Suspected hit and run Gloucester

[CopperCyclist]

It does make you wander what qualifies for the "maximum" sentence doesn't it. Would have thought that would have done it. Guess not.

That said, the maximum would only be four years more.

 

[spen666]

Yes, only 10 years.

If you want to start a discussion of the appropriateness of the sentence you can open another thread for that.



GC

Why? You seem to have opened the topic with your comment about only 10 years

If you want a new thread, then perhaps you should start one


Or is it not allowed to point out it is one of the longest ever sentences for death by dangerous driving.

You may also note, I stated a fact about the sentence length and did not express an opinion on whether it was appropriate or not

 

[spen666]

It does make you wander what qualifies for the "maximum" sentence doesn't it. Would have thought that would have done it. Guess not.

That said, the maximum would only be four years more.

Credit for a guilty plea for a start could be up to 30% depending on stage of guilty plea.

A relatively short period of dangerous driving.

No evidence of drink or drugs ie not convicted of driving under influence etc.

Its quite easy to see why he did not get 14 years when you stop and think logically about the sentencing

 

[glenn forger]

Hamilton received a discount on his sentence for pleading guilty to causing Alan Knight’s death, hence the ten year sentence rather than 14 years, which is the maximum for causing death by dangerous driving. Seeing as he had committed multiple other offences simultaneously, a longer sentence that incorporated penalties for those offences as well would have been more fitting for his crimes.

http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/case-study/cyclist-killed-hit-and-run-crash-gloucester-26092014

 

[Pale Rider]

Looks like he got 11 - 10 for the killing plus an extra year for drugs offences.

As has been said, he is all but automatically entitled to a discount of up to a third for pleading guilty, so 10 is about right.

A defendant who pleads not guilty and is convicted after a trial is not entitled to the discount so could, in theory, get close to the maximum.

The judge in this case clearly saw it as one of the most serious because his sentence calculation must include the discount.

In other words, the judge would have given the defendant a lot more had he pleaded not guilty and been convicted after a trial.