Driver hits cyclist, left for dead. Let off in court.

esuhl

It was too lenient

Johno100 wrote: »

But clearly a decision was taken by the police/CPS based on the available evidence to prosecute for speeding and not for Dangerous Driving. Accordingly he was sentenced for the offence he pleaded guilty to.

And you're fine with that? In my opinion, someone caught driving at 154mph should receive a harsher punishment than a 56 day ban.

He should have had his car taken off him, a £5,000 fine, and a 5-year ban. And have to attend a driver awareness program and pass an advanced driving test to get his licence back.

Johno100

It was too harsh

esuhl wrote: »

He should have had his car taken off him, a £5,000 fine, and a 5-year ban. And have to attend a driver awareness program and pass an advanced driving test to get his licence back.

In you and those shroud waving idiots at Brake's wet dream perhaps.

But back in the real world those were not options available to the magistrates who dealt with the case that was brought in front of them.

Johnmcl7

I'd be curious to know why he wasn't charged with dangerous driving which is normal for such excessive speeds on their own without any other factors. The low sentence for the speeding seems odd as well even though the options were reduced, they could still have given a longer ban although it's hard to find cases at that speed where it was purely speeding they were being charged for.

John

lincroft1710

I understand that there has to be an element of deliberate intent to endanger life or extreme recklessness, otherwise it was careless driving or driving without due care and attention. Seem to remember reading that with DD it was difficult to obtain a conviction, hence the lower offence.

It's quite possible that CPS know that with DD they will get a not guilty plea, but a lesser offence will be met with a guilty plea and thus easier to deal with in court.

Johnmcl7

lincroft1710 wrote: »

I understand that there has to be an element of deliberate intent to endanger life or extreme recklessness, otherwise it was careless driving or driving without due care and attention. Seem to remember reading that with DD it was difficult to obtain a conviction, hence the lower offence.

It's quite possible that CPS know that with DD they will get a not guilty plea, but a lesser offence will be met with a guilty plea and thus easier to deal with in court.

Speed on its own on its own is enough for Dangerous Driving if it's high enough, England/Wales and Scotland differ on this as they will go for DD at lower speeds in Scotland:

Speeding at 155mph (nothing else) - 12 month ban and 180 hours community service:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/2014672.stm

Speeding at 130mph - 15 month ban and community service:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=44058

When searching through PePiPoo for similar offences to the Seat driver it was difficult to find any at 150mph+ where they didn't go for DD (each of which was successful). Furthermore, even if they did fail to get Dangerous Driving it doesn't stop them going for a lesser offence.

Also even all that aside, it was a very lenient penalty for speeding.

John

Johno100

It was too harsh

They did go for a lesser offence - speeding.

Not sure what you mean by "even if they did fail to get Dangerous Driving"? He was charged with speeding and pleaded guility, by letter, to that offence. He never faced a Dangerous Driving charge.

You've provided examples of a couple of Dangerous Driving convictions with bans of 12 and 15 months. So how long a ban should, the much lesser charge of speeding, have merited if you were on the bench?

Johnmcl7

Johno100 wrote: »

They did go for a lesser offence - speeding.

Not sure what you mean by "even if they did fail to get Dangerous Driving"? He was charged with speeding and pleaded guility, by letter, to that offence. He never faced a Dangerous Driving charge.

You've provided examples of a couple of Dangerous Driving convictions with bans of 12 and 15 months. So how long a ban should, the much lesser charge of speeding, have merited if you were on the bench?

Not sure why you're quoting everything of mine out of context, I was fully aware the Seat driver was never charged with dangerous driving which is why I never claimed he was. The person I was replying to suggested the reason the Seat driver wasn't charged with dangerous driving was because they didn't think they could get that to stick and if they didn't, they couldn't then charge with speeding however I was pointing out this isn't the case - if they failed to get Dangerous Driving, they could still go for speeding (which has happened in cases where a Dangerous Driving charge has been applied for excess speeds and failed) therefore that isn't a bar to attempting dangerous driving in the first instance.

You've repeatedly posted implying you think the ban is an acceptable length for speeding but it doesn't follow the magistrates guidelines - they specify up to a 56 day ban for 110mph but that penality is not a maximum and it's not unusual to see drivers getting three to four month bans for 130-140mph although few cases I'm aware of at 150mph+ are speeding only. Possibly there were reasons why the magistrates were so unusually lenient but so far, we don't them but it is clear it was a very lenient sentence whatever your opinion on the offence.

Normally I'm the one to explain to people why a penalty is less than what they thought it should be because that was within the guidlelines but in this case the initial charge was lenient and the sentencing extremely lenient. That sort of speed on any public road is exceptionally dangerous and to end up with such a low penalty is really surprising.

John

unforeseen

It was about right

TBH all this conjecture is pointless.

Unless you know somebody in the CPS/Police who was involved in putting this case together then you will never know the reasons why no DD charge or why the penalty was as it was.

Johno100

It was too harsh

esuhl wrote: »

Wow. So you think it's fine to drive over 150mph?! What an idiot!

What makes you think that legislation can never be changed? Why are so willing to see people let off serious offences? Back in the real world, if legislation is not available to appropriately punish offenders, it can be changed so that any future crimes can be dealt with appropriately.

It may be beyond your intellect, but debating whether a sentence is too lenient can occur regardless of any sentencing guidelines that magistrates must adhere to.

So introduce those draconian punishments for a speeding offence. What would a conviction for Dangerous Driving warrant - public execution?

esuhl

It was too lenient

Johno100 wrote: »

So introduce those draconian punishments for a speeding offence. What would a conviction for Dangerous Driving warrant - public execution?

It depends on the specific nature of the offence. I'm shocked that you think it's not that bad to drive at 150+ mph and the driver should only be banned for 56 days. Or is that too harsh, and you'd like him let off scot free?