# Cycle killer walks free from court.



## PaulB (7 Jul 2011)

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.u...ient__sentence_for_Pendle_hit_and_run_driver/

This peanut smashed into the cyclist who was in the cycle lane, stopped 200 yards up the road TO INSPECT THE DAMAGE TO HIS VAN, got back in, drove past the dying man and continued with his deliveries. Then he walks out of court!

Anyone got anything to say about this atrocity?


----------



## BSRU (7 Jul 2011)

It seems everyone thinks it was far too lenient apart from the judge and the guilty party, what a joke of a sentence for at least manslaughter.


----------



## fossyant (7 Jul 2011)

Can't be many Andrew Edwards in Hyde - only lives up the road - I'd better watch out for his driving !

Blacked out - my ar$e - that's one of 'text book' excuses. Well if he 'blacked out' should he not be driving ?


----------



## abo (7 Jul 2011)

So basically he is so tired from driving he blacked out, ran a guy over, failed to stop and drove off, then did stop and check the damage to his van, turned around, saw the accident, continued to drive off, cyclist died, bloke doesn't do bird.

That is so ****ed up I don't know where to start. You can bet that if it had been say, the Chief Constable's son or something this guy woulld have gone down for a long time.


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (7 Jul 2011)

It’s been said on here before – but it’s another case of walk down the street and bash someone with an iron bar and you go to prison, take the precaution of attaching the iron bar to a motor vehicle and you can get away with it. 

The excuse of “my partners not well (but recovering) and I’d been driving for a few hours” is a f*****g joke.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (7 Jul 2011)

Please don't take this the wrong way, but it is "nice" to see that things like this don't just happen on this side of the pond.

We had a case over on this side of the pond (I forget which state) where a lawyer who was looking at his fourth DUI/DWI had hit and killed a cyclist. He stopped his car, picked up all of the pieces from his car, got back in and drove off. When he was finally caught, tried (and thankfully) convicted, part of his "defense" was that he didn't want his five year old son to see a dead body.

Uh, if he was so worried about his five year old son, why was he driving drunk in the first place?

And as a lawyer he should have known what would happen to him for hit and run, vehicular manslaughter, tampering with evidence/crime scene. Something tells me that when he gets out of jail that even if his states bar doesn't pull his law license that he won't be able to find a job anywhere as a lawyer.

There was another (more recent I think) case down here in Florida where a gal "lost control" of her vehicle, crossed the double yellow lines, hit a woman sending her into the bay. The LEOs didn't know if it was the impact with the car or the water that killed. She was riding with her husband and they were both in the bike lane. The woman who "lost control" of her vehicle missed the husband and struck the wife.

The last I've heard there have been no charges pressed against the woman who had lost control of her vehicle.

I was talking to a friend of mine about this case not too long ago and she was like there were "accidents" that she can see where it wouldn't be the drivers fault if they occurred. I pointed out to her that the owner/driver of a vehicle is responsible for making sure that it is safe to operate on the public roads. And that if it isn't than they're responsible for anything that happens as a result of said vehicle not being in proper working oder.

My new bike has presta valves and is accordingly has "high pressure tubes/tires." And as I'm sure that most ya know with those types of tubes we have to check out tire pressure more frequently than those who have tires/tubes with schreader valves. I also pointed out to her that as the operator of a bicycle that it is my responsibility to make sure that my break cables (for my Hardrock which has mechanical brakes) and the gear cables on both bikes (my Seek 2 has hydraulic brakes) are in working order so that when I need to slow down/stop I can do so.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (7 Jul 2011)

TwickenhamCyclist said:


> It’s been said on here before – but it’s another case of walk down the street and bash someone with an iron bar and you go to prison, take the precaution of attaching the iron bar to a motor vehicle and you can get away with it.
> 
> The excuse of “my partners not well (but recovering) and I’d been driving for a few hours” is a f*****g joke.



We have a similar saying over on this side of the pond. "If you want to kill someone and get away with it, give them a bike and hit them with a car. And than claim that you didn't see them, or that they 'swerved' into my path."


----------



## upsidedown (7 Jul 2011)

A quick google of Judge Andrew Woolman shows that he has a chequered history to say the least.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (7 Jul 2011)

fossyant said:


> Can't be many Andrew Edwards in Hyde - only lives up the road - I'd better watch out for his driving !
> 
> Blacked out - my ar$e - that's one of 'text book' excuses. Well if he 'blacked out' should he not be driving ?



One would think not, but as I'm sure we know it doesn't always work that way.


----------



## rowan 46 (7 Jul 2011)

It seems to be a problem that the law has with "vehicular manslaughter" (is that an american term?) but you can read about a case most weeks where a motorist has got a lenient sentence for maiming or killing someone. serious jail time is the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (7 Jul 2011)

As my disbelief at this really upsetting case has grown, I can’t help thinking (but am in no way advocating) that the imposition of such pathetically lenient and insulting sentences can only lead to a rise in vigilante reprisals. It’s a disgraceful case of absolutely FA regard for the victim by the driver AND the courts.


----------



## Deb13b (7 Jul 2011)

Omfg that's disgraceful.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

Some people might take the law into their own hands after such a miscarriage of justice. Would never advocate such a thing just sayin' is all.


----------



## SportMonkey (7 Jul 2011)

> Judge Andrew Woolman sentenced him to 12 months in prison, suspended for 18 months, banned him from driving for a year and ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work



Sorry, you kill someone after blacking out at the wheel because you decided to work in an unfit state and you only get a year driving ban. Dear me, this man should never be allowed back on the road.


----------



## sabian92 (7 Jul 2011)

I don't even have any words to describe this pathetic miscarriage of justice.


----------



## nilling (7 Jul 2011)

Minimum disqualification, I'm no lawyer but it seems inline with the CPS guidelines 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/...g_death_by_careless_or_inconsiderate_driving/


----------



## upsidedown (7 Jul 2011)

The police should be appealling this, it cannot possibly be seen to be in the public interest for that man to be back on the roads in one year.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

upsidedown said:


> The police should be appealling this, it cannot possibly be seen to be in the public interest for that man to be back on the roads in one year.


Agreed.


----------



## sdr gb (7 Jul 2011)

fossyant said:


> Can't be many Andrew Edwards in Hyde - only lives up the road - I'd better watch out for his driving !



Same here, Hyde isn't too far away from me.

If it is within CPS guidelines, then surely they need to be altered to prevent joke sentences like this.


----------



## deckertim (7 Jul 2011)

compare it with this case
http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2011/07/02/prison-for-driver-who-killed-charity-cyclist/
No mention of the driver in this case not stopping and clearly there seems to be a lot of remorse. What a screwed up justice system we have in this country.


----------



## Mad at urage (7 Jul 2011)

nilling said:


> Minimum disqualification, I'm no lawyer but it seems inline with the CPS guidelines
> 
> http://www.cps.gov.u...derate_driving/


Hang on, according to that link "the maximum sentence has been set at 5 years imprisonment" and there are three levels of seriousness: 

"Careless or inconsiderate driving falling not far short of dangerous driving"
"Nature of offence: Other cases of careless or inconsiderate driving "
"Nature of Offence: Careless or inconsiderate driving arising from momentary inattention _with no aggravating factors_ "

The sentence range for the most serious of these is "36 weeks - 3 years custody" - so for an offence which Parliament said should carry a max of 5 years, this guidance says - never award more than three!  

