Caught speeding

hollie.weimeraner

scotsman4th wrote: »

There was a guy got 6 months for 122 mph recently. Whilst an MP ony got 3 months for killing someone whilst texting.

If you are referring to Lord Ahmed and the incident on the M1 in Sheffield then your facts are slightly incorrect.

The court could not prove that he was texting at the time he hit the guy in the carriageway. (he'd broken down in lane 3 and after walking to the hard shoulder went back to retrieve something from his car).

Ahmed was convicted for texting whilst driving a short time prior to the collision. (The prosecution failed to prove he was texting at the time of the exact time of the accident)

Ahmed then successfully appealed the 3 months imprisonment imposed as it was held to be too harsh simply for texting.

NonGeographicalMan

hollie.weimeraner wrote: »

Ahmed was convicted for texting whilst driving a short time prior to the collision. (The prosecution failed to prove he was texting at the time of the exact time of the accident)

Ahmed then successfully appealed the 3 months imprisonment imposed as it was held to be too harsh simply for texting.

But do you think the outcome would definitely have been the same if the person in question had been Jo Bloggs from Manchester with only an ordinary criminal aid provided barrister.:rolleyes:

richardginger

All depends on the Judge/Magistrate on the day and your defence and plea, there are never two cases the same.

NonGeographicalMan

richardginger wrote: »

All depends on the Judge/Magistrate on the day and your defence and plea, there are never two cases the same.

That sounds like a good Courts Service excuse for defending the enormous anomalies and inconsistencies in sentencing for motoring offences that actually take place for precisely the same offence with more or less the same circumstances.

And why should it depend on the Judge/Magistrate on the day?

Surely it should only depend on the seriousness of the offence and its circumstances?

Chippy_Minton_2

NonGeographicalMan wrote: »

And why should it depend on the Judge/Magistrate on the day?

Because they're human and have different opinions.

Sentence guides vary from minimum to maximum, its it to the court to apply them.

NonGeographicalMan

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

Because they're human and have different opinions.

Sentence guides vary from minimum to maximum, its it to the court to apply them.

The sentence is only meant to vary according to the severity of the offence, any previous driving convictions and any mitigation or exceptional hardship. It is not supposed to vary according to the personality of the magistrates or district judge.

However there is strong evidence that this is precisely what does happen and that the same defence case presented on different days to a different bench or judge may have a completelty different outcome.

Rolandtheroadie

hollie.weimeraner wrote: »

If you are referring to Lord Ahmed and the incident on the M1 in Sheffield then your facts are slightly incorrect.

The court could not prove that he was texting at the time he hit the guy in the carriageway. (he'd broken down in lane 3 and after walking to the hard shoulder went back to retrieve something from his car).

Ahmed was convicted for texting whilst driving a short time prior to the collision. (The prosecution failed to prove he was texting at the time of the exact time of the accident)

Ahmed then successfully appealed the 3 months imprisonment imposed as it was held to be too harsh simply for texting.

Your right. It wasnt for killing the guy.

'By reason of the prolonged, deliberate, repeated and highly dangerous driving, only a custodial sentence can be justified.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1155043/Labour-peer-Lord-Ahmed-jailed-12-weeks-text-message-death-crash-M1.html#ixzz0WCQeHSSv


I change my statement to how does a lord get off with a jail sentance (I believe he got out on appeal?)for "prolonged, deliberate, repeated and highly dangerous driving" where a biker gets 6 months for a momentary blast of speed. (he probably got time off for good behaviour right enough).