Forum menu
.. then buried!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-66256705
I'd be very surprised if these guys avoid justice
That's pretty grim. They won't escape justice, they've pled guilty, but the sentence they receive may well fall short of some folks' idea of justice.
It's not cycling related but I was reading this recently, the 12 year sentence fell rather short of what was felt to be 'justice' here too I think.
It is tricky deciding what is 'just', especially if someone dies. Is the punishment based on the crime committed, the potential consequences of the crime or the actual consequences? If someone dies as a consequence the is any punishment this side of killing the criminal enough? If it is then how many years per victim or does it vary depending on who the victim is?
An absolute moral quagmire.
I think it shows that motoring offences need to be taken more seriously. The person who killed the pregnant woman had multiple previous driving transgressions.
If these had been taken more seriously someone might not have died.
I suspect hiding the body & leaving a dying man by the side of the road will weigh pretty heavily against them. Also, this won't help him.
Prosecutor Alex Prentice KC revealed Alexander was already had a string of road traffic convictions.
He was guilty of dangerous driving in 2009 in Oban. Three years later, he was convicted of drink driving.
The same year, Alexander was guilty of careless driving. Both the latter cases were at Stirling."
If enough people write to the Attorney General to complain about lenient sentencing it will be looked at.
Edit, Scotland may be different.
He was guilty of dangerous driving in 2009 in Oban. Three years later, he was convicted of drink driving.
The same year, Alexander was guilty of careless driving. Both the latter cases were at Stirling.”
Drink driving should be a lifetime ban. Get caught driving after this then the car gets taken away and you go to jail. If the history had been taken more seriously in the first instance the outcome could’ve been different.
Left a mans family in the most horrendous ignorance for 4 YEARS, which would have been a lifetime had the remains not been discovered. Judge needs an entire ****ing library.
The more terrifying parts are in some of the earlier reporting here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-62913661
The wording suggests that the prosection believes (although may not be able to prove) that the victim wasn't actually killed by the collision - bit was further assaulted by the brothers then dumped elsewhere and left to die; then the body moved at a later date and attempts made to destroy the body.
It's pretty horrific allegations to make considering 4 years later there would not have been much physical evidence left; the only way I can think this information would have come to light is from a witness account (either an un-named witness or one of the brothers told a 3rd person what they had done).
The level of callousness suggests one or other of the brothers killing someone was probably an inevitability, not an unfortunate accident
According to Radio Scotland the driver already had convictions for drunk driving, careless driving, and dangerous driving. Only a matter of time before he killed someone.
I wonder if the McKellar twins involved in this case are any relation to the McKellar who was an employee of Auch Estate?
. https://raptorpersecutionuk.org/2012/09/11/glen-orchy-a-hollow-victory/
I was indirectly involved in the search for the victim. It was a huge operation that went on for weeks. A massive amount police and volunteer resource.
Left a mans family in the most horrendous ignorance for 4 YEARS
This.
Slightly off topic, but how do you even get insurance with a dangerous driving conviction?
I mean, I'm sure someone will insure you, but the price, I'd imagine would be so ludicrous it would be cheaper to get a taxi everywhere?
they knew to leave their phones in the car when they went back with the truck. They absolutely knew what they were doing and weren't just panicking and making it up on the spot 🙁
I suspect (but don't know obviously) that in situations like this you don't. My guilty pleasure is those traffic cops programmes on C5 on a Monday night and the number of times people are caught driving who are banned and therefore don't have insurance amazes me. Not as much as the punishment being a further ban, as if that'll make a difference.
I do feel we need to take motoring offences more seriously
I’m just glad that the family finally have some closure. Small consolation considering the hell they must’ve been through and then finding out what actually happened. Thoughts are with them.
how do you even get insurance with a dangerous driving conviction?
Is that a serious question? I always think this kind of habitual driving offence equates with paedophilia, in that it's understood the perpetrators have a compulsion to keep offending no matter the consequences of their actions, no amount of legal action will ever stop them, and they really just need removing from the general population to stop them having a massively negative effect on others' lives somewhere down the line. How you do that in a liberal democracy I don't know.
