# Ever wonder What's the point in Prosecuting Motorists?



## spen666 (21 Apr 2017)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...ted-on-mobile-phone-spared-jail-a3519751.html

I don't know what to say- using phone, causes serious injury and fails to stop and still not given. a custodial sentence...


----------



## rugby bloke (21 Apr 2017)

Thought he had driven over a speed bump ??? There are no speed bumps any where near that junction.


----------



## Tin Pot (21 Apr 2017)

If conceding authority on violence to the state is not protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty what should the population do?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Apr 2017)

spen666 said:


> fails to stop



He stopped at the scene, says the report, but not before running over the victim.

I'd like to have seen at least a 4 week sentence.


----------



## raleighnut (21 Apr 2017)

Dreadful.


----------



## spen666 (21 Apr 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> He stopped at the scene, says the report, but not before running over the victim.
> 
> I'd like to have seen at least a 4 week sentence.






> The cyclist, an Italian woman, fell off her bike to the ground but Olafusi did not stop and continued to drive over her.



3 paragraphs later....


> Olafusi stopped at the scene and was charged with careless and inconsiderate driving on November 22 2016.




Great journalism!


I would have liked to see a sentence of at least 6 months


----------



## Milkfloat (21 Apr 2017)

I would trade off a custodial sentence with a longer ban - at least 5 years would be a start.


----------



## Tin Pot (21 Apr 2017)

Guns can be licensed right? If the same guy walked down the street and shot this woman by mistake and through carelessness would he get hard time?


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Apr 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> Guns can be licensed right? If the same guy walked down the street and shot this woman by mistake and through carelessness would he get hard time?


He'd get a certificate of proficiency


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Apr 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> Guns can be licensed right? If the same guy walked down the street and shot this woman by mistake and through carelessness would he get hard time?




I've said this many times before; the misuse of any other licensed article resulting in serious injury or death would attract permanent revocation of that licence. Drivers should not get this special exemption they seem to have.


----------



## growingvegetables (21 Apr 2017)

That'll teach him - get a different lawyer, and claim he thought it was a sack of potatoes falling from the sky. Then he'd have been found innocent.


----------



## Milkfloat (21 Apr 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> Guns can be licensed right? If the same guy walked down the street and shot this woman by mistake and through carelessness would he get hard time?



Not neccesarily, but he could forget about owning a gun ever again. He could also lose his licence for some very minor reasons.


----------



## Lonestar (21 Apr 2017)

*Detective Sergeant Cheryl Frost of the Met's roads and transport policing command said Olafusi's "reckless" driving was a "stark reminder of the dangers and consequences of using a mobile phone whilst behind the wheel".
*
Yeah a stark firking reminder but it wont stop drivers continually doing this so long as the sentences take the p155.


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Apr 2017)

Is prison over-crowding the reason a jail sentence isn't given in cases like this?


----------



## Welsh wheels (21 Apr 2017)

spen666 said:


> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...ted-on-mobile-phone-spared-jail-a3519751.html
> 
> I don't know what to say- using phone, causes serious injury and fails to stop and still not given. a custodial sentence...


The only way we will ever get anywhere if we can change people's attitudes towards cyclists and if people learn to be more patient. I don't even bother to react to bad driving anymore because it happens so often.


----------



## Andy_R (22 Apr 2017)

User said:


> Lifetime driving bans don't fill prisons very much.


True, but he'd probably continue driving, just without a license


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Apr 2017)

9 months for intimidating a sleb on his bike

eff all for driving over someone you've knocked off their bike.

Broken Britain.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Apr 2017)

Lonestar said:


> *Detective Sergeant Cheryl Frost of the Met's roads and transport policing command said Olafusi's "reckless" driving was a "stark reminder of the dangers and consequences of using a mobile phone whilst behind the wheel".
> *
> Yeah a stark firking reminder but it wont stop drivers continually doing this so long as the sentences take the p155.



