The Road Maniac and Pathetic Punishment Thread

[icowden]

Many people consider an overly lenient sentence to be a miscarriage of justice.

Then many people are wrong, unless they can demonstrate that the judicial outcome is unjust, unfair or improper. If the Judge has followed the law, and sentenced according to the guidelines, there is no miscarriage. In the UK a miscarriage of justice is usually considered to be where an innocent person has been wrongly convicted.

You might also consider that the sentence is unduly lenient. Sentences can be appealed but again, it the Attorney General's office has to be satisfied that the Judge has erred in law / failed to correctly follow the sentencing guidelines. This is rare. The last few Conservative AG's used their post for ill informed grandstanding:

The ULS regime applies only to sentences that are unduly lenient and not to sentences that are simply lenient. A sentence is unduly lenient:

“… where it falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate” (Attorney General's Reference No 4 of 1989 [1990] 1 WLR 41, Lord Lane CJ).

In Attorney General’s Reference Nos 3 and 5 of 1989 (1990) 90 Cr App R 358 the court agreed with submissions that to allow a reference there must have been some error of principle in the judge's sentence; that, in the absence of the sentence being altered by the court, public confidence would be damaged; and that the court should only grant leave in exceptional circumstances, and not in borderline cases.

In Edwards [2012] EWCA Crim 2746 the Court held that the scheme is designed to deal with cases where judges have fallen into gross error.

 

[icowden]

Why are you apparently picking holes in this ?

I'm not, I am clearly stating that you are incorrect in your assertion.

You don't appear to believe that there is a need for a change in the driving habits of the population at hand, so presumably you think it's perfectly ok to Speed, drive without due care and attention or flout the rules of the road.

I don't believe that I said or indicated any such thing.

It may not have been premeditated, but certainly he bore a high degree of culpability, so why treat him so liently,

This will be clearly stated in the Judgement which is not available to us as far as I know. If you were in Court, you would know why. The Judge will have considered culpability as part of the sentencing process.

I beg to differ?

Differ away. I also think that the sentence seems light, but I can also see that there appears to be little benefit in wasting taxpayers money on a prison place when this person could be more effectively dealt with. If I had a magic wand to make one change to the process, it would be to make the process of restitution a much more important part of sentencing.

 

[icowden]

I agree with that. People should not get any credit becauee they didnt mean to kill - tit about with powerful kinetic weapon and it's reasonably foreseeable someone may die, so they can hardly pretend to be surprised when it does happen.

I don't think people do get any credit because they didn't mean to kill and there certainly wasn't in this case.

Brimson was prosecuted for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving. According to the news report it is likely that the Prosecution could not provide any evidence that culpability was anything other than category C - momentary lapse of concentration for which the starting point is 26 weeks custody and the range is community order to 1 years custody. The article doesn't mention any aggravating factors and there were mitigating factors - remorse and difficult personal circumstance. In this case the Judge would appear to have gone for the maximum jail time of 52 weeks. Early guilty plea would reduce that to 35 weeks, and his remorse and personal circumstances presumably led to the sentence being 7 months. The Judge has then decided that given the clear remorse and the personal circumstances that it would make sense to suspend the sentence for 2 years, as well as imposing the driving ban and community order.

 

[lazybloke]

Then many people are wrong, unless they can demonstrate that the judicial outcome is unjust, unfair or improper.

I was quite clear that people are very unhappy when a sentence is unduly lenient. Can you not empathise with such a scenario?

 

[Drago]

I was quite clear that people are very unhappy when a sentence is unduly lenient. Can you not empathise with such a scenario?

 

[Dogtrousers]

If the Judge has followed the law, and sentenced according to the guidelines, there is no miscarriage. In the UK a miscarriage of justice is usually considered to be where an innocent person has been wrongly convicted.

That's stretching legal pedantry way beyond its breaking point. It's unjustifiable verbal nitpicking.

To miscarry means to go awry, or fail to attain a planned objective. A miscarriage of justice is an instance where the judicial system has failed to attain its objective.

Wrongful conviction is just one of the ways in which the system may miscarry.

 

[grldtnr]

That's stretching legal pedantry way beyond its breaking point. It's unjustifiable verbal nitpicking.

To miscarry means to go awry, or fail to attain a planned objective. A miscarriage of justice is an instance where the judicial system has failed to attain its objective.

