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

Johno100

It was too harsh

esuhl wrote: »

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?

I haven't passed comment on the severity of the sentence passed, because I'm not aware of the full circumstances of the offence. More precisely; I'm not aware of what case was presented to the magistrates by the police/CPS.

However based on the sentencing guidelines for magistrates:-

http://www.mjpmotoring.co.uk/guidelines-speeding-offences.php

And in the absence of any "Factors indicating higher culpability" I can see how he received the punishment that he did.

Johnmcl7

Johno100 wrote: »

I haven't passed comment on the severity of the sentence passed, because I'm not aware of the full circumstances of the offence. More precisely; I'm not aware of what case was presented to the magistrates by the police/CPS.

However based on the sentencing guidelines for magistrates:-

http://www.mjpmotoring.co.uk/guidelines-speeding-offences.php

And in the absence of any "Factors indicating higher culpability" I can see how he received the punishment that he did.

The guidelines are here:

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MCSG_web_-_October_2014.pdf

Somehow you keep misinterpreting them, the 56 days is not a maximum - that's the guideline for offences around 110mph and magistrates can and should apply longer bans for speeds above that range. This is covered on page 105:

Some of the individual offence guidelines above include penalty points and/or periods of
disqualification in the sentence starting points and ranges; however, the court is not precluded from
sentencing outside the range where the facts justify it

Given offences of 120mph-130mph usually attract three months bans, I don't know why you keep sticking to the fact that a 56 day ban was reasonable despite the fact it was nearly 50% over the highest speed defined in the guidelines.

Whatever you believe, a 56 day ban is absolutely not in line with the magistrates guidelines.

John

Johno100

It was too harsh

So you're getting vexed over a possible few months extra ban, OK re-visit the sentence and give him a six month ban, happy then?

unforeseen

It was about right

This thread now seems to call into competency the Police and CPS for the choice of charges and the case that was put together and presented to the magistrate and also the magistrate for not giving the sentence that they THINK should have been given.

All without a shred of evidence apart from a reporter's story.

Makes you wonder why we spend so much on justice when people on these boards believe that they can do a far better job and hand out more draconian sentences than people appointed to the job and with less evidence.

If they think they are so good why don't they apply to be a magistrate? They can then hang, draw and quarter to their hearts content

Johnmcl7

unforeseen wrote: »

This thread now seems to call into competency the Police and CPS for the choice of charges and the case that was put together and presented to the magistrate and also the magistrate for not giving the sentence that they THINK should have been given.

All without a shred of evidence apart from a reporter's story.

Makes you wonder why we spend so much on justice when people on these boards believe that they can do a far better job and hand out more draconian sentences than people appointed to the job and with less evidence.

If they think they are so good why don't they apply to be a magistrate? They can then hang, draw and quarter to their hearts content

You are incorrect about there being 'not a shred of evidence' , the police force which caught the driver not only posted the details of the offence publicly which were that the driver was caught speeding at 154mph. There are some offences for which the sentencing has a wide range of penalties and can also be very emotive such as death by dangerous driving which can cover a short stint in prison to a very long one and sentencing is based on a wide range of factors the details of which may not be known publicly. In those cases I'm more wary of giving my opinion due to not knowing that information and the effect it has on the penalties. Also, no-one is calling the competency of the police into question - they have done their part correctly, it's after that it's gone wrong and they've also questioned the lenient sentence as well.

Speeding offences however are much simpler as there's only a single factor for lower culpability which is that it was a genuine emergency however there has been no information including from the police themselves that was was a factor in this case. The only information provided by the police on the sentencing was that they were disappointed by it whereas if there had been a genuine emergency responsible for both the lenient charge and sentencing, you'd have expected them or someone else to have said something because as it is, it doesn't look good for them.

It's nothing to do with what people think the sentencing should have been, it's based on fact - the guidelines the magistrates use are linked above and you can skip to page 131 for the range of penalties as well as the appendix to understand why those penalties are starting points and not the maximum limits. You can also browse http://forums.pepipoo.com for a wider range of cases - most speeding offences above 150mph are successful with Dangerous Driving which is a minimum 12 month ban and in some cases community hours as well while many lower speeding offences around 120-130mph are three month bans or more.

I have no interest in dishing out severe penalties, I'm not sure what you see so wrong with a convicted offender receiving a sentence appropriate to the seriousness of the offence within the guidelines defined as such.

Even putting aside the fact that it was a very lenient sentence by those defined guidelines, I'm surprised that some people have no issue with it and even defend such a weak sentence. I've driven a Seat Cupra on a racetrack as the local one uses them for racing tuition and while they're fast cars, getting them to 154mph needs quite a bit of work and not just an accidental burst of speed. I've also driven cars at high speed on race tracks and even at 'lower' speeds at around 120mph it's still quite alarming how quickly everything happens, how much longer it takes to brake and how minor errors can easily put the car out of control. I can't imagine driving at those sort of speeds on a public road where there's many factors outwith control causing an exceptional level of risk to both the driver and anyone else using the road.

