Man intentionally mows down children with car and avoids prison

I don’t see why it can’t be both? It’s hard to argue that driving is a privilege not a right, then claim that a removal of privileges isn’t a punishment.

I’m with zomg on this… failing eyesight? Privilege removed. History of causing collisions? Privilege removed. Shouldn’t need proof of intent to lose the privilege. Any punishment for a crime should be separate (ie. in addition) to keeping unsafe drivers off the road.

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

Yeah the sequence of events (as related in the article) looks like, shouty shoving and fisticuffs in the street, pop back to snooker hall (leaving your nipper in car) to get some mates then head out hunting in the ‘pursuit special‘… doesn’t sound very “heat of the moment” to me…

Also says he had not guilty pleas to GBH and affray accepted… If getting out of the motor for some physical altercation isn’t affray what is?

Apparently an ADHD diagnosis (does ADHD make people into hyper-aggressive pricks? None of the sufferers I’ve ever met fit that archetype) and some mitigating waffle gets you down to a slap on the wrist as if it’s another driving whoopsy…

Don’t care if he’s got kids, a business or a condition, he’s clearly a throbber and a bully and some time out (from society) might be a good thing (for him and the rest of us). Unfortunately they’ve not asked me to set the sentencing guidelines yet…

Again,

Do I think he should have been sent down? Based on the evidence as reported, yes. He clearly either needs mandatory rehabilitation or incarceration.

But, I am not in full possession of the facts and hand-wringing about sentencing doesn’t get us anywhere. You know the Internet memes about experts vs opinions? Does anyone here claim to know better than an actual Judge with the legal weight of Clerks To The Justices and the rest of the courts system behind them? (I mean, I’d be surprised if we didn’t have a Judge or two, but…)

I’m sure there’s more to it than makes the report, let alone the headline.

I certainly don’t want to pay £50k a year to imprison him.

I also certainly don’t want him to be able to continue to drive – a ten year ban wouldn’t make his employees lose their jobs, but might help him contain his anger! Seems like the proper outcome.

Don’t worry Cougar, I’m fully aware I’m just another internet Opinion haver, spouting after the fact and having read one article.

The thing that was notable to me though was:

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

He was seemingly given three charges that fitted his actions, and (assumptions time) thanks to having enough financial resources two of the three charges he pled guilty to and was convicted of, were lesser, this reducing his chances of prison time. Had he been found guilty of GBH and Affray on top of the injury by dangerous driving there’s a stronger chance he’d be banged up right now…

That’s a common theme with a lot of these reported driving cases, retain a good defence and you can wriggle out of the full consequences mainly by bartering over what to plead and what not to. The Judge, as you rightly point out, can only sentence on the basis of the final judgement. Obviously we weren’t there, but I do wonder if his entered pleas were challenged much by the CPS, or if the increased possibility of an easier ‘win’ ended up trumping more a appropriate outcome.

Either way he’s out and free to keep making choices, maybe he’s showing true contrition, maybe a driving ban and some counselling will help him manage his anger… Or maybe he’s back on the powder within 18 months, behind the wheel in 24 and some other poor bastard gets his special attention within 36 when this unpleasant episode is just a disappearing memory for him… I don’t think many leopards change their spots.

Anyone else confused as to why death would have meant a murder charge (according to the judge) but this wasn’t assault?

Anyone else confused as to why death would have meant a murder charge (according to the judge) but this wasn’t assault?

Yes me. But you phrased it much better 🙂

And taking what poly said into consideration, it seems clear that even if the kid had died the CPS wouldn’t have charged him with murder but whatever lesser charge they think would have been easier to make stick. And the judge would have sentenced him on that, not murder.

So yes, the judge’s statement does seem wrong.

(assumptions time) thanks to having enough financial resources

Assumptions indeed. How about “thanks to the Judge following due process”?

Had he been found guilty of GBH and Affray on top of the injury by dangerous driving there’s a stronger chance he’d be banged up right now…

Sure. But the CPS (assumptions time) concluded that they wouldn’t get those charges to stick.

That’s a common theme with a lot of these reported driving cases

Whilst we’re assuming things, I wonder whether the word “driving” is redundant here. Because…

I do wonder if his entered pleas were challenged much by the CPS, or if the increased possibility of an easier ‘win’ ended up trumping more a appropriate outcome.

… I would say this is plausible, likely even. It’s plea bargaining, if an accused accepts a lesser charge without fuss then we avoid drawing out a legal fight for months with the possibility of losing at the end of it.

The entry point to this line of argument seems to be that the CPS is daft and you can just buy your way out of a conviction. Whilst I don’t doubt that having a good lawyer will help your case, the former point I would take issue with. This is a mature process.

The entry point to this line of argument seems to be that the CPS is daft and you can just buy your way out of a conviction.

