Just Six Months For Killing A Cyclist

[Linford]

So you'd suggest the deceased person's family take out a civil case against the driver ?
Maybe some campaigning body (like the CTC ?) could offer underwrite the costs of such actions?
That should provide an element of "deterrence" over and above the current (lenient ? ) criminal sentences.

If the CPS feel there is enough evidence to take the case to court and the driver is found guilty, then that is the normal procedure for seeking recompense.

There are a few more serious laws which someone can be prosecuted by...but it is down to whether they think they can make them stick in front of a jury.

 

[albion]

"For whatever reason Miss Lumley-Holmes cannot recollect the incident "
" a vulnerable defendant who had suffered an abusive childhood, her teenage years in care"

I could sum it up the defence as 'she was always destined to be a crappy driver so you have to expect a death or two.'

 

[Brandane]

It was explained o me by a police officer how they sentencing works....you fine on the offence by code, not by consequence.

This case flies in the face of that theory, then. Six years for throwing away a cigarette?

 

[Dan B]

So you'd suggest the deceased person's family take out a civil case against the driver ?
Maybe some campaigning body (like the CTC ?) could offer underwrite the costs of such actions?
That should provide an element of "deterrence" over and above the current (lenient ? ) criminal sentences.

Er, isn't that the fundamental basis on which insurance works? You claim against someone for negligence, establish on the balance of evidence that they were not exercising due care, then the court awards you compensation for damage or loss sustained and their insurers write a cheque on their behalf

 

[Linford]

This case flies in the face of that theory, then. Six years for throwing away a cigarette?

Arson is a fairly serious offence !

 

[Dangermouse]

Prosecutor Robert Sadd said that Ms Lumley-Holmes should have seen the cyclist, Julian Evans, who was cycling on a straight stretch of road on a dry, sunny day with clear visibility.

If this is the case, what was she doing not to notice Mr Evans cycling, the sentence clearly makes a mockery out of our laws.

 

[Sara_H]

Given that we know absolutely nothing about the circumstances of the case beyond the report in a pressure group's website, this is just pointless speculation. She appears to have been given a sentence close to the maximum for those circumstances - look at the detailed sentencing guidelines here. http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_causing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf
I used to spend a fair bit of time in the criminal courts. Just because barristers warble on about the defendant's charitable works, and it gets reported, that doesn't mean that the judge lets it affect the sentence.

http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news...fter-death-crash-in-bury-st-edmunds-1-5798923

 

[Sara_H]

http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/the-problem-with-good-people/

 

[nickyboy]

She should be banned from driving for a very long time, if not forever. A jail sentence would be handy too. Not that it will bring the victim back, but it might just sharpen up drivers observation skills if they were to read about her getting 5 years in prison. As it stands, they will continue to drive around not giving a toss because if they kill someone they will get a short ban and might have to spend a few hours cutting a pensioners grass.
British justice across the board just stinks.

Agree that, in the circumstance, a driving ban would be appropriate. But I don't like your comment "A jail sentence would be handy too"

Handy for whom? Your idea that giving her a custodial sentence would result in drivers being more vigilant is naïve in the extreme

 

[Brandane]

Agree that, in the circumstance, a driving ban would be appropriate. But I don't like your comment "A jail sentence would be handy too"

Handy for whom? Your idea that giving her a custodial sentence would result in drivers being more vigilant is naïve in the extreme

I was thinking along the lines of deterrent value. Not sure about others, but the prospect of a jail term doesn't fill me with joy. I tend to concentrate while driving, but some don't. If they thought that a jail term might be the result, then maybe, just maybe, they would pay more attention to the road and less to their phones and other distractions.

 

[nickyboy]

I was thinking along the lines of deterrent value. Not sure about others, but the prospect of a jail term doesn't fill me with joy. I tend to concentrate while driving, but some don't. If they thought that a jail term might be the result, then maybe, just maybe, they would pay more attention to the road and less to their phones and other distractions.

To be honest, the prospect of killing someone doesn't fill me with joy and that's what keeps me driving (hopefully) safely. I fear that the reckless drivers (and I don't necessarily count Ms Lumley Holmes in this category) would continue being reckless regardless of how long we sent her to prison

 

[Beebo]

Here is an even worse case IMO - the driver was short sighted, with no glasses, when he killed a pedestrian on a zebra crossing!!
These people are driving amongst us!!!!

This case flies in the face of that theory, then. Six years for throwing away a cigarette?

You aren't comparing eggs with eggs?
This is deliberate arson with intent to destroy property and endanger life.
I doubt anyone who suggest the driver intended to kill the cyclist.

 

[Brandane]

You aren't comparing eggs with eggs?
This is deliberate arson with intent to destroy property and endanger life.
I doubt anyone who suggest the driver intended to kill the cyclist.

That's my point though, it wasn't deliberate arson (although accidentally starting a fire in English law seems to count as arson. In Scotland it is reckless fire-raising).
The guy has a mental age of 14 and throws his cigarette into a bin, which then catches fire and destroys the factory.
The driver who killed the cyclist was driving along a straight road in good weather, yet managed to kill a cyclist. Her actions were far more reckless IMHO..

 

[Ganymede]

http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/the-problem-with-good-people/

Musing further on "good people", I've always felt there was a self-righteous strain among certain politicians who take the moral high ground. OK, I mean Tony Blair. This is the syllogism:

"I am a good person; good people do good thing.... therefore the things that I do are good by definition". Dangerous.

In danger of going off-topic here, but it's like the judge has applied this logic to a third person, ie the perp.

 

[stowie]

The thing for me is that the woman who killed the cyclist can be as nice a person as you will ever meet, but it doesn't detract from the fact that her level of driving caused the death of someone whilst driving in conditions that looked like they were almost perfect.

If your ability to control a vehicle on a straight road, in the daytime, in good weather is so poor that it causes the death of someone else then, simply for the sake of safety, you should not be driving again. The level of competence falls so far below what should be expected that I doubt any amount of time of training would make a difference.