If you want to kill someone, hit them with a car.
Why is there such a soft touch on repeat offenders who drive recklessly and endanger lives.
I agree that drink driving should result in a lifetime ban.
If you were a pilot, a train driver, etc., and you got caught drinking on the job, you'd never work again.
Why can drink drivers get back in a car a few months later and carry on putting lives at risk?
How you do that in a liberal democracy I don’t know.
Harsher sentencing and better traffic monitoring. Make it so they aren’t allowed to own a car. If they do it gets taken off them and they go to prison. Rinse and repeat with longer sentencing and larger fines taken directly from wages. That or blind the bastards and replace their hands with something that makes it impossible to open a car door or operate a steering wheel. Footballs maybe?
Is that a serious question?
Not really, it was more rhetorical, I didn't see any mention of insurance or the general legality of the people/car in question, so was worth an ask incase I missed something.
It is quite crazy, I mean if you get banned for whatever reason, is there any incentive to drive legally with all the costs that come with that? of course not, you just keep driving anyway and pay any fines (or not) that you accrue.
No point banning them for longer they are already banned and will continue to drive regardless.
The issue is that people who commit driving offences get away with it, and for the most part continue to offend without causing anyone harm so they believe it’s okay and it’s harmless. The number who leave court with a ban and get straight back in the car is incredible. I know one young lad who was stopped, arrested and put in front of the same sheriff within an hour but was still bailed! What can you do? I’ve also interviewed people who’ve driven illegally every day for twenty years. It’s a choice and never a compulsion
Maybe a short one month ban at 6 points, to make people understand how much they need a license/car?
Illegal to sack someone, so they either use up leave or go unpaid. No exceptions.
It may educate and filter out the "careless" and then the Police can focus on bastards like this guy.
Or make traffic policing self funding. I bet enforcement would go up, more officers on the roads....
Another issue is the Road Traffic Act is so poorly written that it’s practically impossible to get a conviction for Dangerous driving so many are charged with careless driving, and so offer the court far less sentencing options
What I don’t understand is how scumbag #1’s girlfriend who originally told the police is allowed to not just turn up 3 times on the trot AT A MURDER TRAIL, allowing them to admit to the lesser charge of culpable homicide. Despite earlier reports suggesting he was still active when they collected him. A statement is being jointly prepared by the prosecution and the defence before sentencing as well. That’s nice, isn’t it? Seven years for bam one, 4 years for number 2.
Seven years for bam one, 4 years for number 2.
The Secret Barrister's books will really blow your mind how ****ed the criminal justice system is, for victims, defendants and the prosecution sides.
That's one of the most horrific reports I've read - I can't conceive being that family. And the 'story' of what happened to him in his last hours is basically entirely down to what the guilty party are prepared to admit to.
It would be good to know what their relationship to the estate was. If they worked on it, With the previous convictions how did the owners think they were getting by - they had to know they were still driving.
You have to hope the sentence is very very lengthy, but that's not going to mend the lives of that poor family.
I used to ride that road a lot - awesome riding and pretty safe if mixing it with sane and sober drivers but by Christ you are vulnerable to a wrongun doing something unimaginable like this to you and just plain disappearing. Doesn't bear thinking about.
If enough people write to the Attorney General to complain about lenient sentencing it will be looked at.
Edit, Scotland may be different.
it’s best to let the judge do his job and come up with a sentence before getting outraged that it is unduly lenient. The prosecution will appeal (regardless of public grumbling) if the case is unduly lenient - but unduly is a tough barrier to cross.
What I don’t understand is how scumbag #1’s girlfriend who originally told the police is allowed to not just turn up 3 times on the trot AT A MURDER TRAIL, allowing them to admit to the lesser charge of culpable homicide.
If she was properly cited, the judge would have been able to issue a warrant and have her brought to court to give evidence. The prosecution may have judged that doing so was not the best way to get reliable evidence and had she appeared in handcuffs and been a reluctant witness it would have been detrimental to the overall case.
