[Politics] Just 4.5 years in prison for killing 2 boys by drug driving

[Lindfield by the Pond]

My lad and I were wiped out by drug driver 3 years ago, along with car following us. Luckily we were not killed, but it was head on. Still going through legalities so can't say too much, but he was done for Driving under Influence of Drugs. Got a suspended sentence, fine and 20hrs of litter picking. Seems so lieniant.

 

[GT49er]

Concurrent sentences are usually awarded when the offences are all committed at the same time ; If, for example, someone was sentenced for crimes committed on two separate occasions then consecutive sentences are possible.

....and if they happen on two (or more) separate occasions thy get written off as TICs - everyone's happy - the criminal gets let off and the police boost their clear up rate.

This scumbag with thirty previous convictions, which he has basically ignored, and subsequently killed two innocent little boys, is a vastly different case from the teacher who got bladdered and drove, but didn't kill anyone. She's guilty, yes - but it would be appropriate to have a much more severe sentence for him, but not to go baying for the death penalty for her.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

....and if they happen on two (or more) separate occasions thy get written off as TICs - everyone's happy - the criminal get let off and the police boost their clear up rate.

This scumbag with thirty previous convictions, which he has basically ignored, and subsequently killed two innocent little boys, is a vastly different case from the teacher who got bladdered and drove, but didn't kill anyone. She's guilty, yes - but it would be appropriate to have a much more severe sentence for him, but not to go baying for the death penalty for her.

Word.

 

[studio150]

Rob a bank, however and you get 25 years.

Needs to be armed robbery for 25 years, otherwise the sentence will probably be around 7 years of no violence, which is 2 years less than the sentence for this driver

 

[Thunder Bolt]

....and if they happen on two (or more) separate occasions thy get written off as TICs - everyone's happy - the criminal gets let off and the police boost their clear up rate.

This scumbag with thirty previous convictions, which he has basically ignored, and subsequently killed two innocent little boys, is a vastly different case from the teacher who got bladdered and drove, but didn't kill anyone. She's guilty, yes - but it would be appropriate to have a much more severe sentence for him, but not to go baying for the death penalty for her.

More by luck than judgement.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

The government launched a consultation last year regarding sentencing for offences like causing death by dangerous driving, as well as introducing a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving.

The plan was to increase the maximum sentence for S1 Road Traffic Act offences (death by dangerous driving) to life (currently fourteen years). Not sure how far that plan has progressed yet: the wheels of justice turn notoriously slowly, but there are moves afoot, it seems.

Too late for the odious individual mentioned at the top of this thread, of course.

 

[Gwylan]

The maximum for this offence alone is 14 years, let alone his other fresh offences including the hit n run.

Quire right, my mistake. So, the third off for the guilty plea is about right

14 years is way, way too low a maximum

 

[GT49er]

More by luck than judgement.

Yes, many things are. And the consequences depend on how lucky you are.

 

[raymondo]

You will not get off a drink driving disqualification because you need the car for work; losing your job because of a disqualification is NOT considered exceptional hardship in itself, it's an unfortunate consequence of your actions.



Concurrent sentences are usually awarded when the offences are all committed at the same time ; If, for example, someone was sentenced for crimes committed on two separate occasions then consecutive sentences are possible.

Ok you seem to know more about it so I'll stand corrected for now. But I'm pretty sure I've read news reports where the magistrate/judge considered a ban but didn't give it because the offender (doctor, salesman...) were 100% dependent on car for their work. If i find such an article in future i will send it to you

 

[Weststander]

Quire right, my mistake. So, the third off for the guilty plea is about right

14 years is way, way too low a maximum

The third off is a maximum at the judge's discretion, based on how early the guilty pleas were made.

Hopefully there's cope for an appeal to review the sentence.

This repeat offending scumbag wiped out the lives of two tiny kids, yet will over spend 4 and half years in prison. The current law is patently wrong.

 

[Weststander]

Ok you seem to know more about it so I'll stand corrected for now. But I'm pretty sure I've read news reports where the magistrate/judge considered a ban but didn't give it because the offender (doctor, salesman...) were 100% dependent on car for their work. If i find such an article in future i will send it to you ��

There are 10,000 people currently driving and not serving bans, despite being on anything from 12 to 62 points. They all knew the law before they gained penalty after penalty. This bending of the law's intention is madness.

 

[Notters]

The getting to work let-off for those on 12 or more points, given by magistates to 10,000 drivers on UK roads is astoniishing. One driver is on 62 points.

There should be no leeway. If points were accumulated quickly, hard lines. Mandatory bans would be sharp lesson, and for those who would then continue to drive whilst banned, more fool them with the criminal consequences.

There should

Hard to disagree with this. I used to drive nearly 100000 miles a year for work and didn't get any points whilst doing so.

Must be bloody hard to get insured if you have 62 points?!

