mostly on public own self interest.
Speeding is seen as perfectly acceptable when someone comes on here moaning about a ticket. But clearly not when it's a yob.
Court sentences are unfair when it's someone 'respectable', but dreadfully lenient when it's a yob.
Evidence is not required when it's the aforementioned yob, but heaven forbid the same should apply to anyone with a job.
It applies equally. The same standard of evidence is required for all. If you don't like the sentencing, write to your MP and don't moan about it when you are sentenced for a similar offence and think it's too harsh.
 
Bernie174 said:
Only Ruth, because you don't like the content.
The justice system is a product of public opinion, based mostly on public own self interest.
Speeding is seen as perfectly acceptable when someone comes on here moaning about a ticket. But clearly not when it's a yob.
Court sentences are unfair when it's someone 'respectable', but dreadfully lenient when it's a yob.
Evidence is not required when it's the aforementioned yob, but heaven forbid the same should apply to anyone with a job.
It applies equally. The same standard of evidence is required for all. If you don't like the sentencing, write to your MP and don't moan about it when you are sentenced for a similar offence and think it's too harsh.
Click to expand...

If just re-read the thread. The only thing I've said as regards this man's sentence was that I believe the ban should start upon his release from prison and not before.
I don't need the coaching of an ex cop on matters of evidence, thanks :)
Now if I were you, I'd sit down and have a cup of tea before you do yourself a mischeif with your indignation.
 
Bernie174 said:
No, it is not.

A firearm has only one use and that is to kill. To shoot into a crowd there is either something not sparking right in your head, in which case there may be a defence on the grounds of diminished responsibilities, or you meant to kill someone.
It's unarguable.
Someone driving car, a normal thing which most of us use often, and designed to take you from point a to point b is entirely different.
Click to expand...

nope - firearms have lots of uses, hunting, plinking, target shooting, pest control and so forth

also driving a car responsibly is a normal thing to do (just like firing a gun is a responsible manner) , driving like an utter twit at 60+ in a 30 is not normal by any stretch of the imagination ... so by your logic either you are not right in the head , or you meant to kill someone (or at least didnt care if you did or not)... what other explantion is there for behaving so recklessly ?
 
I think the point of hunting and pest control is to kill, no?
 
big soft moose said:
nope - firearms have lots of uses, hunting, plinking, target shooting, pest control and so forth

also driving a car responsibly is a normal thing to do (just like firing a gun is a responsible manner) , driving like an utter twit at 60+ in a 30 is not normal by any stretch of the imagination ... so by your logic either you are not right in the head , or you meant to kill someone (or at least didnt care if you did or not)... what other explantion is there for behaving so recklessly ?
Click to expand...

Your original analogy was firing a gun into a theathre/cinema....

Driving 60 in an urban area which is 30 is utter mental, even by my standards. However, I do not believe other than enjoying some very misplaced speed, there is any malice in it. Just a wanton lack of care/forward thinking. I'd invite you to consider what the careful competent driver test means in relation to section 2 and section 3 of the road traffic act and how this charge fits the crime.

As I have said, if you wish to kill someone in a car, you don't drive quick, you drive it at them and mount the pavement to ensure you hit them.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Only Ruth, because you don't like the cont
The justice system is a product of public opinion, based mostly on public own self interest.
Speeding is seen as perfectly acceptable when someone comes on here moaning about a ticket. But clearly not when it's a yob.
Court sentences are unfair when it's someone 'respectable', but dreadfully lenient when it's a yob.
Evidence is not required when it's the aforementioned yob, but heaven forbid the same should apply to anyone with a job.
It applies equally. The same standard of evidence is required for all. If you don't like the sentencing, write to your MP and don't moan about it when you are sentenced for a similar offence and think it's too harsh.
Click to expand...

I agree no one is above or below the law,full stop.
My Boss came into work one day cussing because he had got an ticket for driving using an mobile,everybody was you poor old thing bloody police,i told him don't look for any sympathy of me your always doing it,now you got caught face up to it.
You ought to seem the look on the others faces,but he was in the wrong.
 
also driving a car responsibly is a normal thing to do (just like firing a gun is a responsible manner) , driving like an utter twit at 60+ in a 30 is not normal by any stretch of the imagination
Click to expand...

Certainly isn't as unusual as some of think it is.
It's not by my thinking, it's simply there is no evidence of an intent to kill. Firing a gun into a crowd is evidence of intent. You can like it or not, I care not one iota, thats the way it is.

