Hey ho. Another paltry sentence for wrecking a cyclists life

spen666

W1 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

W1 wrote:

....

I don't agree, because receiving justice isn't just about money (if at all). It needs to reflect not just the action, but the consequences too. Why shouldn't you be liable for the consequences of your actions?

Fortunately in practice the law tends to er towards my view rather than yours.

Really?

Think you will find that for every example you can quote I can quote one the orther way


Lets confine ourselves to driving offences.

There have been numerous authorities from the CA and HofL (RIP) to the effect that in careless driving cases you must sentence on the basis of the "badness" not the consequences and then to contradict this position we create specific offence where we sentence for the consequences of driving, more than for the "badness" - eg death by dangerous cf dangerous

What good does it do society or anyone to have a lynch mob mentality because of a fluke of luck rather than the wrong doing.


The very essence of the criminal law should beto punish for wrongdoing, not to punish for consequences.

Take the example I gave in my previous post re the 2 accidents- why should you get 14 years and I get 2 years for the same act?

In the vast majority of cases the court takes the consequence into consideration.

The reason you should get a harsher penalyy is because of the consequences. They are still your fault, and are due to your actions. You haven't really attended to my question - why shoudln't you be liable for the consequcences of your actions?

Should a murderer only get sentenced on the basis of the single stab wound which - by luck rather than judgement - hit a major artery?

Should the mugger only get sentenced for the robbery when the old lady falls and dies?

Do you advocate going "above" the current sentences or "below" them? In other words do you think stabbing someone should get you 12 years or the coupele of years you'd get for GBH? Becase on the basis that all the actions are the same (and ignoring the consequences) you'd need to go one way or the other.

Rather than asking more questions to fudge the issue and divert attention- how about answering the earlier question regarding the 2 accidents I put to you?

Please explain how / why it is just for 2 people to committ identical acts of driving and one to face 14 years and one to face 2 years?


Then please explain how the exclusion of the consequences of carelss driving in sentencing is consistent with creating offences to sentence on basis of consequences eg dangerous/ death by dangerous

rhext

I understand the arguments for sentencing according to the seriousness of the offence rather than the consequences.....but if we actually did that, we'd end up either with the prisons chock full or no sense of justice at all for victims. What should be the tariff, do you think, for driving at 40MPH in a 30MPH zone?

Taking my own example: I've been driving for 20 years without so much as a parking ticket. I mostly obey speed limits, but I'm currently half-expecting a ticket in the post because I drove past a speed camera at about 47 MPH in a 40 zone. Why? Because I didn't spot the sign where the speed limit changed.

In this case, no harm done. If I get my ticket, I'll pay up and chalk it up to experience. But if I'd been unlucky and hit someone while going at that speed, how would you deal with me? Let me off with a £60 ticket because all I was doing was a few MPH above the limit? Or perhaps you'd do it the other way round and send me to prison for 10 years instead of my £60 ticket regardless of whether or not I caused any harm.

You can build purist arguments about punishing the offence not the consequences as much as you like. But in my opinion any practical justice system has to consider not just the action but the harm which arises as a result of that action.

In this case, it doesn't appear that justice has been well served either on the severity of the offence or the consequences scale!

W1

spen666 wrote:

Rather than asking more questions to fudge the issue and divert attention- how about answering the earlier question regarding the 2 accidents I put to you?

Please explain how / why it is just for 2 people to committ identical acts of driving and one to face 14 years and one to face 2 years?


Then please explain how the exclusion of the consequences of carelss driving in sentencing is consistent with creating offences to sentence on basis of consequences eg dangerous/ death by dangerous

So you want to ask your own questions but not answer mine for fear of "fudging" the issues?

I said "The reason you should get a harsher penalyy is because of the consequences. They are still your fault, and are due to your actions." You get 14 years because someone died due to your actions.

Now, can you answer my questions? which way would you sentence - at the top or bottom? And why?

Death by careless was introduced because it was considered that the sentencing structure for simple careless driving did not relflect the potential for such driving to cause a death. In other words the sentence could not be sufficient to reflect the consequences, hence the introduction of a more serious offence and a higher tariff.

rjsterry

flicksta wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Gah! It's happened again! Only this time, I'm agreeing with Spen as well.

