Screwed up Justice System

[Trickedem]

How on earth can the disparity in these two sentences be justified. WTF

1. Man ask police for help and is then prosecuted for drink driving. He was disqualified from driving for 17 months, fined £1,500, and ordered to pay £85 costs and a £120 victim surcharge. Details here

2. Thomas Hannaway a drink driving teacher knocks a female cyclist off her bike, she suffers two broken ribs and a punctured lung. Hannaway was fined £300 and also ordered to pay a £35 victim surcharge and £80 costs. He was disqualified from driving for 16 months. Details here

There is some twisted logic in that in the second case, the driver had been drinking the day before, so maybe his blood alcohol was lower, but he caused fairly serious injuries to a cyclist.

 

[Pale Rider]

Hannaway was 'only' twice the legal limit, so as Trickedem says, the other driver may have been more, but the report doesn't say.

There is now a charge of 'causing serious injury by dangerous driving' which one would hope was considered in Hannaway's case.

Broken ribs and a punctured lung ought to amount to serious injury, so he's passed that bit of the charge.

He slowed the car and clipped a kerb, but that doesn't amount to dangerous driving, so all the prosecution is left with is drink driving.

 

[MattyKo]

It is my opinion that traffic incidences resulting in injury been sustained by pedestrians and cyclist, is given insufficient importance, by the criminal justice system.

Should the judicatory give the prevalence that these events deserve it would require an acknowledgement by Parliament that the consumer car industry has consequences beyond freedom and the economic rewards achieved as a nation by having over 34 million vehicles on the road.

Unfortunately, I think, had the driver involving the cyclist been found to be within the drink driving limit, no court proceeding would have been pursued by the police.

 

[mr_cellophane]

There must be some clue in the sentence

The ban will be reduced by 17 weeks if a rehabilitation course is completed.

 

[snorri]

In the UK the sentence is determined by the level of alcohol in the bloodstream and not the degree of carnage resulting.
(I think)

 

[steve52]

fubar

 

[Frood42]

Both cases are for drink driving, and there is no mention in the second case of any charges for the harm he caused to the cyclist, which says a whole lot really.

At least in the second case he will be banned for 16 months (and I see no mention of this being reduced by attending a "course").

There needs to be something to take into account the carnage they cause or the injuries suffered by the victims (pedestrian, cyclist, horse rider etc...) to try and drive home what issues these people can cause through their ignorance.

 

[MattyKo]

I think we are wrong to make comparisons in these sentences issued by the Magistrates'.

What we should be commenting upon is the ridiculous sentence issued in the second case.

It was only a secondary measure that this person was breathalysed (a standard police investigation procedure, following an adverse road traffic event).

The ridiculous sentence despite causing injury to a (pedestrian or) cyclist, should make us focus on the light hearted manner Parliament / The Judicatory / the police and now our very own IPCC - Independent Police Crime Commissioner, asks us to view, adverse traffic events, involving these environmentally friendly means of transport.

The fact that they were over the alcohol limit should only add to the severity of punishment issued by the Magistrate.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Cyclists and pedestrians are expendable. That's all you need to know when considering convictions and sentencing for driving offences.

Most of the time drivers KSI themselves and each other and not the most vulnerable people on the roads.

 

[MattyKo]

Motorised vehicle drivers accounts for the highest proportion of road users involved in RTC's, consequently they are the highest proportion of road users that are Killed or Seriously or Slightly Injured.

Approximately 85% of KSI road users are in a motorised vehicle at the time.

As many at 90% plus of Cyclists or Pedestrians involved in a RTC are Killed or Serious or Slightly Injured as a consequence.

Concerning Heavy Good Vehicles during 2012 approximately less that 10 were killed following a RTC. However from the 6,000 plus RTC involving HGVs 270 persons were killed. This is for HGV's only these are further figures for LGV.

During the year 2012 the number of cyclist killed as a consequence of been involved in a RTC increased. This been the only road user group that showed an increase in road deaths. However, this road user group also had an increase in numbers generally.

 

[Beebo]

Cyclists and pedestrians are expendable. That's all you need to know when considering convictions and sentencing for driving offences.
.

I agree with the above comment from Greg.
Here is another case where justice seems to fail. Two girls dead, walking along the pavement, the driver was 4x4 uninsured. The cause of the deaths was an undiagnosed epileptic problem.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-24821758
He was charged with "Causing death whilst uninsured", but the case is now dropped as the court can no longer prosecute in cases where the only crime is no insurance, as.follows:

"The court ruled: "There must be something open to proper criticism in the driving of the defendant, beyond the mere presence of the vehicle on the road, and which contributed in some more than minimal way to the death."
The ruling was seen as calling into doubt the causing death while uninsured offence that was introduced by the UK government in 2006"

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Motorised vehicle drivers accounts for the highest proportion of road users involved in RTC's, consequently they are the highest proportion of road users that are Killed or Seriously or Slightly Injured.

Approximately 85% of KSI road users are in a motorised vehicle at the time.

As many at 90% plus of Cyclists or Pedestrians involved in a RTC are Killed or Serious or Slightly Injured as a consequence.

Concerning Heavy Good Vehicles during 2012 approximately less that 10 were killed following a RTC. However from the 6,000 plus RTC involving HGVs 270 persons were killed. This is for HGV's only these are further figures for LGV.

During the year 2012 the number of cyclist killed as a consequence of been involved in a RTC increased. This been the only road user group that showed an increase in road deaths. However, this road user group also had an increase in numbers generally.

You don't say.

 

[glenn forger]

I agree with the above comment from Greg.
Here is another case where justice seems to fail. Two girls dead, walking along the pavement, the driver was 4x4 uninsured. The cause of the deaths was an undiagnosed epileptic problem.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-24821758
He was charged with "Causing death whilst uninsured", but the case is now dropped as the court can no longer prosecute in cases where the only crime is no insurance, as.follows:

"The court ruled: "There must be something open to proper criticism in the driving of the defendant, beyond the mere presence of the vehicle on the road, and which contributed in some more than minimal way to the death."
The ruling was seen as calling into doubt the causing death while uninsured offence that was introduced by the UK government in 2006"

Depressing.

 

[MattyKo]

My earlier posting and other postings on this site, suggests that incidents resulting in death (and therefore injury, also) have since the creation / enactment of the Road Traffic Act 1971; allows motorists to be prosecuted for lessor offences than those (individuals) that "...set out to or are negligent to the fact that their actions may cause death or serious injury", such as in the case of GBH or ABH, i.e., physical assaults.

Since this period there has been exponential growth in vehicle use (presently over 30 million on the UK roads today - it was estimated in 1970 - 100 million vehicles worldwide). Granted there has been a decrease in UK road deaths, however, this should not distract from the serious capacity a car and therefore larger vehicles has of causing death to any person that it adversely contacts.

Approximately one quarter (25%) of road deaths in 2012 were either pedestrians or cyclists, this is a disproportionate share of the total road death figure, for these two road user classifications.

In my opinion pedestrians cannot be referred to as a road user group, however, they did unfortunately account for 420 of the approximate 1700 UK road deaths in 2012.

 

[Frood42]

In my opinion pedestrians cannot be referred to as a road user group

Why not?
I am a road user as a pedestrian when I go for a walk around the country roads where my parents live (there are no pavements).
Pedestrians also have to walk on the roads to cross them.

They are a road user group.