Today I'm angry about.....

[Montreal Wanderer]

Another bollocks sentence for someone convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-la ... e-26085400" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course the four-year driving ban can prove more severe for a professional driver than a year in jail. It looks like a plea bargain (the charge was reduced from dangerous driving to careless driving) so the circumstances did not likely come out. The article doesn't say whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet or cycling appropriately. In the city here cyclists are a bigger menace to pedestrians than cars are. Still, hang him if you want....

What chance do you think he'd have of still being a professional driver after a year in jail for causing death by dangerous driving?

Probably not good - that's what I meant. His career is likely ruined so he did not get off that lightly.

Sorry Monty, he should have got 5 years behind bars, a 10-year ban and I am being lenient there.

Possibly, but I don't know the circumstances and it looked like a plea bargain. The charge was reduced to careless driving. The penalties you suggest do not appear to be possible. Have a look and the maximum penalties for driving offences. Neither careless driving nor using a handheld device while in charge of a vehicle carry a prison sentence at all. Careless driving causing death wasn't even listed so I guess they were making precedent in this case. I suggest you work on changing the law if you feel that strongly, but don't blame the judicial system for being too lenient.

[Hoboh]

I'd blame the mostly over cautious CPS actually.

You see it's good for the conviction figures, get guilty on a lesser charge it's still a guilty figure.

The whole worlds run by bean counters!

[Prufrock]

Another bollocks sentence for someone convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-la ... e-26085400" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course the four-year driving ban can prove more severe for a professional driver than a year in jail. It looks like a plea bargain (the charge was reduced from dangerous driving to careless driving) so the circumstances did not likely come out. The article doesn't say whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet or cycling appropriately. In the city here cyclists are a bigger menace to pedestrians than cars are. Still, hang him if you want....

A more detailed article on a (free) subscription website I use (here: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail. ... &utm_term=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; if you can be bothered) says he wasn't wearing a helmet, but was wearing a bright-coloured top.

A couple of points: Firstly, in the UK it isn't a legal requirement for a cyclist to wear a helmet. Secondly, any argument that the cyclist was himself negligent would be appropriate if we were talking about a civil claim for compensation, but we aren't, it's a criminal case where a racing driver (who should fecking well know the dangers of cars) broke the law and killed somebody. He'll be out in just over a year. It's ridiculous. I don't want to hang him, I just think criminal activity which results in the death of another human being warrants a tougher sentence than 21 months. Also, whilst there are plenty of nutter cyclists here too, I'm not sure how that's relevant to this case?! There is no suggestion the cyclist was at fault, and if there was a suggestion that it was the cyclists behaviour that caused the accident, then he wouldn't have pleaded guilty, as the prosecution would have had to show that it was the driver's careless (ahem) driving which caused the death.

They never go after anybody for dangerous driving. I keep banging on about a City youth player who got done for causing death by careless driving after flattening two people doing 60 in a 30 zone. If that's not 'dangerous' driving then what the hell is?! He had a previous driving conviction too.

[Prufrock]

Possibly, but I don't know the circumstances and it looked like a plea bargain. The charge was reduced to careless driving. The penalties you suggest do not appear to be possible. Have a look and the maximum penalties for driving offences. Neither careless driving nor using a handheld device while in charge of a vehicle carry a prison sentence at all. Careless driving causing death wasn't even listed so I guess they were making precedent in this case. I suggest you work on changing the law if you feel that strongly, but don't blame the judicial system for being too lenient.

Causing death by dangerous driving and its careless equivalent are statutory offences (you used to be prosecuted for gross negligence manslaughter). Causing death by dangerous driving has a maximum penalty of 14 years, and careless of 5 years (I thought it was 7 but the CPS website says otherwise: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sen ... e_driving/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

FWIW, and I don't say this very often, but I think Hobes is right. Something wrong at the CPS, whether its a target culture meaning their terrified to not win, or cost cutting to try to stop things going to trial, but it's bollocks.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Possibly, but I don't know the circumstances and it looked like a plea bargain. The charge was reduced to careless driving. The penalties you suggest do not appear to be possible. Have a look and the maximum penalties for driving offences. Neither careless driving nor using a handheld device while in charge of a vehicle carry a prison sentence at all. Careless driving causing death wasn't even listed so I guess they were making precedent in this case. I suggest you work on changing the law if you feel that strongly, but don't blame the judicial system for being too lenient.