Looking at the problem in a mathematical way (bear with me), how about sentence = 'badness of driving' x severity of consequence. That way, very bad driving, but with minor consequences attracts a small sentence, as does a minor error that has catastrophic results, which feels about right.

This particular case seems to score quite highly on 'badness of driving' and severity of consequences, but the judge can only work with the sentencing limits and guidelines he's given.

I'm not convinced by the sentencing 'to set an example' arguments.

Very very bad driving is very very bad driving regardless of the consequences. Drivers continue to text whilst driving precisely because they perceive and see no consequences. Yet when they occur, they are catastrophic. A potential sentence must carry some sort of deterrent value.

It's only a deterrent if you think you'll be caught. Clearly many don't think they will be caught.

Mike Healey

As Spen says, the law is based on a rational assessment of how it arrives at a verdict.

Surely, here is a case where the injustice lies in the limited sentencing options open to the trial judge.

Perhaps we should turn the current law on its head, so to speak. Increase the possible length of imprisonment based upon the potential threat posed by the standard of dangerous driving. Since someone knowingly driving while drunk and driving at twice the speed limit is more likely than not to kill another road user, particularly a vulnerable one such as a cyclist or a pedestrian, the law and sentencing guidelines should be able to impose something between the 2 years and the 14 for actually killing someone

The luck of the draw on this ocasion was with the cyclist (and the driver), since collisions at that speed almost always result in the death of the victim. Under such circumstances, sentencing should, arguably, be on a continuum, rather than a clear cut-off as is now the case.

What's your opinion Spen?

Mike Healey

As Spen says, the law is based on a rational assessment of how it arrives at a verdict.

Surely, here is a case where the injustice lies in the limited sentencing options open to the trial judge.

Perhaps we should turn the current law on its head, so to speak. Increase the possible length of imprisonment based upon the potential threat posed by the standard of dangerous driving. Since someone knowingly driving while drunk and driving at twice the speed limit is more likely than not to kill another road user, particularly a vulnerable one such as a cyclist or a pedestrian, the law and sentencing guidelines should be able to impose something between the 2 years and the 14 for actually killing someone

The luck of the draw on this ocasion was with the cyclist (and the driver), since collisions at that speed almost always result in the death of the victim. Under such circumstances, sentencing should, arguably, be on a continuum, rather than a clear cut-off as is now the case.

What's your opinion Spen?

Mike Healey

As Spen says, the law is based on a rational assessment of how it arrives at a verdict.

Surely, here is a case where the injustice lies in the limited sentencing options open to the trial judge.

Perhaps we should turn the current law on its head, so to speak. Increase the possible length of imprisonment based upon the potential threat posed by the standard of dangerous driving. Since someone knowingly driving while drunk and driving at twice the speed limit is more likely than not to kill another road user, particularly a vulnerable one such as a cyclist or a pedestrian, the law and sentencing guidelines should be able to impose something between the 2 years and the 14 for actually killing someone

The luck of the draw on this ocasion was with the cyclist (and the driver), since collisions at that speed almost always result in the death of the victim. Under such circumstances, sentencing should, arguably, be on a continuum, rather than a clear cut-off as is now the case.

What's your opinion Spen?

Wallace1492

Well, whatever this is it was no accident. The perpetrator did not mean to inflict injuries, completely agree with that, but taking the course of action he did, he put lives in grave danger.

Prison sentence for retribution/punishment is justified, but not sure it would do the guy any good. It would cost the public £40k to keep him there for 6 months, he would lose his job (if he has one) and the public would then be paying him dole for years. His life would be ruined, and justifyably so.... but is that what we want?

20 year to life driving ban, forced to pay decent compensation to victim would be a start. Prison...... I really am not sure about.....

jedster

IMHO we should be sentencing for the "badness" of the driving not the result of luck

I agree with Spen here.

