[Closed] Michael Casey gets 6 years for killing 2 AFD athletes

Rubbish excuse, does seem lenient, but I am not a judge.

6 years! Should have been 60. Drink drivers should have the book thrown at them. There is no excuse!

I thought killing someone on a bike these days got you a slap on the wrist because a driving ban would cause hardship and going to jail might make you lose your job?

A custodial sentence seems to be a victory for the rest of the population TBH.

[i]I thought killing someone on a bike these days [/i]

They were runners. On a pedestrian crossing. Teenaged girls.
Ridiculously lenient.

I thought killing someone on a bike these days got you a slap on the wrist

They weren't on bikes.

You lot aren't judges, you didn't hear the case, and you haven't met the guy after the accident. You can't really judge if it's appropriate or not.

This comes up every time there's a case like this. You need to have a bit of a think about what the criminal justice system is supposed to do and what the point of sentences is.

You might want to explain that to Helen Burrows too.

"You might want to explain that to Helen Burrows too."

Do you think she'd be able to objectively consider this sentence?

This was very close to home for me - friend's daughters were / are at the same school as the girls, etc.- and for a bloke to be over the limit, speeding, and 'distracted' where his friend had thrown up in the passenger footwell earlier - I'm struggling to see what impact remorse or what he's like afterwards has to the people involved.

Sometimes saying sorry isn't good enough.

I posted this in another thread. It's a bit more realistic.
http://canadamotoguide.com/2017/04/03/bike-blocking-dangerous-driver-gets-15-year-sentence-report/

So if this guy had deliberately killed the girls you'd only want him to get 15/years?

Casey was given a six-year jail sentence which means he should be released on licence after three years.

Admittedly this bit here does seem lenient.

He'll get dismissed from the Army for his troubles too, but I fail to see why a substantial driving ban isn't in order, seems the judges have too much concern for the human rights of the perp rather than victim.

I fail to see why a substantial driving ban isn't in order

Isn't a ban automatic for Death by Dangerous Driving?

I'm struggling to see what impact remorse or what he's like afterwards has to the people involved.

So what impact does a lengthy jail sentence have on the people involved?

Casey was given a six-year jail sentence which means he should be released on licence after three years.

This is standard, all sentences are halved.

You lot aren't judges, you didn't hear the case, and you haven't met the guy after the accident. You can't really judge if it's appropriate or not.

This comes up every time there's a case like this. You need to have a bit of a think about what the criminal justice system is supposed to do and what the point of sentences is.

Mollie you are right we dont know the detail of the case however being remorseful after the event should only carry so much weight. I would be surprised for example if the Judge had revised the sentence down based on this.

The criminal justice system is supposed to do a number of things. One of which is to sentence to deter. IMO the Judge should have sent out a clear message that although Casey never went out to kill these children his actions brought it about, he was reckless and callous and the consequences are catastrophic.

The Criminal justice system is also there to punish. The withdrawal of Caseys liberty is punishment however IMO his liberty will not be removed for long enough.

One more role of the Criminal justice system is to ensure that Justice is "seen" to be done. I think it has failed in this instance.

As a parent it is heartbreaking to see these children killed before their lives have begun.

Edit:

So what impact does a lengthy jail sentence have on the people involved?

As above,

Mollie you are right we dont know the detail of the case however being remorseful after the event should only carry so much weigh

There can be more to it than remorse. If a person is completely mentally destroyed by the consequences of his actions, then what's the point in locking him up at all?

I know I've been distracted whilst driving before now. I could've caused an accident a few times in my life. Should I be locked up now?

IMO the Judge should have sent out a clear message that although Casey never went out to kill these children his actions brought it about, he was reckless and callous and the consequences are catastrophic

Most people aren't that keen on killing people as it is - a sentence in this case doesn't make a difference. The reason that people don't pay attention when driving isn't because they don't mind kiling people; it's because they don't think an accident will happen to them. It's a question of competence, not intent.

If a person is completely [b]mentally destroyed[/b] by the consequences of his actions, then what's the point in locking him up at all?

My emphasis. What do you mean by "mentally destroyed" and how do you quantify that? I think it would have been mentioned in the report if some psychological element to sentencing then I suspect that would have been reported.

I answered the latter part of your question above.

Most people aren't that keen on killing people as it is

Obvs but we still incarcerate people who kill without intent. When there is clearly no benefit (and as above I have illustrated why in this case I think he should be imprisoned) we dont.

