Is this suitable - discus?

top_bhoy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edi ... 094864.stm

Read the link and discus!

alfablue

No question about it, a prison sentence is appropriate, however 9 months could be seen as lenient, it could be viewed as attempted murder.

ademort

I agree, this is a case that angers any cyclist. However what annoys me in cases like this is that previous good behaviour and references from those who know you are considered before a sentence is passed.Imo those who are thinking of giving a reference to somebody in this situation maybe better off hearing the victims side of the story before putting pen to paper. The fact that this man is of previous good character should not take away the fact that he used his vehicle as a weapon to injure another road user, perhaps his jail sentence may make him think again.

spen666

ademort wrote:

I agree, this is a case that angers any cyclist. However what annoys me in cases like this is that previous good behaviour and references from those who know you are considered before a sentence is passed.Imo those who are thinking of giving a reference to somebody in this situation maybe better off hearing the victims side of the story before putting pen to paper. The fact that this man is of previous good character should not take away the fact that he used his vehicle as a weapon to injure another road user, perhaps his jail sentence may make him think again.

I think you are missing the point here regarding references. They are part of the mitigation ( not a defence) put forward on behalf of the defendant.

Character references are exactly that. They are the testimony of the "witness" to what they know of that persons character.

They are not and do not purport to be about the offence. It is the job of the prosecution to put the details of the offence before the court.

top_bhoy

At least he was jailed for a very modest time. A prison sentence certainly deserved but I think its the part where the Judge allows the good background and character references to mitigate the sentence which angers me. The guy being run over hardly thinks that I'm sure.

If attempted murder was not possible, would attempted manslaughter carry a harsher sentencing than driving dangerously and causing a collision? If so, why wouldn't that be the charge - it most certainly would have been had it been a knife or a bottle. Also, there is no mention of him being charged with leaving the scene of an accident and failing to report it. Maybe all the charges were rolled into one???

spen666

Top_Bhoy wrote:

At least he was jailed for a very modest time. A prison sentence certainly deserved but I think its the part where the Judge allows the good background and character references to mitigate the sentence which angers me. The guy being run over hardly thinks that I'm sure.

If attempted murder was not possible, would attempted manslaughter carry a harsher sentencing than driving dangerously and causing a collision? If so, why wouldn't that be the charge - it most certainly would have been had it been a knife or a bottle. Also, there is no mention of him being charged with leaving the scene of an accident and failing to report it. Maybe all the charges were rolled into one???

firstly- you are basing your comments on a few words written by a journalist- all reporting is biased whether consciously or not by the reporters own views/beliefs. Far more will have been said in court than is reported.

Was there a charge relating to leaving the scene? I cannot say, but what would be the point of an additional charge? It would not affect the overall sentence, so would probably not be in the public interest to proceed.

The Judge can take into account all the facts of the incident in his sentencing.


As for mitigation, you completely miss the point. It is what it says on the tin - mitigation. I am sure you would expect someone with say 6 previous convictions for similar offences to be given a longer sentence than someone without previous convictions. Therefore it is only right and proper that this drivers lack of previous are brought to the judges attention.

The Judge in his sentencing ( as quoted in the report) makes it clear that despite the mitigation this driver will be jailed. He makes it clear the mitigation does not allow the driver to escape the blame/consequences of his actions

top_bhoy

spen666 wrote:

As for mitigation, you completely miss the point. It is what it says on the tin - mitigation. I am sure you would expect someone with say 6 previous convictions for similar offences to be given a longer sentence than someone without previous convictions. Therefore it is only right and proper that this drivers lack of previous are brought to the judges attention.

I take your points on the journalist report, etc and I think the judge did a decent enough job, (even if, as I tend to do in such cases, I think he could have been a little heavier in sentencing) but re. the above, I don't see why the public should expect a difference in sentencing. If the actions of either type of offender and the same circumstances were involved, resulted in the same serious injury, I'd expect the same type of sentencing. There is the same intent, lack of respect and lack of remorse towards their victim in each case so why should one be treated any different? Certainly there can be no mitigating factors in a case such as this. Sadly, the victim receives the same injuries. I think the other charges should have been added even if it wouldn't have added to his sentence. It would indicate to the unsuspecting public when he goes to fill forms etc., a higher degree of callousness on his part than the single charge of which he was convicted. Maybe this would be not so much justice but a further stigma and revenge - is that such a bad thing on such a person as involved in this case?

spen666

Top_Bhoy wrote:

spen666 wrote:

As for mitigation, you completely miss the point. It is what it says on the tin - mitigation. I am sure you would expect someone with say 6 previous convictions for similar offences to be given a longer sentence than someone without previous convictions. Therefore it is only right and proper that this drivers lack of previous are brought to the judges attention.

