I'm Lost for words

rubertoe

Cyclist killer Gary McCourt: Crown loses appeal against 'lenient' sentence

:?

Kieran_Burns

Mixed feelings about this. We're in the world of small actions can have huge consequences and that the crime is (apparently) judged not on the outcome but the intent... as in this was a momentary lapse of concentration, as opposed to that woman who had her eyes off the road for at least 18 seconds.

Then there is the more pleasing aspect that they stated the judge was wrong to say that she was contributory to her death by not wearing a helmet.

Runtothehills

According to this the sentence should probably have been more severe, judging by the guidelines and case law 36 weeks, possibly suspended. Can't really give a definate comment without knowing more.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sent ... e_driving/

The constant references to 'killed 2 cyclists' is beginning to annoy me though. The first offence was 27 years ago when he was 22. Most 22 year old males are idiots, 27 years later they tend to be very different people.

It's also overshadowing the other parts of the case - in particular that the appeal judge said that the helmet issue was irrelevent.

vermin

Runtothehills wrote:

According to this the sentence should probably have been more severe, judging by the guidelines and case law 36 weeks, possibly suspended. Can't really give a definate comment without knowing more.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sent ... e_driving/

The constant references to 'killed 2 cyclists' is beginning to annoy me though. The first offence was 27 years ago when he was 22. Most 22 year old males are idiots, 27 years later they tend to be very different people.

It's also overshadowing the other parts of the case - in particular that the appeal judge said that the helmet issue was irrelevent.

Does this apply north of the border?

andyb78

I can see the mitigation. However I find it worrying that someone who has been proved to have caused the death (helmet issues aside) of two people will be free to attempt to resume a status in which these were caused, in a relatively short space of time. If there were two "reckless" or even "accidential" deaths connected with someone who legally owned a shotgun, do you think the verdict would have been the same?

the_hundredth_idiot

Runtothehills wrote:

The constant references to 'killed 2 cyclists' is beginning to annoy me though. The first offence was 27 years ago when he was 22. Most 22 year old males are idiots, 27 years later they tend to be very different people.

I can see where you're coming from on this point, but isn't it that he appears not to be a very different person now than he was 27 years ago?

Thankfully, most of us have never killed anyone while driving our cars - killing two people in incidents separated by 27 years can't help but make me wonder how many close calls there were over those intervening years.

rjsterry

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Mixed feelings about this. We're in the world of small actions can have huge consequences and that the crime is (apparently) judged not on the outcome but the intent... as in this was a momentary lapse of concentration, as opposed to that woman who had her eyes off the road for at least 18 seconds.

Then there is the more pleasing aspect that they stated the judge was wrong to say that she was contributory to her death by not wearing a helmet.

Sums up pretty well my thoughts.

Kieran_Burns

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

Runtothehills wrote:

The constant references to 'killed 2 cyclists' is beginning to annoy me though. The first offence was 27 years ago when he was 22. Most 22 year old males are idiots, 27 years later they tend to be very different people.

I can see where you're coming from on this point, but isn't it that he appears not to be a very different person now than he was 27 years ago?

Thankfully, most of us have never killed anyone while driving our cars - killing two people in incidents separated by 27 years can't help but make me wonder how many close calls there were over those intervening years.

The thing is, it could well be none whatsoever just as easily as it could be dozens or hundreds. It's really not for us to say.

Runtothehills

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

Runtothehills wrote:

The constant references to 'killed 2 cyclists' is beginning to annoy me though. The first offence was 27 years ago when he was 22. Most 22 year old males are idiots, 27 years later they tend to be very different people.

I can see where you're coming from on this point, but isn't it that he appears not to be a very different person now than he was 27 years ago?

Thankfully, most of us have never killed anyone while driving our cars - killing two people in incidents separated by 27 years can't help but make me wonder how many close calls there were over those intervening years.