 

[happypig]

Ok you seem to know more about it so I'll stand corrected for now. But I'm pretty sure I've read news reports where the magistrate/judge considered a ban but didn't give it because the offender (doctor, salesman...) were 100% dependent on car for their work. If i find such an article in future i will send it to you ��

You may be thinking of "Exceptional Hardship" which can be put forward as a reason not to disqualify for totting (normally if you amass 12 points in a certain period you will be disqualified). The defendant will have to show that a disqualification would be unduly onerous; losings ones job as a consequence is not necessarily so.
An example would be a primary carer needing the car to transport a disabled person. Each application will be carefully scrutinised and as many are refused as allowed.
You are not allowed to put forward the same argument again.

 

[Brighton Mod]

I posted on this on the other drink driving thread. So how many times can you get done for driving offences with never having passed your test or been insured before they lock you away and throw away the key? More than 30 it would appear.

You can moan about law breaking till you are blue in the face but there seems to be a special thing going on for drivers. They have a licence to kill that would enfanchise every reject as James Bond's successor. Get behind the wheel and they will let you do offence after offence and only after you kill some kids will you get a moderate gaol term.

Rob a bank, however and you get 25 years.

It is plain and simply wrong, and the government don't see enough votes in it to bother with changing the law.

After all, 'we all speed and sometimes drive after drinking, don't we? Make it tough for the nutters and we all suffer'.

FFS.

Not sure we all drink and drive? Was in Canada a few years ago at a place called Tracadie Sheila, stayed just out of town and walked in to town for a beer one night. Went to the local supermarket the next day and the girl on the till said without hesitation, you're British aren't you. Was amazed that she knew, so I asked her, she said only the British walk into town to have a drink everyone else drives. It was freezing that night and mile walk but hats how it is.

As for the perpetrator of this atrocity, this recidivist should have his previous taken into account and should have the sentence massively extended. He will be a drain on the public purse until he dies as for the parents and siblings of these young boys, what does the law do for them?

 

[clippedgull]

Very rare. Whereas the yanks do sentencing consecutively.

Not exclusively. Take Bill Cosby as an example. He's looking at three convictions with a maximum of 10 years each. One commentator I listened to said the judge will have options to hand down concurrent sentences.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Not sure we all drink and drive? Was in Canada a few years ago at a place called Tracadie Sheila, stayed just out of town and walked in to town for a beer one night. Went to the local supermarket the next day and the girl on the till said without hesitation, you're British aren't you. Was amazed that she knew, so I asked her, she said only the British walk into town to have a drink everyone else drives. It was freezing that night and mile walk but hats how it is.

As for the perpetrator of this atrocity, this recidivist should have his previous taken into account and should have the sentence massively extended. He will be a drain on the public purse until he dies as for the parents and siblings of these young boys, what does the law do for them?

Yes.....I lived in Canada in the early 80s. You regularly saw people driving so pissed they were literally weaving all over the road. Back in the UK, late 80s, we had a visiting American (late 20s) who claimed she ALWAYS drove impaired in the evening, back home. I do hope times have changed.

 

[raymondo]

There are 10,000 people currently driving and not serving bans, despite being on anything from 12 to 62 points. They all knew the law before they gained penalty after penalty. This bending of the law's intention is madness.

Thank you, sir!

 

[raymondo]

You may be thinking of "Exceptional Hardship" which can be put forward as a reason not to disqualify for totting (normally if you amass 12 points in a certain period you will be disqualified). The defendant will have to show that a disqualification would be unduly onerous; losings ones job as a consequence is not necessarily so.
An example would be a primary carer needing the car to transport a disabled person. Each application will be carefully scrutinised and as many are refused as allowed.
You are not allowed to put forward the same argument again.

OK, thanks for the info. According to Weststander there are currently 10,000 who have been 'allowed': in my opinion a high percentage of those 10,000 are likely to offend again, and possibly put lives at risk again. If there were only a few hundred or so allowed for 'exceptional hardship' reasons then I'd buy it, but 10,000 [if correct] is far too many for my liking. Just my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

Rupert Brown from Coventry, with 30 previous driving convictions, wiped out the lives of brothers age 2 and 6. He was driving at 60 in a 30 zone, was high on cocaine and drove off after the killings.

With good behaviour he'll be out in 4 and a half years.

Way too short in my opinion, based on all the above. An utter selfish scummer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-43926623

View attachment 96442

I feel for the boys family.

Only one way to deal with wasters like this.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Ok you seem to know more about it so I'll stand corrected for now. But I'm pretty sure I've read news reports where the magistrate/judge considered a ban but didn't give it because the offender (doctor, salesman...) were 100% dependent on car for their work. If i find such an article in future i will send it to you ��

My ex husband lost his job as a salesman for drink driving as he got a 12 month ban. He offered to pay a much bigger fine, but the court said a ban was mandatory for drink driving.
The only ones who can escape a ban for exceptional hardship are totting up points offenders who are usually done for speeding.