I've read somewhere that in studies where people are given all the facts they generally agree with sentences imposed by Uk courts.

Current (I think) sentencing guidelines here:

@OOB maybe your right, I "sense" this is lenient in this instance but regardless I do take issue with Mollies comment:

Most people aren't that keen on killing people as it is - a sentence in this case doesn't make a difference

What do you mean by "mentally destroyed" and how do you quantify that? I think it would have been mentioned in the report if some psychological
element to sentencing then I suspect that would have been reported.

You have more faith in the media than I do 🙂

Its not about that

[i]The reason that people don't pay attention when driving isn't because they don't mind kiling people; it's because they don't think an accident will happen to them. It's a question of competence, not intent.[/i]

Years driving ban and a few points on the license for all 'death by dangerous driving' offences should suffice then. (Obviously 6 months ban if it's a cyclist killed)

Long, long driving ban could be appropriate also I think.

Its not about that

Point is, we really haven't enough information, so the whole thread is pointless. It just gets people's outrage whipped up which, when not grounded in fact, is an ugly thing.

I think your irony antennae need retuning

Point is, we really haven't enough information, so the whole thread is pointless. It just gets people's outrage whipped up which, when not grounded in fact, is an ugly thing.

I think there is sufficient information from a number of "reliable" sources to make a judgement that 3yrs for 2 deaths is inappropriate. I think you could use that argument if we were discussing finer margins.

Bear in mind there is enough information for you to say this:

a sentence in this case doesn't make a difference

Justice is there to punish, to protect society, and to rehabilitate. I see what is being said about agreeing with sentencing when all facts are known, but to kill two teenage girls and remove their lives and destroy the lives of their families and loved ones, for a penalty of 3 years when it finally comes to it - doesn't seem right at all.

And while he might not have intended to kill, he was handling a deadly weapon having consciously decided to drink, consciously decided to drive, consciously decided to speed (and it wasn't speeding on a country road and hitting another car, it was speeding in a 30mph on a busy road through Aldershot) and consciously then got distracted by his mate's vomit in the footwell. And yes, i say consciously because no-one else made him do those things and if there's any element of 'involuntary' to the driving, speeding or distraction it's because of his completely voluntary choice to get drunk in the first place and hence imho, irrelevant.

Until drivers are sentenced appropriately for making conscious decisions that can with reasonable foresight be expected to lead to the killing of innocent people....... until then the issue isn't 'I don't think it'll happen to me' but 'I don't think it'll happen to me and the consequences (for me) aren't that bad either'. In the case of drink driving it needs to be 'I don't think it'll happen to me BUT IF IT DOES I'M GOING TO PRISON FOR A LONG TIME irrespective of outcome' - then it becomes a proper deterrent.

I think there is sufficient information from a number of "reliable" sources to make a judgement that 3yrs for 2 deaths is inappropriate.

And yet people with much more experience, training and knowledge of the case disagree with you.

Can you all please spell out your reasoning based on the case and provide your credentials?

[quote=molgrips ]a sentence in this case doesn't make a difference.So why bother with a sentence at all? After all, it was purely "accidental" and he didn't go out with the intention of killing someone.

So...

Over the limit...

Jumps a red light...

Kills 2 children...

& 6 yrs is enough?? (Out in 3???)

WTAF?!

Where's the deterrent there??

I don't think you require an awful lot more background to realise that's fukted up..

There can be more to it than remorse. If a person is completely mentally destroyed by the consequences of his actions, then what's the point in locking him up at all?

Ah, so I'm supposed to feel sorry for the pissed up squaddie who ran down two young girls....right, like fuk. He made the choice to sit behind the wheel..

If you can't do the time, fekin etc..

(You may have noticed I have little time for drivers who choose to get behind the wheel when they fukin well shouldn't & then cause an accident...)

theotherjonv - Member

^ Well said.

I reckon it should be a ban for life if you kill of permanently disable someone like that.

You have demonstrated that your thinking faculties are deficient, and you can't cure stupid.

I know I've been distracted whilst driving before now. I could've caused an accident a few times in my life. Should I be locked up now?

Were you pished at the time? If so then probably yes.

He has done a 6 month tour of Afghanistan though, to most aldershot judges this is like a get-out-of-jail free card.......

Can you all please spell out your reasoning based on the case and provide your credentials?

I'll summarise

Over the limit...

Jumps a red light...

Kills 2 children.

Are you disputing any of that? If not then IMO that is sufficient.