Then the judge gives a sentence which includes no custody, instead a community order! That's the sentence range for "arising from momentary inattention _with no aggravating factors"_ ... let's look at the list of aggravating factors:

Oh yes: "Irresponsible behaviour, such as failing to stop".

Who the hell do these people think they are to cut the maximum sentence to little more than half that set by parliament? 

What bloody planet is this judge on? Choosing to drive whilst tired does not "arise from momentary inattention". Going back, having a look and driving off is not "momentary inattention".


----------



## 400bhp (7 Jul 2011)

Let's remember we don't have all the facts of the case, only what has been presented to us by the media.


----------



## pshore (7 Jul 2011)

Any normal person worrying about their loved one would value life even more than normal.

Either he should do actual jail time, or spend some time in a mental facility because the story (as presented in the press) shows me he is not right in the head.

I hope Andrew Stephenson MP takes this a bit further.


----------



## 4F (7 Jul 2011)

That is a disgrace.


----------



## abo (7 Jul 2011)

deckertim said:


> compare it with this case
> http://www.shropshir...harity-cyclist/
> No mention of the driver in this case not stopping and clearly there seems to be a lot of remorse. What a screwed up justice system we have in this country.



6 months inside is still nowhere near long enough for killing someone. There was a guy near me got over two years for a small part in a large corporate fraud (the main offender got 7 years, just to show his comparative level of involvement) and he ended up doing it in Strangeways.

So basically, take a life through thoughtlessness, carelessness, negligence or even sheer bloody mindedness and get a slap on the wrist. But touch the money and see what happens...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> 6 months inside is still nowhere near long enough for killing someone. There was a guy near me got over two years for a small part in a large corporate fraud (the main offender got 7 years, just to show his comparative level of involvement) and he ended up doing it in Strangeways.
> 
> So basically, take a life through thoughtlessness, carelessness, negligence or even sheer bloody mindedness and get a slap on the wrist. But touch the money and see what happens...



White collar crime has carried long sentences for as long as I can remember. The value of currency is obviously far great than human life <urge to vomit now>


----------



## funnymummy (7 Jul 2011)

It's not often i'm speechless, but after redaing the link I can say I am now


----------



## Tynan (7 Jul 2011)

like it or not justice in this country revolves around innocent until proved guilty so although he pleaded guilty when collared, you can't prove they didn't black out momentarily and the rest of his story about stress etc isn't true

while his subsequent actions are morally horrid, offenses aren't much more than leaving the scene of an accident

should we ever be in court facing a serious charge and looking at a lot of circumstantial evidence you'd be glad of a god barrister and a judge that upholds the law demonstrating that although it does look poor, nothing more than that can be proved

better that 10 guilty men go free and all that


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

Tynan said:


> l you'd be glad of a god barrister



I would love a god barrister 

Sorry could not resist it


----------



## PaulB (7 Jul 2011)

Tynan said:


> like it or not justice in this country revolves around innocent until proved guilty so although he pleaded guilty when collared, you can't prove they didn't black out momentarily and the rest of his story about stress etc isn't true
> 
> while his subsequent actions are morally horrid, offenses aren't much more than leaving the scene of an accident
> 
> ...



No due respect whatsoever but that stinks like a fish's fanny. 

Firstly, you go along with his get out by calling the death of the cyclist 'an accident'! There's very very rarely any such thing as 'an accident'. There's ALWAYS a contributory factor, negligence or malicious intent. 

He also can't prove he DID black out momentarily. If he had, there's justification for losing his licence on a long-term basis on serious medical grounds right there. 

There's no 'circumstantial evidence' there whatsoever. He ran into a cyclist and killed him. That's not something you can play with in taking your wooly-minded liberalism to such ridiculous depths. That young man will still be dead a long time after his killer has forgotten all about it.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

PaulB said:


> No due respect whatsoever but that stinks like a fish's fanny.
> 
> Firstly, you go along with his get out by calling the death of the cyclist 'an accident'! There's very very rarely any such thing as 'an accident'. There's ALWAYS a contributory factor, negligence or malicious intent.
> 
> ...



Maybe if he was put in an oubliette for life he would never forget.


----------



## sadjack (7 Jul 2011)

I had to look up what oubliette meant !

It's a horrible case. You wonder where the common sense of the judiciary is.

But then again as one solicitor said to me in court prior to the start of a case ( I was a witness  ) "If you want common sense it's outside those doors" and pointed to the exit!!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

sadjack said:


> I had to look up what oubliette meant !
> 
> It's a horrible case. You wonder where the common sense of the judiciary is.
> 
> But then again as one solicitor said to me in court prior to the start of a case ( I was a witness  ) "If you want common sense it's outside those doors" and pointed to the exit!!



So did I when it was used as an X-Files episode title .

Such a shame that even a solicitor feels that ay about our legal system


----------



## marinyork (7 Jul 2011)

nilling said:


> Minimum disqualification, I'm no lawyer but it seems inline with the CPS guidelines
> 
> http://www.cps.gov.u...derate_driving/



This new law was brought in to stop this sort of thing. There was even a bit of momentum towards getting tiredness and falling asleep made an aggravating factor and not a mitigating one. 

Really what should have happened in this (and many other cases) if the guy gets gaoled for leaving the scene, for six months. He also gets a sentence of 12months+ if you view it in such a way.

There are on the surface of it inconsistencies, but you could argue that cyclists aren't really taken into account since one of the major aggravating factors is killing more than one and Rhyll aside, it's not very likely to happen.


----------



## benb (7 Jul 2011)

That stinks. Where's the justice here?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

benb said:


> That stinks. Where's the justice here?



There is none. If he had robbed a bank I am sure he would have done more time.


----------



## HLaB (7 Jul 2011)

Can the victims appeal that appaling decison ?


----------



## Tynan (7 Jul 2011)

PaulB said:


> No due respect whatsoever but that stinks like a fish's fanny.
> 
> Firstly, you go along with his get out by calling the death of the cyclist 'an accident'! There's very very rarely any such thing as 'an accident'. There's ALWAYS a contributory factor, negligence or malicious intent.
> 
> ...



please read my post and understand it before replying to it like that

liberalism? let alone wooly minded? 

my post is plain black and white fact, tell me which part isn't plain black and white fact


----------



## Tynan (7 Jul 2011)

'this isn't a court of justice, this is a court of law'


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

Tynan said:


> 'this isn't a court of justice, this is a court of law'



Raymond Chandler?