All the approaches to managing dangerous operations that work focus on elminating near misses not just launching in when someone dies. We need to punish drivers for gambling with people's lives as well as taking them. For example, I'd like to see police spot checks at blind bends (just like a speed trap) - drivers overtaking on the blind bend would be prosecuted for careless driving EVEN IF THERE WAS NOTHING COMING.

rhext

The argument isn't whether we punish drivers for near misses or not, it's whether the punishment should be the same regardless of the outcome!

I'd support spot-checks and prosecutions for careless or dangerous driving (which I understand happen already b.t.w). I just think that a practical justice system has to take account of outcomes also.

I like the gambling analogy: getting into the car drunk is like buying a ticket on a very nasty lottery. It's illegal to buy the ticket in the first place and that'll get you a sentence. But if you're unlucky enough to lose your gamble, then not only will you have caused something extremely unpleasant to happen but you can expect severe consequences in your own life as a result.

Specialized Needs

rhext wrote:

The argument isn't whether we punish drivers for near misses or not, it's whether the punishment should be the same regardless of the outcome!

I think we need to separate the issues of punishment and reparation. Personally, I would go for the same punishment for the same error, but obviously the reparation should reflect the damage/outcome.

jimmypippa

I agree with spen as to what *should* happen.

But I am an engineer not a lawyer.

In my view, if you break the law, consideration should be given to what a reasonable person would consider unsurprising consequences of your actions. The actual consequences should also be taken into account.

shouldbeinbed

It's a shame that the crimes of violence charges can't be used in situations like this where the level of injury does have a bearing and the tarriff can be far stronger to better reflect the reality of the victims predicament.

What difference between knowingly climbing into a car drunk and speeding or smashing a bottle and shoving it in someones face in a moment of red mist.

The facility for a car to be a massively damaging weapon or its inappropriate use being as socially and legally unacceptable is sadly not reflected in law in the same way that running about with a carving knife is

W1

jimmypippa wrote:

I agree with spen as to what *should* happen.

But I am an engineer not a lawyer.

In my view, if you break the law, consideration should be given to what a reasonable person would consider unsurprising consequences of your actions. The actual consequences should also be taken into account.

In which case, you don't agree with spen at all - he doesn't think the actual consequences should be taken into account, just the action. The consequences are irrelevant to him. What he hasn't yet suggested is how to deal with that in practice - do we punish those who break a minor law on the basis of the worst possible consequences? Or do we base the punishment of the worst possible consequences on the (often minor) initial causative action?

Life sentence for careless driving regardless of outcome?
Or £100 fine and a few points for careless driving even if you mow down a line of kids?

Or, more realisitically, what we have now - where the action and the consequences are taken into consideration, even though the consequences are often a matter of luck.

W1

jedster wrote:

IMHO we should be sentencing for the "badness" of the driving not the result of luck

I agree with Spen here.

All the approaches to managing dangerous operations that work focus on elminating near misses not just launching in when someone dies. We need to punish drivers for gambling with people's lives as well as taking them. For example, I'd like to see police spot checks at blind bends (just like a speed trap) - drivers overtaking on the blind bend would be prosecuted for careless driving EVEN IF THERE WAS NOTHING COMING.

What? Do you think the police don't punish dangerous and careless driving regardless of whether anything was coming or not?

Do you know the law behind those offences? it's got nothing to do with whether anyone was actually put in danger - it's about the standard of driving.

W1

You see, I think this scumbag should be locked up for life - relatively minor "offence" - significant consequences.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-la ... e-11826896

jedster

What? Do you think the police don't punish dangerous and careless driving regardless of whether anything was coming or not?

I think in the real world the Police only get involved when bad things happen. There is very little enforcement against bad driving unless an "accident" happens. Even when there is an accident, they seldom take action unless someone is seriously hurt.

An example:

A couple of years ago my wife drove around a bend to find a porsche Cayenne driving straight at her on the wrong side of the road. She took evasive action but the front of the Cayenne hit her drivers side front corner. Our car, a pretty substantial 5 series touring was totalled. My wife blacked out briefly and had a cracked sternum. Ambulance and Police to the scene. The Police asked my wife whether she wanted to press charges. They then said, on second thoughts, we will press charges, this was really dangerous driving.

