Per this week's CW mag the Lord Cheige Justice is to rule on whether a 12 MONTH sentence served on a driver was too lenient.
Background:
{quote="CW"]
August 2007: 18 year old driver collided with a 55 year old cyclist - who died at the scene.
The 18 year old maintained a "not guilty plea" until shortly before his trial. He admitted to a charge of dangerous driving and that this had caused the cyclist's death.
The judge sentencing him in FEB 2009 (Lincoln Crown Court) rejected a suggestion that the driver was on his mobile phone at the time or immediately before the collision.
When the driver was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment - the relatives were shcoked and disappointed.
Sentencing guidelines suggest 2-5 years[/quote]
(:yesyes: -they do - and why the other cases with the phones got 4 years each.
CW wrote:
The relatives asked this case to go to the Appeal court as this was "unduly lenient". The family's asserted that the driver had been sending and reading text messages. They said the judge should have considered this as this is a much more serious offence.
The driver was driving along a CLEAR >> STAIGHT >>>road in the early evening. The cyclist had TWO rear lights in working order .. switched on. The driver claimed he "never saw him"
I am right in trying to get the COAST message and how to do it properly across. It does not matter if all here are COAST aware. Our lurks may not be, They may just learn something to prevent further tragedies such as this one.
But this next bit is pure CW journalese and really difficult to prove beyond doubt to a court of law who deal in black/white facts. The driver shares the same interests as countless others .. who would include our own kids and ourselves perhaps to a lesser degree.
By this I mean ,, I have played these games with the Mad Cats and all our more adult kids on the wii thing.
It has not turned us into hooning morons (or twazaks in Wildy speak) out there.
Nor does it reflect on the offence as it appears to be "after the event"
Johnny - excuse my injection of Messrs
and
in the next bit.
I will make a couple of comments as they occur to me.
CW wrote:
It is claimed that between his hearing and his sentencing hearing the driver became a fan of Jeremy Clarkson
(WHAT THE???
)
on his Facebook site where participants are challenged in a motorcar racing computer competition
I HOPE they do not force this one in the Appeal as it's not actually relevant to the actual offence and does prove "attitude". His crime was one of blatant stupidity as regards reading texts whilst driving. His arrogance or may "self protecting denial of doing something awful" lay in his adamant "not guilty stance" until his advisors advised him that he would do best to plead guilty as charged.
As regards the above quoted comment..
You could say we did this all the time as kids with our Scalextric sets., The Mad Cats even have the "Police Pursuit version" complete with speed cams and they even bought those ornaments showing Pc Evil with a hairdrier .. which they have placed "thoughtfully" around their playset
But then they use their games to try to teach their kids that speed matters can have tragic outcome all the same. Quite an impressive "toy town" they have in their attic
I do not see this has much bearing on this case - the solicitors appear to be arguing that this Facebook account reflects his view of road safety. Perhaps But then you could argue the same for any of these games or film preferences. I still enjoy all the old "gangster movies" but this does not make me a "James Cagney type "hoodlum"
I will grant his solicitors make a very fair point in the next paragraph and I hope they stressed this mostly in their Appeal against leniency. I agree he should have faced more
CW wrote:
The family's solicitors also pointed out that the driver changed his plea to guily just one week before the trial was due... and that giving him a "full one third credit for a guilty plea
was inappropriateSentencing guidelines say a discount is normally only given to defendants who indicated a "willingness to plead guily at the first reasonable opportunity"
This driver appears to have changed his plea after an independent expert he commissioned questioned his account of events
The victim's son told CW:
"As a family we have had 17 difficult months and we can't help but feel the sentence was unduly lenient. It is no deterrent to those out there who think they can drive safely whilst using a mobile phone."
The victim Leigh D was an experienced cyclist who cycled 200-300 miles per week. In 2006 he rode from John O Gorats to Lands End On the night he was killed - he was testing cycle lights prior to a 225 charity ride which he intended to do two days after his birthday, He was killed allegedly on his birthday
I wish the family success. Guy deserves the full 5 years really.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
