I can't find the thread involved, but forum members may remember some of my recent postings about a bus driver in my town who was seriously injured in an accident involving a car driver who failed to stop at a give way junction.
Fortunately the bus driver is making reasonable progress, but many people in the town are up in arms at what appears to be an extremely lenient sentence for the car driver, who has a history of motoring offences.
Details of the court case at:
tinyurl.com/t5atf
I'm aware that magistrates' courts have limited punishment powers and that a magistrates' clerk will provide all the advice that magistrates require, but it still seems staggering that someone's life, along with that of his family, should be affected so much whilst the person responsible for that situation appears to get off almost scot-free.
The comment by the defendant's solicitor that: ?This is a very satisfactory result for my client.? almost beggers belief.
This is the original reporting of the accident for those who are not aware of the original postings:
tinyurl.com/yy4xyh
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
I can see why the solicitor is happy for his client. No mention of the terrible injuries sustained by the bus driver in the second article. Has he recovered? Sadly it would seem that the seatbelt dispensation may have exacerbated his injuries.
|
|
|
Four months is a joke - Seriously , I have a couple of friends who are JP's and they are fed up with the limited powers they have to sentence these sort of offenders.
On a less serious note - I see that HJ disguised himself by growing a moustache before dining in the Aubergine Restaurant in Southport.........see the original accident report.
|
|
|
It should have been dealt with at Crown Court given the seriousness & repeat offending.
They gave the guy bail whilst it was waiting to be dealt with & now this minimal sentence! Magistrates which planet are they on!
|
>>Magistrates which planet are they on!>>
Magistrates have very limited powers of punishment.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
But they can always refer the case to a higher court if they so which.
|
|
There is no room in prisons - full of other offenders - sentences that would have been jail time (or longer jail) a few years back is now a modest slap on the hand / social sentence
|
|
|
|
However, the Bench can pass a sentence of up to two years, which they have failed to do.
|
London Court 7th December
The Eton-educated son of a Russian oil billionaire who killed a friend in a "mad" high speed car crash was jailed for six and a half years yesterday.
Tests suggested that Ivan Mazour, 22, had smoked cannabis and might have been up to three times above the drink drive limit when his sports car careered into a lamppost at nearly 90 mph.
The Mitsubishi Evolution VIII, said to be the fastest saloon car in the world
London's Southwark Crown Court heard that the 170mph Mitsubishi Evolution VIII, described as the world's fastest saloon, then hurtled across the central reservation and rammed a BMW head-on.
The driver and his five passengers were all badly hurt.
If sentences like this were publicised a lot more then some drunk / tearaway drivers might think twice.
|
|
When I saw the thread I thought it was about TVM. Where is he, he's been rather quiet lately?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't find the thread involved,
This one perchance?
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=47...9
|
Well done DD..:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
Calvin I love you, and I?ll be there for you when you get out?.
Oh dear.
My first name isn't Nick and I've never been to Southport.
|
PU (not Nick!),
"1) Use of a motor vehicle without third party insurance-no separate penalty.
(2) Fail to provide specimen for lab test (breath test)-6months jail reduced to 4 months for guilty plea & banned from driving for 3 years.
(3) Driving without due care and attention-no separate penalty.
(4) Driving while disqualified- 6 months jail reduced to 4 months for guilty plea.
(5) Handling stolen goods (receiving) - 2 months jail reduced to 1 month for early guilty plea.
All the sentences are to run concurrent, totalling 4 months jail."
Why do sentences run concurrently? Why is it better to commit half a dozen offences at once than to do them separately? Is it so people aren't punished for an offence that is caused by another offence? And if they plead guilty to several offences, why is the sentence still reduced. What I can't quite understand is that he appears (if we assume he was done for not providing a sample) not to have been punished for driving while disqualified and handling stolen goods. If I had failed to provide a sample while driving my own car, without causing an accident and serious injury to someone and had a valid licence and insurance, I would presumably receive the same sentence - is that fair??
Just interested in your comments!
Regards
--
Phil
|
|
I'd love to look at the full Court abstract on this. There is a discount for an early guilty plea, I find it very odd. He'll be out in two or for Christmas on a tag
|
"He'll be out in two or for Christmas "
So he gets a discount for the gulty plea and can still get out early on parole/good behaviour or whatever?? (You can tell I have not yet been through the prison system!!)
--
Phil
|
|
If we are really lucky the idiot will end up walking under a bus
|
|
|
The above despite this also
"The court was told that O?Hara had three previous drink driving related offences against him, and had never re-passed his driving test after he was banned 1997."
So, the driving ban (on top of his jail sentence)will obviously be a real problem for him
--
Phil
|
Thing is, many benches apply the one-third discount for an early guilty plea to all cases, when they needn't (eg where the defendant is band to rights, as the estimable Mr O'Hara presumably was).
Weak benches, full prisons, bad law.
|
bad law.>>
The law is ok. Which gives you a clue. I shudder to think how many Police hours went into catching and convicting him.
|
I meant X = Y = Z.
Badly expressed, I agree.
|
|
You're still right either way.
|
You can bet your life that if, for instance, you are nabbed for having no MOT you will, relatively speaking, be punished to a far, far greater degree.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
The reason for the one-third discount on sentencing is not to reward offenders for facing up to the consequences of their actions, but to stop them going for a trial when they would otherwise have nothing to lose. If the CPS loses its evdience, the police or civilian witnesses fail to turn up, etc., then there is a chance that even someone who is caught red-handed will get off. Even if everything goes smoothly, the court's time is expensive and if every defendant pleaded not guilty (if only to retain the privileges of a remand prisoner) the system would be overwhelmed. At a guess, I would say that no more than 1 in 10 cases will actually make it from the police station to trial without a guilty plea being entered.
I won't express my personal opinions too forcefully here but I would be firmly against a sanction for exercising your right to enter a not guilty plea.
It's interesting to see that the Magistrates chose not to make the two four-month sentences run consecutively as that would have been in their powers (they can only impose a maximum of two consecutive sentences of six months). Also, theoretically handling stolen goods is the most serious offence (the only one also triable in the Crown Court) but they imposed a lesser sentence for that so it must have been for something comparatively trivial.
Apart from the handling sentence, and the fact that the sentences were concurrent and not consecutive, the Magistrates basically sentenced using the maximum of their powers (although given the above, I can see why the solicitor would be pretty happy about it, probably fully expecting consecutive sentences).
|
|
|
|
