www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003572922,00.html
{please note, this link to the Sun newspaper will probably be obsolete within a week of the posting date of this thread. DD}
\"FURY erupted in court when a failed asylum seeker and banned driver who ran down and killed a girl of 12 was jailed for just four months.
Amy Houston?s father Paul had to be restrained by cops on hearing the sentence of Iraqi Kurd Aso Mohammed Ibrahim.
Paul, 34, said he faced a ?life sentence? ? yet Ibrahim would be free in two months. \"
Forget the asylum seeker facts.
A banned driver kills a girl and runs away.. and will spend 2 months in jail..
NEW LAWS? Forget it. ENFORCE current ones properly..
madf
|
>>NEW LAWS? Forget it. ENFORCE current ones properly..
and punish appropriately, whatever the liberals say.
|
|
But if he got a long sentence he would have got his asylum, wouldn't he? Maybe they gave him a short one to send him back home sooner?
|
|
|
|
madf
Unfortunately it's just this sort of thing that winds your average bloke up to breaking point .......... what's that Michael Douglas film called where Mr.Nice Guy finally flips ?
I can see why now looking at your post ....
JD
|
what's that Michael Douglas film called where Mr.Nice Guy finally flips ?
"Falling Down"
|
"punish appropriately, whatever the liberals say"
I like to think that I'm liberal-minded in the sense of live and let live, seek understanding rather than conflict, and I find the trivial nature of the sentence breathtaking. Even four years would be an insult, let alone four months. The fact that this guy was already banned means he'd obviously done something previously to merit that. He made a deliberate choice to get in a car, with the resulting consequences. That deliberate choice should have been reflected in his sentence.
andymc
|
|
Dare we hope that the CPS will appeal this sentence?
|
Yes, if existing laws were carried out correctly as written, we would not have the new mobile 'phone in-car usage law; driving without due care and attention would suffice. As it would for driving inappropriately, rather than the many new (too low) speed limits. The law banning hand guns would not have been required had existing procudures been carried out properly.
There is very rarely a need for a new law, it's more down to government spin / marketing / appearing to be doing something.
|
|
|
Dare we hope that the CPS will appeal this sentence?
What? And get accused of institutional racism? I fear that Heathrow ATC will be clearing pigs for landing before that happens.
|
Whilst any accident involving the death of a child is extremely tragic but some of the sentiments mentioned are, I would suggest,
resulting from the carp sensional reporting of The Sun which on examination does not add up.
Firstly "ran down and killed" The Court involved was a Magistrates Court who cannot hear a charge of death by dangerous driving etc as the report would have us believe. Further, the charges do not even include a due care and are Drive Disq, No Insurance and fail to stop. Semblence that his driving did not contribute to the accident but having been involved panicked. So could it be and seems so that the Pedestrian was responsible for the accident?
Taking away the death aspect then the charges for which he was aligned on a normal day would not have attracted imprisonment.
Not as clear cut as the report would suggest is it?
DVD
PS. I do agree punishment should be punishment and on this aspect Courts are letting Joe Public down. Shoulkd be like Singapore - add a few strokes of the cane as well.
|
Looking at one paper this morning, yes, it seem the child ran out into the road and the driver would normally not have been charged (possibly). However, doing a runner, after he's been disqualified twice before and done for no insurance, mot FOUR times previously is a bit much. Poor pair of bikers jailed for going a bit quick for first offence - something wrong somewhere in the system.
Martin
|
|
|
Once again DVD hits the spot. Only the words asylum seeker get it in the national press.
Still if he has exhuasted the routes of appeal his way out of jail should be clear.
|
"FURY erupted in court when a failed asylum seeker and banned driver who ran down and killed a girl of 12 was jailed for just four months.
Amy Houston?s father Paul had to be restrained by cops on hearing the sentence of Iraqi Kurd Aso Mohammed Ibrahim.
Paul, 34, said he faced a ?life sentence? ? yet Ibrahim would be free in two months. "
Sorry, but I would have been the same, It would be me doing the porridge.... he would be in his little wooden box.
Say no more.
|
"Semblence that his driving did not contribute to the accident but having been involved panicked. So could it be and seems so that the Pedestrian was responsible for the accident?"
DVD is of course absolutely right in law, and the magistrates probably had little choice with regard to the sentence. On the other hand, this guy (asylum seeker or not) should NOT have been driving a car on the road - he was banned, uninsured etc. I think that "the man on the Clapham omnibus" would therefore conclude that his driving DID contribute to the accident and that the pedestrian was NOT responsible for the accident hence the outrage in the Sun and by the father. Both points of view are explainable and understandable. Either way it's a tragedy for all involved.
|
There was a case in Friday's evening papaer : Evening Sentinel in Stoke. Driving while banned and stealing a £50 lawnmower or similar. 4 months jail: ie same as above case.
No running away.. no twice banned..
So running away after killing a child is equivalent of stealing a £50 lawnmower in law..?
FARCE!
madf
|
Sorry, in advance, I don't often climb on my soapbox.
"Semblence that his driving did not contribute to the accident but having been involved panicked. So could it be and seems so that the Pedestrian was responsible for the accident?" DVD is of course absolutely right in law, and the magistrates probably had little choice with regard to the sentence.
Exactly.
DVD, as, more often than not, is correct.
In this country people are found guilty, or not, in a court of law after examination of the facts, not the selective facts as printed in a newspaper; thank God.
When an individual is found guilty the punishment is meted out according to the offence of which he has been convicted, not the offence of which a newspaper would like him to have been convicted, of which he may not even have been charged.
The fact of an individual's circumstances should make no difference as as to his guilt or innocence of a charge in a court of law. As to whether the individual is an asylum seeker is irrelevant to the courts; indeed our justice system may well be a reason for someone wishing to seek asylum in this country in the first place.
Sadly, we are becoming a people who are all too easily provoked into knee jerk reactions with nicely emotive phrases, 'asylum seeker' being just one.
Just remember, when reading anything, the old newspaper saying,'Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story.'
It has never been truer than today.
Cockle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
