Safe Speed Forums

BW, been on holiday? Haven't read much from you recently.

Hi Stephen, and welcome aboard.

I think, much like yourself, that death by dangerous is correct in the Jackson case.

What galls most people, including myself, is that the 5 years dished out to Stephen Jackson doesn't seem at all fair when compared to the neanderthal referred to in this casehighlighted by Ernest, who gets 4.5 years for killing two motorists in considerably different circumstances to the Jackson case.

There realy does need to be some consistency

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Hello basingwerk. Some of us were wondering where you'd got to.


Not quite. That people died is tragic, and I think for most of us that goes without saying. However, the concern was specifically the level of Stephen Jackson's culpability. He may well have been driving below a reasonable standard but the important question here is whether the standard of his driving was a major factor in the deaths. Or indeed whether it was a factor at all given that the other driver was already going at a similar speed before Jackson followed and had a duff tyre as well. Remember also that it seems Jackson was not attempting to get in front or drive particularly close, he was merely following at the same speed. Both Jackson and the surviving passenger deny any racing was going on, and IMO that seems perfectly plausible. The only people who mentioned racing were a couple of the witnesses in the cars they were overtaking.


He pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving on the advice of a lawyer, and probably was unaware that this implied that he was indeed racing. AIUI he always claimed that there was no racing going on and that was backed up by the surviving passenger.


Was John Travolta next to you when you typed that? I don't think the law sends out that message really, or at least does so rather inconsistently. Look at the second case brought up by Ernest Marsh. On the one hand we have a guy who was very drunk, went bananas over a minor knock, and reacted by aggressively tailgating the other car making contact several times, and finally beat the crap out of one of the surviving occupants after the driver had finally crashed. Sentencing is similar to that handed to Jackson who was presumably sober when he merely followed another car at a reasonable distance, albeit at a speed which may have been unwise, which crashed with the result that two died.

Level playing field? I don't think so.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I beg to differ - Ian H was called to investigate a driver whose only crime appeared to be that he was driving so cautiously that other drivers thought he was under the influence of noxious substances, and trying to avoid a tug!!

It sends out a message which results in a lack of respect. There is a saying, "justice must be done, and be seen to be done" which implies that the case must be clearly proven beyond reasonable doubt in the eyes of the population we seek to protect as well as in the courtroom.
Clearly in this case, the law does not appear to have been applied even-handedly, and fairly, especially when viewed in the light of other cases.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

A cheap shot i admit but, shame the law (the courts) can't do that to Burglars, muggers and those who stab others isn't it?

Yeah - they should get it in the neck as well. All the burglars, muggers and stabbers combined cause less injury and death than road slobs.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Yes, to Cardigan in West Wales - life in the slow lane - very nice. Pretty soon, I expect they'll blow a superhighway through there, and it'll go to pot like the rest of the country.

_________________
I stole this .sig

AHH! I take it you are as vocal on forums against smoking, over eating (leading to obesity) health and safety and The NHS.
Of course motorists are often the victim of their own misfortunes, where as muggers, stabbers, and robbers visit their crimes exclusively on others - they don't rob their OWN houses, or stab themselves!
Even pedestrians are often the victims of their own actions, while the motorist takes the blame because he was protected in his car!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

FWIW, let's simplify this a bit if we can.
The guy pleaded "GUILTY AS CHARGED" to causing "DEATH BY DANGEROUS DRIVING". WTF did he expect to happen next? A pat on the back and £200 without passing go or going to jail.
If he was badly advised by his lawyer, that's an entirely different matter. Better advice might well have been to let a jury of his peers decide his guilt, as has been the right of citizens in this country for years. You get the chance to question the prosecution's witnesses and to produce your own and to defend yourself, guided and advised by a barrister of your choice (on legal aid). It may be that his insurance covered him for legal fees in respect of motoring legalities, mine certainly does.
The guy pleaded guilty so must believe that he is, one presumes, and was sentenced by a judge, who had the right to impose whatever sentence he thought fit within the max permitted, which is a lot more than 5 years.
He can appeal the sentence, but not the verdict. If he appeals it will possibly be reduced.
The guy who, whilst drunk and driving and ignoring a red pedestrian crossing light at about 55 in a 30 limit, killed the 18 year old daughter of my daughter's best friend on Christmas Day 2003 got 6 years, reduced to 5 years on appeal. In this case maybe the length of sentence is somewhat harsh, but the appeals system exists just for that reason.
They were having what, in my youth, was called a 'burn-up'. Is there any doubt about that? We all did it when young (?), he was just very unlucky.

