Man intentionally mows down children with car and avoids prison

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/dad-driving-home-young-son-30316481?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=reddit

” mowed down teens in 4×4 and reversed over one of them – because they were walking in the road ”

no words.

You can behave any way you want if you are well off. Throw the short tempered thug to the crocodiles.

I’ll have to keep this slightly vague as he is ‘not a nice man’ in the darkest possible sense. Loosely related to my other half via her estranged side of the family. He is ‘currently seeking help for irrational outbursts’….yep, Peruvian marching powder, it’s a hell of a thing. Also very profitable to sell so I believe…..must be able to pay for a decent solicitor to stay out of jail after that charge sheet.

I’m actually lost for words!

Just how is that not a crime that deserves a custodial sentence?

If you want to do serious harm to someone, use a car and you’ll get a slap on the wrist.

It’s things like this that cause people to not involve the police and take the law into their own hands.

I’m no legal expert but I’d describe how he deliberately injured several people and then left the scene without reporting it as a category 1, but reading his actual conviction it sounds more like category 2. Yet we’re putting people into prison for things they wrote on Facebook.

Fail to stop/report road accident (Revised 2017)

Yet we’re putting people into prison for things they wrote on Facebook.

I’ve no problem with people being jailed for calling for attacks on other people based on where they’re from. But it’s insane you can mow people down with your car and claim “a bit of a temper” as mitigation.

Cars can be lethal weapons. If you killed them you may have been sentenced for murder, and I would be sentencing you to life, with perhaps 20 to 25 years to serve. Fortunately for them and fortunately for you, those injuries were not as grave as they might have been.”

Except you wouldn’t have would you, you **** judge,  otherwise you’d actually have given them an appropriate sentence for the crime he did commit.

The mind boggles that scum like that are elevated to high positions in the judiciary.

WTF?

Is there a legal mechanism whereby members of the public can cause a review of the judges’ decisions?

The only thing that surprises me is the car he was in.

When I read the headline I immediately assumed a Range Rover, BMW X5 or Audi Q7 but it was a Toyota.

I eagerly await the next advertising campaign stressing which 4×4 is superior for running over teenagers

If you ignore the fact he was in a car, and just apply logic he attacked a random with a weapon and broke their arm, does a suspended sentence make more sense? Not sure

So the going back to the club and getting mates and then going hunting for the lads is fine?

Also he tried to kick one and fell over. Can’t swing a foot but fit to drive.

The mate that he got from the club also distributes talcum powder as a side earner….that family owns a Toyota dealership.

@Ambrose

Is there a legal mechanism whereby members of the public can cause a review of the judges’ decisions?

Apparently you can, in fact anyone can even if not connected to the case but you only have 28 days.

Request a review
A member of the public can request a review of a sentence by sending a request to the AGO through the ULS Scheme online. A referral to the Court of Appeal must be made within 28 days of the sentence being handed down.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/unduly-lenient-sentences#:~:text=The%20Unduly%20Lenient%20Sentence%20(ULS,Appeal%20to%20review%20the%20sentence.

If you ignore the fact he was in a car, and just apply logic he attacked a random with a weapon and broke their arm, does a suspended sentence make more sense? Not sure

Not sure it makes sense, but I think it depends on the weapon. Harsher sentencing for knives than for a bat iirc.

You don’t get sentenced for the offence we think you have committed or should have been charged with. The judge will be working within guidelines, and those guidelines may be more lenient due to prison overcrowding.

Even if you tot up the seriousness of the offence using these guidelines, add in the plentiful aggravating factors – pedestrians, his own children present, give him a discount for the guilty plea and presumably previously clean record, it’s hard to see how he avoids prison time. The judge clearly thought there was intent and premeditation, given his comments about how it could have been a murder charge if one of them had died.

Causing serious injury by dangerous driving

FFS he went and got his mates and went hunting for his victims…

Is there a legal mechanism whereby members of the public can cause a review of the judges’ decisions?

Sort of.  You can ask the Attorney General to consider using their powers to refer to court of appeal for being unduly lenient, but its worth making sure you actually understand what it is you are complaining about.  From the article:

Hulme pleaded guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and using threatening behaviour.

He received a two-year suspended sentence, with orders to complete 20 rehabilitation activity days and 200 hours of unpaid work. He was also ordered to pay £2,000 in compensation to the more seriously injured boy and £500 to the other injured lad. His not guilty pleas to causing GBH and affray were accepted.

So the crown accepted it was neither GBH nor affray – the judge is then sentencing on assault and the road traffic act offences.  Make sure you read the sentencing guidelines and apply them to what was actually said in court, not what you think he did becuase the Judge has to work with the agreed narration not his own supposition about the events.  I’m pretty sure that for this sentence there will have been a background report too, which you will never see.  I dare say part of the defence mitigation is “he employs 15 people who will immediately be out of work without him”.  So the judge’s dilemma is make 15 people redundant, send him to jail – automatically released at 1/2 way and probably closer to 40% because there is no room.  If he’s in jail the victims probably get no compensation.  He probably gets no meaningful rehabilitation (at a <12 month prisoner in a broken system). After he’s release he’s more likely to reoffend.  OR I can leave him with the threat and hopefully get him to behave for 2 years, have him do something “worthwhile” in the community, attend 20 days or rehab, and compensate the victims. Presumably he was also banned from driving (i’m pretty sure its mandatory).

