I'm sure I'm not the only one to have received the email saying the sentence of McCourt, who has now killed two cyclist through bad driving, is to be reviewed.
Personally, I think the demand to have him banned for life is rather leniant, he should be doing some time too.
That's good news.
Just hope that justice can finally be served properly
Is it to be reviewed as too lenient or too harsh?
If we're talking about Gary Mccourt; he got a bit of a driving ban, and a few hours community service.
which seems a little lenient to me...
but then the #bloodycyclist wasn't wearing a helmet, so it was mostly her fault.
Today, the Crown Office issued a statement announcing it was to lodge an appeal.The statement said: “Following careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case against Gary McCourt by Crown Counsel, we can today confirm that the Crown will be lodging an appeal against the sentence on the grounds that it was unduly lenient.
It is good to see that this is now up for a review. Hopefully from this will be some guidance for all future cases so as to avoid overly lenient sentences for those that kill and injure cyclists on the road.
A lifetime ban should have been the starting point for sentencing.
Good work by the CTC on this one. They've been campaigning (with the family and others) to get this sentence reviewed. Getting members to write to the Lord Advocate etc.
Glad that effort seems to have paid off and it makes me glad to be a member.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/campaign-success-mccourt-sentence-will-be-appealed
I don't understand the difference between 'careless' & 'dangerous driving'. Someone died FFS. I know of numerous cases of death by dangerous driving which have incurred a four yr custodial sentence at least. (including an ex police detective who'd not taken some medication, causing him to have some kind of seizure while driving & killing two people)
Mad.
= falls below standard expected of a competent driver.careless
= falls a long way below the standard; where a competent driver would judge that it is a dangerous thing to do.dangerous
where a competent driver would judge that it is a dangerous thing to do.
Doesn't that rely on finding 12 "competent drivers" to put on the jury?
Where are you going to find them then? (Other than on here obviously!)
Is a lifetime ban within the sentencing powers of the sheriff or judge?
I'd have thought that any sort of driving that causes a death would, by definition, be dangerous.
[quote=glupton1976 ]Is a lifetime ban within the sentencing powers of the sheriff or judge?
Dunno but there are some alternatives...
Causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving (S2B RTA).The Road Safety Act 2006 creates a new offence of causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving. This crime attracts obligatory disqualification and has a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. An alternative verdict of careless driving is permitted where prosecution for the offence has been unsuccessful. This crime is new, coming into our legal system as recently as August 2008. It is a relatively controversial piece of legislation due to the threat of imprisonment for a crime that does not require any criminal intent. Accordingly before this legislation was enacted the Scottish courts were essentially unable to take the consequences of careless driving into account in their sentencing for the obvious reason that the driver did not intend to commit the offence and that his driving did not fall far below what a reasonably competent driver would have done in the same circumstances.
Yes. It is "legally competent" for Sheriff to ban for life - but very rare.glupton1976 - Member
Is a lifetime ban within the sentencing powers of the sheriff or judge?
the consequences are not what determines if it was dangerous or not - the manner of the driving does. There are essentially three different levels of 'bad driving' and the decision which one applies should be the same even if there was no actual collision / accident / injury / death.I'd have thought that any sort of driving that causes a death would, by definition, be dangerous.
the consequences are not what determines if it was dangerous or not - the manner of the driving does. There are essentially three different levels of 'bad driving' and the decision which one applies should be the same even if there was no actual collision / accident / injury / death.
Yeah spot on, I've certainly had a couple of narrow squeaks where all that stopped me being maimed or killed was a second or 2 of timing. The driving issue was the same as if a collision had occurred, the difference was luck.
However these incidents tend not to get reported so don't get prosecuted. If there was a way to do that I bet driver behaviour would improve very quickly.