Viewing 33 posts - 1 through 33 (of 33 total)
  • Woman jailed for seven years for killing a cyclist
  • cloudnine
    Free Member

    should never have the chance to drive again

    MrsToast
    Free Member

    I’m pleased she got an unusually hefty jail sentence, but I’m shocked that she’s only been banned for two years. I mean, look at the state of her car! How utterly obliterated must you be to mistake a man on a bike for a badger, and ignore the fact your car is trashed (not to mention crashing again)?

    iolo
    Free Member

    She’ll be out in 3 such is the uk justice system

    tthew
    Full Member

    7 years, not a bad sentence, though presumably she’ll be out earlier for good behaviour. Seems a shame she wasn’t done for murder.

    Strongly agree with the farcical nature of a 2 year driving ban, which will of course expire while she’s inside. Banned for life should be the starting tariff in cases where people die, (possibly with very limited reductions for mitigating circumstances)

    euans2
    Free Member

    2 year driving ban is shocking. Should be a life time ban! Happy with the 7 years though.

    Sancho
    Free Member

    i am struggling to comprehend what happened.

    how can she continue after the crash other than to try get away with it. The callousness of it i cant believe it.

    should be jailed for longer and never allowed to drive again

    milky1980
    Free Member

    Hopefully the ban will start after she’s out. Doubt it though.

    mdavids
    Free Member

    Never ceases to amaze and annoy me how paltry the bans are in these cases. Where any death or serious injury is involved and the driver is at fault then their license should be removed forever.

    I just dont understand why this isn’t the case. It’s a simple and effective deterrent/punishment for this type of scum.

    zippykona
    Full Member

    Even 7 years is lenient having read the article.
    Life ban should be expected.

    scc999
    Full Member

    It’s a simple and effective deterrent/punishment for this type of scum.

    Is it though?

    They’ll just drive without a license and therefor insurance.

    Don’t get me wrong, I agree that the sentences that are (can be?) handed out aren’t hefty enough, but if you ban someone for life then will it stop them driving?

    Not sure what the answer is, maybe enforceable massive fines – means tested so it really has a detrimental effect on their lives for a long time.
    Not paid back at a fiver a week either, take the biggest slice of their disposable income possible.

    Si

    aracer
    Free Member

    In a way I’m pleasantly surprised by a significant prison sentence, but we’ve discussed this one before and I now believe that it’s far more important for such drivers to get life bans.

    In theory the Coroners and Justice Act allows for bans to be extended to allow for the time people are in prison, but it appears it’s not automatic and people do still serve their driving bans whilst in prison. You have to hope she’ll be incapable of passing an extended test though and that her insurance premiums will be prohibitive.

    Checking the sentencing guidelines, the 2 year ban is also the minimum which can be given, despite the aggravating factor of failing to stop, and to be honest this should also have been considered to be not far short of dangerous, in which case the prison sentence is also right at the bottom of the range. So in fact we’re just back to the norm of judges giving the minimum possible sentence for causing death by driving.

    chip
    Free Member

    Badger my arse, the windscreen was caved in to the extent it was rubbing against her knuckles as she steered after continuing to drive.
    If she had stopped, got out and tried to help and called an ambulance the sentence would not be enough but to not stop makes it so much worse.

    martinhutch
    Full Member

    Well done to the judge for at least sentencing fairly high up the range, but I’m still confused why she was charged under ‘Death by Careless’ rather than ‘Death by Dangerous’. The decision to get behind the wheel when out of your skull surely elevates it beyond the level of carelessness, doesn’t it?

    wanmankylung
    Free Member

    I’d be surprised if she could ever pass an extended retest so it may well turn into a life ban.

    chip
    Free Member

    And surely driving off without stopping to help and ensure medical assistance to someone who could be as far as she was concerned dying by the side of the road should make it murder.

    Drac
    Full Member

    The way I understand how driving bans work it won’t start until she is released.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    Shocking she drove with a car like that half on the road half in the verge and still only done for causing death by driving without due care and attention

    If that is not driving dangerously then WTF is ?

    rogerthecat
    Free Member

    At what point does it become manslaughter?

    cynic-al
    Free Member

    Roger – I wonder that too. It’s as if when you are in a car you can’t murder/manslaughter, only do deeath by careless driving.

    milky1980 – Member
    Hopefully the ban will start after she’s out. Doubt it though.

    It would be meaningless otherwise.

    I_did_dab
    Free Member

    Lower burden of proof for “careless” over “dangerous” hence the lack of prosecutions for the “dangerous” offence. Basically the reform, needs reform…

    simmy
    Free Member

    Over twice the limit on a Monday afternoon, going dark and decides to get in a car.

    Who gets that drunk at that time in the week ?!?!?

    She will be at least 66 before she can take her test again so, hopefully, she won’t bother and everyone around her locality will keep an eye out for her driving illegally.

    hora
    Free Member

    **** off. She knew exactly what she haf done. She was attempting to get away from the scene. When your drunk you still function (think etc). Its only when you are paraletic thay you struggle.

    She’d have thought it’d sound less callous/calculating if she thought it was a giant heavy Badger.

    Why keep driving in those conditions? To attempt to get away.

    **** bitch.

    chip
    Free Member

    If I was driving along in any condition and my car was involved in an impact as large as clearly hers was, but for what ever reason ( maybe took my eyes of the road for a second or two) had not seen what ever it was I hit I would have immediatly thought I have hit someone and stopped to check.