If he has had multiple motoring offences over the intervening years then I'd agree with you, if not then I would say he probably has changed. Unfortunately the articles don't give infomation on this, they prefer to sensationalise everything.

veronese68

rjsterry wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Mixed feelings about this. We're in the world of small actions can have huge consequences and that the crime is (apparently) judged not on the outcome but the intent... as in this was a momentary lapse of concentration, as opposed to that woman who had her eyes off the road for at least 18 seconds.

Then there is the more pleasing aspect that they stated the judge was wrong to say that she was contributory to her death by not wearing a helmet.

Sums up pretty well my thoughts.

I suppose I do agree with this really.
But, I can't quite get over the fact that in spite of driving like a twunt far too often in my youth, on some pretty busy roads, I never managed to kill anyone, never mind two people. This in spite of driving for more than 27 years. So the fact that the previous incident was 27 years ago just doesn't wash with me. I seem to recall that in the original hearing there was a comment about the drivers previous good history.

rhext

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Mixed feelings about this. We're in the world of small actions can have huge consequences and that the crime is (apparently) judged not on the outcome but the intent... as in this was a momentary lapse of concentration, as opposed to that woman who had her eyes off the road for at least 18 seconds.

Then there is the more pleasing aspect that they stated the judge was wrong to say that she was contributory to her death by not wearing a helmet.

Me too. I think there's huge danger if you start punishing people on outcomes without considernig intent/behaviour. We don't live in a world where considered action always leads to predictable effect: terrible accidents happen from the most trivial of causes and if you go straight for 'punishment matches the outcome' you can merely end up making the tragedy much worse.

Kieran_Burns

Let me draw a parallel for you.

Years and years back my eldest brother started playing football for a local youth team. On his first match with them he kicked off from the centre spot. Unfortunately he managed to twist his foot in the ground, fell over and broke his leg (femur).

After being immobile with his leg in plaster then going through walking, running, kicking a ball etc etc again, he started playing for the same local team. Very first game he had the ball passed to him from the kick off and he missed the ball, caught his foot in the ground, fell over and broke the same leg in the same place.

He never played again.

Over-reaction? Bad luck? Awful player?

veronese68

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Let me draw a parallel for you.

Years and years back my eldest brother started playing football for a local youth team. On his first match with them he kicked off from the centre spot. Unfortunately he managed to twist his foot in the ground, fell over and broke his leg (femur).

After being immobile with his leg in plaster then going through walking, running, kicking a ball etc etc again, he started playing for the same local team. Very first game he had the ball passed to him from the kick off and he missed the ball, caught his foot in the ground, fell over and broke the same leg in the same place.

He never played again.

Over-reaction? Bad luck? Awful player?

That was the gods telling him football is a ridiculous game.
I know what you mean, and most of me agrees with you. But you can't help but wonder...

Runtothehills

Veronese68 wrote:

I suppose I do agree with this really.
But, I can't quite get over the fact that in spite of driving like a twunt far too often in my youth, on some pretty busy roads, I never managed to kill anyone, never mind two people. This in spite of driving for more than 27 years. So the fact that the previous incident was 27 years ago just doesn't wash with me. I seem to recall that in the original hearing there was a comment about the drivers previous good history.

I know what I want to say here but don't want to give the impression that the guy was unlucky to kill someone in his youth. For the dangerous driving conviction he had to have made some very bad decisions and driven like an idiot. However you've just admitted you drove like an idiot in your youth as well, how do you know you didn't make worse decisions than him but got away with them? The same dangerous driving does not have to mean the same outcome.

greg66_tri_v2.0

vermin wrote:

Runtothehills wrote:

According to this the sentence should probably have been more severe, judging by the guidelines and case law 36 weeks, possibly suspended. Can't really give a definate comment without knowing more.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sent ... e_driving/

The constant references to 'killed 2 cyclists' is beginning to annoy me though. The first offence was 27 years ago when he was 22. Most 22 year old males are idiots, 27 years later they tend to be very different people.

It's also overshadowing the other parts of the case - in particular that the appeal judge said that the helmet issue was irrelevent.

Does this apply north of the border?