Could I suggest:

 the CPS is underfunded, under resourced and has very low targets in terms of what they try to achieve. They seem to take frequent opportunities to go for easier wins in an attempt to try to make their stats look less bad. As a result a lot of crims seem to get off lightly..

Anyone else confused as to why death would have meant a murder charge (according to the judge) but this wasn’t assault?

It’s just speculation by the judge TBF, and he’s right it could hypothetically have meant a Murder charge, but as I noted^^, what you are charged with, what you plead guilty to and what you are ultimately convicted of can be quite different things…

No doubt had he been charged with murder, a good brief would have gotten it down to ‘causing death by dangerous driving’…

The goal isn’t to prove innocence, it’s to minimise the charge and thereby the maximum sentence when found guilty. Strictly speaking he didn’t “get off” he’s been convicted and sentenced, just for a lesser crime than he was initially charged with. That’s what the system working looks like… Apparently.

Could I suggest:

the CPS is underfunded, under resourced and has very low targets in terms of what they try to achieve. They seem to take frequent opportunities to go for easier wins in an attempt to try to make their stats look less bad. As a result a lot of crims seem to get off lightly..

Also seems plausible.

The goal isn’t to prove innocence

Nail on the head. The goal is to prove guilt.

What thegeneralist said, I don’t think the CPS is daft, but available resources Vs convictions is a calculation they have to make.

Feel free to pick.my ramblings apart cougar, but they are just the unstructured thoughts of an uninformed, grumbling halfwit on the internet with an axe to grind… You know what they say about arguing with idiots 😉

And do you suppose I’m any different? 🙂

There’s not much point in a discussion forum if we don’t use it to discuss things.

Really?

In the context of a 2024 thread about a case in Cheshire, yes, really.

There were 143,770 full-time equivalent (FTE) police officers in the 43 police forces of England and Wales as at 31 March 2009. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20110218145456/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/hosb2009.html

England and Wales: on 31 March 2024, there were 147,746 FTE police officers in England and Wales https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00634/SN00634.pdf

Obviously politicians mess about with stats and compare apples with pears (headcounts v FTE, for example)

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

I’m very well aware of Teresa May, thank you. I was there 🙂

I’ve served under fourteen Home Secs, Conservative and Labour and they’ve all experimented with police numbers in a variety of ways. Both parties have reduced pensions and other entitlements, making retention of officers more difficult.

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

You’re possibly more up to date than I am and each force is beholden to its PCC and chief officers. During my time the balance of staff swung massively toward support staff, freeing police officers up. PCSOs, HATOs (now National Highways), civilian investigators, civilian collision investigators, training staff, custody assistants, etc.

Police no longer escort every prisoner, abnormal loads and police football grounds, that’s mostly been privatised, so the balance has swung massively there as well

“That did come up in the meeting today in terms of the capability that’s needed, but, look, to be frank, what happens in the next few weeks matters, and that isn’t a question on its own of recruitment, which takes longer, it is a question of co-ordinating the response, making sure the capability that we’ve got to share intelligence, shared data, have a co-ordinated response, and to act as quickly as possible in cases so that arrests are followed swiftly by charging.” Sir Kier Starmer Aug 2024 (following the national unrest) and reported in various media

Anyone else confused as to why death would have meant a murder charge (according to the judge) but this wasn’t assault?

If I understand you correctly, it is assault, the full definition for ABH includes “any assault occasioning actual bodily harm” https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/47

Here’s an example of a murder charge using a car https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2024-06-19/chris-marriott-witness-tells-jury-how-he-watched-car-plough-into-father-of-two

I met someone who did 6months detention centre for killing someone with a car, but that was unintentional i guess, and 40+ years ago.

Also know someone stating he goes to the doc and says ” if i dont get some pills I’ll kill someone’. And he’s big and dodgy

Claiming its OK to lose your temper is not an excuse. Sure, lose your temper, but on inanimate objects. Anger management courses was never an excuse to hurt someone. Nor is the culture,of joining in with the violence just because someone else has

But I do think “children” are under 16. I’m english

and the law is the law, if you’re rich or poor

So if he had been on foot and gone at them with a knife , a baseball bat , knuckle duster or hammer, enough to hospitalise the yoof , would he now be in prison?

Hit them with a 2 ton posh car , and he isn’t…

That’s not right.

Hit them with a 2 ton posh car

When did a Toyota CHR become posh?

But I do think “children” are under 16. I’m english

Are they allowed to get married without parental permission, vote or leave school now?

So if he had been on foot and gone at them with a knife , a baseball bat , knuckle duster or hammer, enough to hospitalise the yoof , would he now be in prison?

I don’t know, would he?

Hit them with a 2 ton posh car , and he isn’t…

That’s not right.

If true then I would agree. If not then it’s a strawman.

Wounding , with intent.

He deliberately went back to confront the yoofs . Not a spur of the moment , instant retaliation in the heat of the moment thing.