----------



## Tynan (7 Jul 2011)

I only have Billy Bragg, I dropped the word 'Son' from the middle to make it sound more serious

But it's very true indeed, you can't run courts on justice, whatever on earth that means


----------



## marinyork (7 Jul 2011)

Tynan said:


> please read my post and understand it before replying to it like that
> 
> liberalism? let alone wooly minded?
> 
> my post is plain black and white fact, tell me which part isn't plain black and white fact



I can see your point of view. However I'm not quite sure how this relates to the idea that he should have been prosecuted (I'm guessing he wasn't) for leaving the scene of the accident and if found guilty sent to prison for up to six months.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

Tynan said:


> I only have Billy Bragg, I dropped the word 'Son' from the middle to make it sound more serious
> 
> But it's very true indeed, you can't run courts on justice, whatever on earth that means



I think it means you can't just shoot idiots who break the law


----------



## Tynan (7 Jul 2011)

marinyork said:


> I can see your point of view. However I'm not quite sure how this relates to the idea that he should have been prosecuted (I'm guessing he wasn't) for leaving the scene of the accident and if found guilty sent to prison for up to six months.



It's not even my point of view, just things to consider

Leaving the scene of an accident is barely a crime at all in the eyes of the court and police, people get off that with the weakest of excuses, 'I panicked', 'I was frightened', etc etc

If he said he didn't know he had an accident he can hardly leave it can he, he doesn't how much later he drove past in the other direction, some time later at a guess, he can argue he had no idea that was him

He may even have genuinely thought he'd hit 'roadside furniture'


----------



## SportMonkey (7 Jul 2011)

Tynan said:


> It's not even my point of view, just things to consider
> 
> Leaving the scene of an accident is barely a crime at all in the eyes of the court and police, people get off that with the weakest of excuses, 'I panicked', 'I was frightened', etc etc
> 
> ...



I got told, when hit in a car park as a pedestrian by a drunk driver (I did 100m on his bonnet), that you have 72 hours to report anyway. So you can drive away from the scene.

For all we know, he was wrestling with an alien to save the earth. Point being, we only know what is reported, and what the driver used as an excuse, or was told to use by his solicitor.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> I got told, when hit in a car park as a pedestrian by a drunk driver (I did 100m on his bonnet), that you have 72 hours to report anyway. So you can drive away from the scene.
> 
> For all we know, he was wrestling with an alien to save the earth. Point being, we only know what is reported, and what the driver used as an excuse, or was told to use by his solicitor.



Not my experience. I had a R.T.C and in a daze drove to my Police station rather than the local one. I was told it was wrong of me not to have called immediately from the scene.


----------



## SportMonkey (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Not my experience. I had a R.T.C and in a daze drove to my Police station rather than the local one. I was told it was wrong of me not to have called immediately from the scene.



Yes it's wrong but you weren't prosecuted for it I assume.

There is in fact some precedence for driving to police stations dependent on incident - i.e. for your safety. If you do move your car though it is harder for you to prove your innocence.


----------



## marinyork (7 Jul 2011)

Tynan said:


> Leaving the scene of an accident is barely a crime at all in the eyes of the court and police, people get off that with the weakest of excuses, 'I panicked', 'I was frightened', etc etc



That is not the case at all (as can be seen in the hierarchy in the highway code on the section on the road and the law where it is listed sixth). It is just we don't use it much (which is the fault of the CPS and the police). It appears that in this case the CPS did prosecute for that (as opposed to some horrific cases that didn't).



Tynan said:


> If he said he didn't know he had an accident he can hardly leave it can he, he doesn't how much later he drove past in the other direction, some time later at a guess, he can argue he had no idea that was him
> 
> He may even have genuinely thought he'd hit 'roadside furniture'



I don't buy it. If he thought he'd hit 'roadside furniture' you'd go back and look. In any case he was apparently found guilty of this 'barely a crime'. So again the argument goes back again to sentencing.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> Yes it's wrong but you weren't prosecuted for it I assume.
> 
> There is in fact some precedence for driving to police stations dependent on incident - i.e. for your safety. If you do move your car though it is harder for you to prove your innocence.



Sorry all I was getting at was the 72 hours rule was not mentioned to me.


----------



## marinyork (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Sorry all I was getting at was the 72 hours rule was not mentioned to me.



The point is you made an effort. The driver in this case made no effort whatsoever and someone died. They should be going to prison unless they say something very convincing indeed.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

I wonder if he is a member of the funny handshake brigade?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

marinyork said:


> The point is you made an effort. The driver in this case made no effort whatsoever and someone died. They should be going to prison unless they say something very convincing indeed.



I agree. I was simply querying the 72 hour rule as I have never heard about it before.


----------



## SportMonkey (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I agree. I was simply querying the 72 hour rule as I have never heard about it before.



I didn't know it until I bonnet surfed, it may be less than that - I've had ale since then. It's what I was told by the police officer.

However all I can find is 24 hours. He should have still reported hitting street furniture, imagine if someone had been sleeping on the bench[sic].


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> I didn't know it until I bonnet surfed, it may be less than that - I've had ale since then. It's what I was told by the police officer.
> 
> However all I can find is 24 hours. He should have still reported hitting street furniture, imagine if someone had been sleeping on the bench[sic].



This is what I am getting at. I was under the impression that it should be reported as soon as possible is not immediately. I am not trying to get into an argument BTW simply seeking knowledge


----------



## PaulB (7 Jul 2011)

Tynan said:


> It's not even my point of view, just things to consider
> 
> Leaving the scene of an accident is barely a crime at all in the eyes of the court and police, people get off that with the weakest of excuses, 'I panicked', 'I was frightened', etc etc
> 
> ...



There you go again hiding behind that mealy-mouthed term 'accident'. The police will not entertain that concept anymore and quite rightly so. It's as though you're suggesting the poor killer was confronted with something he could do absolutely nothing about and maybe we should all have a whip-round for him. 

And he did not think 'he'd hit roadside furniture'. He informed the police when confronted that he knew full well he'd hit a cyclist. 

You seem to be taking great delight in finding excuses to mitigate this killing.


----------



## mumbo jumbo (7 Jul 2011)

Only just seen this. It's an absolutely shocking case. I've not read the whole thread but in case it's not been mentioned, the Attorney General has power to appeal unduly light sentences (only has 28 days to do it though): http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/ULS/Pages/default.aspx 

Problem is, I'm not sure that causing death by careless driving is covered. And "unduly lenient" means more than just lenient. The courts have said that an unduly lenient sentence "falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate". I don't know enough about sentencing policy to know if what the judge handed down would meet this test.

But if enough of us make a stink about this, it might make a difference, hopefully now in this case or perhaps sometime in the future. I'll be emailing the AG's office later tonight.

mj


----------



## gaz (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Not my experience. I had a R.T.C and in a daze drove to my Police station rather than the local one. I was told it was wrong of me not to have called immediately from the scene.


From my understanding it's between 48 and 24 hours that you have to report a RTC.

You don't have to ring the police at the scene. If there is no harm to anyone and damage is minimal then it is fine to exchange details and be on your way.

In London you can also go to any police station to report it, that may not be the case elsewhere. This is because RTC's are normally all dealt by one team per 'district' rather than individual stations.

Police front desk officers generally know very minimal information about traffic procedures, you are best of not listening to them.


----------



## SportMonkey (7 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> This is what I am getting at. I was under the impression that it should be reported as soon as possible is not immediately. I am not trying to get into an argument BTW simply seeking knowledge



I know. I don't have a clue, just what some copper told me, I looked for evidence to back it up and it's not there. So much for the police knowing the law; what hope do we have with drivers?