A statement is being jointly prepared by the prosecution and the defence before sentencing as well. That’s nice, isn’t it?
that is normal when a plea has been agreed rather than guilty to all the original evidence. It ensures the judge knows what he is actually sentencing for.
Another issue is the Road Traffic Act is so poorly written that it’s practically impossible to get a conviction for Dangerous driving so many are charged with careless driving, and so offer the court far less sentencing options
nonsense. There are convictions for dangerous driving in Scotland all the time. In this case it was prosecuted as Murder and reduced to Culpable Homicide (manslaughter) - the law doesn’t seem to be the problem in this case and the judge hasn’t determined sentence yet. I don’t think you need to worry about the usual bias of “he was just unlucky” that applies in road traffic cases - nobody judging this is going to look on and say “I’d probably have done the same”.
“It ensures the judge knows what he is actually sentencing “
what does that mean? Is it a chance for the defence to introduce mitigation/ explain hardship for the culprits?
The fact the girlfriend failed to trap would probably gave allowed a previously signed statement given by her to be afmitted in evidence. So may not have had a serious effect on the outcome.
The judge can fit the sentence to the circumstances. Culpable homicide does not have fixed limits. I'd say culpable homicide plus the circumstances following the crash will get a long sentence. Let's see.
Maybe the introduction of the ˋ idiot test´ as in here in Germany would be a good idea for drink/ drug drivers. Basically if you lose your driving license through drink/ drug driving you not only have to retake your driving test but also go through psychological evaluation with another test at the end of it . You also have to be clean for 12 months before you can do the test and you are blood tested regularly.
For drink drivers on top of the ban I would add several years where they are only allowed to drive cars with breathalysers built into the ignition system.
Used in a few countries round the world now and whilst it can be gamed seems a good compromise allowing them to show that they are no longer a risk.
Obviously doubt it would help in the case of arseholes like the two in the report.
“It ensures the judge knows what he is actually sentencing “
“It ensures the judge knows what he is actually sentencing for” with for being relevant.
It means the judge will know the basis of the plea; what is accepted by both sides as having happened, the agreed role and actions of the defendant in the crime and any relevant circumstances that are accepted by both sides. It should help avoid delays arising by the defence saying we plead guilty based on A and the prosecution then suddenly getting up and saying actually we disagree with that and further court time being required - smoothing the wheels of justice.
In E&W mitigation, personal circumstances etc will still be raised by the defence.
IANAL (but have agreed to the basis of a guilty plea before).
The more terrifying parts are in some of the earlier reporting here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-62913661
reading that, it seems like the only reason they've accepted the culpable homicide (basically manslaughter) charge is because of a lack of evidence - there's no way if the above is true that either they have diminished responsibility or that they didn't intend to kill the poor guy whilst beating him up having already hit him with a car.
As I guessed upthread the twins were related to the the Auch Estate worker who was involved in the wildlife crime and firearms case. This report states they were employed at the estate where they lived with their parents. Had one of them not later told his girlfriend and showed her the grave site they would never have been caught. I hope they get long sentences. They won't be long enough.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-66317438
Jesus Christ!
There are some terrifying people out there aren't there.
The level of cold, calm response that clearly went in to hiding the poor guys body, makes you wonder what else the pair of them might have gotten away with previously...
Not sure what sentence is ever appropriate for something like this...
Anyone else speculated on why he took his girlfriend to the grave and why she hasn't appeared in court?
The issue is that people who commit driving offences get away with it, and for the most part continue to offend without causing anyone harm so they believe it’s okay and it’s harmless. The number who leave court with a ban and get straight back in the car is incredible. I know one young lad who was stopped, arrested and put in front of the same sheriff within an hour but was still bailed! What can you do? I’ve also interviewed people who’ve driven illegally every day for twenty years. It’s a choice and never a compulsion
Is continuing to drive after a court has banned you an offence of Contempt of Court? It never seems to get charged - but it kinda sounds a lot like it is a very obvious example of someone having blatant contempt for the court.
edit - obviously IANAL
Anyone else speculated on why he took his girlfriend to the grave and why she hasn’t appeared in court?