Except you wouldn’t have would you, you **** judge,  otherwise you’d actually have given them an appropriate sentence for the crime he did commit.

The crime I assume you think he should have been sentenced for, attempted murder, was not what the CPS chose to charge, and then on the day they accepted lower charges – suggesting they weren;t confident they could prove what you think he did.  The judge MUST sentence within the guidelines unless he has (and states) very good reasons.  If he goes too tough he almost certainly will be appealed.  If he goes too soft the crown can appeal but will only be successful if its a sentence that no reasonable judge would have imposed in the circumstances.  I’m not convinced the AG will think this is so far outside the range that it merits thousands of pounds more of taxpayers money, but even if they do, I think it will pivot a lot on what the social work report says.

The mind boggles that scum like that are elevated to high positions in the judiciary.

I think you’ve lost the argument when you start calling judges scum because you don’t understand the sentence on a case reported in the MEN.   The headline and the sentence don’t seem to fit together – but if the headline is accurate, I’d suggest the question is really for the Crown Prosecutor why they accepted a lower charge, or even why it was not prosecuted as attempted murder.  You’ll never get an explanation from them.   If the judge has got it wrong there is a process of appeal and all judges learn from those outcomes.  I’m not aware of any such process for prosecutors (victims may have a right to review but given they didn’t give an impact statement that is likely difficult).  If the law is wrong its politicians, not judges who need to sort that.

I hope he has been banned from driving as I have to cycle on Cheshire roads. I really don’t like having to share the road with people like him.

Poly is “The Secret Barrister” and I claim my £5.

I am surprised the CPS accepted the lower guilty plea given the reported version of events though. I guess we also need to accept that a jury of his/our peers will not have the same experience and/or bias that a forum of cyclists who risk this kind of nutter every day would have.

When sentencing, are employers really given more grace than employees?

When sentencing, are employers really given more grace than employees?

I assume a societal view has to be taken somehow – if you send an employee to prison for a year one family may end up on benefits/homeless. If you send an employer to prison, and his small business fails without him, that’s 6-10 innocent families ruined maybe.

Obviously that skews “all are equal in the eyes of the law”. We like to slag off judges we disagree with, it’s easy to fail to understand how complex the decisions they have to make are.

I’ve no complaints about judges, they literally don’t write the laws or the rules. But the idea that being an employer is a mitigating factor doesn’t sit well with me. Feels Victorian. Lock up the mill worker, have a stern word with the mill owner.

I eagerly await the next advertising campaign stressing which 4×4 is superior for running over teenagers

If I recall correctly BMW advertising refers to this as “road presence”.

200 hours and 20 for rehabilitation is in lieu of a six month prison sentence. The driver who left me for dead in a hit and run received the same as she was sole carer for a five year old and elderly parents. She pleaded guilty at the latest opportunity. The guilty plea is what kept him out of prison. If he fails to complete the 200 hours, he will serve time. It’s the maximum sentence that can be imposed without a custodial sentence and is seen as equivalent.

I hope he has been banned from driving as I have to cycle on Cheshire roads. I really don’t like having to share the road with people like him.

That was my immediate thought, no mention that he will be kept off the roads, which for me is more than an issue than whether he is in prison or not.

I know that unlike some countries UK legislation/courts don’t allow for it but imo someone like that should receive maybe a 10 year driving ban, if not a lifetime ban.

Obviously it would cause them to make big adjustments to their lives, and in this case presumably add a significant cost to their business, but I am sure that the thought of never being allowed to drive again would act as a massive deterrent.

I consider being allowed to drive and share the roads with other users to be a privilege not a basic guaranteed right, that is after all is why we have driving tests and people need to prove they deserve that privilege.

However well he performed during his driving test this particular arsehole has proved that due to his character he does not deserve the privilege of holding a driving licence, which I presume he still unfortunately holds.

That is absolutely shocking. We lost a colleague due to similar circumstances, they tried a  to get away with it too. Thankfully the jury and judge didn’t they’re in prison for a long time but a family, friends and colleagues lost a great guy.

Yet we’re putting people into prison for things they wrote on Facebook.

Threatening to set fire to a building with people inside because you’re a racist you mean.

I’d suggest the question is really for the Crown Prosecutor why they accepted a lower charge, or even why it was not prosecuted as attempted murder.

Because they know, either from counsel to counsel chat or from his brief that he’ll plead to a lower charge, CPS are completely risk adverse and have to work in a system that is on its arse so have no appetite for any fights.