----------



## Tynan (7 Jul 2011)

PaulB said:


> There you go again hiding behind that mealy-mouthed term 'accident'. The police will not entertain that concept anymore and quite rightly so. It's as though you're suggesting the poor killer was confronted with something he could do absolutely nothing about and maybe we should all have a whip-round for him.
> 
> And he did not think 'he'd hit roadside furniture'. He informed the police when confronted that he knew full well he'd hit a cyclist.
> 
> You seem to be taking great delight in finding excuses to mitigate this killing.



why so aggressive and abusive?

unlike you I've read more than that single article, try this one for more detail including 'roadside furniture'

I'm not hiding behind anything, there's no suggestion, nuance or opinion in anything I've posted, just plain fact

any use of the word accident in my posts has been strictly in the phrase 'leaving the scene of an accident' as I've already told you

still waiting for anything I've posted to justify your abuse, there won't be anything other than your making things up and taking things utterly out of context though

and as anyone sensible should see, my posts are merely explaining hiow the law and courts have to try people rather than some sort of lynch mob approach based on what someone must have been thinking, seemingly based on a local newspaper report


----------



## stowie (7 Jul 2011)

Tynan said:


> like it or not justice in this country revolves around innocent until proved guilty so although he pleaded guilty when collared, you can't prove they didn't black out momentarily and the rest of his story about stress etc isn't true
> 
> while his subsequent actions are morally horrid, offenses aren't much more than leaving the scene of an accident
> 
> ...



The law is supposed to be guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" though. And the number of people killed my motorists suddenly developing debiliting conditions for the first time seems stretching reasonable doubt somewhat.

The thing is that it seems to be a rather super get out of jail (literally) card with little downside. If someone really blacks out whilst driving for reasons that are unclear, and causes the death of another person due to this medical condition, then they should have their license revoked until such a time as they can prove (beyond reasonable doubt) this medical condition will no longer affect their ability to drive.


----------



## PaulB (7 Jul 2011)

Tynan said:


> why so aggressive and abusive?
> 
> unlike you I've read more than that single article, try this one for more detail including 'roadside furniture'
> 
> ...





I won't be taking the lift down to your subterranean levels so stop trying to entice me that to that floor. Face facts; you're wrong and well out of step with every other poster on here and you ARE making excuses for inexcusable behaviour. If you don't like it when others won't bow down to your one-eyed Pablo Picasso-faced way of thinking, tough shoot. 

"as anyone sensible should see" should have continued, "and if they don't, I'll throw my dollies out of my pram". And your opinion on this still stinks like a fishes fanny.


----------



## 400bhp (7 Jul 2011)

PaulB said:


> I won't be taking the lift down to your subterranean levels so stop trying to entice me that to that floor. Face facts; you're wrong and well out of step with every other poster on here and you ARE making excuses for inexcusable behaviour. If you don't like it when others won't bow down to your one-eyed Pablo Picasso-faced way of thinking, tough shoot.
> 
> "as anyone sensible should see" should have continued, "and if they don't, I'll throw my dollies out of my pram". And your opinion on this still stinks like a fishes fanny.



Speak for yourself. He isn't wrong and has merely laid out some of his opinion and some facts. 

I think sometimes people need to get a piece of perspective on reading a particular story.


----------



## marinyork (7 Jul 2011)

400bhp said:


> Speak for yourself. He isn't wrong and has merely laid out some of his opinion and some facts.
> 
> I think sometimes people need to get a piece of perspective on reading a particular story.



Well he's not explained why he shouldn't be going to prison for leaving the scene. He just said that it was barely a crime in the eyes of the law. Whether or not you believe the case for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving with a very generous interpretation of mitigating circumstances it still leaves leaving the scene which alone he should be going to prison for.


----------



## 400bhp (7 Jul 2011)

marinyork said:


> Well he's not explained why he shouldn't be going to prison for leaving the scene. He just said that it was barely a crime in the eyes of the law. Whether or not you believe the case for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving with a very generous interpretation of mitigating circumstances it still leaves leaving the scene which alone he should be going to prison for.



leaving the scene in isolation is, in my eyes, not necessarily a jailable offence.


----------



## gaz (7 Jul 2011)

400bhp said:


> leaving the scene in isolation is, in my eyes, not necessarily a jailable offence.


It could be seen as preventing the course of justice (or w/e it is), which is a very serious offence and is jailable.


----------



## marinyork (7 Jul 2011)

400bhp said:


> leaving the scene in isolation is, in my eyes, not necessarily a jailable offence.



It isn't in isolation, which is the entire point.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> It could be seen as preventing the course of justice (or w/e it is), which is a very serious offence and is jailable.



Perverting I think the term is


----------



## John90 (7 Jul 2011)

Tynan said:


> like it or not justice in this country revolves around innocent until proved guilty so although he pleaded guilty when collared, you can't prove they didn't black out momentarily and the rest of his story about stress etc isn't true
> 
> while his subsequent actions are morally horrid, offenses aren't much more than leaving the scene of an accident



I don't really care if he did black out or was under stress. He knew what he had done when the police caught up with him. I don't feel comfortable with a precedent that allows drivers to walk free by claiming 'temporary blackout' and 'stress'. Plenty of murderers claim the same thing and they may well be telling the truth too, but nobody thinks it mitigates their crime. I'm not suggesting he went out of his way to murder the cyclist, but I do agree with the other posters who say that the legal system seems to start with the default position that these are 'accidents' and then works forward from there. Until that changes cars will continue to left hook, right hook and drive too close to cyclists with the inevitable 'accidental' consequences.


----------



## marinyork (7 Jul 2011)

John90 said:


> I don't really care if he did black out or was under stress. He knew what he had done when the police caught up with him. I don't feel comfortable with a precedent that allows drivers to walk free by claiming 'temporary blackout' and 'stress'. Plenty of murderers claim the same thing and they may well be telling the truth too, but nobody thinks it mitigates their crime. I'm not suggesting he went out of his way to murder the cyclist, but I do agree with the other posters who say that the legal system seems to start with the default position that these are 'accidents' and then works forward from there. Until that changes cars will continue to left hook, right hook and drive too close to cyclists with the inevitable 'accidental' consequences.



I'm not sure whether the judge did think that. He gave the sort of timescales in prison I said if you gave a slightly charitable interpretation of the matter. He just suspended it. He may simply have felt sorry for him and been completely convinced by his narrative.


----------



## John90 (7 Jul 2011)

marinyork said:


> I'm not sure whether the judge did think that. He gave the sort of timescales in prison I said if you gave a slightly charitable interpretation of the matter. He just suspended it. He may simply have felt sorry for him and been completely convinced by his narrative.



I'm sure he did feel sorry for him and I'm sure he was convinced by his narrative. My point is even if the narrative is true and however stressed the driver was, it is insufficient, in my view, and I suspect (can't prove, obviously) that the judge's charitable interpretation is based on the default assumption that 'accidents will happen' and the driver is more a contributory factor rather than the instigator.


----------



## skudupnorth (7 Jul 2011)

Stunned ! I really feel for the family of the cyclist,lets hope they get proper justice.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Jul 2011)

I ask again. I wonder if he is a member of the funny handshake brigade?