Can you list your credentials given you dont think it should have been a custodial sentence? After all the Judge disagreed with you to a greater extent. In fact you appear to be the only one at that end of the spectrum.

I saw the link to the sentencing guidelines. It's way too much for me to read. I do wonder how many boxes were ticked though.

And the thought crosses my mind, as it does when I read of these things, just how many of those found guilty are sentenced towards the top of the range?

In the worst cases guidelines are 8 to 14 years I think, but he pleaded guilty so will get a deduction for that of up to a third so that would suggest they started at at least 9 years if he got for relief for guilty plea. Hopefully the criminal barrister on here will tell the real story as I am sure my analysis is way too simplistic.

Mentally destroyed. What about the families of the girls involved !. I bet those people really are mentally destroyed by the selfish actions of one individual. This should have been at least 20 years in prison. Read the BBC report of what he had drunk he wasn't just over the limit and he would have known that but still made the choice to drive. No excuses for drink driving ever. My son trains on the same playing field so maybe I'm a bit emotive but 6 years for killing two innocent girls is just wrong. If it was an accident then I would feel for the guy having to live with that but sorry your p*ssed up and choose to drive you deserve to rot for a long time.

Justice is there to punish, to protect society, and to rehabilitate.

On that basis: confined to his own home, place of community service or place of work monitored with a GPS tracker for 6 years; a lifetime driving ban; 6 years alcohol free with random testing; a six year ban from traveling in a car other than a taxi; 3000 hours of community service for athletics' clubs/maintaining pedestrian rights of way. If the GPS tracker shows him to be traveling at more than 50km/h he must send the public transport receipt to the probation officer. An additional 3 years jail if he fails to comply with any of the conditions.

Custodial sentences are counter productive as they often punish the family of those jailed more than the criminals. In his case I believe the threat to society could be managed.

If he had done all those things but somehow missed the people on the crossing would it be any different?

Would he have got 6 years in that case?

Different yes, in the same way as firing an illegal firearm won't get you the same sentence as if you kill someone with the shot - even if you weren't aiming at them.

As someone said above, the justice system is quite good at taking into account all the circumstances of a crime. Where I think the British justice system fails is that it relies more heavily that its European neighbours on custodial sentences as "punishment" gets a higher priority than "protection of society" and "rehabilitation". Some people do need locking up but many more could be put to good work repaying their debt to society in ways that benefit both society and ultimately the offender.

The perfect community service for this guy would be the job of helping kids to cross the road on a crossing near a school. 45mins four times a day. With the offer of a gardening and maintenance job in the school if the time restrictions meant he couldn't find a full-time job. Refusal or less than enthusiastic participation = jail. Add to that a lifetime driving ban and restrictions on movement for six years and I think that is more dissuasive in "example setting" than jail to the car-obsessed, and job status sensitive public.

Tin pot local radio reprted that one of the girls mums shouted " I dont get my daughter back in 3 years ". Inferring , I guess , that he gets his life back in 3 years, and she has to live the rest of her life without her daughter .
In theory he has been sentanced to a few months inside for killing each girl. Not enough to deter others is it ? 10 years sentence , then a 6 year driving on release, fine, plus community service would make more of an impact.

On that basis: confined to his own home, place of community service or place of work monitored with a GPS tracker for 6 years; a lifetime driving ban; 6 years alcohol free with random testing; a six year ban from traveling in a car other than a taxi; 3000 hours of community service for athletics' clubs/maintaining pedestrian rights of way. If the GPS tracker shows him to be traveling at more than 50km/h he must send the public transport receipt to the probation officer. An additional 3 years jail if he fails to comply with any of the conditions

Youve got a good imagination but that all looks a bit.. well.. complex and difficult to manage. In the UK we deprive people of their liberty when they commit serious crimes. Prison in this instance is appropriate.

The perfect community service for this guy would be the job of helping kids to cross the road on a crossing near a school. 45mins four times a day. With the offer of a gardening and maintenance job in the school if the time restrictions meant he couldn't find a full-time job. Refusal or less than enthusiastic participation = jail.

So you are not against the concept of incarceration? you just like the concept of humiliation first?

Is the criticism of the judge or the sentencing available to judge?

If there wasn't an offence of causing death by dangerous driving then it would have been involuntary manslaughter. (IANAL)The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life, but involuntary manslaughter I'd I'll imagine has similar guidelines to death dangerous driving. So would the sentence have always been of this level because of lack of intent?

My emotional response is the same as most, Chuck away the key.

The emotional response is heightened by the fact it is two young athletes, the utter pointless avoidability of it and the relatabilty to our own families.

