mumbo jumbo
Senior Member
- Location
- Birmingham
I've posted some stuff about this in the commuting forum but it's not getting much traction there. Hopefully here's a better place.
We're all familiar with the insultingly pathetic sentences that most drivers leave court with after being prosecuted following incidents in which cyclists and other vulnerable road users are killed. Well - there's a private member's bill just starting its journey through Parliament which gives an opportunity to campaign to make a difference: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/sentencingreform.html
I have no details of what the bill covers but there's a suggestion that motoring offences are on radar. Cue lobbying from the likes of us. For what it's worth, here is what I sent to Philip Hollobone (the Bill's sponsor) which I've copied to my local MP, Roger Godsiff, asking for his support. Apologies that it's quite long but I pasted in previous emails and a newspaper report to get all my points across.
If you want to do something similar, Mr Hollobone's email address is philip.hollobone.mp@parliament.uk
----------
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:
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.
Philip Sutton
(Birmingham)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Email exchange with Attorney General's office:
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:
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,
Philip Sutton
We're all familiar with the insultingly pathetic sentences that most drivers leave court with after being prosecuted following incidents in which cyclists and other vulnerable road users are killed. Well - there's a private member's bill just starting its journey through Parliament which gives an opportunity to campaign to make a difference: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/sentencingreform.html
I have no details of what the bill covers but there's a suggestion that motoring offences are on radar. Cue lobbying from the likes of us. For what it's worth, here is what I sent to Philip Hollobone (the Bill's sponsor) which I've copied to my local MP, Roger Godsiff, asking for his support. Apologies that it's quite long but I pasted in previous emails and a newspaper report to get all my points across.
If you want to do something similar, Mr Hollobone's email address is philip.hollobone.mp@parliament.uk
----------
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.
Philip Sutton
(Birmingham)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Email exchange with Attorney General's office:
Dear Mr Sutton
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
- - - - - - - -
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
- - - - - - - -
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.
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,
Philip Sutton
