Chollerford death - man with sleep disorder shouldn't have been on the road.

[slowmotion]

I've sat on juries where the 'there but for the grace of God' approach was taken. On one occasion it was so bad that I and another juror actually sent a note to the judge.

When I trained professional conduct panels it was something that we had to hammer into them - and which they were monitored on.

I think that it really boils down to how well the criteria for reaching a correct verdict are explained to the jurors. If you can set aside some of the "I do/don't like the look of his face" stuff, it really isn't that difficult to come to a decision if you judge the case on the "facts" that are presented. Reasonable doubt helps a lot too. Both my trials were for fairly trivial stuff. If I had to rack my brains thinking "Will this guy go out and chop another kid up if I make the wrong decision?", it might have been an awful lot harder.

 

[Drago]

Sentenced today to 2 years, which means he'll automatically serve 1 if he behaves.

And he's got to take an extended retest. Why the Hell are we letting killers avail themselves of their weapons again? Ban them for life.

 

[Sara_H]

Sentenced today to 2 years, which means he'll automatically serve 1 if he behaves.

And he's got to take an extended retest. Why the Hell are we letting killers avail themselves of their weapons again? Ban them for life.

This. I don't get it. The bloke who ran me over deliberately now has at least two convictions for danegerous driving in which he has deliberately used his car as a weapon. He is currently banned for the offence against me, he was banned for four years, but I just can't understand why he should ever be allowed to drive again.

 

[oldstrath]

This. I don't get it. The bloke who ran me over deliberately now has at least two convictions for danegerous driving in which he has deliberately used his car as a weapon. He is currently banned for the offence against me, he was banned for four years, but I just can't understand why he should ever be allowed to drive again.

Because our society is so dependent on cars that driving is practically treated as a human right, rather than a privilege.

 

[jefmcg]

This. I don't get it. The bloke who ran me over deliberately now has at least two convictions for danegerous driving in which he has deliberately used his car as a weapon. He is currently banned for the offence against me, he was banned for four years, but I just can't understand why he should ever be allowed to drive again.

Seems like he's got another 18 offences + 1 fatality before they'll take his licence away

Lifetime Ban for Dangerous Driving Example
A case tried by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in the UK found a driver guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. Dennis Putz was over the legal Drink Driving limit and talking on his mobile phone when he ran over Catriona Patel causing her death. Mr Putz was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and was sentenced to seven years in jail. The judge also imposed a lifetime driving ban for Mr Putz. Putz, who previously had 20 driving disqualifications, also had three drink driving convictions and three reckless driving convictions.