This is why juries decide guilt and judges decide sentence

Btw I don't buy the non-deterrent argument -failure to sentence properly devalues the seriousness and creates and perpetuates a culture of acceptance around inappropriate behaviour.

"This is why juries decide guilt and judges decide sentence"

This.

Re: deterrent. Detection is *far* more of a deterrent than punishment and accidently running someone over while driving dangerously must have a near 100pc clear-up rate.

Nobody is accidentally killing people because they think they'll get away with it.

n theory he has been sentanced to a few months inside for killing each girl. Not enough to deter others is it ?

What do you think would work in deterring others from irresponsible driving. Not sure length of prison sentence if your irresponsible driving goes wrong is really in anyone's mind when they are doing it.

If deterrents worked we would need many prisons would we....

.

Deterrent is perhaps the wrong word, but sentencing both reflects and reinforces culture and in turn behaviours. Attitudes to road safety, drink driving etc culture is much different even in my lifetime and massively in my parents. Is stronger penalties a cause or effect of that change, or both?

Sentencing is not just about individual case as but about societies drawing lines.

BTW I think that we jail far to many people where community sentencing and rehab would be much better. But I really don't think this is one of these cases.

"BTW I think that we jail far to many people where community sentencing and rehab would be much better."

It madness isn't it. The punishment and rehab aspect of prison could be achieved in so many better ways, it wouldn't take much imagination.

All prison is good for is protection of the public, everything else could be done without spending all that cash.

Nobody is accidentally killing people because they think they'll get away with it

I dont think anybody is saying they are, but if a driver through gross negligence, recklessness and a total disregard for an innocent persons safety brings about incidents such as this which have devastating consequences. Are you saying that the fact that the driver had no intent somehow exonerates him?

The sentence is 6 yrs not three. It is not the judge's decision to release at three. And he must not take that policy it into account in reaching his sentence - or he will be subject to appeal. If you don't like this policy talk to your politicians, but be prepared to explain that YOU will be happy to pay more tax to see it happen (120k to keep him in jail for an extra three years).

As someone else said the maximum sentence is 14 yrs, but only the worst offenders should expect that, e.g. Those with previous poor driving records, and the benefits to everyone of a guilty plea mean he could expect a significant discount on his sentence; so it's likely that after trial he would have got 9yrs. Difficult to see how if he has no relevant previous convictions that isn't appropriate against a 14 yr max. likewise if you think that is too low talk to your mp, don't blame the judge he is only executing the law parliament made.

Release on license iat half way is not quite a get out of jail card. He still has various conditions attached. And it helps rehabilitation back into society.

As the original article didn't mention it he is also banned from driving for 10yrs (from date of release).

The sentence is 6 yrs not three. It is not the judge's decision to release at three

I think we all know the difference but in reality he will be released after 3. Its understandable that people focus on that number and not the larger one.

As someone else said the maximum sentence is 14 yrs, but only the worst offenders should expect that, e.g. Those with previous poor driving records

Yes but in this instance his crime was doubly bad and had twice the catastrophic impact.

As the original article didn't mention it he is also banned from driving for 10yrs (from date of release).

I'm not a "hang em and flog em" type and I have a lot of sympathy for those who would claim alternatives to incarceration can be more effective however I would say that its reasonable to expect he should never drive again. He will be behind the wheel 7 yrs after release. I would argue he has at least given up that "right"

[b]surfer - Member [/b]
Its understandable that people focus on that number and not the larger one.

only if people don't want to let facts get in the way of their argument. You need to decide if you object to the principle of people being release early on license or the headline sentence being too short. Criticising the Judge for a policy he has absolutely no control on is lazy.

Yes but in this instance his crime was doubly bad and had twice the catastrophic impact.

Actually the Judge understands that whilst the catastrophic impact was twice as bad the actual culpability was just the same as if the girls had jumped out the way just in time, or indeed their friend had also been as unlucky. Whilst society does expect that the punishment increases when driving causes death, actually the deterrent comes from the risk of both getting caught and significant sentences for all the times when people drive really badly and get away with it.

As a general rule when you commit too offences at the same time, you serve your sentence concurrently. I know people find that abhorrent, but once again that isn't the Judge's decision. If society disagrees, MP's can change the law - but it does mean you will have a lot of people in prison for much longer with no actual benefit to society (and a significant cost).

He will be behind the wheel 7 yrs after release.

No it will be 10yrs from his release. So 13 yrs from now.