Doubt it, but quite possibly similar guidance does. The reference by the appeal judges to "momentary inattention" and low speed impact seem to me to resonate with

Nature of offence: Careless or inconsiderate driving arising from momentary inattention with no aggravating factors

Starting Point: Community order (MEDIUM)
Sentencing range: Community order (LOW) - Community order (HIGH)

rather than the higher tariffed version of the offence.


The bottom line is that whatever one's gut reaction to this is based on a sketchy press report, four judges have now examined the facts carefully, and the relevant sentencing guidelines, and come to the same conclusion. I find it hard to credit that as someone who knows nothing about the detail of the case, my view of the proper sentence is to be preferred.

rhext

Runtothehills wrote:

I know what I want to say here but don't want to give the impression that the guy was unlucky to kill someone in his youth. For the dangerous driving conviction he had to have made some very bad decisions and driven like an idiot. However you've just admitted you drove like an idiot in your youth as well, how do you know you didn't make worse decisions than him but got away with them? The same dangerous driving does not have to mean the same outcome.

I think that's the key point really: you get a range of bad behaviours from momentary distractions (what was that over there?) to reckless disregard for other's safety. Everybody gets the former, while very few people exhibit the latter. Should someone who has a momentary lapse (bearing in mind that could easily be you) and is unfortunate enough to kill someone as a result be locked up for years? The 'messing around with a shotgun' example given above is not a particularly good one, because messing around with a shotgun is way over towards the 'reckless disregard' end of the spectrum. And 'he's done it before, he must be guilty' isn't a good argument either because although the probability of causing a fatality is really low, so many fatalities happen that eventually someone's going to be unfortunate enough to cause two. It's the court's job to unpick this and TBH I don't envy them.

vermin

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

The bottom line is that whatever one's gut reaction to this is based on a sketchy press report, four judges have now examined the facts carefully, and the relevant sentencing guidelines, and come to the same conclusion. I find it hard to credit that as someone who knows nothing about the detail of the case, my view of the proper sentence is to be preferred.

I guess you gathered, that's sort of the point I was hinting at!

airbag

Veronese68 wrote:

I suppose I do agree with this really.
But, I can't quite get over the fact that in spite of driving like a twunt far too often in my youth, on some pretty busy roads, I never managed to kill anyone, never mind two people. This in spite of driving for more than 27 years. So the fact that the previous incident was 27 years ago just doesn't wash with me. I seem to recall that in the original hearing there was a comment about the drivers previous good history.

In a way that is a flaw of our road system, or perhaps a limiting factor: we've made things sufficiently safe, with enough redundancy, that a lot of the time you can drive like a twunt and still have a good accident record, meaning people can't draw a link between cause and effect. There is one, but it's too small for an individual's perception. And as rhext mentioned, it's the law of large numbers that at some point a competent, or perhaps only slightly less than competent, driver will end up killing twice in a lifetime.

rhext wrote:

I think that's the key point really: you get a range of bad behaviours from momentary distractions (what was that over there?) to reckless disregard for other's safety. Everybody gets the former, while very few people exhibit the latter. Should someone who has a momentary lapse (bearing in mind that could easily be you) and is unfortunate enough to kill someone as a result be locked up for years? The 'messing around with a shotgun' example given above is not a particularly good one, because messing around with a shotgun is way over towards the 'reckless disregard' end of the spectrum. And 'he's done it before, he must be guilty' isn't a good argument either because although the probability of causing a fatality is really low, so many fatalities happen that eventually someone's going to be unfortunate enough to cause two. It's the court's job to unpick this and TBH I don't envy them.

A very well thought-out and written post. Well done (although, let's face it, it would be far more satisfying to break out the picthforks).

supersonic

The Naked Gun effect springs to mind - you know, where the nuclear missile just happens to be passing and crashes into a firework factory after Drebbin passes by.

And to an extent I think that same premise applies here. The death of anyone is unfortunate of course, but the chances of it happening for what he did is incredible. He isn't a murderer for that.