----------



## fossyant (7 Jul 2011)

Watch out locals, we do know where he lives ?

Here !


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (8 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> It seems to be a problem that the law has with "vehicular manslaughter" (is that an american term?) but you can read about a case most weeks where a motorist has got a lenient sentence for maiming or killing someone. serious jail time is the exception rather than the rule.



Yes, that's the term that generally gets applied. Sadly, that happens way too often all around the world. And I agree that all too often that the motorist getting a lenient sentence for maiming or killing someone is the norm not the exception. It takes a case like that of the "good doctor out in LA" who swooped around a pair of cyclists and proceeded to brake check them. Resulting in one clearing the car, but ending up with considerable road rash, and the other flying through the rear window almost loosing his nose and loosing several teeth.

It was a combination of enough cyclists filing reports against him as well as him making a statement to the 911 operator that he "wanted to teach them a lesson." As well as repeating it to the first officer on the scene. He was also "surprised" when the cyclists refused to allow him to treat their injuries.

Hmm, why in the world would anyone refuse to allow the "doctor" who just caused their injuries to treat or evaluate them? Maybe because they could see that he was probably planning on using whatever knowledge gained to mitigate their claims against him? I mean does it really take a rocket scientist to determine that it was in his best interests to examine them?

He'd also told either the 911 operator or the first and subsequent officers on the scene that even though they were going to say so, that their injuries and "not life threatening." Even though they had refused to allow him to treat them, and basing it on his experience as an ER doctor. Basically saying IIRC that in the ER that they have a "different" way of classifying injuries.

Also over here such sentences have been "justified" as "most" judges, juries, LEOs also drive. And as such they can see themselves in such a circumstance. Maybe, just maybe if they drove more carefully they wouldn't have to worry about seeing themselves in a similar set of circumstances?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (8 Jul 2011)

Tynan said:


> like it or not justice in this country revolves around innocent until proved guilty so although he pleaded guilty when collared, you can't prove they didn't black out momentarily and the rest of his story about stress etc isn't true
> 
> while his subsequent actions are morally horrid, offenses aren't much more than leaving the scene of an accident
> 
> ...



I agree with just about everything that you just wrote. If a person confess to the LEOs/bobbies and pleds guilty in open court than that should be the end of it.

Over here as I am sure most/all of you know we have recently had a high profile case of a mother who was accused of having killed her very young daughter. She was tried on several charges starting at murder and going down to manslaughter, as well as 4 misdemeanor charges of lying to the police during an official investigation. She was acquitted of the three more serious charges and found guilty of the misdemeanor charges. Each carrying a year in jail and a $1,000.00 fine. The judge hearing the case sentenced her to all four years with each sentence to run consecutively. With time served it was speculated that she'd be released today, but she'll be getting out on the 13th instead.

The jury members that have spoken so far have have indicated that the state didn't prove their case on the more serious charges. One of the "worst" witnesses for the state was the coroner who was unable to determine a cause of death. If the coroner cannot say that a person was the victim of a homicide how can the state prove that the accused "killed" the victim? Despite that someone in the house had looked up chloroform, the coroner couldn't find any drugs in the child's body.

The only facts that were truly known about the case are as follows:


Caylee Anthony was missing
Casey Anthony lied
Caylee Anthony at some point died
Someone in the Anthony household looked up chloroform
At no point was there any evidence presented to who killed her, when or how. Her body was even found by a man who's own son had "sold him out" and reported that his father had planned on making money on the situation. He had also found her body in an area that had reportedly already been searched.


Now because of the nature of the crime a lot of people who were not on the jury are coming forward and condemning the jury for their verdict. Given that none of those people sat on the jury who are they to play armchair quarterback and say how the jury should have found? The jury can only go by the evidence in front of them. As one of their instructions is not to allow their emotions to color their findings.

Of course as a result of this finding lawyers are now correct to be concerned as to whether or not a future jury can can return a verdict based on the facts alone or will they "punish" another person for what happened in the Casey Anthony case.

It had been suggested in Casey's lawyer's opening statements that Little Caylee accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool. And that in a fit of panic they inappropriately disposed of her body. It had also been suggested that her father had sexually abused her (Casey) as a child, it had also come out during the course of the trail that the Anthony suffered from some dysfunction, but can't that be said about most families?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (8 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I think it means you can't just shoot idiots who break the law



Can we if we use a paintball gun?!?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (8 Jul 2011)

Tynan said:


> It's not even my point of view, just things to consider
> 
> Leaving the scene of an accident is barely a crime at all in the eyes of the court and police, people get off that with the weakest of excuses, 'I panicked', 'I was frightened', etc etc
> 
> ...



Another common excuse over on this side of the pond is "I thought I hit a deer." Or some other type of animal.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Can we if we use a paintball gun?!?


I wish we could.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (8 Jul 2011)

John90 said:


> I don't really care if he did black out or was under stress. He knew what he had done when the police caught up with him. I don't feel comfortable with a precedent that allows drivers to walk free by claiming 'temporary blackout' and 'stress'. Plenty of murderers claim the same thing and they may well be telling the truth too, but nobody thinks it mitigates their crime. I'm not suggesting he went out of his way to murder the cyclist, but I do agree with the other posters who say that the legal system seems to start with the default position that these are 'accidents' and then works forward from there. Until that changes cars will continue to left hook, right hook and drive too close to cyclists with the inevitable 'accidental' consequences.



This is true, there is way *TOO* long a list of "excuses" that people use to get out of trouble, everything from:


I didn't see him/her
S/he swerved into my path
I thought I hit a deer (or other animal)
It was an "accident"
I lost control of my car
I blacked out/fell asleep at the wheel
I've been under a lot of stress
I've been sick
It was dark/The sun was in my eyes
If we stop and think about it, the first two should be taken down by the police as an admission of guilt. As isn't it the primary job of a person driving to make sure that they see obstacles in the road in front of them?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (8 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I ask again. I wonder if he is a member of the funny handshake brigade?



What is the "funny handshake brigade?"


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (8 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I wish we could.



How about a super soaker?


----------



## Cardiac (8 Jul 2011)

It's not the same circumstances, but I am reminded of this case... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/3535778.stm

In 2004 a very nice chap at the company I worked for and his wife and kids were wiped out by a lorry driver who to all intents and purposes had fallen asleep (or did not look where he was going). A £1000 fine, or £250 a head. 

Sickening isn't the word. Don't know what is, to be honest.


----------



## rustychisel (8 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> What is the "funny handshake brigade?"




Is that you, Ken S?

the 'funny handshake' is an allusion to Freemasons and Freemasonry membership. Something like a secret society of Elk Lodges and furtive signals between members. I could tell you more but then I'd have to kill you :-(


----------



## Mad Doug Biker (8 Jul 2011)

Where does he live? 

I.... err, I mean a 'friend' will go round to his house and show him exactly what we all think of him.


----------



## gb155 (8 Jul 2011)

fossyant said:


> Watch out locals, we do know where he lives ?
> 
> Here !



Bloody Hell !