I'm not a left wing cyclist who wants ridiculous penalties for driving offences, I've enjoyed driving fast cars and would so more if I could afford it but I do it legally and I don't see why some people such as yourself think it unreasonable that someone caught driving at such a speed should receive an appropriate penalty as defined by the laws and guidelines in the UK. I've also provided detailed links which back this up while those, yourself included who have repeatedly questioned the validity have completely failed to provide anything to verify their information.

John

Johno100

It was too harsh

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

You are incorrect about there being 'not a shred of evidence' , the police force which caught the driver not only posted the details of the offence publicly which were that the driver was caught speeding at 154mph.

In a Tweet at the time of the incident.

Was that the drivers maximum speed or his average speed over a measured distance?

What are the force/NPCC/CPS/manufacturers of the speed measuring equipments guidelines on the accuracy of the particular equipment used at those very high speeds?

What speed actually appeared on the paperwork that landed in front of the magistrates?

What allowance if any was made for the drivers guilty plea?

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

Also, no-one is calling the competency of the police into question - they have done their part correctly, it's after that it's gone wrong and they've also questioned the lenient sentence as well.

Speak for yourself, I'm certainly not ruling that out as a possibility and of course if it was their mistake they are going to do anything they can to deflect the blame onto the magistrates or the CPS.

Or perhaps they forgot that heat of the moment tweet and the headline "154mph speeder caught" and got caught out when the headline didn't match the charge as brought to court and dealt with by magistrates.

esuhl

It was too lenient

Johno100 wrote: »

I haven't passed comment on the severity of the sentence passed, because I'm not aware of the full circumstances of the offence. More precisely; I'm not aware of what case was presented to the magistrates by the police/CPS.

However based on the sentencing guidelines for magistrates:-

http://www.mjpmotoring.co.uk/guidelines-speeding-offences.php

And in the absence of any "Factors indicating higher culpability" I can see how he received the punishment that he did.

Well, then you've completely missed the point of this thread! :rotfl:

The debate was whether, in other posters' opinion, the sentences were too light for the crimes committed.

I don't think anyone here (apart from you) cares about current sentencing guidelines, limitations on magistrates, etc. Sure, they help explain why criminals are being "let off". But the question was whether, with the information give, you think that they are being let off lightly or not.

The fact that you ignored this question and defended the trivial sentences handed down makes me think that you don't see anything particularly bad about driving at 154mph (or nearly killing someone and leaving them for dead at the side of the road).

Johno100

It was too harsh

esuhl wrote: »

Well, then you've completely missed the point of this thread! :rotfl:

The debate was whether, in other posters' opinion, the sentences were too light for the crimes committed.

I don't think anyone here (apart from you) cares about current sentencing guidelines, limitations on magistrates, etc. Sure, they help explain why criminals are being "let off". But the question was whether, with the information give, you think that they are being let off lightly or not.

Do you want to have another read of the relevant portion of the thread, you are the only poster seemingly living in some Daily Mail inspired hang 'em and flog 'em, "If I was in charge..." alternative dimension. The rest of us are discussing, based on what is known, the actual facts of the case reported and seeking to understand the sentence actually passed.

esuhl wrote: »

The fact that you ignored this question and defended the trivial sentences handed down makes me think that you don't see anything particularly bad about driving at 154mph (or nearly killing someone and leaving them for dead at the side of the road).

I have given my view regarding the sentence passed in the final paragraph of the post you have quoted.

esuhl

It was too lenient

Johno100 wrote: »

Do you want to have another read of the relevant portion of the thread, you are the only poster seemingly living in some Daily Mail inspired hang 'em and flog 'em, "If I was in charge..." alternative dimension. The rest of us are discussing, based on what is known, the actual facts of the case reported and seeking to understand the sentence actually passed.

If you think a harsher sentence than a 56-day ban for driving at 84mph over the speed limit is "Daily Mail inspired hang 'em and flog 'em", then there's something wrong with you.

Johno100 wrote: »

I have given my view regarding the sentence passed in the final paragraph of the post you have quoted.

No you haven't. You said you could see how the sentence was arrived at; not whether you thought that someone driving at 154mph should receive a harsher sentence.

The Suffolk PCC branded the sentence a "joke":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-36963826

Johno100

It was too harsh

esuhl wrote: »

If you think a harsher sentence than a 56-day ban for driving at 84mph over the speed limit is "Daily Mail inspired hang 'em and flog 'em", then there's something wrong with you.

No you haven't. You said you could see how the sentence was arrived at; not whether you thought that someone driving at 154mph should receive a harsher sentence.

Perhaps an extra couple of months ban may have been fitting. But certainly not the hysterical draconian punishment you suggested for a speeding offence.

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.

And let me guess, car taken off him and not returned?