Causing death by dangerous driving and its careless equivalent are statutory offences (you used to be prosecuted for gross negligence manslaughter). Causing death by dangerous driving has a maximum penalty of 14 years, and careless of 5 years (I thought it was 7 but the CPS website says otherwise: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sen ... e_driving/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

FWIW, and I don't say this very often, but I think Hobes is right. Something wrong at the CPS, whether its a target culture meaning their terrified to not win, or cost cutting to try to stop things going to trial, but it's bollocks.

He was charged with dangerous driving causing death (maximum risk 14 years as you say). He opted for a jury trial. I assume the CPS felt it might not get a conviction (I'm sorry, Pru, but the lack of helmet could well have influenced a jury if medical testimony showed a helmet would have prevented death) and subsequently offered a lesser charge and tariff (one year in jail). The defendant was in a difficult position - risk 14 years of your life or plead guilty to a lesser charge. He chose the latter as many of us would, and the jury was dismissed. In such circumstances we don't get the full story or get to see the CCTV footage. Maybe, as you suggest, the CPS lacks guts or conviction (no pun intended) but that is the system. Change it and make cyclists wear protective gear while you are at it.

[Bruce Rioja]

I'm sorry, Pru, but the lack of helmet could well have influenced a jury if medical testimony showed a helmet would have prevented death

That's a little like saying that if he'd wrapped himself in a foot of bubblewrap then death may have been prevented. A cycling helmet is completely optional over here, not compulsory and at the end of the day a man, due to no fault on his part, is dead due to some nice person gabbing to his Mrs on the phone whilst driving a van which was also towing his racing car. Shirley the helmet's an irrelevance in terms of punishing a man for the charges on which he's guilty. The sentence handed down is nothing other than pathetic. It serves neither a sufficient punishment nor as a real deterrent to others.

[Prufrock]

Possibly, but I don't know the circumstances and it looked like a plea bargain. The charge was reduced to careless driving. The penalties you suggest do not appear to be possible. Have a look and the maximum penalties for driving offences. Neither careless driving nor using a handheld device while in charge of a vehicle carry a prison sentence at all. Careless driving causing death wasn't even listed so I guess they were making precedent in this case. I suggest you work on changing the law if you feel that strongly, but don't blame the judicial system for being too lenient.

Causing death by dangerous driving and its careless equivalent are statutory offences (you used to be prosecuted for gross negligence manslaughter). Causing death by dangerous driving has a maximum penalty of 14 years, and careless of 5 years (I thought it was 7 but the CPS website says otherwise: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sen ... e_driving/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

FWIW, and I don't say this very often, but I think Hobes is right. Something wrong at the CPS, whether its a target culture meaning their terrified to not win, or cost cutting to try to stop things going to trial, but it's bollocks.

He was charged with dangerous driving causing death (maximum risk 14 years as you say). He opted for a jury trial. I assume the CPS felt it might not get a conviction (I'm sorry, Pru, but the lack of helmet could well have influenced a jury if medical testimony showed a helmet would have prevented death) and subsequently offered a lesser charge and tariff (one year in jail). The defendant was in a difficult position - risk 14 years of your life or plead guilty to a lesser charge. He chose the latter as many of us would, and the jury was dismissed. In such circumstances we don't get the full story or get to see the CCTV footage. Maybe, as you suggest, the CPS lacks guts or conviction (no pun intended) but that is the system. Change it and make cyclists wear protective gear while you are at it.

No it couldn't. Causation legally is specific, and doesn't involve weighing balancing 'causes' and who was 'more' to blame. The question is simply, 'but for the driver's dangerous driving, would the victim have died'? In other words, had he been driving properly, would the victim have died? Quite clearly the answer is no. It seems clear the driver accepts this, as he pleaded guilty.

It would have taken something like the cyclist riding on the wrong side of the road meaning even if he hadn't been on the phone he'd have hit him for there to be any issues with causation.

And yeah, I get why he took it! I'm saying he shouldn't have been offered it.

[Prufrock]

I'm sorry, Pru, but the lack of helmet could well have influenced a jury if medical testimony showed a helmet would have prevented death

That's a little like saying that if he'd wrapped himself in a foot of bubblewrap then death may have been prevented. A cycling helmet is completely optional over here, not compulsory and at the end of the day a man, due to no fault on his part, is dead due to some tw*t gabbing to his Mrs on the phone whilst driving a van which was also towing his racing car. Shirley the helmet's an irrelevance in terms of punishing a man for the charges on which he's guilty. The sentence handed down is nothing other than pathetic. It serves neither a sufficient punishment nor as a real deterrent to others.