Assuming you're talking about Stephen Jackson there, then I think yes, there is doubt that he was having a burn up. Sure, we've all done it but I have to say that if Jackson was 2-3 seconds behind the Fiesta as reported (which doesn't seem to be in dispute AFAICT) then it's got to go down as one of the lamest burn ups ever, especially in 200SX.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Think about it sit back and count out as slow or as quick as you like 2 to 3 seconds,still to close assumption having a bit of a race.

Now if it were 2 to 3 minutes then an entirely different case couldnt even beleive that they were running together let alone racing.

Stephen

Doesn't that rather kill the utility of the two second rule as a guide to safe distances? I use it all the time and I'm damn certain I'm not racing whoever's in front of me. I'm also certain that if I did want to race a Fiesta (assuming I took leave of my sense first, of course ) I could easily get a lot closer than a two to three second gap (somewhere between about 175 feet and 400 feet given the speed Jackson would have been doing). If Jackson had really been racing the Fiesta we might also, given the conditions, have expected him to get caught up in the crash when the Fiesta driver lost it. Doesn't the fact that he was able to stop safely behind the wrecked Fiesta suggest that he had left an adequate gap? If so, does this support the idea that he was racing?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Could have been, I suppose. But at, say, 90mph a 3 second gap is 132 yards, not exactly bumper-to-bumper.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

As others have posted - place the two cases side by side and there seems to be problem. One get 4 and half years for causing death by careless and the otehr 5 years on a dangerous charge on basis that he was racing the other dirver who died.

Reading the news articles .... hard to decide in the Jackson case without being privy to the actual evidence against him. Petition suggests a backfired plea bargain - and the other car - tyres would have undermined handling as well. However, takes two to race and witnesses stated their was evidence of both drivers acting dangerously.,,, Under circumstances - 5 years does seem excessive - but we are only hearing a smidgeon of the evidence - so impossible to decide how far (or even if) this court miscarried the justice. Safety of the conviction would be down to Court of Appeal.

As for the second case.... sentence does mock justice (but would be in keeping with the statutory bench book on sentencing) - and lighter because of the guilty plea. He also got banned for two years.. hopefully this will start on day of release and not be concurrent with the jail term...

Personally - would have liked a life ban given the predisposition to rage fuelled by drink in one so young - and a sentence which did give some scope for anger and drink management. As it is ... probably Jackson has learned a very hard lesson and gained from the experience - but the second case... could be looking at series of future offences....

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

It does seem that if the second sentence was reduced due to pleading guilty, then the first defence solicitor was correct in advising his client to plead guilty, even though in THIS case he was proved wrong.
This is clearly wrong, because if Jackson really was not racing with the Fiesta, he falls victim to the same trap that the conditional offer places some drivers - should they pay up, or risk a stiffer penalty by pleading their case in court.

Driver two CLEARLY drove dangerously, and allowed the victims no chance to abandon the drive, during which he made repeated attempts to ram them, and forced them to adopt a policy of trying to keep ahead (through inexperience). Why should pleading guilty in the face of overwhelming evidence entitle one to a lighter sentence?

In the Jackson case, it does not seem disputed that the victims car was ill-equipped tyrewise, AND was some distance in front of his car, which while it COULD have been pursuing, may also simply have been adopting a similar stupid attitude to speed for the conditions.
As has been pointed out, despite being in a superior vehicle, he was NOT tailgating the vehicle in front, nor was he trying to force it off the road in order to pass. In fact he was far enough back to preclude a passing manouvre, yet the object of a race is to arrive before your competitor - not 132 yards behind!