2 months later one of the policemen phoned my wife and said we've decided not to press charges. She asked them why the hell not given what they had said at the scene. His answer (sounding rather sheepish):

"Well she says she lost control on ice, you weren't that badly hurt and to be honest if we always prosecuted in cases like this we'd have no time for anything else..."

My wife was incredulous about the ice, pointing out that he had been on the scene and that there was definitely no ice. He didn't disagree.

W1

jedster wrote:

What? Do you think the police don't punish dangerous and careless driving regardless of whether anything was coming or not?

I think in the real world the Police only get involved when bad things happen. There is very little enforcement against bad driving unless an "accident" happens. Even when there is an accident, they seldom take action unless someone is seriously hurt.

[anecdotal evidence story].

Whilst I'm sorry to hear of your wife's accident, I'm afraid you're completey wrong.

Do you really think that the police only prosecute after an accident? Do you think there are very few prosecutions for DWDCA or Dangerous Driving unless there has been a crash?

Ditto speeding? Drink driving? Driving on the phone?

Valy

rhext wrote:

You can build purist arguments about punishing the offence not the consequences as much as you like. But in my opinion any practical justice system has to consider not just the action but the harm which arises as a result of that action.

In this case, it doesn't appear that justice has been well served either on the severity of the offence or the consequences scale!

Some actual sense instead of bickering. I really don't know if this is a naive view to take, but the impacts have to balanced for the victim and the offender.

So "dynamic" is the word.

spen666

W1 wrote:

jedster wrote:

What? Do you think the police don't punish dangerous and careless driving regardless of whether anything was coming or not?

I think in the real world the Police only get involved when bad things happen. There is very little enforcement against bad driving unless an "accident" happens. Even when there is an accident, they seldom take action unless someone is seriously hurt.

[anecdotal evidence story].

Whilst I'm sorry to hear of your wife's accident, I'm afraid you're completey wrong.

Do you really think that the police only prosecute after an accident? Do you think there are very few prosecutions for DWDCA or Dangerous Driving unless there has been a crash?

Ditto speeding? Drink driving? Driving on the phone?

W! I suggest you look again at the CPS guidance re charging road traffic offences - one of the factors mitigating against charges being brought is that there was only property damage or minor injury caused. This is obviously in situations where an accident has occurred. Thus if there was no accident, it becomes unlikely that provceedings will be brought for careless driving.

The reason for this guidance comes from the public interest test of the Code for Crown Prosecutors which indicates that prosecutions are rarely in public interest if court would impose minor or nominal penalties.

I am not saying I approve of this approach, I am merely stating what the approach is.

W1

spen666 wrote:

W1 wrote:

jedster wrote:

What? Do you think the police don't punish dangerous and careless driving regardless of whether anything was coming or not?

I think in the real world the Police only get involved when bad things happen. There is very little enforcement against bad driving unless an "accident" happens. Even when there is an accident, they seldom take action unless someone is seriously hurt.

[anecdotal evidence story].

Whilst I'm sorry to hear of your wife's accident, I'm afraid you're completey wrong.

Do you really think that the police only prosecute after an accident? Do you think there are very few prosecutions for DWDCA or Dangerous Driving unless there has been a crash?

Ditto speeding? Drink driving? Driving on the phone?

W! I suggest you look again at the CPS guidance re charging road traffic offences - one of the factors mitigating against charges being brought is that there was only property damage or minor injury caused. This is obviously in situations where an accident has occurred. Thus if there was no accident, it becomes unlikely that provceedings will be brought for careless driving.

The reason for this guidance comes from the public interest test of the Code for Crown Prosecutors which indicates that prosecutions are rarely in public interest if court would impose minor or nominal penalties.

I am not saying I approve of this approach, I am merely stating what the approach is.

An accident is not a pre-requisite for a charge or conviction for DWDCA or DD.

spen666

W1 wrote:

....
An accident is not a pre-requisite for a charge or conviction for DWDCA or DD.

I don't think anyone has said that it is.

However, without an accident, the chances of a careless driving charge being brought are in practice (rather than in theory) much smaller.