----------



## 400bhp (8 Jul 2011)

marinyork said:


> It isn't in isolation, which is the entire point.




Your point regarding leaving the scene was in isolation.



> Well he's not explained why he shouldn't be going to prison for leaving the scene. He just said that it was barely a crime in the eyes of the law. Whether or not you believe the case for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving with a very generous interpretation of mitigating circumstances it still leaves leaving the scene which *alone* he should be going to prison for.


----------



## fossyant (8 Jul 2011)

gb155 said:


> Bloody Hell !



A literal stones throw !  

How about a midnight raid and put 'Look out for cyclists' posters on every lamp post in the street ?


----------



## Riding in Circles (8 Jul 2011)

The judicial system has once again shown that it has total disdain for cyclists.


----------



## SportMonkey (8 Jul 2011)

fossyant said:


> A literal stones throw !
> 
> How about a midnight raid and put 'Look out for cyclists' posters on every lamp post in the street ?



Ahem, we could buy a load of cheap bikes from eBay, bend them, and put them in his front garden...

[Edit]

Whatever, I'll be up for a midnight wait and can organise printing.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (8 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> What is the "funny handshake brigade?"


The Masons for eg.


----------



## calibanzwei (8 Jul 2011)

What a f***ing joke.


----------



## marinyork (8 Jul 2011)

400bhp said:


> Your point regarding leaving the scene was in isolation.



No. That's deliberately misrepresenting .

He's up on a charge for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving (which he was convicted of btw). Whether or not he is convicted of that doesn't mean it's in isolation just because it suits you. When I say he should go to prison alone for leaving the scene and not reporting it means exactly that, but that it takes into account the death other aggravating factors and the other charge (whether he is convicted of it or not). It would be silly if it didn't. If you could please add even the smallest amount of thought before reading posts and then quoting one word in isolation to the context of the rest of the posts it would be appreciated.


----------



## 400bhp (8 Jul 2011)

Yeah right. 

Why do I bother.


----------



## marinyork (8 Jul 2011)

400bhp said:


> Yeah right.
> 
> Why do I bother.



Something is not in isolation if he's done something else (referred to as aggravating circumstances). Someone died here. There isn't any isolation. Or are you disputing that someone died or disputing that he was prosecuted on another charge? Well?


----------



## mumbo jumbo (9 Jul 2011)

mumbo jumbo said:


> Only just seen this. It's an absolutely shocking case. I've not read the whole thread but in case it's not been mentioned, the Attorney General has power to appeal unduly light sentences (only has 28 days to do it though): http://www.attorneyg...es/default.aspx
> 
> Problem is, I'm not sure that causing death by careless driving is covered. And "unduly lenient" means more than just lenient. The courts have said that an unduly lenient sentence "falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate". I don't know enough about sentencing policy to know if what the judge handed down would meet this test.
> 
> ...



I only just got round to it but this is what I sent:

"To: The Attorney General

I have recently become aware of a shocking case in which I believe an unduly lenient sentence was handed down. Case details as follows:

Convicted: Andrew Edwards
Court: Burnley Crown Court
Crimes: (a) Causing death by careless driving and (b) Failing to stop after an accident
Date: 5 July 2011


The case came to my attention when someone forwarded me a link to the story as reported in the Lancashire Telegraph on 6 July 2011. Here is the link: http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.u...ient__sentence_for_Pendle_hit_and_run_driver/ 


I have copy pasted the article at the end of this email in case the link breaks before you have a chance to look at it. The salient points appear to be as follows:



Mr Edwards drove his van into a cyclist, Michael Isherwood, catapaulting him some 50ft down the road.
There is no suggestion of any contributory negligence on the part of the cyclist
200m down the road, Mr Edwards stops to examine damage to his vehicle
He drives back down the road, past the dying cyclist, and still doesn't stop. This is callous.
In court he claimed he thought he'd hit street furniture although on arrest he apparently said he didn't know the cyclist had died. This appears to be a convenient change of story. He knew what he'd done and he appears to have lied in court.
The court also appears to have somehow accepted his explanation that he momentarily blacked out on account of stress and long driving hours. I find this utterly incomprehensible. It certainly doesn't pass the "sniff test". If Mr Edwards was liable to blacking out at the wheel on account of stress and the long hours he spends at the wheel he should never have been driving in the first place. The explanation actually makes his offence worse. He was an accident waiting to happen and he took the risk. Michael Isherwood paid for that risk with his life.
Some of the details are from other sources but you should have enough to track the case down and access the files.


Driving a vehicle when susceptible to blacking out, killing a cyclist (which Mr Edwards pleaded guilty to) and failing to stop - twice - at the scene (including leaving Mr Isherwood dying in the road) and Mr Edwards walks free from the court with just 200 hours community service to carry out. There's not even reference to a fine. I've "road tested" this sentence with family, friends and work colleagues. Without exception, they all agree that the sentence is unduly lenient.


Please can you confirm that you will take the necessary action to have a custodial sentence imposed on Mr Edwards i.e. removal of the suspension of the 12 month custodial sentence handed down by the judge.


Yours sincerely,
 etc"
The email address is correspondenceunit@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk if anyone else wants to do likewise.


mj


----------



## Angelfishsolo (9 Jul 2011)

mumbo jumbo said:


> I only just got round to it but this is what I sent:
> 
> "To: The Attorney General
> 
> ...


I hope you don't mind but I used your letter as a template for mine.


----------



## uphillstruggler (9 Jul 2011)

It's shocking to see just how far the courts will go to keep the guilty out of jail. This driver obviously has no regard for other people as demonstrated by him driving back past the dying cyclist.

F@$*ING scumbag

Absolutely shocking but its no surprise unfortunately. Can only hope that karma comes knocking, and soon


----------



## Cardiac (9 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I hope you don't mind but I used your letter as a template for mine.



Me too. Rewrote a few parts to suit my own style, etc. Never wrote to the Attorney General before. Will be interesting to see if there's any response.


----------



## Norm (9 Jul 2011)

mumbo jumbo said:


> The court also appears to have somehow accepted his explanation that he momentarily blacked out on account of stress and long driving hours. I find this utterly incomprehensible. It certainly doesn't pass the "sniff test". If Mr Edwards was liable to blacking out at the wheel on account of stress and the long hours he spends at the wheel he should never have been driving in the first place. The explanation actually makes his offence worse. He was an accident waiting to happen and he took the risk. Michael Isherwood paid for that risk with his life.


I agree with all that you wrote, MJ, but I'm highlighting this bit as I don't understand the mentality of the jury there.

"I was under stress and I might have blacked out (a.k.a. fallen asleep)" isn't a reason to let him off.

It's a reason to find him guilty of murder and, on top of that, also for driving whilst unfit to do so, or whatever the offence might be called.

Being under stress to the extent that you black out doesn't absolve anyone of anything, it makes you even more guilty because you should have known that you weren't fit, but you went out anyway.


----------



## benb (9 Jul 2011)

It was the judge, not the jury.
He was found guilty.


----------



## Norm (9 Jul 2011)

Sorry, you're partly right that it wasn't the jury but I think he pleaded guilty, rather than being found guilty.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (10 Jul 2011)

Hopefully your letters will have effect. Do you think that it would help to have someone who doesn't live there to write a letter as well?