It wouldn't matter even if it were a legal requirement. If you drive dangerously and plough into a car killing people inside, it isn't a defence to any charge of causing their death that they weren't wearing a seatbelt. Don't drive dangerously (or carelessly) and they don't die. So you 'cause' it.

For Jaffka's benefit, I don't mean you personally, Bruce .

In this case, there's a bloke of whom there is no evidence of having done wrong, who has died because this knob head was on the phone. Said knob head will be out in a little over a year.

[Bruce Rioja]

I'm sorry, Pru, but the lack of helmet could well have influenced a jury if medical testimony showed a helmet would have prevented death

That's a little like saying that if he'd wrapped himself in a foot of bubblewrap then death may have been prevented. A cycling helmet is completely optional over here, not compulsory and at the end of the day a man, due to no fault on his part, is dead due to some tw*t gabbing to his Mrs on the phone whilst driving a van which was also towing his racing car. Shirley the helmet's an irrelevance in terms of punishing a man for the charges on which he's guilty. The sentence handed down is nothing other than pathetic. It serves neither a sufficient punishment nor as a real deterrent to others.

It wouldn't matter even if it were a legal requirement. If you drive dangerously and plough into a car killing people inside, it isn't a defence to any charge of causing their death that they weren't wearing a seatbelt. Don't drive dangerously (or carelessly) and they don't die. So you 'cause' it.

For Jaffka's benefit, I don't mean you personally, Bruce .

In this case, there's a bloke of whom there is no evidence of having done wrong, who has died because this knob head was on the phone. Said knob head will be out in a little over a year.

I think we're in total agreement here, Pru. I just can't work out the Jaffka reference?!

[Hoboh]

I'm sorry, Pru, but the lack of helmet could well have influenced a jury if medical testimony showed a helmet would have prevented death

That's a little like saying that if he'd wrapped himself in a foot of bubblewrap then death may have been prevented. A cycling helmet is completely optional over here, not compulsory and at the end of the day a man, due to no fault on his part, is dead due to some tw*t gabbing to his Mrs on the phone whilst driving a van which was also towing his racing car. Shirley the helmet's an irrelevance in terms of punishing a man for the charges on which he's guilty. The sentence handed down is nothing other than pathetic. It serves neither a sufficient punishment nor as a real deterrent to others.

It wouldn't matter even if it were a legal requirement. If you drive dangerously and plough into a car killing people inside, it isn't a defence to any charge of causing their death that they weren't wearing a seatbelt. Don't drive dangerously (or carelessly) and they don't die. So you 'cause' it.

For Jaffka's benefit, I don't mean you personally, Bruce .

In this case, there's a bloke of whom there is no evidence of having done wrong, who has died because this knob head was on the phone. Said knob head will be out in a little over a year.

I think we're in total agreement here, Pru. I just can't work out the Jaffka reference?!

Me neither I think he's lost it

[Montreal Wanderer]

Possibly, but I don't know the circumstances and it looked like a plea bargain. The charge was reduced to careless driving. The penalties you suggest do not appear to be possible. Have a look and the maximum penalties for driving offences. Neither careless driving nor using a handheld device while in charge of a vehicle carry a prison sentence at all. Careless driving causing death wasn't even listed so I guess they were making precedent in this case. I suggest you work on changing the law if you feel that strongly, but don't blame the judicial system for being too lenient.

Causing death by dangerous driving and its careless equivalent are statutory offences (you used to be prosecuted for gross negligence manslaughter). Causing death by dangerous driving has a maximum penalty of 14 years, and careless of 5 years (I thought it was 7 but the CPS website says otherwise: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sen ... e_driving/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

FWIW, and I don't say this very often, but I think Hobes is right. Something wrong at the CPS, whether its a target culture meaning their terrified to not win, or cost cutting to try to stop things going to trial, but it's bollocks.

He was charged with dangerous driving causing death (maximum risk 14 years as you say). He opted for a jury trial. I assume the CPS felt it might not get a conviction (I'm sorry, Pru, but the lack of helmet could well have influenced a jury if medical testimony showed a helmet would have prevented death) and subsequently offered a lesser charge and tariff (one year in jail). The defendant was in a difficult position - risk 14 years of your life or plead guilty to a lesser charge. He chose the latter as many of us would, and the jury was dismissed. In such circumstances we don't get the full story or get to see the CCTV footage. Maybe, as you suggest, the CPS lacks guts or conviction (no pun intended) but that is the system. Change it and make cyclists wear protective gear while you are at it.

