3 months for hit and run killer ... WTF?
- Thread starter singist
- Start date
Treefrog said:
Perhaps because that's not allowed under UK law? One interesting thing that comes out of these threads is that the people on this forum seem to know far more about US law than UK law - a slightly worrying thing to me at least.
OK, as is usual whenever the OcUk lynch mob mounts up, I find myself having to explain how the law works in this country.
1) Let's start with a quote from the BBC story:
For those particular driving offences, jail time as actually unusual, so the bench WAS taking this seriously.
Now note the bit about careless driving.
2) He wasn't found guilty of dangerous driving, and thus cannot be jailed for it. ATM there is no offence of "causing death by careless driving" although IIRC the government wants to change this a knee-jerk reaction to stories like this. There IS an offence of "causing death by dangerous driving" but it wasn't brought, presumably because the CPS didn't think they could make it stick. The CPS note, not the magistrates, and certainly not the imaginary judge someone mentioned a while ago.
3) Most importantly, with a couple of exceptions, in UK law you are tried for the offence you committed, not what might follow from it. The exceptions involve cases where you might reasonably expect the consequences, but those don't apply here (despite waht you might think). THAT is why he wasn't sentenced for killing the girl - because that is not actually the offence he committed, in the absence of a "causing death by DD" charge. For example: you drop a piece of litter on the pavement. An old woman slips on it, falls over and breaks her neck. She dies. Do you seriously think you should be charged with manslaughter? No, you'd be charged with littering. But this vital point goes way over peoples head in cases like this.
M
[TW]Fox said:
It's completely relevant.
I have an insured, taxed and MoT car with a full, clean liscence.
He was banned from driving, in a stolen car with no insurance.
So he should be allowed on the road as much as I am?.
The fact of the matter is, he shouldn't have been on the roads so the whole situation could have been avoided if he had served his five year driving ban and stayed off the roads.
Suspended
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2005
- Posts
- 5,426
- Location
- Cambridge
Correct. And he was tried for driving in a stolen car, with no insurance, and also for leaving the scene of an accident, and received an appropriate punishment for those crimes. What's the problem?FincH said:
Do you think that because he killed someone (through little fault of his own, as far as I can judge) the sentence should be greater? What if it had been you driving, and someone stepped out from behind a car with no time for you to stop. Should you be charged with causing their death? Of course not - because it wasn't your fault. Just like this kid's death was (probably) not his fault.
I think that part of the problem is that when people hear "hit and run" they immediately think of a deliberate attack, after which the driver makes a speedy exit. Whereas what it actually means is exactly what it says - an accident that you don't stop for. It's stupid and very, very irresponsible, but it's not actually malicious.
As well as that, surely you can appreciate that in the heat of the moment, knowing that you've just hit someone in a stolen car with no insurance, you'd be damn scared about stopping? I like to think that if I was in that situation I'd have the balls to stop, but I don't really know what I'd do.
Arcade Fire said:
My problem isn't with the running over of the girl, as its been pointed out it was an accident, not done on purpose. My problem is with the stupid sentance passed down for the other offences that he commited, its a joke.
I know thats all that the judge could give him but i think the law in this regard is a joke.
Last edited:
Suspended
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2005
- Posts
- 5,426
- Location
- Cambridge
God dammit, did you make any effort at all to read the posts by Fox, Meridian and myself?Maxeh said:That is a complete and utter joke
Meridian's is the best. Go read it before you hurt yourself.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 14,199
- Location
- Hall
It would be impossible to convict a person of manslaughter in that scenario. In this case, they could have successfully convicted him for manslaughter.Meridian said:
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Phnom_Penh said:
Really? I was unaware you sat on the case in question and heard all the evidence. Perhaps you'd like to inform us all what evidence it was which showed the accident was infact completely his fault, and perhaps let us know why the CPS ignored this clearly damning evidence?
Perhaps becuase you are jumping to conclusions and no such evidence exists?
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 14,199
- Location
- Hall
They never tried for manslaughter. Not that you'd be aware if I hadn't or had sat on the case.[TW]Fox said:
It's not a case of how it was an accident, its the fact that it purely wouldn't have happened had he not illegaly driven a car in the first place. Its not a case of "it would have happened if he was legally driving" its a case of "it shouldn't have happened as he shouldn't have been driving".[TW]Fox said:
Who knows why the CPS didn't make an attempt at any major convition.
Maybe.[TW]Fox said:
Last edited:
Phnom_Penh said:
Why do you think it would be successful? Because he was an immigrant? Or just because the victim was a child?
OK, some history for you: in days of yore (the 1950s) the charge brought against people who killed whilst driving was manslaughter. But the government of the day noticed that convictions almost NEVER happened. We don't know why because juries cannot be interviewed about their deliberations, but the assumption was because most jurors were drivers, and could see how something similar could happen to them. Using the old "there but for the Grace of God" theory (probably) they were finding not guilty. So the special offense of "causing death by dangerous driving" was brought in - basically to get convictions. It is for similar reasons and the sort of knee-jerk reactions we see here that the current government announced some months ago it wanted to add a new offense: "causing death by careless driving". Whether they will get convictions with this is open to debate, because most drivers do at least one careless thing behind the wheel every time they drive - even if they refuse to admit it.
M
Arcade Fire said:
You're not quite getting my posts.
The fact of the matter is, he was banned from driving yet he still drives on the road, in a stolen car and runs a child over and kills them. Oblivious to whose fault it is don't you think he should take more punishment than 12 weeks in jail for that?
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 9,878
- Location
- London UK
I understand that he wasn't done for dangerous driving and that in situations such as this is could have even been a pedestrians fault (ie running out into the road) but the fact still stands that if he wasn’t breaking the law and driving without insurance/license then he wouldn’t have been in this position and therefore he should be automatically punished harder for a death that directly relates to him driving unlawfully, otherwise why in hell do any of us bother to follow the laws of this country.
Was going to join the manslaughter discussion, but, and I could be wrong, I heard somewhere that you can't be done for manslaughter driving a vehicle - only dangerous/careless driving etc.
The fact that he wasn't taxed, insured, owner, not stopping is wrong, and should have consequetive sentences imo. Perhaps the judge took leniceny (sp?) by him handing himself in...like other's have said, we don't know all the facts.
However, I do agree it makes a mockery of our judicial system though.
The fact that he wasn't taxed, insured, owner, not stopping is wrong, and should have consequetive sentences imo. Perhaps the judge took leniceny (sp?) by him handing himself in...like other's have said, we don't know all the facts.
However, I do agree it makes a mockery of our judicial system though.