----------



## Nigeyy (11 Jul 2011)

I would also like to know the judge's rationale for this. Frankly, it seems quite amazing to me -perhaps the only possible question would be whether he knew he hit a cyclist. Though to be honest, if you do believe his story, I do find it amazing that someone can "black out", know they hit something (evidence is that he stopped to inspect his vehicle) and assuming they didn't know what they hit, continued on. Wouldn't an average decent person *minimally* go back to make they had not hit some person, animal or road sign or building? Of course, passing the scene of his "blackout" again and seeing the whole scene, he didn't even stop then either. And this is all _assuming_ we believe his story and the best case scenario.

Has anyone got another side to this story though? I appreciate sometimes the media reports just one way, but still this seems a hard one to take. It does appear the judge took a very strange view on sentencing with this. I really believe that with hit and runs, unless the driver fears for their life, it has to be considered attempted murder at the very least if they do not make an effort to stop and report the accident (just my opinion).

Sometimes it does appear the best way to murder a person is to encourage them to go on a bicycle and then drive over them. 

My condolences to the family of the victim.


----------



## Ste T. (11 Jul 2011)

Have you noticed that the papers never report, in cases like this, what sort of sentence was available to the Judge? I can't make my mind up if this is a case of lazy journalists just churning out the copy they are sent, or a conspiracy to keep us in the dark about the true nature of sentencing in this country. I wonder how many more years we will have to go on writing in outrage on sites like this, about events like this until it is taken seriously. 
When I was a young lad I got into whitewater paddling here in the UK. Some people at the time were paddling illegally on rivers, fed up with waiting for the law to change giving us the equivalent of the right to roam act on water. The majority stayed within the law saying that we should wait for the law to change as we will lose any moral high ground. Thirty years on we still have no more rights than then. Had we had a mass trespass on rivers thirty years ago we would be in a better place now for paddling rights.Some times we need to get bloody angry and do something to achieve a change.
Maybe this is the same. Maybe we have to take the situation in hand ourselves. Maybe a slow rolling road block protest when cases like this happen. Maybe a critical mass event outside the courts that pass these joke sentences. As you can see, I am stumbling in the dark, not knowing the answer myself, but I do know that things will only change if we start to take more aggressive action in response to these sentences. If we don't I could see us posting about the same injustices on here thirty years time.
By the way do we have a posting or do you know of a site that lists these cases, numbers and details?


----------



## abo (11 Jul 2011)

Norm said:


> Being under stress to the extent that you black out doesn't absolve anyone of anything, it makes you even more guilty because you should have known that you weren't fit, but you went out anyway.



IMHO it is as poor a defence as 'it wasn't my fault officer, I was drunk'. The problem is, it is easy to define a limit for alcohol and to test whether someone is over that limit. More difficult for fatigue as (I imagine) it must be pretty difficult to test whether someone is tired.


----------



## TheDoctor (11 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> IMHO it is as poor a defence as 'it wasn't my fault officer, I was drunk'. The problem is, it is easy to define a limit for alcohol and to test whether someone is over that limit. More difficult for fatigue as (I imagine) it must be pretty difficult to test whether someone is tired.



Quite so.

However, being tired didn't save Gary Hart from the slammer, and nor should it have done.


----------



## abo (11 Jul 2011)

TheDoctor said:


> Quite so.
> 
> However, being tired didn't save Gary Hart from the slammer, and nor should it have done.



No cyclists involved 

Seriously though, it was easy to prove Hart was tired as IIRC he'd been texting or phoning some woman he'd met all night before he fell off the road.

But... thiss guy *admitted* he was tired. Come on, judge


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Jul 2011)

This is the response for the Attorney General's Officel

Dear Mr Sewell

Thank you for writing to the Attorney General's Office about this case.


As you may be aware Attorney General has the power to refer to the Court
of Appeal for review, sentences passed in the Crown Court in respect of
certain offences where he concludes that a sentence imposed was unduly
lenient. This power however only applies to a limited number of
offences which do not include the offences in this case: causing death
by careless driving and failing to stop after an accident. This means
that it is not possible for the Attorney to ask the Court of Appeal to
look at the sentence in this case.


Further information about the unduly lenient sentence scheme which may
be of interest has been published on our website at
www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk.

Best Wishes

Jeffrey Care
Correspondence Unit
Attorney General's Office


----------



## Cardiac (11 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> This is the response for the Attorney General's Officel
> 
> Dear Mr ......
> .
> ...



I just got the same. 

Makes me want to throw something. The law in this country is completely bonkers sometimes. The Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme seems far to restrictive in its scope. Maybe time to introduce myself to my MP. 

Dear Mr Djanogly....


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Jul 2011)

Cardiac said:


> I just got the same.
> 
> Makes me want to throw something. The law in this country is completely bonkers sometimes. I shall take the advice given and see where that leads to.



ARRRRGGGGGG. I am so f'ing angry.

Why the hell are the crimes listed below (especially those highlighted) more important that the death of a cyclist by someone unfit to drive.

Only certain cases are eligibleThe sentence must be for one of these offences:


more serious crimes which can be dealt with only in the Crown Court, such as murder, rape and robbery
some sex crimes, especially those involving children, but also indecent assault and some
other sex crimes
child cruelty
*threats to kill*
some serious frauds
_*some drugs crimes*_
*some racially or religiously aggravated crimes*
*attempting or inciting any of these.*


----------



## abo (11 Jul 2011)

The law is an ass


----------



## gaz (11 Jul 2011)

Basically the response you got is we don't care about people that drive dangerously and kill.
Which we already knew.

I take it that is your own highlight on the drugs, that won't be possession of cannabis. More the mass manufaction and dealing of drugs which leads to many other crimes.


----------



## pshore (11 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> This is the response for the Attorney General's Officel
> 
> Dear Mr Sewell
> 
> ...



If there is one person who could suggest a reasonable next step, it would be Martin Porter, the Cycling Silk.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Jul 2011)

pshore said:


> If there is one person who could suggest a reasonable next step, it would be Martin Porter, the Cycling Silk.



That is a wonderful idea. Will try to find his e-mail address tomorrow.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (12 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> This is the response for the Attorney General's Officel
> 
> Dear Mr Sewell
> 
> ...



So basically it boils down to what many of us have said time-and-time again. IF ya want to kill someone give 'em a bike, hit 'em with a car, and than say "I didn't see 'em." Get out of jail free.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> Basically the response you got is we don't care about people that drive dangerously and kill.
> Which we already knew.
> 
> I take it that is your own highlight on the drugs, that won't be possession of cannabis. More the mass manufaction and dealing of drugs which leads to many other crimes.


Yes the highlighting is mine.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> So basically it boils down to what many of us have said time-and-time again. IF ya want to kill someone give 'em a bike, hit 'em with a car, and than say "I didn't see 'em." Get out of jail free.


It sure seems that way.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (12 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> It sure seems that way.



Yes it does, yes it does. It'd be nice if it didn't seem that way. The laws need to change, and people need to learn (that includes LEOs and the courts) that we all (with just a little work) can get along with each other.