Simon, of course those same people will if you show them the article that started this would be muttering how terrible it is! Double standards, it's a common trait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Bernie174 said:
Certainly isn't as unusual as some of think it is.
It's not by my thinking, it's simply there is no evidence of an intent to kill. Firing a gun into a crowd is evidence of intent. You can like it or not, I care not one iota, thats the way it is.

Simon, of course those same people will if you show them the article that started this would be muttering how terrible it is! Double standards, it's a common trait.
Click to expand...

You can't have it both ways bernie - if acting like a prick with a gun is intent, then acting like a prick with a car is also intent.

If someone fires a gun into a crowd without the specific intent to kill anyone you would still see that as intent to kill because its a horrifically reckless thing to do and it could be reasonably foreseen that it would have fatal consequences (and i'd agree) ,

so why is behaving in an incredibly reckless and dangerous manner behind the wheel not also evidence of intent by the same logic , as it should also be foresseen that fatal consequences are near invitable when someone drives at 60 plus in a 30.
 
big soft moose said:
You can't have it both ways bernie - if acting like a prick with a gun is intent, then acting like a prick with a car is also intent.

If someone fires a gun into a crowd without the specific intent to kill anyone you would still see that as intent to kill because its a horrifically reckless thing to do and it could be reasonably foreseen that it would have fatal consequences (and i'd agree) ,

so why is behaving in an incredibly reckless and dangerous manner behind the wheel not also evidence of intent by the same logic , as it should also be foresseen that fatal consequences are near invitable when someone drives at 60 plus in a 30.
Click to expand...

That pretty much sums it up for me. We are far too lenient on drivers who kill/maim with selfish, thoughtless driving.


.
 
Bernie174 said:
Simon, of course those same people will if you show them the article that started this would be muttering how terrible it is! Double standards, it's a common trait.
Click to expand...

The type of people who demand zero tolerance for all crimes then complain when they get a speeding ticket.


Steve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
You can't have it both ways bernie - if acting like a prick with a gun is intent, then acting like a prick with a car is also intent.
Click to expand...

You see the trouble with that statement is that not only can I have it both ways, it is both ways.

Driving at excess speed is not evidence of intent.

Lets look at the definitions of intent shall we.

1. determined to do (something) - Oxford Dictionary. Is there any evidence he was determined to kill anyone? Erm, no.

2.
1. something that is intended; aim; purpose; design
2. the act of intending
3. (Law) law the will or purpose with which one does an act
4. implicit meaning; connotation
5. to all intents and purposes for all practical purposes; virtually
(The Free Dictionary)

1 - Was a death intended? Erm, no
2. Was he acting so a death was intended? Erm, no
3. Was his will or purpose to kill someone? Erm, no
4&5 not relevant.

So how much more simply do you need it? Driving at excess speed is not evidence of Intent to kill. It is evidence of danger, and it is evidence of recklessness depending on the circumstances. No matter what you try to do with the word, it will not fit this instance.

As I keep saying had he been charged with anything else then he'd be a free man, he would walk for it. Why? because the evidence does not support anything other than what he was charged with!


That pretty much sums it up for me. We are far too lenient on drivers who kill/maim with selfish, thoughtless driving
Click to expand...

If it is thoughtless, then it cannot have been with any intent.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Gotta love copy and paste.
 
The real injustice is the tragedy in the father having to hold and look at his young sons blooded, bruised and battered body as his very existence drains from body at the scene of the collision. The never ending torture of that image. The words of the little s*** still echoing in your head. I would have knocked him out, That's restorative justice ! - or perhaps common assault in the eyes of the law. Would be worth picking up litter or community service just to wipe the smug grin off his face.
 
My heart agrees with most of the input in this thread and would like to see the low life hung by the testicles but my head is telling me that the sentence is probably the right one as Bernie and Steve (ST4) are saying.
 
Bernie174 said:
You see the trouble with that statement is that not only can I have it both ways, it is both ways.

Driving at excess speed is not evidence of intent.

Lets look at the definitions of intent shall we.

1. determined to do (something) - Oxford Dictionary. Is there any evidence he was determined to kill anyone? Erm, no.