The Guardian report covers it.
He started going out with her and it got serious at which point she asked if he had any secrets that might be a problem. I guess thinking he might say a secret lovechild or something.
He admitted it to her and showed her where the grave was.
She then reported it to the police.
Otherwise the turds would have got away with it.
There could be many reasons why he took his girlfriend to the grave, but as this wasn't a trial as such, I don't think there is any reason for her to be in court.
Having been on a jury (on a much smaller case), the key thing will be what is contained in the Joint Statement.
For clarity, in Scotland a Joint Statement lists facts that have been agreed on by both the prosecution and defence, so that some witnesses don't need to attend and give evidence in person, and also avoid taking up court time just for a witness to take the stand for one side to ask what they saw, and then nobody else query it.
If the only evidence she needed to give in court was that Alexander had shown her the grave on X date and had marked it with a Red Bull can, there's not really anything else either side would need to query, so they'd simply agree to it being fact.
It would likely have been different if it was a full trial, and the defence were arguing over whether Alexander had indeed shown her the grave.
Absolutely horrendous. It will be very interesting to see the sentence but it could be somewhat disappointing. I think in principle the sentence for the killing part can be up to life in Scotland. The data suggests the average sentence in Scotland for non-murder homicide is 5 years. I guess the problem here is they didn't actually set out to do harm to the guy but clearly were reckless to the extreme so it may not be seen to be at the worst end of the spectrum. Also the previous driving convictions.
There is this case from a few years back where some wrong uns killed someone and went to lengths to hide the body. They were sentenced to 10 years for the defeating the ends of justice bit concurrent to their life sentences for murder. It could be they get a longer sentence for that than the actual killing him.
The bit that's mind blowing here is the police were tipped off about the twins and visited them in 2019 as someone in the pub / area knew they were linked to this guy's disappearance.
I can't get out my head how unlucky the victim was. The killers were drinking at the Bridge of Orchy Hotel. It is only about 3km from there to the turn off for Auch Estate. If the victim had had left the hotel 10 minutes earlier he would have been past Auch Estate before they got there.
I used to work shifts with part of my commute on fast rural roads. When I finished backshift I used to avoid the rural section by a 3 mile detour turning my 9 mile commute into 12 miles using a canal towpath. Part of my reasoning was that 11pm-12pm was peak drink drive time. Sometimes I thought I was being over cautious. Now I think I was right.
A head on crash with a drunk driver changed my Dad, and his cousin's lives forever.
Along with my two uncles in the back,they were heading to watch a motorbike race in an Austin A30 .
They met a racehorse owner coming from the Musselburgh races in his Jag.
His horse had won ,so he had a few drinks before driving South to Doncaster.
The Austin was smashed apart on impact and both my uncles catapulted clear with 'relatively'small injures.
My Dad and his cousin were not so lucky ,took more of the force and were both knocked unconscious.
Dad had a fractured skull, and after weeks where it was a bit 'touch and go' he left hospital with a steel plate repair in the front of his head,just in time for his wedding. My Dad's cousin had been moving around while unconscious in hospital and his leg injuries had not set properly,he ended up with a shortened leg and had a platform shoe for the rest of his life. He had been a promising motorbike racer(as had my Dad) at the time, and were competing at all the UK circuits. They never rode bikes again and their working lives/plans were changed forever.The other driver was never prosecuted.
In small communities all around the country,there is still an acceptance of drink driving,quiet roads and the low chance of being caught keeps it going. So sad that victim really was in the,wrong place at the wrong time of day.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-66614488
12 years for the driver. 5 years for the brother.
12 years for the driver. 5 years for the brother.
More than I thought he would get but still too short.
He'll be out in 6 years.
12 years?? 12 years? They'll be out in 6. What madness is this?