British Justice?

Am I missing something here?

The scumbag killed someone. Is that not manslaughter? I'm sure I've heard the term "Vehicular Manslaughter" before.

What if he'd been having a laugh with a air rifle & killed her. Whatever item he used it was still (at best) his negligence which caused the death. Can the childs parents sue in a civil court?

AndyS wrote: Am I missing something here? The scumbag killed someone. Is that not manslaughter? I'm sure I've heard the term "Vehicular Manslaughter" before. What if he'd been having a laugh with a air rifle & killed her. Whatever item he used it was still (at best) his negligence which caused the death. Can the childs parents sue in a civil court?

The fact somebody died doesn't make it an offence of manslaughter, there is far more to it than that. You've got to show gross negligence in relation to the driving act itself, if you are going to go for gross negligence manslaughter. It is the actions that led to it (the driving not the fact he was uninsured etc) that matter.


Edited by livvy

(magistrate's court - that means a mason!)   So your basically saying its a masonic conspiracy?

Mike Fishwick wrote: Do not take my comments re the ethnic origin of the car theif as being racist - my meaning was simply that with islamic riots around the country regarding the cartoons of the Prophet, the government probably told those running our judicial system to go soft on anyone with an islamic-sounding name, in case it provoked another riot. Think this knd of thing does not happen? On a smaller scale, an ex-traffic officer of my accquaintance was not permitted to pursue (for example) a stolen car into a certain area of Birmingham, as an arrest in such an area would result in the 'Community Leaders' claiming that the police were victimising his people. The normal Islamic people are probably just as upset by this matter as anyone else, for they will see that it may provoke undeserved resentment against them. Remember - Islaam preaches honesty and care for children etc, and is not far removed fomr Christianity in many ways - a pity the extremists never think about that.

I don't see that in this case at all.

He was convicted wasn't he, he pleaded guilty & was given a sentence that was nearly half of the maximum available. That isn't  appeasement in order to placate a section of the community, that is quite normal.

The case does more to display that there is insufficient offences available on the statute for this kind of thing & insufficient sentencing power than it does anything to do with race or political correctness in this country.

Robmw wrote: Livvy Your comments were totally expected. I am afraid you are in the minority . You do not see public opinion . Public Opinion is - they are disgusted, people from ALL walks of life are disgusted by the crime and its lack of punishment. Look at the newspapers , look at the threads to this subject, listen to Question Time on the BBC then make an opinion. I have based my opinion on what I have learnt from experience of life , from what I have read, from what I have heard on Radio and TV. Remember that punishment is supposed to be a deterrent. This travesty of justice. It should not be allowed to happen again. Please state here on this forum whether you feel 12 weeks for stealing a car, driving without insurance, leaving the scene of an accident is a fair sentence. Remember that accident killed a life. A simple Yes or No will do.

I'm not missing the point at all robmw

As I said I think that there should be greater power to deal with this.
I would support a longer sentence for what happened.

But in order for that to happen firstly the accused has to be convicted of an offence & then sentenced with regards to that offence, not with regard to another unconvicted one. Any sentence for breaking the law has to be within the law itself.

You can't convict him of failing to stop after an accident (which has a small custodial sentence available for sentencing) & then use the sentencing powers for murder (which has far greater sentencing powers.)

People complain about the sentence because of a lack of understanding. They think there is scope to serve out a greater punishment because they look at the end result (the death of a 3 year old) rather than what actual offences the person has been convicted of. You are sentenced more for what part your actions play in something (intent/recklessness) than what the consequences of it were.

They complain about the sentence, but there wasn't much more could be done with that.
The real problem is that there isn't a suitable offence or punishment available in law at the moment & a proposed change of that is on the way (& was on the books before this case even came to light).

You keep saying he stole the car, but it doesn't say he was convicted of stealing the car. It may be alleged but not proved as is required. He was convicted of no insurance, but this only carries a fine & penalty points. He was convicted of careless driving, again fine & points. He was convicted of failing to stop & report, this does carry a custodial sentence & he was given a custodial sentence that would be pretty much par for the course considering his plea of guilty. That's all he was cahrged with because that's the offences he commited that were capable of proof.

Yes all of that may be woefully inadequate given the outcome of the collision, but the court can only sentence within the law.

When the new offence of death by careless driving comes in, with the sentencing available for that he would probably only get a 2-3 years inside in these circumstances. That's better, but it's still not going to bring her back.

A judge can't set a sentence based on public opinion, they have to look at it objectively & sentence with regard to the options available in law.

There will of course come a nasty flipside for everyone with the introduction of this new offence (because such a wide net will catch many, not just offenders like the person in this case). If you are doing 40 in a 30 & for whatever reason you are invloved in a fatal collision (ie a child runs into the road & you kill them), then you may find yourself spending some time in jail with the effect that has on your livelyhood a family. How many people who travel over the speed limit at the moment, have thought about those consequences ?


Edited by livvy

dutch wrote: err was that a yes or no?

Life isn't that simple.
Answers to important issues require greater clarification than a yes or no.

Yes the sentence was what you'd expect for the offences he was convicted of within the current law.
No the current law isn't adequate to deal with these circumstances & proposed changes were in the pipeline before this case, in recognition of that need.

(That's the condensed answer.)


Edited by livvy

or is it a big fat NO justice wasn't metered out?   

It has long been my opinion (I think in tandem with others) that there was insufficient scope to deal with careless driving resulting in death. This is by no means the first case of this type, it is trotted out every time someone is killed & quite foten it results in no custodial sentence at all because there is no custodial penalty for the offences committed.

If this guy had stopped he wouldn't have gone to prison, but he would still have knocked down & killed a 3 year old.

The new legislation will address that, but as I say it will provide a flipside that kicks back because actually proving careless driving is pretty easy, so if anyone is unfortunate enough to be involved in a fatal collision & the act of their driving at the time falls below the standards expected of a reasonable competent driver, then they may end up in prison.


Edited by livvy

It goes much further than that Livvy.

"Upsetting these poor little darlings"....Nigel it seems to me you have a problem with people from ethnic backgrounds. If that can't be inferrred as a insult then...mmmm

Nigel....why don't you elaborate? Only if you care to share it.

And HELL YES the lads punishment wasn't severe enough and thats coming from a "poor little darling"

TBH this is becoming a f****** joke.