2.
1. something that is intended; aim; purpose; design
2. the act of intending
3. (Law) law the will or purpose with which one does an act
4. implicit meaning; connotation
5. to all intents and purposes for all practical purposes; virtually
(The Free Dictionary)

1 - Was a death intended? Erm, no
2. Was he acting so a death was intended? Erm, no
3. Was his will or purpose to kill someone? Erm, no
4&5 not relevant.

So how much more simply do you need it? Driving at excess speed is not evidence of Intent to kill. It is evidence of danger, and it is evidence of recklessness depending on the circumstances. No matter what you try to do with the word, it will not fit this instance.

As I keep saying had he been charged with anything else then he'd be a free man, he would walk for it. Why? because the evidence does not support anything other than what he was charged with!
If it is thoughtless, then it cannot have been with any intent.
Click to expand...

but then that could also apply to discharging a firearm into a crowd

did they intend to kill - no
was death intended - no
was he acting so that death was intended - no
was his will or purpose to kill some one - no

so ergo discharging a firearm into a crowd isn't murder - except that it is

there was a case a while ago of two little scrotes who dropped a gas canister onto a dual carriageway and killed a driver - their defence was essentially what you've put above that there was no intent to kill , but the judgement was that deliberately behaving in a manner where there's every likely hood of causing death is evidence of intent - which is why a gun man firing into a crowd would be guilty of intent , and also why some who drives like an absolute cock through a built up area at twice the speed limit is also guilty of intent - because he intended to drive at 60 in a 30 knowing full well that his actions could endanger life.
 
That's not a good analogy. If you point a gun into a crowd and pull the trigger and by some fluke it only grazes someone then that's attempted murder. A firearm is a lethal weapon. It's no good saying I didn't mean to kill or hurt anyone. Ignorance of the law is not a defence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Blank_Canvas said:
That's not a good analogy. If you point a gun into a crowd and pull the trigger and by some fluke it only grazes someone then that's attempted murder. A firearm is a lethal weapon. It's no good saying I didn't mean to kill or hurt anyone. Ignorance of the law is not a defence.
Click to expand...

my point is that in the right hands and used responsibly a firearm is safe as houses (responsible gun owners don't wander round firing into crowds) , but in the wrong hands a car is also a lethal weapon... so why is it a defence to say he didn't mean to kill (although actually "s*** happens mate" stops some way short of that) the fact remains that he did , and he did so as a result of his intentional actions ( he wasn't speeding accidentally was he ?)
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
my point is that in the right hands and used responsibly a firearm is safe as houses (responsible gun owners don't wander round firing into crowds) , but in the wrong hands a car is also a lethal weapon... so why is it a defence to say he didn't mean to kill (although actually "s*** happens mate" stops some way short of that) the fact remains that he did , and he did so as a result of his intentional actions ( he wasn't speeding accidentally was he ?)
Click to expand...

I agree with you it's not really a defence. However, in the CJ system the Defendant is entitled to a defence which is articulated by his barrister, however lame that excuse may be. That's just how the system is. Sometimes it works in favour of the victim, at other times it works in favour of the offender.
 
Steve Smith said:
It is because you know what the likely outcome will be before you do it.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Indeed - and the driver in question should have known the likely outcome of driving at twice the speed limit through an area where there were kids.... unless he's mentally ill he must have known the risk he was taking, so implicitly he was acting intentionally when the incident occurred
 
but the judgement was that deliberately behaving in a manner where there's every likely hood of causing death is evidence of intent - which is why a gun man firing into a crowd would be guilty of intent , and also why some who drives like an absolute cock through a built up area at twice the speed limit is also guilty of intent - because he intended to drive at 60 in a 30 knowing full well that his actions could endanger life.
Click to expand...

Is there the will to cause death? No, is causing death the purpose of driving fast? No. so no intent...Again!


How often does someone shoot into a crowd with no intention of killing or injuring? Can you give me any other good reason to shoot into a crowd of people?

How often do you exceed a speed limit? There was a series of Speed Awareness films on TV a few years ago, telling the uneducated that if you drive at 30, and hit a child they will probably live. If you drive at 40 and hit a child they will probably die. So, lets have a purge on drivers, all of you at or above 40, ! Attempted Murder. Except its not going to happen in the real world, for the reasons I've told you time and time again. Excessive speed is not evidence of intent, no matter how much you try and twist it, turn it, provide poor examples, it isn't going to change, it is not evidence of intent.
 
A gun is designed to kill. It is its sole purpose. To argue to shoot it at people and not kill is facetious.