Let's say I was doing 90 mph down the M6, when a car doing 98 mph catches me up and passes me, as we both pass slower cars in lanes 1 & 2.
As he slowly pulls ahead, he has a blow out, and totals his car, killing himself in the process. Witnesses in lanes 1 & 2 who saw the two of us pass AND the scene of the accident, only saw the two of us together, and claim we were clearly racing each other.
Would I be guilty of causing death by dangerous driving?
Would it be wrong of the witnesses to assume I was racing?
Would the defence solicitor way up the case against me and say plead guilty for a lesser sentence, or fight it and risk getting the full weight of the law thrown at me?
Would I heed his advice???? Would I heed his advice????

Would I heed his advice???? It doesn't seem to be about justice any more, but the luck of the draw!!

Jackson admitted he was speeding. He was driving dangerously.
But causing death??? If in ANY doubt, err on the side of caution, not hand down the maximum sentence.
Even without the nitty gritty evidence wise, this case is clearly in need of closer scrutiny at appeal, if not just to ease the concern of the public.
We cannot allow the Basingwerks of this world to allow their prejudices to interfere with justice.
It MUST be seen to be done, and this has NOT happened in either of these cases.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

In the Jackson case, it's clear to me that the two vehicles were driving fast together. It's far from clear to me that they were 'racing'. Without 'racing' I cannot understand how Stephen Jackson should bear any responsibility.

I'm also very concerned about his guilty plea. Having spoken to the family on the phone, I'm quite clear that Stephen expected to plead not guilty because he knew he wasn't racing.

But the legal aid barrister advised him to plead guilty a few minutes before the hearing. I can well understand that Stephen wasn't equipped to argue with the barrister, and accepted the advice of someone far more experienced, despite the fact that the barrister was completely wrong. This seems to me to be the fundamental point of injustice.

Assuming for a second that I'm right and the case was decided ONLY because of faulty legal advice, does the law offer any protection? Can faulty legal advice cause a mistrial?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

That's because the subject of the thread is the court outcome. Plenty of threads around here are concerned with reducing the likelihood of crashes. As you very well know.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

This advice is the crux of it - the points I have illustrated clearly would make it difficult for even an older driver without legal experience to argue with the advice of his counsel, and also show the difference between driving 'together' and racing.
I would be dissapointed if our legal system did not have a process where this type of case could not be reviewed and evaluated, especially in the light of the more recent case, where not only was the sentence unduly lenient, but the charges seemed wrong too.

The public at large will lose respect for the law if it is not fair, and seen to be fair.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

The facts are:
1. They were both driving very fast, knew each other (or so it seems), the conditions were bad (they were having a 'burn-up')
2. The CPS decided there was a case of 'Causing Death....' to answer
3. Jackson only received advice a few minutes before tthe hearing - very strange for such a serious charge. Is that what really happened?
4. He stood up in court and pleaded 'GUILTY' to the very serious charge.
5. No attempt to bargain with the CPS was tried. For example, no-one said to the CPS that a 'not-guilty' plea would be entered and robustly defended, but that if the 'Causing Death'''' was dropped, then the defendant would plead guilty to Dangerous Driving.
6. The charge may, in hindsight, seem unfair, but the way to respond to any unfair charge is by a 'not guilty' plea. If he was badly advised, then whatever steps possible to 'undo' a possible wrong can be taken. However, he pleaded GUILTY, let's not lose sight of that fact.

I'm not so sure. Many comments are concerned with 'how to get off with it', rather than road safety. This constant theme rather belies the claim that this is a 'road safety web site’.

I think many ‘safe-speeders’ are laughing up their sleeves when they claim to have a general road-safety manifesto. In fact, all they really want to achieve is for people who commit road crimes to be safe from punishment, which is a very different thing from road safety!

_________________
I stole this .sig