----------



## 400bhp (12 Jul 2011)

Have any of you contacted the family of the deceased and see what thoughts they have?


----------



## Tinuts (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The value of currency is obviously far great than human life <urge to vomit now>


And the value of not holding people up greater, apparently, than the risk of killing someone: 
Fine for driving in bus lane £200
Fine for using mobile whilst driving £60

And let's not forget that driving whilst using a mobile has been shown to have the same effect on driving ability as being drunk.

Yes, the justice system in this country sure is ****ed up.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

Tinuts said:


> And the value of not holding people up greater, apparently, than the risk of killing someone:
> Fine for driving in bus lane £200
> Fine for using mobile whilst driving £60
> 
> ...


Aint that the truth


----------



## PBancroft (16 Jul 2011)

400bhp said:


> Have any of you contacted the family of the deceased and see what thoughts they have?



I'm not sure that would really be very appropriate. They've already voiced their disappointment at the sentence - I don't think they need to be contacted by strangers to press them on the matter right now.

The point, surely, is a more general one. Driving without due care and attention resulting in the death of an individual is treated less seriously than manslaughter - though the effect is the same. IANAL - But gross negligence is the test for manslaughter. ALL road users have a duty of care on the road, and this duty was breached causing the death of an individual. Drivers in particular have to be well trained to use their vehicles, so it can be demonstrated that causing death is negligent... but for some reason juries didn't convict people for that, and so causing death by dangerous driving was introduced.

Even though the effect is the same, it is treated as a somewhat lesser crime and the guilty are often given a light tap on the backside and told not to do it again.

This happens time and again and we all should be disgusted by it - not only as cyclists but as other road users as well be it cyclist, driver, rider or pedestrian. However (and this is *Good News*) Hull MP Karl Turner has asked David Cameron to impose tougher sentences on dangerous drivers. I would urge people to contact their MP to ask them to support this.


----------



## XmisterIS (16 Jul 2011)

I find it utterly remarkable that this chap walks free for killing someone - whereas Charlie Gillmour just got 16 months for getting drunk and offending people. And check out the rabid daily wailers: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-acts-drug-fuelled-student-fees-rampage.html


----------



## mumbo jumbo (16 Jul 2011)

PBancroft said:


> I'm not sure that would really be very appropriate. They've already voiced their disappointment at the sentence - I don't think they need to be contacted by strangers to press them on the matter right now.
> 
> The point, surely, is a more general one. Driving without due care and attention resulting in the death of an individual is treated less seriously than manslaughter - though the effect is the same. IANAL - But gross negligence is the test for manslaughter. ALL road users have a duty of care on the road, and this duty was breached causing the death of an individual. Drivers in particular have to be well trained to use their vehicles, so it can be demonstrated that causing death is negligent... but for some reason juries didn't convict people for that, and so causing death by dangerous driving was introduced.
> 
> ...


Thanks for this - very useful. The cases you link to are all awful but I particularly remember the Rhyl case.

The last link you provide refers to the Sentencing (Reform) Bill (link: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/sentencingreform.html ). It's a private member's bill which is in the very early stages of its parliamentary passage. I think I'll email the bill's sponsor (Philip Hollobone) to find out more about what is covered and lobby for tougher sentencing for these sorts of cases. I will include my exchange of emails with the Attorney General's office (I had the same reply as everyone else).

mj


----------



## mumbo jumbo (16 Jul 2011)

This what I just sent to Mr Hollobone. I'll copy it to my local MP too. Mr Hollobone's email address is philip.hollobone.mp@parliament.uk for anyone else who's interested.


------------------


Dear Mr Hollobone

I understand that you sponsoring a private member's bill on sentencing reform. I confess I know little about it save that I have seen reference to it in an article online. 

I imagine that there are an array of offences where you may be looking to alter current sentencing policy. I would be interested to learn more about it. My own interest relates to motoring offences, particularly driving without due care and attention and causing death by careless / dangerous driving. Sentencing policy in this area seems completely cock-eyed and heaps yet more grief on bereaved families which have suffered so much already. I am also concerned about the limited scope of the Attorney General to appeal unduly lenient sentences.

Below are links to a handful of the more shocking cases:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-398901/Fury-driver-killed-cyclists-fined-180.html 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...list-walks-free-court-ludicrous-275-fine.html 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4481738.ece 

The first is a Welsh case. Part of the problem in this case was the offence the CPS chose to prosecute - driving with defective tyres (apparently). The second one is an English case. The offence here was causing death by careless driving. The final link is to a Scottish case. The available offences are different there but in all three cases the result is the same - drivers who have killed innocent third parties have walked free from the court with derisory fines. In the first case, this was £180 for 4 dead. That's £45 per life.

Clearly the scope for sentencing is limited by the offence which is being prosecuted. That is a whole different issue but it is relevant to your bill. I have seen a suggestion that the tariff for causing death by dangerous driving should be increased. Well - fine. But the CPS are immensely reluctant to prosecute for death by dangerous driving, preferring instead to go for the lesser (and hence easier to convict) death by careless driving. So, if motoring offences are on your hit list, I would encourage you to give greatest consideration to driving without due care and attention and causing death by careless driving. You bill will have far greater impact by imposing stricter sentencing criteria on those offences. 

As I understand it, the punishments for causing death by careless driving can range from a mandatory disqualification, extended retest and unlimited fine, to a 5 years prison sentence. A car is a potentially lethal piece of equipment. People require licences to use them. Using them carelessly is therefore a serious matter in itself. Causing loss of life through that carelessness must surely warrant a serious sentencing response. Fines of £500 (the Scottish case) and £275 (the English case) are an affront to the victim and their families. Fines like this (if paid) are an incovenience, not a punishment. Not justice. It's like the offender is getting away with it. If the criminal law has the dual purpose of punishing the offender and acting as a deterrent (to the offender in future and the the public at large in general) then I would ask for the inroduction of minimum tariffs. I would suggest 6 months custodial sentence. With good behaviour they will be out in 3 months but justice will have been done (in some measure), they will be more careful in future and the wider public will start to get the message. Take care on the roads, especially around vulnerable road users.

More recently I have asked the Attorney General to appeal what I, and anyone else I have spoken to about it, considers to be an unduly lenient sentence in a case of causing death by careless driving. It is a truly shocking case. I wont repeat the details here but am copy-pasting at the end of this email the exchange of emails I have had with the Attorney General's office. As you will see from the response, the AG's office said that they do not have power to appeal sentences in relation to death by careless driving cases. This does appear to be borne out by information on the web pages of the AG's office which says that appeal is only available for:

more serious crimes which can be dealt with only in the Crown Court, such as murder, rape and robbery
some sex crimes, especially those involving children, but also indecent assault and some
other sex crimes
child cruelty
threats to kill
some serious frauds
some drugs crimes
some racially or religiously aggravated crimes
attempting or inciting any of these.


I agree that those are all serious crimes but if we as a society place any value on human life and the protection of it we should add to that list any crime / offence where there has been loss of human life. If this is not already a feature of your Bill, can I ask you to give serious consideration to including it.

I would be grateful for your thoughts on this.

Regards.


----------