No it couldn't. Causation legally is specific, and doesn't involve weighing balancing 'causes' and who was 'more' to blame. The question is simply, 'but for the driver's dangerous driving, would the victim have died'? In other words, had he been driving properly, would the victim have died? Quite clearly the answer is no. It seems clear the driver accepts this, as he pleaded guilty.

It would have taken something like the cyclist riding on the wrong side of the road meaning even if he hadn't been on the phone he'd have hit him for there to be any issues with causation.

And yeah, I get why he took it! I'm saying he shouldn't have been offered it.

I accept all you say from the legal perspective - I was talking about juries who can be pretty random. Anyway, apparently something is rotten on the state of the CPS after them.

[Prufrock]

I'm not sure the question (as a point of law rather than fact) would ever be discussed in front of the jury tbh. Even if it were, I'm sure a judge would be clear in advising them the question they had to answer was as above: 'but for the defendant's dangerous or careless driving would he have died?'.

So yeah, 21 months? Pish!

[Prufrock]

I'm sorry, Pru, but the lack of helmet could well have influenced a jury if medical testimony showed a helmet would have prevented death

That's a little like saying that if he'd wrapped himself in a foot of bubblewrap then death may have been prevented. A cycling helmet is completely optional over here, not compulsory and at the end of the day a man, due to no fault on his part, is dead due to some tw*t gabbing to his Mrs on the phone whilst driving a van which was also towing his racing car. Shirley the helmet's an irrelevance in terms of punishing a man for the charges on which he's guilty. The sentence handed down is nothing other than pathetic. It serves neither a sufficient punishment nor as a real deterrent to others.

It wouldn't matter even if it were a legal requirement. If you drive dangerously and plough into a car killing people inside, it isn't a defence to any charge of causing their death that they weren't wearing a seatbelt. Don't drive dangerously (or carelessly) and they don't die. So you 'cause' it.

For Jaffka's benefit, I don't mean you personally, Bruce .

In this case, there's a bloke of whom there is no evidence of having done wrong, who has died because this knob head was on the phone. Said knob head will be out in a little over a year.

I think we're in total agreement here, Pru. I just can't work out the Jaffka reference?!

A little dig at Jaffers in reference to a thread in the football bit. Not sure he even comes on this bit tbf! Ignore me and carry on !

[jaffka]

Why is my name in the above?

[Hoboh]

Why is my name in the above?

just be greatful he didn't drag you into the politics thread

I don't know some folk are so ungreatful

[Hoboh]

What's next up for the Pinko's and their Liberal fascist friends?
Banning natural birth because it puts them at a disadvantage?
Making schools and institutions same sex only?

Sad day down the path of mankinds destruction!

[CrazyHorse]

What's next up for the Pinko's and their Liberal fascist friends?
Banning natural birth because it puts them at a disadvantage?
Making schools and institutions same sex only?

Sad day down the path of mankinds destruction!

What's the matter this time?
Flight MH370?
Ukraine?
Gay marriage?
Office for iPad?

Give us a clue....

[Hoboh]

What's next up for the Pinko's and their Liberal fascist friends?
Banning natural birth because it puts them at a disadvantage?
Making schools and institutions same sex only?

Sad day down the path of mankinds destruction!

What's the matter this time?
Flight MH370?
Ukraine?
Gay marriage?Office for iPad?

Give us a clue....

[Prufrock]

One side of this 'argument' want to impose their views on other people; the other side want to impose it on themselves. And those for it are the fascists?

And just when it looked like you were making progress too...

[CrazyHorse]

What's next up for the Pinko's and their Liberal fascist friends?
Banning natural birth because it puts them at a disadvantage?
Making schools and institutions same sex only?

Sad day down the path of mankinds destruction!

What's the matter this time?
Flight MH370?
Ukraine?
Gay marriage?Office for iPad?

Give us a clue....

Awww. I really wanted it to be Office for iPad you were getting your knickers in a twist over.
What about all the poor Galaxy Tab owners? Someone has to fight their corner.
What's Nigel Farage's take on Android owners getting short changed? Presumably he's held a press conference whilst holding a pint of bitter and promised the Great British Public a referendum?