Seriously. Can anyone explain why this man is not going to prison?

qetu1357

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-12466178

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/8854102.LOUGHTON__Driver_banned_after_motorway_death/?

"The outcome of this appears all the more damning when you are aware that Fisk had a previous 27 month ban for drink-driving"

POPPYOSCAR

I for one will NEVER understand our justice system.

peter_the_piper

We do not have a justice system, most times its just a system of laws.

Crazy_Jamie

The first thing to note is that he was convicted of causing death whilst driving without insurance and without a licence, which is a new offence brought in at the same time as causing death by careless driving. It's an important distinction because the offence he was actually convicted of is relevant. Most people will see the words 'caused death' and instantly think that we're looking at something akin to murder. We're not. He's not been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, which would have surely resulted in immediate custody, or even causing death by careless driving. It was causing death without insurance, which doesn't even offer on a prima facie judgment within the offence of his actual standard of driving. Simply put, his culpability is inherently lower than with other offences, and hence his sentence almost inevitably will be as well.

The other problem is that, as usual, we don't know the full facts and haven't heard any mitigation. We have heard a very basic summary of the offence itself, and the only additional information is one previous conviction. The Court will have sentenced on the basis of far more information than that, and to be honest an accurate evaluation of the sentence cannot really be made without that. A suspended sentence is one that passes the custody threshold, but which for whatever reason is one that the Court deems suitable to be suspended. The Judge will have mentioned in sentencing him why he has suspended the sentence, but such a vital piece of information doesn't even make it in to the news articles.

One of the reasons why people don't understand the justice system is because they have no knowledge or experience of it other than what they read in the newspapers, which generally only report exceptional cases, and even then have a fantastic habit of including a lack of important information in their articles. In the circumstances, it is not surprising that most people feel that they don't understand the system. Because what they're being fed is very much a blinkered and information-lite version of it through the newspapers. This sentence may well have been absolutely spot on in the circumstances, but without knowing the circumstances we simply cannot know that.

paddyrg

Aside from not being insured, is there any suggestion that he was driving dangerously or recklessly? I'm sure he didn't mean to harm anyone, so if he wasn't driving drunk (and had learned that lesson) maybe he is being punished at the high end of a driving offense as opposed to an expensive case with marginal chance of conviction? Maybe the judge believes the offender is capable of rehabilitation whilst still paying tax and so is takinng a sensible decision to punish him cheaply?

I don't know the full facts of what the CPS have as evidence, but you can always rely on the newspapers to only give you a part of the story. Maybe this is misjustice, or maybe there are factors we don't know about.

Crazy Jamie, you beat me to it and put it better

qetu1357

I agree we don't know all the facts

Here are some more.

http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/Hertfordshire/Man-sentenced-for-role-in-crash-that-killed-Ware-woman.htm

We do know these facts:-

a) he didn't have a licence
b) he didn't have insurance
c) he lied at the scene
d) he has a history of contempt for the law
e) he was charged with causing death by careless driving.
f) Mum-of-three Claire Glaskin, 50 is dead

Freddie_Snowbits

In the court, you will not get Justice, but the law.

I am afraid, justice remains with the mob.

sarahg1969

qetu1357 wrote: »

I agree we don't know all the facts

Here are some more.

http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/Hertfordshire/Man-sentenced-for-role-in-crash-that-killed-Ware-woman.htm

We do know these facts:-

a) he didn't have a licence
b) he didn't have insurance
c) he lied at the scene
d) he has a history of contempt for the law
e) he was charged with causing death by careless driving.
f) Mum-of-three Claire Glaskin, 50 is dead

But he was not found guilty of causing death by careless driving. Crazy Jamie sums it up perfectly.

redpete

qetu1357 wrote: »

I agree we don't know all the facts

Here are some more.
e) he was charged with causing death by careless driving.

and a quote from that same article:

he was cleared of any blame on the more serious charge of causing death by careless driving.

redpete

qetu1357 wrote: »

Seriously. Can anyone explain why this man is not going to prison?

I can, because he was not found guilty of an offence that warranted a custodial sentence.

"The outcome of this appears all the more damning when you are aware that Fisk had a previous 27 month ban for drink-driving"

Why? Do you think he was still drunk over 2 years later?

shaun_from_Africa

"The outcome of this appears all the more damning when you are aware that Fisk had a previous 27 month ban for drink-driving"

Why?

Why?
Maybe because his previous conviction has shown that he has total contempt for the law in the UK.

He has demonstrated that as far as he's concerned, the requirements that most motorists abide by don't apply to him, and I wonder how long it will be before he's back behind the wheel illegally again, something that he wouldn't be able to do if he was behind bars.