Yebbut aren't we glad this sentence was handed down AFTER mobile phone use wasclamped down on and stiffer sentences are being issued


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Apr 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> 9 months for intimidating a sleb on his bike
> 
> eff all for driving over someone you've knocked off their bike.
> 
> Broken Britain.


I thought that was down to poor reporting

She had a number of outstanding offfence st the time, and it is these that earned her the time inside


----------



## Lonestar (22 Apr 2017)

Cunobelin said:


> Yebbut aren't we glad this sentence was handed down AFTER mobile phone use wasclamped down on and stiffer sentences are being issued



Not sure that would make a blind bit of difference.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Apr 2017)

Lonestar said:


> Not sure that would make a blind bit of difference.


That was my point- it didn't


----------



## Lonestar (22 Apr 2017)

Cunobelin said:


> That was my point- it didn't



Sorry mate,tired.Was up very early (been to work) so not thinking straight..


----------



## simongt (23 Apr 2017)

Welsh wheels said:


> I don't even bother to react to bad driving anymore because it happens so often.


Likewise. There's no point - unless it's a VERY near miss.


----------



## KnackeredBike (24 Apr 2017)

Problem is with police/CPS for not prosecuting for the right offence.

Careless driving = falling below the standard of a careful and competent driver.
Dangerous driving = falling far below the standard of a careful and competent driver.

Dangerous driving unlocks more severe penalties.

If running over a cyclist because you think she is a speed hump isn't far below the standard of a careful and competent driver then we have some s*** careful and competent drivers on the road.


----------



## DaveReading (25 Apr 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> Is prison over-crowding the reason a jail sentence isn't given in cases like this?



Based on the number of times we hear about instances like this, I suspect that judges are currently under pressure to award "suitable" non-custodial sentences.


----------



## benb (25 Apr 2017)

The legislation is terrible. What does "below" vs "far below" the standard of a "careful and competent driver" mean?

They should scrap the distinction, and just have "Caused death whilst in control of a motor vehicle" and "Caused serious injury whilst in control of a motor vehicle" and have another offence of something like "Driving likely to cause death or serious injury"

Then the only job for the court would be to decide whether the death or serious injury was caused by the driver, what their level of culpability was, and sentence accordingly.


----------



## spen666 (25 Apr 2017)

benb said:


> The legislation is terrible. What does "below" vs "far below" the standard of a "careful and competent driver" mean?
> 
> They should scrap the distinction, and just have "Caused death whilst in control of a motor vehicle" and "Caused serious injury whilst in control of a motor vehicle" and have another offence of something like "Driving likely to cause death or serious injury"
> 
> Then the only job for the court would be to decide whether the death or serious injury was caused by the driver, what their level of culpability was, and sentence accordingly.




I have argued this for years.

Similarly we should scrap ABH and GBH and Common assault and just have one offence of assault.

The maximum sentence for driving would be the same and also for assault.

The courts would decide the relevant seriousness when sentencing


The Law commission refused to look at this idea several years ago when put forward by my the part of civil service as a topic to consider ( At time the Law commission had contacted us and others asking for suggestions of topics to consider). They said it was too big a topic to look at!!!!!


----------



## simongt (25 Apr 2017)

How about this as a suggestion. Do what some states in the USA do and have mandatory punishments for some crimes. So for say, drink driving; regardless of how little / much the offender is over; first offence - a five year ban and a fine of 30% of their gross annual income. Second offence - a life ban and a fine of 50% of their gross annual income. And being mandatory, no smart arse lawyer can talk them off it. If folk are acutely aware that that is what they'll get stuck with, it MAY focus the mind a bit. Similar for using cell phones etc. whilst driving.


----------



## KnackeredBike (25 Apr 2017)

simongt said:


> How about this as a suggestion. Do what some states in the USA do and have mandatory punishments for some crimes. So for say, drink driving; regardless of how little / much the offender is over; first offence - a five year ban and a fine of 30% of their gross annual income. Second offence - a life ban and a fine of 50% of their gross annual income. And being mandatory, no smart arse lawyer can talk them off it. If folk are acutely aware that that is what they'll get stuck with, it MAY focus the mind a bit. Similar for using cell phones etc. whilst driving.


