- This topic has 32 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by rogerthecat.
-
Woman jailed for seven years for killing a cyclist
-
MrsToastFree 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)?
tthewFull Member7 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)
euans2Free Member2 year driving ban is shocking. Should be a life time ban! Happy with the 7 years though.
SanchoFree Memberi 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
milky1980Free MemberHopefully the ban will start after she’s out. Doubt it though.
mdavidsFree MemberNever 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.
zippykonaFull MemberEven 7 years is lenient having read the article.
Life ban should be expected.scc999Full MemberIt’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
aracerFree MemberIn 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.
chipFree MemberBadger 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.martinhutchFull MemberWell 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?
wanmankylungFree MemberI’d be surprised if she could ever pass an extended retest so it may well turn into a life ban.
chipFree MemberAnd 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.
DracFull MemberThe way I understand how driving bans work it won’t start until she is released.
JunkyardFree MemberShocking 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 ?
cynic-alFree MemberRoger – 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_dabFree MemberLower burden of proof for “careless” over “dangerous” hence the lack of prosecutions for the “dangerous” offence. Basically the reform, needs reform…
simmyFree MemberOver 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.
horaFree 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.
chipFree MemberIf 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.
devashFree MemberTo 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!!!
aracerFree MemberI 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.
horaFree MemberIf she didnt have the second crash.
How long would she got away with it?
slowoldgitFree MemberHow 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.
SanchoFree Memberneeds 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.
RepackRiderFree Member
2retro4u
Marin County, CaliGlad to hear it. In the US they give the driver a medal.
NorthwindFull Memberhora – 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”.
rogerthecatFree MemberFrom 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 manslaughterIt 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.
The topic ‘Woman jailed for seven years for killing a cyclist’ is closed to new replies.