    Not in a million years would I have thought badger.
    If she had said deer and the location of the accident it was not unheard of to hit a deer I may have believed her but still would not excuse her from not stopping to be sure and would still have punished her more serverly.

    In my mind she new what she had done And tried to get away.

    devash
    Free Member

    To be honest this isn’t really a victory for those campaigning for more tougher sentences for motorists who injure or kill cyclists.

    The police and CPS have always been tough against drink drivers (unless you are a politician, police chief or Mason) and this is about as blatant and repulsive a case of drink driving you can get. Look at the state of the car!!!

    aracer
    Free Member

    I think you need to check out the sentencing guidelines. It seems impossible to put it in the lowest category given the aggravating factor of driving off, hence her alcohol level means that the starting point is 7 years custody with a range of 6-12 years and a minimum 2 year ban. In fact as I suggested above, it should be in the highest category (not far short of dangerous – otherwise known as “cps bottled out of charging with dangerous”), in which case it’s the lowest possible sentence.

    Page 12, 13 of http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_causing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf

    So just the normal judges giving the minimum possible sentence for motoring offences – the only reason it seems quite high is the involvement of alcohol meaning the sentencing ranges are a lot higher.

    hora
    Free Member

    If she didnt have the second crash.

    How long would she got away with it?

    slowoldgit
    Free Member

    How long would she got away with it?

    If I’d seen someone driving a car in that state, I’d have stopped and called 999. I expect other grown-ups would have reacted similarly. Though at that time in November it would have been dusk / dark.

    Sancho
    Free Member

    needs a change in the law,
    In America is there vehicle Homicide?

    should be manslaughter charge

    if someone can get manslaughter for punching someone and they die, this is far worse.

    RepackRider
    Free Member


    2retro4u
    Marin County, Cali

    Glad to hear it. In the US they give the driver a medal.

    unklehomered
    Free Member

    So that’s what it takes…

    Northwind
    Full Member

    hora – Member

    Why keep driving in those conditions?

    Considering she wasn’t driving on the road when she hit him, there’s no part of her driving or conduct that makes any sense, so probably no point in trying to work it out.

    Cannot understand how this is “due care” not “dangerous”.

    rogerthecat
    Free Member

    From the CPS guidance website:

    Definition of Homicide

    Murder and manslaughter are two of the offences that constitute homicide.

    Manslaughter can be committed in one of three ways:

    1. killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, namely loss of control, diminished responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact.

    2. conduct that was grossly negligent given the risk of death, and did kill, is manslaughter (“gross negligence manslaughter”); and

    3. conduct taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm, that resulted in death, is manslaughter (“unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter”).

    The term “involuntary manslaughter” is commonly used to describe a manslaughter falling within (2) and (3) while (1) is referred to as “voluntary manslaughter”.

    There are of course other specific homicide offences, for example, infanticide, and causing death by dangerous or careless driving. For dangerous driving see CPS Guidance on Charging Offences Arising from Driving Incidents elsewhere in the Legal Guidance.

    Which is defined thus:

    Murder and Manslaughter

    If the vehicle was intentionally used as a weapon to kill or commit grievous bodily harm, a charge of murder may be considered. If the killing was involuntary, that is to say, where it was not intended, manslaughter may be considered. Manslaughter may arise as unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter. In addition, the charge of corporate manslaughter is also available.

    Manslaughter is an obligatorily disqualifiable offence – Part II of Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (RTOA 1988). An extended retest is also mandatory (section 36 of the RTOA 1988).

    Manslaughter should also be considered where the driving has occurred “off road” i.e. other than on a road or other public place, or when the vehicle driven was not mechanically propelled, and death has been caused. In these cases the statutory offences such as causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving do not apply.

    Prosecutors should also see the chapter on Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter in our Legal Guidance.
    Unlawful act manslaughter

    It must be proved that:

    The suspects act caused the death of another;
    The suspects act constituted a criminal offence in itself;
    The suspect had the mens rea appropriate to the unlawful act which caused the death of another; and
    The suspects unlawful act is objectively recognised as subjecting another to the risk of some physical harm, albeit not necessarily serious harm.

    Unlawful act manslaughter will be the most appropriate charge when there is evidence that a vehicle was used as an instrument of attack or to cause fright, (but where the necessary intent for murder is absent), and death occurs as a result.

    In the context of driving offences, it is important to remember that there is a difference between cases where there is a specific unlawful act which relates to the manner and standard of the driving, and those where a death has occurred as a result of driving that is unlawful only because of the negligent manner of its performance.

    Driving carelessly or driving dangerously do not, on their own, amount to unlawful acts for the purpose of unlawful act manslaughter. Andrews v DPP [1937] A.C. 576

    Unlawful act manslaughter should, therefore, only be charged instead of causing death by dangerous driving where there is evidence that the driver either intended to cause injury to the victim or was reckless as to whether injury would be caused.

    Which seems to indicate to me that, unlike the involuntary discharge of a firearm that kills another person, running into them with a motor vehicle is a lesser offence. Happy to have someone correct, but that’s how it reads to me.

Viewing 33 posts - 1 through 33 (of 33 total)

The topic ‘Woman jailed for seven years for killing a cyclist’ is closed to new replies.