I take your points on the journalist report, etc and I think the judge did a decent enough job, (even if, as I tend to do in such cases, I think he could have been a little heavier in sentencing) but re. the above, I don't see why the public should expect a difference in sentencing. If the actions of either type of offender and the same circumstances were involved, resulted in the same serious injury, I'd expect the same type of sentencing. There is the same intent, lack of respect and lack of remorse towards their victim in each case so why should one be treated any different? Certainly there can be no mitigating factors in a case such as this. Sadly, the victim receives the same injuries. I think the other charges should have been added even if it wouldn't have added to his sentence. It would indicate to the unsuspecting public when he goes to fill forms etc., a higher degree of callousness on his part than the single charge of which he was convicted. Maybe this would be not so much justice but a further stigma and revenge - is that such a bad thing on such a person as involved in this case?

you appear not to understand what mitigation is and its purpose.

there can be mitigation in this case- the fact the defendant had no previous convictions is mitigation.

Mitigation can be about the offender not just the offence.

Other charges are pointless wastes of public funds. They add nothing and no one would look beyond the main charge. If you murder someone in a pub after having had a few drinks is it worth prosecuting for drunk & disorderly as well as murder? Now what are you going to do when the defendant admits the murder and gets a life sentence? Are you going to proceed with the 50 witness trial lasting 3 months, calling everyone present in the pub for the prosecution/defence? Cost of trial hundreds of thousands of pounds. What purpose does it serve apart from increasing the taxes of society to pay for the trial.

As for previous convictions - are you really unable to realise their significance or are you just trolling? If you apply your logic, then you would never disqualify motorists for totting up as it is irrelevantthat they had previous for the same/similar crimes



PS none of my comments should be taken as expressing a view on the sentence imposed on the driver

spen666

REVENGE is not a function of the criminal justice system

flattythehurdler

No, but one of my friends is a forensic psychiatrist, and he feels that sentances should have an element of both rehabilitation and punishment. It seems reasonable in this case given that to reverse and then run over the poor man shows an element of premeditation.

spen666

flattythehurdler wrote:

No, but one of my friends is a forensic psychiatrist, and he feels that sentances should have an element of both rehabilitation and punishment. It seems reasonable in this case given that to reverse and then run over the poor man shows an element of premeditation.

Rehabilitation and punishment are different from revenge.


There is always a tension in the system between rehabilitation supporters and punishment supporters

rollerball

The most important lesson to learn from this is that it highlights the vulnerability of cyclists. Shouting obsenities at a stressed out car driver because of their dangerous driving can cause them to lose it, and if they are nutters, can end up with someone getting a serious injury.

We all do it thoiugh. :evil:

top_bhoy

spen666 wrote:

As for previous convictions - are you really unable to realise their significance or are you just trolling? If you apply your logic, then you would never disqualify motorists for totting up as it is irrelevantthat they had previous for the same/similar crimes

You do realise that not everyone has to have the same viewpoint as you - and you are not always correct, so if being of independant thinking makes me a troll, then I'm guilty as charged!!

spen666

Top_Bhoy wrote:

spen666 wrote:

As for previous convictions - are you really unable to realise their significance or are you just trolling? If you apply your logic, then you would never disqualify motorists for totting up as it is irrelevantthat they had previous for the same/similar crimes

You do realise that not everyone has to have the same viewpoint as you - and you are not always correct, so if being of independant thinking makes me a troll, then I'm guilty as charged!!

So you think that someone who has committed 10 sucgh crimes deserves the same punishment as someone who is a first time offender? What deterrent is that to anyone who has been caught once already?

Monty Dog

My only comment is whether the guy gets to keep his license - he should have had his license revoked or been given 9 penalty points - therefore any future indiscretions will result in a ban. Sadly, people seem to consider a license a right not a privilege and the courts are failing in their responsibilities to protect other road users from people who have proven themselves to be a menance. It seems you can attempt to kill or even kill people in a car with impunity.

spen666

Monty Dog wrote:

My only comment is whether the guy gets to keep his license - he should have had his license revoked or been given 9 penalty points - therefore any future indiscretions will result in a ban. Sadly, people seem to consider a license a right not a privilege and the courts are failing in their responsibilities to protect other road users from people who have proven themselves to be a menance. It seems you can attempt to kill or even kill people in a car with impunity.

A licence being revoked is an administrative matter not a judicial one. That pedantic point aside, I'm sure you are referring to him being banned from driving

He has been disqualified from driving, and assuming the Scottish system is the same as the English one, then he will have to sit an extended driving test before he can get his licence back. Thus he can't just start driving the day his ban is up. Dangerous driving carries an obligatory disqualification from driving.

The BBC article states he received a FIVE year ban from driving

top_bhoy

Monty Dog wrote:

My only comment is whether the guy gets to keep his license - he should have had his license revoked or been given 9 penalty points - therefore any future indiscretions will result in a ban. Sadly, people seem to consider a license a right not a privilege and the courts are failing in their responsibilities to protect other road users from people who have proven themselves to be a menance. It seems you can attempt to kill or even kill people in a car with impunity.

That was what I was inferring earlier - had it been a bottle or a knife he had attacked the guy with and not a car, the charges would probably have been more serious and leading to heavier penalties. Under the circumstances, I'm surprised he even got as much custodial time as he did - though no doubt after spending some time in remand, good behaviour etc, he'll be back out with the opportunity to kill people for real very shortly..

pedylan

Road rage - the judge mentioned it twice in passing sentence.
Dangerous driving - what the accused was subsequently charged with.
Attempted murder - a charge that was dropped in favour of dangerous driving.

What a complete failure of the legal system to protect individuals from the violence of others.

What was the van driver's intention? He propelled his vehicle at the cyclist not once but twice. He therefore intended to intimidate or injure. He actually injured. This isn't dangerous driving and using the term road rage is just euphimistic.

Had Chaudhry thrust at the defendent with a knife what would he have been charged with when an inujry resulted. Nothing as comparatively trivial as dangerous driving.

No, when a vehcile is involved those causing (in this case deliberate) injury are shown far too much leniency - which this case merely highlights.

spen666

pedylan wrote:

Road rage - the judge mentioned it twice in passing sentence.
Dangerous driving - what the accused was subsequently charged with.
Attempted murder - a charge that was dropped in favour of dangerous driving.

not sure what your point is here? "Road rage" is not a criminal offence. It is a name given to a type of behaviour like for example "foootball hooliganism" or "drunken rampage". Not sure why you are putting it in a list with specific criminal offences

What a complete failure of the legal system to protect individuals from the violence of others.

The legal system by its very nature is REACTIVE. It cannot prevent this sort of behaviour. It can only try to make it so that people do not want to commit such acts.

To be preventatitive, the system would need to lock people up BEFORE they can commit an offence. Do you volunteer to be locked up because you MIGHT commit say a rape? Thought not

What was the van driver's intention? He propelled his vehicle at the cyclist not once but twice. He therefore intended to intimidate or injure. He actually injured. This isn't dangerous driving and using the term road rage is just euphimistic.

the whole problem with motoring cases of this nature is proving intent. If it were possible to prove he intended to cause physical harm then an assault charge would be brought as it was in, I believe, the case of the motorist who reversed his 4x4 into the cyclist with his kids in a trailer and got I think 5 years for GBH- going from memory on this

Had Chaudhry thrust at the defendent with a knife what would he have been charged with when an inujry resulted. Nothing as comparatively trivial as dangerous driving.

I'm not sure that thrusting at someone with a knife could ever be construed as a driving offence- unless he attached the knife to the front of his van and used the van to thrust at the individual

No, when a vehcile is involved those causing (in this case deliberate) injury are shown far too much leniency - which this case merely highlights.

pedylan

I assume the point by point dissection indicates a legal mind at work?

I mentioned road rage precisely because I thought the judge used a term that was a colloquial phrase without exact meaning which trivialised the real crime.

Crime prevention can operate if the courts impose sentences that makes potential offenders think between the red mist and propelling their vehicle at a vulnerable road user. I think that is an important part of any legal system.

I agree intent is difficult to prove but he drove at the cyclist twice. What's the most sympathetic (to the accused) interpretation of intent in this instance?

The knife analogy - you're being too literal (deliberately?). Take away the vehicle element. Chaudhry has knife in hand and twice lunges at another person and on the second luinge inflicts injury. Now what would a court do? It seems the vehicle involvement allows this lesser charge when a more straightforward, less clouded conclusion woudl be reached if the incident is seen for waht it is - an attack.

spen666

pedylan wrote:

The knife analogy - you're being too literal (deliberately?). Take away the vehicle element. Chaudhry has knife in hand and twice lunges at another person and on the second luinge inflicts injury. Now what would a court do? It seems the vehicle involvement allows this lesser charge when a more straightforward, less clouded conclusion woudl be reached if the incident is seen for waht it is - an attack.

