Errr …….. good character in the legal sense means no criminal record i.e. a person has never been before a court and had penalties, sanction or a punishment imposed on them. It has NOTHING to do with whether a person does good or bad things in their life such as charity worker, nurse as opposed to some one in a less morally acceptable job or profession. A judge may be swayed but they should not be. Some one without a criminal record is considered to be a person of 'good character' and is given credit for this. However, how much credit is dependent on the severity of the offence they are about to be convicted of, their conduct in court and whether having pleaded NG as is their right when they clearly were guilty and should have pleaded so, to have put victims and witnesses to give evidence may counteract any benefit a good character might have had on reducing sentence. But it is not an exact science despite sentencing guidelines that some judges just seem to make it up as they go.
This woman should have got a minimum of 3 years in prison and a 10 year driving ban to commence on her release in addition to the £2k fine she was given. The car she was also driving if not written off should be crushed.
All of a person's character can be put before the judge, including charity work, references from local worthies etc.
The judge is entitled to take this into account to an extent he decides.
This applies even if a person pleads not guilty, in fact, if they are convicted after a trial their only mitigation can be previous good character.
What they lose by pleading not guilty is the automatic discount for admitting the offence, usually stated as one third.
You seem to be suggesting the woman should have pleaded guilty.
Her defence was a simple one - the light was on green - she may genuinely have believed it, even if that belief was mistaken.
After all, she might be thinking; "I've been driving for years and I'm not in the habit of driving through red lights."
In those circumstances, I think it is understandable for a person to plead not guilty.
As regards sentence, the jury convicted her of death by careless so that is what she falls to be dealt with for.
"Careless' in these terms means 'a momentary lack of attention', which could be about right.
The 'minimum of three years' you suggest is a lot for a second - or less - of daydreaming.
Lock her up forever if you want, but don't complain if it's ever your turn.
So if i walk my bike across a pedestrian crossing when the lights are on red i can be legally hit without question?! A twenty five quid a week fine and a few weeks picking litter,not bad for killing someone!