I know that unlike some countries UK legislation/courts don’t allow for it but imo someone like that should receive maybe a 10 year driving ban, if not a lifetime ban

Ten year bans are fairly common in Ireland and that’s in rural areas without the public transport of GB.

but I am sure that the thought of never being allowed to drive again would act as a massive deterrent.

unfortunately deterrence only acts with folk thinking rationally.  This chap had lost his ability to think rationally.

Unfortunately, this type of case is quite usual. Apart from an occasional aberration, judges are bang on with their decisions and follow national guidelines. Where guidelines don’t yet exist they’ll follow sentencing benchmarks set in similar cases. Some recent Just Stop Oil sentences followed benchmarks

A sentence has to be “unduly” lenient to be appealed, but a major stumbling block can be the wishes of the victim and the MEN article says, “The victims do not wish to provide a victim personal statement (VPS)… They just want to move on with their lives.”

So the crown accepted it was neither GBH nor affray

No, it’s more subtle; the Crown will take take the guilty plea to a lesser offence. That’s a successful prosecution stat without using unnecessary court time and expense and fits with the victim’s wishes (see VPS comment ^^).

A broken arm tends towards GBH. Reversing into someone in a SUV could elevate that to GBH with intent, so that crime had already dropped on charge because the intent couldn’t be shown https://www.jdspicer.co.uk/site/blog/crime-fraud/what-injuries-are-classed-as-gbh

This causes a tension in police stats because they will have recorded the crimes as GBH and affray, if you watch the Beds Police series “24 hours in Police Custody” you’ll see this in tension in every episode (and probably feel some frustration) https://www.channel4.com/programmes/24-hours-in-police-custody

Media often doesn’t report crime accurately, however, causing serious injury by dangerous driving. Obligatory disqualification: minimum 2 years with compulsory extended re-test https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/causing-serious-injury-by-dangerous-driving/

I’ve read the arguments with interest. My instinct is that he got off lightly. Although i understand there are things i don’t know about the case and systems that have to be made to work

But I’m very glad due process was done. There are lots of people that drive in a way likely to cause harm who face no consequences at all. There are people who drive in a way likely to cause harm and do cause harm and face no consequences. So at least these victims got their day in court

Interesting hearing a bit of back story, maybe part of the reason the teens chose not to give a victim impact statement and “get on with their lives”?

Good points poly. My ire should probably be directed elsewhere within the judicial system. Is it the CPS that decided what to charge with,? Either way the system clearly doesn’t work and the outcome is laughable.

Btw I wasn’t implying they should have charged him with attempted murder. I am ( patently obviously ) not a legal person but I would hope there was something between ” minor traffic offence” and attempted murder that might have stuck.

And yes, I do get that the prisons, police, cos etc have been decimated by Tory cuts.

Possible alternative thread title: scrotes unwisely picked a fight with a bigger fish swimming round in the same fetid pond.

Yeah, the mainstream media does us no favours here, doubly so with local press for local people. “Man runs over children, gets a slap on the wrist, another man says some hurty words and goes to jail” generates sales/clicks but as demonstrated on this very thread it creates malaise and unrest amongst the populace about the perceived injustice.

As Poly said, the Judge will have case law and will have to make that gel with the crime, they can’t just make it up. A guilty plea, contrition, mental health issues, the agreement to seek help, the lack of a statement from the victims, the impact on other innocents etc etc could all have worked in the defendant’s favour. Premeditation, intent and so forth would have been held against him.

maybe part of the reason the teens chose not to give a victim impact statement and “get on with their lives”?

Fear?

Tory cuts.

Damn you, autocorrect.

Fear?

Possibly.

Possible alternative thread title: scrotes unwisely picked a fight with a bigger fish swimming round in the same fetid pond.

If being a gobby, annoying prick was in any way a justification for being run over I dare say this would be a very empty forum.

And yes, I do get that the prisons, police, cos etc have been decimated by Tory cuts

Except that police numbers were boosted by Boris to greater than 2009 levels and Crown Court sitting days have been reduced by the current Labour government

Prisons are due a massive shake-up, hence the 2024 appointment of Lord Timpson to the post of Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending

Except that police numbers were boosted by Boris to greater than 2009 levels

Really?

Police service strength

From that report:

Total police officer strength decreased from 2010 to 2018 but has since been increasing. On 31 March 2024 there were 170,500 full-time equivalent (FTE) police officers in the United Kingdom. This was a 10% increase from the number of police officers operating in 2003, when these figures were first recorded by the Home Office, but a 0.7% fall from the peak number of officers in 2010.

Although it’s patchy across the UK, and well behind population growth.

Wasn’t it Teresa May who got rid of 22,000 police from 2010? So Boris was merely undoing the damage caused earlier.

https://www.polfed.org/news/latest-news/2019/why-we-re-all-glad-to-see-the-end-of-may/

And full time equivalent means little when you strip out the back room support staff and leave serving officers to do that job. This removing them from the street

We should be completely clear that driving bans are not punishment: they’re a public safety measure.