I would argue he has at least given up that "right"

Many people would agree. However he is 24 yrs old. He will be 37 yrs old, with a significant criminal conviction by the time he is able to apply for his license back (and I think he will have to retake his test). He's only ever been in the Army, he will presumably be dishonourably discharged. The prospects for a 37 yr old ex squadie, with no driving license, a reasonable spell in jail, a conviction that is never considered spent etc. are not great. The likelihood of him ever making a valuable contribution to society is not improved by refusing to ever let him drive. Its quite possible he will be a father by then - and his disadvantage passes on a generation. Has your maturity and responsibility level changed since you were in your early 20's? There may even be (and its tenuous I know) an argument that someone who has had a catastrophic accident and suffered the consequences has a better understanding of the risks of driving than people driving for 20 yrs and getting aways with it. Lifetime bans make great headlines, but for first offenders suggest an assumption that rehabilitation is impossible.

The outcomes of that night are horrible for the families, but no sentence would ever bring the girls back.

Its quite likely that this wasn't the first time he'd had a drink and driven. You need to significantly increase the prospects of getting caught if you want to deter people. I'd also suggest that making it an offence to knowingly be a passenger in a car with a drunk driver should also be an offence (it is is not, and if it is it should be enforced). The person he drove home earlier that evening is not entirely blameless.

The punishment and rehab aspect of prison

Is there any real rehab in prison? It's the first thing to be cut whenever the prison budget has to tighten it's belt.

Prison is probably the opposite of rehabilitation, it just institutionalises people so that they fail to re-integrate into society and are more likely to re-offend.

I propose lifetime bans in the same way as lifetime prison terms are given. Non-one does life if they are considered safe to be let out - most don't because behaviour has changed and the risk is considered acceptable. I suggest lifetime bans in the same way. A lifetime ban would only be a lifetime ban if alcohol use meant it was never safe to lift the ban.

It's actually quite simple you know it's illegal don't do it. There's no remorse gonna fix them families so there's not much to argue about. I've had two experiences with drunk drivers over the last six weeks simply stunning the amount of irresponsiblity shown that could easily in a split second lead to a loss of life. I've no sympathy for them whatsoever.

Non-one does life if they are considered safe to be let out - most don't because behaviour has changed and the risk is considered acceptable

You do if you get a whole life tariff as the sentence means you will never be released

how reformed you are in prison is irrelevant you were sentenced to a while life tariff

That aside your point is true.

I think outofbreath? makes a good point re deterrence up there.

Any sentence, however harsh, won't stop people taking chances. A high probability of being caught before it gets as far as a fatal accident possibly would.

I'm beginning to think a separate traffic police force, funded by it's own generated fines, might make the greatest difference to driver behaviour and road accidents.

Three years inside, dismissal from service and a serious offence that will continue to affect his employment for at least five years post-release. As for the ban, even once he's got his license back he'll have to declare that offence to gain insurance, which will most likely prove financially unviable for a while. On top of that he has the deaths of those two young ladies on his conscience. To behest I think this is something that will continue to haunt him for the rest of his life in one form or another, which is just as the loss of those two girls will have the same affect on their respective families.

@Poly

Thats an interesting read and your arguments are well made. I would challenge a couple of points but for what its worth I think we are almost in agreement. Tragic all round.

[quote=poly ]As the original article didn't mention it he is also banned from driving for 10yrs (from date of release).

Have they actually fixed that one? I did a search, but could only find articles suggesting they were going to do so, and the relevant legislation is a bit of a mess (the online versions of the relevant acts haven't been updated to include it, and it appears to originally be included as an amendment as part of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which but for some reason not actually enforced at that point - the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 which was touted as being where it would be introduced appears to have simply made minor amendments to the 2009 act).

[quote=poly ]Its quite likely that this wasn't the first time he'd had a drink and driven. You need to significantly increase the prospects of getting caught if you want to deter people. I'd also suggest that making it an offence to knowingly be a passenger in a car with a drunk driver should also be an offence (it is is not, and if it is it should be enforced). The person he drove home earlier that evening is not entirely blameless.

Interesting point about passengers, and one I agree with in principle. However see the first couple of sentences of yours I've quoted - will it really make a significant difference if the probability of detection is still low? Not wanting to put a downer on it as I do agree in principle, but it also strikes me as being awfully difficult to enforce given the obvious line of defence (that they didn't think the driver was drunk - I'm sure you'd be one of the first to point out that you'd have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they knew the driver was drunk).