This is already the case, there are sentencing guidelines which say what the minimum sentences are unless the court has special reasons not to enact them, and then guidelines to increase them depending on the severity of the offence. The guidelines also include mitigating and aggravating factors for the offence, e.g. "spiked drinks" vs "driving near a school".

For instance, dangerous driving has a *minimum* one year ban and extended retest.

You can argue the sentences should be stronger, but the system (fairly strict guidelines which can be varied in exceptional circumstances by a trained judge or bench of magistrates) is a pretty good system that should, in theory, deliver consistent sentences but with "special" cases receiving higher or lower sentences.


----------



## spen666 (26 Apr 2017)

simongt said:


> How about this as a suggestion. Do what some states in the USA do and have mandatory punishments for some crimes. So for say, drink driving; regardless of how little / much the offender is over; first offence - a five year ban and a fine of 30% of their gross annual income. Second offence - a life ban and a fine of 50% of their gross annual income. And being mandatory, no smart arse lawyer can talk them off it. If folk are acutely aware that that is what they'll get stuck with, it MAY focus the mind a bit. Similar for using cell phones etc. whilst driving.




Mandatory sentences make for injustice.

They do not allow court to take account of all the circumstances leading to an offence


As for no difference to punishment despite how far over the limit a drink driver is- I have never heard anything so stupid.

Might as well drink to oblivion and drive as no difference in sentence.

Its as stupid as giving same sentence to someone who pushes into a queue common assault) and someone who stabs someone 125 times in a pre planned revenge attack


----------



## glasgowcyclist (26 Apr 2017)

spen666 said:


> pre planned



AAAAAARRGH!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (26 Apr 2017)

I spotted this today, and you can read it for yourselves at this link http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/driver-knocked-down-killed-oap-12943933

I won't summarise here what the killer driver did, or his sentence, as I'm unable to without putting the forum's swear filter into a complete farking meltdown. 
I will say that his behaviour after the collision should have been enough alone to guarantee prison.


----------



## raleighnut (26 Apr 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I spotted this today, and you can read it for yourselves at this link http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/driver-knocked-down-killed-oap-12943933
> 
> I won't summarise here what the killer driver did, or his sentence, as I'm unable to without putting the forum's swear filter into a complete farking meltdown.
> I will say that his behaviour after the collision should have been enough alone to guarantee prison.


 what a lying scumbag.


----------



## spen666 (26 Apr 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I spotted this today, and you can read it for yourselves at this link http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/driver-knocked-down-killed-oap-12943933
> 
> I won't summarise here what the killer driver did, or his sentence, as I'm unable to without putting the forum's swear filter into a complete farking meltdown.
> I will say that his behaviour after the collision should have been enough alone to guarantee prison.







> Judge Goldstone told Shaw that the public interest did not require him to be sent to jail immediately and instead suspended the sentence. He ordered him to carry out 20 day rehabilitation activities and pay £500 towards the prosecution costs within six months, suggesting he could sell his car.
> 
> He also imposed a curfew with electronic tag between 7pm - 7am for 12 weeks. He said: “That is meant to infringe your liberty and it is to remind you, if reminder is needed, how close you came to a sentence which would have resulted in you going to prison immediately.”






Ever wonder What's the point in Prosecuting Motorists?




If this doesn't cross the threshold for his standard of driving, the leaving the scene etc certainly does. Failing to Stop and Failing to Report an accident are imprisonable offences


----------



## Mr Celine (27 Apr 2017)

An example of Borders justice. 
Kill a cyclist due to careless driving, result  £650 fine and 5 points  so not even banned. 

Go the wrong way round a badly positioned roundabout on a clear road in the middle of the night, result  £200 fine and 7 points,  so loses her licence and has to resit her test.


----------

