Wife Pleads For Mercy For Husbands Killer.

[T4tomo]

It it was ME handing out sentences, I'd probably have given him a short-sharp-shock jail spell. (I don't believe long bans are any use, based on how many unlicenced+banned drivers are out there, and most of them have done very bad/stupid things)
HOWEVER, i don't get to decide these things, and the comments of the one person MOST closely involved are these:



Who the heck on this forum thinks they have the right to over-rule this statement?!?

most people I reckon - do you ever read what people write - everyone is an expert on everything

 

[matticus]

most people I reckon - do you ever read what people write - everyone is an expert on everything

Ha!

Yeah, and I think I'm an expert on most things ... it's just that in SOME situations I know it's not MY view that matters!

 

[Alex321]

Who the heck on this forum thinks they have the right to over-rule this statement?!?

Many people here always seem to think they know more than the judge - who has seen/heard all the evidence, not just the small subset that the media gives us.

Many also want penalties so draconian that no party suggesting them in their manifesto would have any chance of election.

 

[T4tomo]

Ha!

Yeah, and I think I'm an expert on most things ... it's just that in SOME situations I know it's not MY view that matters!

to be fair that's just your view (and superfluous capital letters)

 

[Baldy]

I agree is probably inappropriate, he's not a risk to anyone else, but his HGV license should surely go for good? It may be a moot point as, reported elsewhere, he hasn't driven since the accident anyway.

I very much doubt he'll get driving work again, so the length of his ban is really irrelevant.

 

[matticus]

(and superfluous capital letters)

I'LL be the judge of that!

 

[Electric_Andy]

A lifetime driving ban may have been more effective imho. It would stop him driving a vehicle again and only a small number of people actually go on to drive illegally. It would also act as a deterrent or wake-up call for others who might otherwise be inattentive drivers.

The victim's widow shows exceptional character but I'm not sure that should have any impact on the sentence. Otherwise it should in theory work the other way around i.e people could complain that sentences are too lenient and therefore get the offender a harsher sentence

 

[matticus]

The victim's widow shows exceptional character but I'm not sure that should have any impact on the sentence. Otherwise it should in theory work the other way around i.e people could complain that sentences are too lenient and therefore get the offender a harsher sentence

I thought victim statements were a standard part of criminal trials?

 

[mjr]

Many people here always seem to think they know more than the judge - who has seen/heard all the evidence, not just the small subset that the media gives us.

Well, we might, or at least have different knowledge: is that judge a cyclist? Or a motorist?

Many also want penalties so draconian that no party suggesting them in their manifesto would have any chance of election.

And that's a big part of this problem, isn't it? There are probably more incompetent and/or criminal drivers than there are those who realise they are potential future victims of incompetent or criminal drivers.

I agree with those above who feel that there should have been a HGV licence revocation and a longer car driving ban. If the convict really hasn't driven since the incident, probably no-one would oppose it, and it is a fairly good way to prevent a repeat. Just to handle a related point made above: he may start driving unlicensed, but then he would be caught and punished on first minor offence or in a random check, rather than having to wait to see if he kills again.

 

[Slick]

I thought victim statements were a standard part of criminal trials?

An impact statement absolutely is part of the process, and rightly so.

 

[classic33]

I remember reading about this at the time

Is the widow a better person or blissfully naive? only the McGarry will know

If the sun really had a limited impact ( i assume they had dash cam, given it was a HGV) then maybe he didn't see because he wasn't looking. i.e fiddling with radio or phone or whatever.

I agree is probably inappropriate, he's not a risk to anyone else, but his HGV license should surely go for good? It may be a moot point as, reported elsewhere, he hasn't driven since the accident anyway.

I'd say the widow is a better person, not naïve.
She has to live with the loss, we can only comment on what happened.

 

[kingrollo]

"the sun was in his eyes"

Makes a change from "he was in my blind spot" I suppose.

 

[kingrollo]

I very much doubt he'll get driving work again, so the length of his ban is really irrelevant.

I'd be pretty confident he will get work. Haulage companies are very low on moral fibre.

 

[Baldy]

I'd be pretty confident he will get work. Haulage companies are very low on moral fibre.

You're clearly an idiot who doesn't know what you're talking about. He wouldn't get insurance, the haulage industry is driven by the bottom line if insuring him cost too much they won't take him on.

 

[matticus]

You're clearly an idiot who doesn't know what you're talking about. He wouldn't get insurance, the haulage industry is driven by the bottom line if insuring him cost too much they won't take him on.

Can you provide evidence of that? Drivers with bans on their record get insurance all the time.

Large premiums might be dwarfed by other haulage costs, and many large organisations self-insure anyway.

I'm not on the inside, so I don't know any details ...