When someone gets sent to prison for 9 years for dangerous driving.....

crinkleshoes said:
And that makes him responsible for the Civic driver's ineptitude... how?

I can see how the RX7 driver could have been convicted of dangerous driving... but causing death by... hell no!


It also sounds like the passengers weren't wearing their seatbelts... so they share some responsibility in their own fate, a lot more than the RX7 driver for crying out loud!
Click to expand...

My friends brother was killed with a single punch to the head and the offender only got 5 years for manslaughter. He's got loads of previous offences under his belt including serving prison sentences for violence. To get 7 years for dangerous driving is mental, especially when he didn't actually kill anyone. A 10 year ban and maximum sentence of 2 years for dangerous driving should be fair enough, not 7 years inside.
 
Last edited:
Lethagized said:
My friends brother was killed with a single punch to the head and the offender only got 5 years for manslaughter. He's got loads of previous offences under his belt including serving prison sentences for violence. To get 7 years for dangerous driving is mental, especially when he didn't actually kill anyone. A 10 year ban and maximum sentence of 2 years for dangerous driving should be fair enough, not 7 years inside.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point :)

Sorry about your friends brother... we live in a crazy world :(

If it could be proved that the RX7 intentially drove in to the Civic to shove them off the road, then yeah - 7+ years inside would be a worthy sentence... but just participating in an illegal race should never get you that kind of time... madness!
 
People forget what damage one punch can actually do to someone not expecting it, or if you catch them just in the right (wrong) way.

Google Nick D'Arcy v Simon Cowley for an example.

jnvwR.jpg


The man on the left did this damage to the man on the right with a single punch. Plates, screws, broken jaw ear-to-ear. Completely OT, but interesting as it is scary.
 
Last edited:
Robbie G said:
The man on the left did this damage to the man on the right with a single punch. Plates, screws, broken jaw ear-to-ear. Completely OT, but interesting as it is scary.
Click to expand...

Yup, you catch someone wrong you will kill them with a punch. It's rare and requires someone who has a big punch married to a soft head and the correct circumstance, but a punch is a deadly weapon and 1 simple beer fueled swinger can land with with 10 years or more in prison...
 
Housey said:
1 simple beer fueled swinger can land with with 10 years or more in prison...
Click to expand...

Obviously not when a repeat offender who's been in prison before for violence only gets 5 years for killing someone. Going off that, If it were your first offence, i bet you would be out in 3 years but we all know how our justice system works and i'm more than likely completely off and you'll get the full 10years inside even though you've got no previous criminal record.

Stupid justice system.
 
Lethagized said:
Obviously not when a repeat offender who's been in prison before for violence only gets 5 years for killing someone. Going off that, If it were your first offence, i bet you would be out in 3 years but we all know how our justice system works and i'm more than likely completely off and you'll get the full 10years inside even though you've got no previous criminal record.

Stupid justice system.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want to go to jail for 1 day, I've punched people after a beer and when I was sober come to think of it and regretted it everytime. The point is normal 'chaps' like the people on this fine forum who get a bit carried away could have their lives destroyed by a simply punch. The time is irrelevant in reality, but I get the point you are making...
 
The rx driver got the sentence he did because he raced the other vehicle and the CPS would have argued that had the rx driver not raced then the accident wouldn't have happened. They are both responsible.
 
mattyg said:
The rx driver got the sentence he did because he raced the other vehicle and the CPS would have argued that had the rx driver not raced then the accident wouldn't have happened. They are both responsible.
Click to expand...

Sure, so when chav in his civic or corsa tries to keep up with me when I'm in a hurry I'm responsible if he loses control and rams into someone ?
The court was told Mr Eales, of Woodside, Dudley, had been “screaming” at Allen, of Summer Lane, Lower Gornal, to slow down.
Click to expand...
Sure he was :rolleyes:. Who told them that ?
 
snowdog said:
Sure, so when chav in his civic or corsa tries to keep up with me when I'm in a hurry I'm responsible if he loses control and rams into someone ?
Click to expand...

Not quite, the issue here is that this pair were racing around local roads at 120mph. Your average chavmobile isn't going to be capable of reaching speeds in excess of 100 on a local road where the limit is 30/40/50 so it's quite a different scenario. I'm not one to criticise people for speeding but anyone doing 100+ on local roads is an idiot. On motorways that's fine, but on local roads, absolutely not.
 
Still, he didn't kill anyone, I don't like how people are held responsible for what others did.
7 years is a bit harsh for racing when he himself didn't lose control, people have got away with far less for worse crimes...
He is an idiot I agree, but it's not him who did something to someones life...
 
Yeah I definitely agree with that. He's been sentenced just as harshly as if he had caused someone's death when directly he did not. The other driver was responsible for the deaths and while this guy racing with him may have influenced that, he didn't deserve to be sentenced as harshly. I guess the court felt like making an example of him.
 
Phemo said:
Not quite, the issue here is that this pair were racing around local roads at 120mph. Your average chavmobile isn't going to be capable of reaching speeds in excess of 100 on a local road where the limit is 30/40/50 so it's quite a different scenario. I'm not one to criticise people for speeding but anyone doing 100+ on local roads is an idiot. On motorways that's fine, but on local roads, absolutely not.
Click to expand...

While yes, they were idiots... that doesn't mean responsibility for the death just for participating :confused:
 
Phemo said:
Yeah I definitely agree with that. He's been sentenced just as harshly as if he had caused someone's death when directly he did not. The other driver was responsible for the deaths and while this guy racing with him may have influenced that, he didn't deserve to be sentenced as harshly. I guess the court felt like making an example of him.
Click to expand...

Yes - it could potentially have influenced the incident... but if it wasn't the RX7 driver - it would likely have been another driver.

From the article, it suggests the Civic was the one inciting the race... so something would probably have happened whether the RX7 driver was there or not = not responsible.

The passengers have more responsibility in their own deaths than the RX7 driver for simply not wearing their seatbelts (and no, that should not be the responsibility of the driver).
 
we still haven't established if they serve their driving bans from the point of sentence though, or from the point of release.

Having said that though, good luck passing your test again after not driving for 5 years and already having such bad judgement that you killed somebody with your driving before you went inside
 
Why are so many people struggling to understand a very old bit of English Common Law? The Mazda driver willingly engaged in reckless behavior which any reasonable person could see might result in death. He was reckless as to whether it would result in death. Both drivers were engaged in the exactly the same act, and it was sheer luck that it was the Civic driver who crashed of the two. If two people go out with knives with the plan of stabbing soneone, and both are happy to do it, if one stabs someone and that victim dies, both are guilty of murder. Etc.


M
 
Joint enterprise - serves them both right.

Wikipedia said:
In English law, the doctrine [of common purpose, common design or joint enterprise] derives from R v Swindall and Osborne (1846) 2 Car. & K. 230 where two cart drivers engaged in a race. One of them ran down and killed a pedestrian. It was not known which one had driven the fatal cart, but since both were equally encouraging each other in the race, it was irrelevant which of them had actually struck the man so both were held jointly liable.
Click to expand...
I can't say I feel one iota of sympathy for either of them - they both sound like complete selfish cretins :mad:
 
I would imagine they both got convicted and jailed for death by dangerous driving because they both pleaded guilty to it....


"Both had pleaded guilty to two charges each of causing death by dangerous driving"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom