Inappropriate sentencing?

ellieb

Whether or not you agree with the biker's sentence. I still fail to understand how the guy in the second case gets just a £150 fine. No matter how stupid the biker is, he didn't actually cause an accident or hurt anyone. I really think it shows the distorted perspective of the judicial system.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/sou ... 329590.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edi ... 330495.stm

nicensleazy

Yes, I hink a little bit of porridge is in order! 166mph obviously no respect for his or any other road users/pedestrians life! Ever been or seen a fatal accident......not very nice!

ellieb

I'm not arguing with the biker getting sent down.. but I do think that if you are going to do that, then someone driving a car without being able to see properly and who actually causes an accident should also do time.

Frank the tank

Such are the vagueuries of the justice system. Both were acts of stupidity, not that it should matter but does anyone think the guy with the frosted up windscreen got off lightly because it resulted in him losing his employment.

volvicspar

Employment should not even enter into sentencing. If you need to drive for your job, the you should make damn sure you obey the rules of the road. I don't think the justice system should make any allowance for employment. It's just a way for people to get more lenient sentences for their stupidity.

Frank the tank

volvicspar wrote:

Employment should not even enter into sentencing. If you need to drive for your job, the you should make damn sure you obey the rules of the road. I don't think the justice system should make any allowance for employment. It's just a way for people to get more lenient sentences for their stupidity.

I'm not saying it should or shouldn't. I know in the past a snooker player was saved from a driving ban because he needed his car for his job. The fact he was a wealthy bloke that could've well afforded a chauffeur was overlooked. I like to open up a debate. TBH I agree with you, you know the rules before you set off, job done.

Chrissz

For the same reason you can get more time for armed robbery than murder - the most 'punishable' crime is one committed against the establishment.

'They' do not like and will not tolerate any threat to their power (unless you're an MP )

Mothyman

In all crimes custodial sentencing is supposed to be a balance of punishment,removal of risk and rehabilitation/re-education. If none of these apply then someone shouldnt do 'time'. The balance of these components is a matter of opinion.

blimey...my 2nd pint has made me sound like Tony Benn...or is it Mr Ben?

Mike Healey

Bear in mind that the biker had already been done for dangerous driving previously, so had clearly not learned anything from that.

Plus, had he made any mistake and collided with anyone, then death, probably for both parties, would be almost inevitable.

pepelepew

I just read that a 'man' in Devon just got sentenced for two and a half years for "snapping a baby's arm and six other bones in her body".

In my line of work I get used to sentences that are a joke, but really, is this the most they were allowed to give him?

Edit: James Grout is his name. 20 years old from Bideford.

Pross

Every frosty morning I see someone with a tiny piece of windscreen cleared. It really does annoy me as it is pure laziness with potentially serious outcomes. How long does it take to clear a windscreen or cover it up the previous night? That sentence is ridiculously light!

beverick

I actually think that the balance is about right. Remember the sentence is applied for the specific offence and not its outcome.

The effect of the sentence on the individual (ie whether they will lose their job as a result) may be taken as an influencing factor in it's application if it is raised in court. The effect may result in the reduction in the length of an obligatory ban and may mean that a discretionary ban is less likely to be applied at all.

According to several web sources an obligatory ban, as is applied to convictions for dangerous driving, is unlikely to be waived altogether.

The Road Traffic Offences Act will no doubt give more info if you can be bothered to look at it.

Bob

Pross

So which is the worse offence speeding at a ridiculous level or driving while not being able to see out of your windscreen? I would say both constitute dangerous driving?

TheDrunkMonk

It might have been "a little bit frosty" and he might have been driving at 4 mph, and the outcome described might have been the worst possible, it doesn't say. If that biker had seen the same pedestrians crossing the road, it would have been a nano-second before all 3 of them exploded accross the road. The difference in sentancing isn't that shocking.

Besdies, it said the driver had been driving for 10 years, so he was probably knackered.

Anonymous

Pross wrote:

Every frosty morning I see someone with a tiny piece of windscreen cleared. It really does annoy me as it is pure laziness with potentially serious outcomes. How long does it take to clear a windscreen or cover it up the previous night? That sentence is ridiculously light!

Write a letter to the local traffic unit.

When I was on Traffic I used to get letters like this all the time.

They always took minutes to sort out!

Only problem is this was before you needed a special authority to carry out this sort of surveillance...

That said, it's only a 1hr paper exercise to get the authority and could save a life...

Anonymous

TheDrunkMonk wrote:

It might have been "a little bit frosty" and he might have been driving at 4 mph, and the outcome described might have been the worst possible, it doesn't say. If that biker had seen the same pedestrians crossing the road, it would have been a nano-second before all 3 of them exploded accross the road. The difference in sentancing isn't that shocking.

Besdies, it said the driver had been driving for 10 years, so he was probably knackered.

636sean

Locking someone up for 9 months for speeding when no-one was hurt is f__king unbelievable, us tax payers will be paying thousands to keep him inside. The guy was a hairdresser not a rapist or burglar although the way this government treats speeders its more serious than those crimes anyway..it makes my blood boil.

Anonymous

636sean wrote:

Locking someone up for 9 months for speeding when no-one was hurt is f__king unbelievable, us tax payers will be paying thousands to keep him inside. The guy was a hairdresser not a rapist or burglar although the way this government treats speeders its more serious than those crimes anyway..it makes my blood boil.

Oh my.

Sooooo wrong.

He may have been a hairdresser but he so very easily may have been a killer.

Cliched but very true.

636sean

You said it yourself " may have been a killer"...to my knowledge we don't lock people up for "may be a burglar" or "may be a mugger" do we?
He was going too fast....take his licence away but what does locking him up for 9 months achieve.

Mike Healey

636sean wrote:

You said it yourself " may have been a killer"...to my knowledge we don't lock people up for "may be a burglar" or "may be a mugger" do we?
He was going too fast....take his licence away but what does locking him up for 9 months achieve.

If you read the report, he had been previously done for dangerous driving, so had, presumably, learnt nothing, nor been deterred from riding dangerously again. what else would you do to deter him from such cretinously selfish and contemptously law-breaking behaviour?

636sean

All i'm saying is the way the government treats speeding these days is that he would of got a custodial sentence even if it had been his first speeding offence.
I know the road he was speeding on and it's a deserted 2 mile stretch of nothing in the Scottish borders.
They are obsessed with speed being responsible for every accident because pointing speed cameras is easy money.....the amount of bad driving due to people texting on mobiles or on drink/drugs far outways going quick.
I grant you the biker was going far too fast but locking him up is taking the piss.
if i was out cycling and and i had to pick between a biker going fast but concentrating on where he was going or someone driving at the speed limit but busy sending a text message i know which i'd prefer...

jimmypippa

I don't think it is inappropriate at all. The biker had history of driving dangerously, and had been caught again. He was a fatal accident waiting to happen. Now it wouldn't matter too much if he was only going to take himself out, but there was no way to guarantee that, and even if it was only him that died, you would still need the traffic cops who would have to (literally) pick up the pieces, plus the damage to whatever he hit.

Also he managed to not slow down in time for a speed trap, so obviously wasn't driving within his capabilities.

Although the road might have been a 2-mile stretch of nothing, it was still an A-road, so traffic did use it. If someone did happen to travel in the opposite direction at the legal speed, there would be a closing speed of 220mph, they could have been overtaking a slower vehicle,quite reasonably thinking the road was clear ant then get hit by this antisocial driver.

The person who rove with a frosted windscreen was obviously stupid, and did cause an accident, but, from the description of the injuries, it as a low-speed accident, so they quite rightly got a ban from driving and a fine, but I don't see any reason why they needed to be sent to prison.

There are cases where the punishments have been too lenient but not in this case.

Pross

636sean wrote:

All i'm saying is the way the government treats speeding these days is that he would of got a custodial sentence even if it had been his first speeding offence.
I know the road he was speeding on and it's a deserted 2 mile stretch of nothing in the Scottish borders.
They are obsessed with speed being responsible for every accident because pointing speed cameras is easy money.....the amount of bad driving due to people texting on mobiles or on drink/drugs far outways going quick.
I grant you the biker was going far too fast but locking him up is taking the wee-wee.
if i was out cycling and and i had to pick between a biker going fast but concentrating on where he was going or someone driving at the speed limit but busy sending a text message i know which i'd prefer...

Can you point me to the STATS19 information showing this? Speed is the largest contributing factor to KSI accidents. Tiredness is another which probably gets under-reported as it's pretty much impossible to prove. I can link you to the relevant information if you'd like but it makes very tedious reading and doesn't help the arguments of the good old law abiding speeding motorist who are just the Government's cash cow :roll:

Garry H

636sean wrote:

I know the road he was speeding on and it's a deserted 2 mile stretch of nothing in the Scottish borders.

Utter nonsense. Under no circumstances would I call it a 2 mile stretch of nothing, unless he was caugh at 3 in the morning or something! It's also dotted with little villages and carries a lot of agricultural traffic.

ademort

ellieb wrote:

Whether or not you agree with the biker's sentence. I still fail to understand how the guy in the second case gets just a £150 fine. No matter how stupid the biker is, he didn't actually cause an accident or hurt anyone. I really think it shows the distorted perspective of the judicial system.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/sou ... 329590.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edi ... 330495.stm

Compared to the sentencing in the Netherlands, the sentencing in the UK is fantastic.
Ademort

ellieb

By the way I think some of you are misreading the news report. I think the previously done for dangerous driving refers to an earlier hearing about this event. I don't think it is a second offence...could be wrong. As I said in the OP, I'm not arguing that his sentence is wrong, but surely, driving anywhere when you cannot see where you are going, especially when there are other people around whom you subsequently hit, has got to be worth the same as speeding at lunatic speeds but not causing an accident. The sentencing guidelines still do not compute for me :?

pjm-84

The sentencing guidelines still do not compute for me

I agree.

nasahapley

ellieb wrote:

I think the previously done for dangerous driving refers to an earlier hearing about this event. I don't think it is a second offence...

That's true, but let's not worry about the actual facts of the case too much though, eh? Best to assume that he was on his way home from court, where he'd just been done for dangerous driving, when he decided to max out his GSX-R along a pedestrian-lined road with loads of traffic on it; makes getting on the high horse easier. From that you may gather that I too think the sentences handed out in the two cases are somewhat out of kilter (i.e. the frosty windscreen man should get a stiffer sentence, but porridge for the biker is way OTT). I'm totally biased though as I ride the same sort of bike, and I'll admit that I often suffer from 'straight line tourettes' when I come across an empty straight road.

636sean

Garry H wrote:

636sean wrote:

I know the road he was speeding on and it's a deserted 2 mile stretch of nothing in the Scottish borders.

Utter nonsense. Under no circumstances would I call it a 2 mile stretch of nothing, unless he was caugh at 3 in the morning or something! It's also dotted with little villages and carries a lot of agricultural traffic.

Yeah your right, sorry. I had another look on google earth at that stretch of road and you can clearly see a few sheep in the adjourning field. Clearly needing sending to prison for 9 months, losing his house, his job etc..that will teach him for opening his bike up for a few seconds

jimmypippa

636sean wrote:

Garry H wrote:

636sean wrote:

I know the road he was speeding on and it's a deserted 2 mile stretch of nothing in the Scottish borders.

Utter nonsense. Under no circumstances would I call it a 2 mile stretch of nothing, unless he was caugh at 3 in the morning or something! It's also dotted with little villages and carries a lot of agricultural traffic.

Yeah your right, sorry. I had another look on google earth at that stretch of road and you can clearly see a few sheep in the adjourning field. Clearly needing sending to prison for 9 months, losing his house, his job etc..that will teach him for opening his bike up for a few seconds

Did he not notice the police speed cameras in time to slow down? If he did he was a bit stupid at the least, if he didn't, he would have been unable to deal with anything else.

It wasn't a first offence, so at the very least he didn't learn his lesson previously.

shouldbeinbed

636sean wrote:

You said it yourself " may have been a killer"...to my knowledge we don't lock people up for "may be a burglar" or "may be a mugger" do we?

well with burglars theres an offence of Going Equipped - carrying a screwdriver and a set of gloves at 3am with no good reason is enough to have you locked up as 'maybe a burglar'

and quite right too - the sooner we deal with prevention rather than subsequent detection the better. with your burglar analogy - I'd rather be woken up at 3am by the kerfuffle of the cops pinning some scrote down in my front garden that go downstairs in the morning to find my home violated and posessions stolen.

with the speeder - This isn't the 35 in a 30 zone 'everyone does it' speeding, this is the far far too fast to react to anything on a public road and a very real danger of death or mayhem speeding.

Stop him and teach him a big lesson before he kills, don't fanny about with slappy wristy 'punishments' just because this time he got lucky. next time maybe he won't and neither will the poor innocent person(s) and their friends & families who's lives he destroys.

A trip to a morgue should be compulsory part of driving tests, it'd soon sharpen people up.