A cars primary purpose is to be driven, to transport. It's an unintended consequence if someone crashes and someone dies.

Driving fast doesn't mean intent to kill.

I wonder if bigsoftmoose has read over the section 2 of road traffic act and the concept of "the driving fell far below that of a careful competent driver" and to paraphrase "it would be obvious to a careful competent driver that the driving posed danger to life and property".

I don't like the idea of a motorists mistake ending up in jail. I also think if you accidentally kill someone in any other way you'll be treated more lieniently. For instance if I put some roof tiles on my house and they fall over killing the postman as I've not secured them, would I really get a five year stretch?
 
At the end of the day, Pete's clearly not going to be able to accept the realities.

Suffice to say, that even if the CPS were stupid enough to charge someone with Manslaughter as the result of what is an accident, and somehow a Jury was stupid enough to convict, that in the time between the conviction and the inevitable successful appeal, the defendant would in all probability get much the same sentence as causing death by dangerous/reckless. So even in that fantasy world, where evidence can be twisted to find anything you like it would make no difference, at least until someone sane looked at it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
ST4 said:
I don't like the idea of a motorists mistake ending up in jail.
Click to expand...

If a motorist's wilful neglect or recklessness causes him to have an accident where someone is killed, then that is far more than a mistake, because he has ignored the law and contributed greatly to the outcome.
 
andy700 said:
If a motorist's wilful neglect or recklessness causes him to have an accident where someone is killed, then that is far more than a mistake, because he has ignored the law and contributed greatly to the outcome.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the speed limit or driving far below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver.

Have you googled section 2 of the road traffic act

(1)For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)—

(a)the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and

(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

(2)A person is also to be regarded as driving dangerously for the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous.

(3)In subsections (1) and (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of those subsections what would be expected of, or obvious to, a competent and careful driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.

(4)In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above the state of a vehicle, regard may be had to anything attached to or carried on or in it and to the manner in which it is attached or carried.]
 
big soft moose said:
so why is behaving in an incredibly reckless and dangerous manner behind the wheel not also evidence of intent by the same logic , as it should also be foresseen that fatal consequences are near invitable when someone drives at 60 plus in a 30.
Click to expand...

After dealing with the incident on Sunday of the consequences of inappropriate speed in a 30 I took a speed gun to the same spot yesterday. Everyone I dealt with (and there were many) was travelling over 55mph with two of them over 60. If I'm reading your views correctly I should be writing them up for attempted murder instead of excess speed? Just so I'm clear; what speed does the attempted murder charge kick in at? One was driving an HGV...should I get the hangman's noose ready for him?
 
Wookee said:
After dealing with the incident on Sunday of the consequences of inappropriate speed in a 30 I took a speed gun to the same spot yesterday. Everyone I dealt with (and there were many) was travelling over 55mph with two of them over 60. If I'm reading your views correctly I should be writing them up for attempted murder instead of excess speed? Just so I'm clear; what speed does the attempted murder charge kick in at? One was driving an HGV...should I get the hangman's noose ready for him?
Click to expand...

I think a better analogy is to say what would the police/courts response if someone thoughtlessly discharged a firearm in a crowded public place, but noone was injured. Presumably at the least that person would be banned from owning firerarms.

To me driving an HGV at 55/60mph in a 30 limit is a permanent ban - i.e. get another job and take the bus.
 
Wookee said:
After dealing with the incident on Sunday of the consequences of inappropriate speed in a 30 I took a speed gun to the same spot yesterday. Everyone I dealt with (and there were many) was travelling over 55mph with two of them over 60. If I'm reading your views correctly I should be writing them up for attempted murder instead of excess speed? Just so I'm clear; what speed does the attempted murder charge kick in at? One was driving an HGV...should I get the hangman's noose ready for him?
Click to expand...

But again that proves a point do we need to get tougher with drivers like this.

Is their a reason why this area has a 30mph speed limit.
When I watch an police TV program,and the policeman say stops a driver for speeding,and the policeman said I stop him because that person is putting other people life's in danger,are they lying.

So my point being is this driver killed some little boy,let's look at the facts of this case.

1/ He didn't even have the guts to admit he was anyway in the wrong over this boys death,he put in an not guilty plead.
2/He didn't even attempt to brake after he hit the boy,he lost control of the car further down the road and cashed into an parked car,which to me mean he was trying to do an hit and run.

I still think at least 10years an a lifetime driving ban.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top