The reason for going back to find them wasnt to shake hands and congratulate them on a job well done , it really can only be to inflict violence.

So if he had been on foot and gone at them with a knife , a baseball bat , knuckle duster or hammer, enough to hospitalise the yoof , would he now be in prison?

Schrödinger’s assault really innit, all the what ifs, but that is not what happened so it’s sort of irrelevant.

But I take your point, the bar for injuries caused using a car seem to come with an extra barrier around demonstrating intent and it seems a bit skewed still. But we know he meant to do the victims real physical harm due to his actions in the build up to using his car as a weapon. Hence my questioning why he (or rather his brief) was able to barter the secondary charges down to lesser crimes carrying lighter sentencing (acknowledging Cougar’s ponts).

Ultimately is it in the public interest that this man is removed from society for a period of time for both his own rehabilitation and to reduce the likelihood of him engaging in further violence?

The court (as Cougar points out, who had all the salient facts) felt the public interest would be served with a non-custodial sentence…

But I would still contend that his actions were not just sudden, they took place over a period of time and escalated to the point where he used a car to deliberately injure two people.

I reckon He’ll be involved in some sort of violent offence within the next decade, but that’s based on nothing more than my own bias, and of course justice being blind can’t just operate on such a basis for when someone is ‘obviously a wrongun‘. When he **** up, I do at least hope the sentencing judge is allowed to look at his previous offending and take that into account.

100%. Well said.

It feels wrong. I know it feels wrong, it feels wrong to me too. But I twitch at reactionary responses to stories like this one.

People like to decry social media but the MEN report here is the initial hand grenade, SM is just the resulting overpressure from that. Always remember the Four Fs – First Find the Bloomin’ Facts. We’re marching blindly towards a right wing utopia.

I’m going out shoplifting, if I get nicked I’ll use in my defence that I’m a bit “stealey” since apparently being really angry is mitigation against anger offences.

I don’t see it but is there any psychological evaluation side to this? Surely if someone tells a court “I am prone to uncontrollable anger and it led me to drive over a bunch of kids” that’s got a whole other side to it than just criminality. If true it’s not a mitigation, it’s an additional risk.

If true it’s not a mitigation, it’s an additional risk.

And it makes them being allowed to keep their driving licence even more baffling.

Someone prone to epilepsy wouldn’t necessarily get a jail sentence if they were involved in a road traffic accident but they would not be allowed to keep their driving licence.

Lifetime driving bans for people guilty of criminal activity whilst driving really should become a thing.

Not knowing much about how the judicial process works, I’m curious about all the comments like “the CPS chose the offence they thought most likely to stick”.

If they went with attempted murder in the first place and it didn’t stick for whatever reason, does that mean he’d get off scot free? Why doesn’t it just automatically drop down to next relevant level?

Or charge him with something like “we charge you with attempted murder, or possibly GBH with intent, or possibly affray, or possibly driving without due care, or possibly being a public nuisance, aargh if nothing else we’ll get you on your overly bright brake lights”?

I give up this website is unusable!  Many of the things some of you hope happen already are “the process”.  Some others are not for good reason.

We may be straying into conjecture territory, BUT no one has mentioned the fact that the article mentions that the victims declined to provide victim impact statements. From experience this is pretty telling. It suggests that the “victims” refused to cooperate with the prosecution.

Now it may be to do with the lurid backstory of a violent drug dealing psychopath, or it may be that the kids were acting total dickheads, ended up brawling with the driver and suddenly discovered that there were consequences to their actions.

Whatever else we the STW jury might think, CPS have decided that putting a bunch of **** teens into the witness box would have made for difficult optics.  Try and push a high tariff charge in those circumstances might well have ended up with “serves the little **** right” decision from the jury.

So line of least resistance is to offer a plea bargain deal and go for the charges his solicitor persuades him to give a guilty plea to, rather than risk a complete not guilty after a debacle of a trial.

A man still holds a valid driving licence despite having 229 penalty points, figures show.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8yq063m96o

If he can afford to pay the insurance, and I am amazed that he has found anyone willing to provide him with insurance, then he can afford to pay a chauffeur.

A chauffeur who drives safely and doesn’t have penalty points on their driving licence.

It really shouldn’t be just about him, other road users and pedestrians are entitled to expect people with literally hundreds of penalty points to be kept off the roads.

I saw that earlier. A 26y.o, it’s absolutely astonishing. There’s a bit of vague explanation of how someone might accrue points yet not receive a ban but I’m keen to see the finer details about how this person has been allowed to continue to drive. I suspect it revolves around the precept of not punishing others, thus if the miscreant is banned others will suffer even through they have done no wrong. 229 points FFS. Wow. Thus a repetitively proven unsafe driver is permitted to remain driving.

“In fact he fell over when he tried to kick out” After leaving a snooker club. Sounds like he was pissed, too.