I am not being too literal.

Your analogy is fataly flawed because someone wielding a knife cannot face a dangerous driving charge. You are not comparing like with like.

The knife wielder could face ( depending on the circumstances)

murder/Manslaughter/ GBH/ABH

The motorist could face all those AND dangerous/ careless driving

I am not disagreeing that sentencing for motoring offences is too low. Nor am I disagreeing that we are not willing to prosecute enough motoring offences. The matter I take issue with are the charges when prosecutions are brought. The reality is that it is virtually impossible to prove murder/Manslaughter/ GBH/ABH etc when a motor vehicle is involved. Experience has shown this- hence why charge is dangerous driving. It is better that a motorist gets 9 months for this than walks scot free after being cleared of murder/manslaughter/GBH/ABH etc.

spen666

9 months for injuring someone using a motor vehicle

no prison for killing someone using your bike


Can easily be argued that cyclists get away with their crimes :evil:


Killer Cyclist

flattythehurdler

This to an extent illustrates the real problem at the heart of the sentencing process. Aside from the fact that this man obviously has difficulties, should a sentence reflect the offence, or the result of said offence???

spen666

flattythehurdler wrote:

This to an extent illustrates the real problem at the heart of the sentancing process. Aside from the fact that this man obviously has difficulties, should a sentance reflect the offence, or the result of said offence???

Traditionally the answer is said to be the system reflects the actions of the wrong doer rather than the (unforseen/unintended) consequences.

however it is easy to pick examples where that is not so - eg the fact we have offences of dangerous driving and a separate offence of death by dangerous driving

In sentencing, the sentencer has to balance all elements -
the actions of defendant,
the personal circumstances of the defendant
the harm caused by the action
the desire of the victim/family/society for punishment

It is never possible to satisfy all three of these to everyone's satisfaction. Hence why the variety of opinion expressed on here

top_bhoy

spen666 wrote:

flattythehurdler wrote:

This to an extent illustrates the real problem at the heart of the sentancing process. Aside from the fact that this man obviously has difficulties, should a sentance reflect the offence, or the result of said offence???

Traditionally the answer is said to be the system reflects the actions of the wrong doer rather than the (unforseen/unintended) consequences.

however it is easy to pick examples where that is not so - eg the fact we have offences of dangerous driving and a separate offence of death by dangerous driving

In sentencing, the sentencer has to balance all elements -
1) the actions of defendant,
2) the personal circumstances of the defendant
3) the harm caused by the action
4) the desire of the victim/family/society for punishment

It is never possible to satisfy all three of these to everyone's satisfaction. Hence why the variety of opinion expressed on here

:twisted:


I thought everyone was in agreement that sentencing for motoring offences is generally treated too low.

spen666

Top_Bhoy wrote:

I thought everyone was in agreement that sentencing for motoring offences is generally treated too low.

Many motorists and motoring organisations would disagree with this

top_bhoy

spen666 wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

I thought everyone was in agreement that sentencing for motoring offences is generally treated too low.

Many motorists and motoring organisations would disagree with this

When "variety of opinion expressed on here" is used, I naturally think it refers to this forum so I didn't think I needed to explain this away again.

spen666

So when you refer to EVERYONE you are not actually meaning everyone at all.

Infact there are numerous posters on this forum who would not agree "that sentencing for motoring offences is generally treated too low"

Mark Alexander

I'm not convinced (without hearing the evidence) that attempted murder would have been appropriate. Hi licence should be revoked and a prison sentence for dangerous driving and attemting to harm him but how can you prove intent to murder? If you can't control your emotions on the road it doesn't mean that you ar th sam off the road.

Not th same but maybe this statement from this regarding accountability and jail time is relevent. Feel free to shoot me down
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6246140.stm

spen666

Mark Alexander wrote:

I'm not convinced (without hearing the evidence) that attempted murder would have been appropriate. Hi licence should be revoked and a prison sentence for dangerous driving and attemting to harm him but how can you prove intent to murder? If you can't control your emotions on the road it doesn't mean that you ar th sam off the road.

Not th same but maybe this statement from this regarding accountability and jail time is relevent. Feel free to shoot me down
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6246140.stm

His licence MUST NOT be revoked.

As i have stated earlier- revocation of a driving licence is an administrative function and the administration MUST NOT carry out judicial functions.

He should be AND WAS disqualified from driving ( in this case for FIVE years)

martinwitnam

I feel that an important fact here is that he did get a custodial sentence unlike the driver in Wales who KILLED, not injured, but actually KILLED four cyclists.