Wrongful conviction is just one of the ways in which the system may miscarry.

Plainly it's pointless in discussing this with Icowden, as they appear to be on the side of defendants and not plaintiffs.
Ok, so some of these crimes were not intended , but to be driving with a mobile phone ,operating with out a hands free kit or , with a social media screen open , must suggest that the driver / owner was not excercising full attention to driving, doesn't that make them culpable of inattention ?

And if Icowden is using a professional opinion to this, for it seems they are involved with court proceedings.
Surely they ought to give a laymans view rather than a legal one.
I freely admit that having been a victim of a RTA ,that my opinion is coloured by that circumstance, but to lightly dismiss , such things as being acceptable isn't

 

[Drago]

Plainly it's pointless in discussing this with Icowden,

You don't want to do it like that!

 

[simongt]

Affects insurance, as in a massive price hike if you have been subject to a driving ban.

That is of course, assuming that they admit the ban to their insurance coy. in the first place.
With these standards of 'entitled driving', they'll probably risk not telling them.
But with today's level of IT access, one would expect the insurance coys. to be able to automatically be given that sort of information anyway.
At least we'd like to think so.

 

[icowden]

And if Icowden is using a professional opinion to this, for it seems they are involved with court proceedings.

Not involved but a little familiar plus I read stuff. Sentencing guidelines are agreed by the Sentencing Council which is made up of senior members of the Judicial system. They are independent of Government although Government can make recommendations and pass laws that have to be taken into account.

The Judge followed the agreed sentencing rules. That's it. You can disagree with them, but they haven't just made them up or decided to let him off lightly. The man who caused the death of someone else through careless driving has been sentenced in line with the law. If you disagree with the law, that's fine but you need to bear in mind that some very senior legal minds have agreed the guidelines, not armchair warriors.

 

[Drago]

We do disagree with the law, that's the whole point of my thread.

So let's move on please.

 

[Dogtrousers]

The Judge followed the agreed sentencing rules. That's it. You can disagree with them, but they haven't just made them up or decided to let him off lightly. The man who caused the death of someone else through careless driving has been sentenced in line with the law. If you disagree with the law, that's fine but you need to bear in mind that some very senior legal minds have agreed the guidelines, not armchair warriors.

Sound of the penny finally dropping through the mechanism.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

I think the point is that "momentary inattention" does not and cannot explain swerving across the road into oncoming traffic.

As we all suffer "momentary inattention" from time to time, but cars swerving into incoming traffic is, despite the ubiquity of the mobile phone, not a common occurrence.

It's quite inconceivable that, absent a medical condition, anything other than gross negligence could explain such an outcome. Or perhaps others here commonly find themselves in the wrong side of the road.

So, even within the sentencing guidelines, this does indeed seem clearly unduly lenient.

The question as to whether the guidelines themselves properly reflect the seriousness of the offence is, of course, also highly questionable.

 

[icowden]

We do disagree with the law, that's the whole point of my thread.

Ah, so you want to go down the USA's route of stuff expertise, just string em up?

Personally, that's not a route I think we should pursue. Still, you enjoy your flaming torches and pitchforks.

 

[Drago]

The question as to whether the guidelines themselves properly reflect the seriousness of the offence is, of course, also highly questionable.

They don't, probably due to it being written by car drivers who like to use the same excuses the average Joe trots out.

When considering the cost to the nation in life, limb, NHS, trumpton and dibble expenditure, lost wages, and all the rest of it, road crime is treated with incredible leniency, both by statute and by punishment.

A thought. Back when I was a bobby if I'd genuinely witnessed a murder and had a clear and unobstructed view of a culprit doing the deed and I knew them then my testimony alone (subject to surviving cross examination, etc) would stand a good chance of being sufficient to gain a conviction in court.

Conversely, had I witnessed some careless or dangerous driving then my testimony alone would almost certainly be insufficient for even a charge. Corroboration in the form or another witness, video evidence, etc, would almost certainly be required before the threshold for even seeking CPS advice would be met (dangerous requires CPS authority to charge, straight careless doesnt.)

It's incredible that road criminals get such a high degree of countenance and systemic protection that isn't available to other classes of offender. Under certain circumstances (such as the simplistic ones I desdribe above) potentially greater than that which even murderers are available to avail themselves. That is just nuts.