He’s not a murderer.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_dangerous_driving/

Not a murderer.

14 years is the max sentence. If he didn’t plead guilty at first opportunity (he had a jury trial) I have to agree I don’t see why he didn’t get the max. There were plenty of aggrevating circumstances (from what one can see from the brief article).

And banned for 15 years.

Prison sentence aside, I can’t see any reason at all why it’s in anyone’s interest to ever let him drive again; he clearly isn’t competent to ever do so. Why can’t people like this be banned for life?

It’s hard to see why that didn’t warrant the maximum that could be given.

I was thinking about sentencing recently when that guy that had been convicted for the Libor fraud got reduced to 11 years, which does seem harsh in comparison to cases like this one.

I often wonder in cases like this if Manslaughter would be a better verdict?

In the US it would be referred to as ‘involuntary manslaughter’, I actually think that ‘death by dangerous driving’ sounds more damning.

I’m sure I saw a previous case where the ban was concurrent with the sentence.

It does make you wonder what you’d have to do to get a lifetime driving ban though.

Can you imagine any worse form of driving? e.g. 110 mph in a 20 limit past a school at 3pm, or doing it whilst disqualified, etc. If you can conceive a worse behaviour (or a worse history leading up to the behaviour) then that is presumably what parliament considered when setting the maximum penalty.

Really? It wasn’t a spontaneous stupid decision, that was a well considered decision by someone who understood the consequences and continued to do so for some time. Whilst you can’t point to a single life lost, its quite conceivable that many people suffered and I don’t think impossible that people will have considered, or actually taken, their own lives as a result – white collar crime doesn’t have a visible victim because indirectly we all suffer.

Bans start immediately. But bear in mind that he is likely to be released on home leave, tag etc before his sentence is up.

theoretically they can, but he is likely to appeal it if they did – because declaring that someone will never be safe to drive is a very bold move (it suggests an understanding of the psychology of dangerous drivers that without expert evidence the judge probably can’t assume). Its not clear what his previous driving record is – but I’d be more concerned about someone with a string of bad driving killing someone in 15 yrs than someone who has spent 12 yrs in custody for one episode! He’ll be 52 before he can apply for his provisional license and retake his extended test.

The Crown had that option. Presumably the expert legal opinion was that they didn’t feel confident of securing a Manslaughter conviction.

Been all over local TV news for a couple of days

I’m never sure why all the “lesser charges” aren’t pursued as well – if a book needs throwing, it needs throwing

Lets hope similar sentences are applied if, in similar circumstances, it’s a cyclist who is killed.

Been all over local TV news for a couple of days

I’m never sure why all the “lesser charges” aren’t pursued as well – if a book needs throwing, it needs throwing

+1.
In my opinion, the lesser charges should all be considered too & the sentences to run one after the other, rather than concurrently.

Sentencing is based on the manner of the driving not the consequences (other than their being a death which is a pre-requisite for the offence).

I think the reason is that the sentencing guidelines suggest that the other offences are sentenced concurrently (when they are all from the same course of conduct) rather than consecutively. They can of course be aggravating factors anyway. To pursue all of them would take more court time, more crown council time, potentially more expert witnesses, more jury time etc… all to have little or no effect on the overall outcome. They are probably only listed as a “fall back position” is something goes horribly wrong in prosecuting the main case (although cynical people would suggest it is a way to paint a picture for the jury that goes beyond the specifics of the dangerous driving that might otherwise be inadmissible!).

Very interesting points Noid

Surely the 12 year sentence and additional three year ban will ultimately lead to an unofficial lifetime ban. I can’t imagine that anyone would ever insure a driver who when asked about previous convictions has to answer, ‘I’ve just finished a 15 year ban and long prison sentence for killing someone while driving drunk at 90mph in a 30mph speed limit. Even if the insurer didn’t immediately put the phone down, the premium would be astronomically high for what amounts to a new driver with that background.

Plus he wasn’
Fair enough, that’s probably me being a little naive. I would have imagined that a major motoring related criminal conviction like that would have to be declared to an insurer as it would have such a huge effect on risk profile. Surely one can’t just pretend that something like that never happened and that re-taken test is the only one taken

Usually asked about convictions on a motoring insurance proposal, also any pending prosecutions. Often on the insurers own site, if not the initial meerkats.

I thought driving bans started once the prison sentence had been served? Apologies for the Daily Fail link but it was the only one that showed up under a search which makes me think it maybe got repealed or something?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1228881/Mother-wins-law-change-driving-bans-begin-prison-sentences-served.html

Crazy-legs you are right, the coroners and justice act 2009 (I think) made that change. So it will be over twenty years until he is able to drive again.

Custodial sentences over four yrs are never spent so it will need disclosed to potential insurers. There are specialist insurers around, so I don’t think it defaults to a lifetime ban. if you assume he doesn’t care about insurance why would he about being disqualified?

@konabunny, holy shit.