Safe Speed Forums

i spotted this on the local news earlier.

Two boy racers jailed for killing a newlywed policewoman have had their sentences cut by one year by judges at the Court of Appeal.
Lorna Green, 33, from Guildford, Surrey, was the pillion passenger when her husband's motorbike was hit by a car involved in a high-speed race.

Judges ruled the original terms imposed on Anthony Antoniou, 22, and Gavin Delaney-McDermott, 23, were too high.

The men were sentenced in October 2003 to seven and five years respectively.

'Bumper to bumper'

The pair also had their 10-year driving bans reduced to seven years at the hearing on Friday.

Antoniou, 21, of Green Lane, Norbury, south London, was jailed after a trial, while Delaney-McDermott, 22, from Streatham Vale, pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving.

The men had been racing their Golf GTIs "bumper to bumper" in Mitcham, south London, in the lead up to the smash that killed Mrs Green in August 2002.

Her firefighter husband Robert, 36, lost both legs in the accident.

Looks like another case of all for the criminal and not for the victims.

_________________
please help me ask for a change in the laws surrounding road deaths by signing my petition
http://www.gopetition.co.uk/online/4549.html

mahali

You have our every sympathy. It dies not help at all when criminals - all criminals - whatever they did - receive lenient sentences or have sentences cut on appeal.

It certainly does little to improve relationships between repsonsible members of the public and motorists when they receive 6-12 month bans under a totting up procedure for what appears to be "trial by speed camera".

There is yet another for people here to debate and ponder over in the press.

Amy Gonzales - aged 18 - was killed on Crhistmas Day 2003 on her return from mass.

A 22 year old male was one and half times above the legal alchol limit when he struck her. He was speeding in true sense of word - 54 mph in a 30 mph speed limit - near a church.

The driver did receive a 15 year driving ban (reduced on appeal to 7 years) and a prison term of 6 years )reduced on appeal to 5 years). With remission he will be free in 2 years....

The family are naturally fuming as they feel justice has not been served. This man (per press reports) was apparently out and about and still drinking in his local whilst the deceased and her boyfriend (still on crutches) were being treated in hospital.

The 18 year old was studying for her A levels, and the boyfirend was a trainee PE teacher. They were crossing the road when the 22 year old "appeared at speed out of nowhere"

(They were treated in a Cambs hospital - one medical member of this family assisted in the operation to repair the collapsed lung of the PE teacher - so we know this story is actually a fair report of this incident!)

The driver had been drinking after finishing work for the Christmas holiday. He first claimed the pair had run out in front of him. Later he told police that he "simply had not seen them".

In his favour - he was man enough to plead guilty at Peterborough Crown Court to causing death by dangerous driving and whilst under influence of alcohol.

The Appeal judges decided that his sentence was "manifestly excessive" (perhaps a 15 year driving ban and a 6 year jail term were harsh from his point of view - given that he did plead guilty and did not run away ... but to the families involved.....)

The judges decided in their wisdom that the sentence did not deserve to be "so close to the 10 year maximum".

But what did Cambs do?

According to our relative down there.... you guessed... Amy's death is commemorated alright ..... by a ..... speed .... camera.....

I feel that I agree with the original sentence here - rather this guy gets 15 year ban than normal responsible drivers be penalised and may be receive a 12 month ban under totting up for slightly illegal, but othereiwse safe. driving.

OK - accept - Bib would not have prevented this either as not omnipresent .... but hardly think a speed camera would have prevented this tragedy either. Man was drunk and his choice of speed was dangerous as result of his drunken state.

Perhaps the landlord or his mates should have prevented him from driving - or even - dare I say "grassed him up!" if he insisted on driving under the influence.

But reading stories like this does not endear me to the public, nor does it help mahali - who doubtlessly has also read this story as it appeared in almost every tabloid paper today.

Of course - this is part of the justice we want ... police who target the really dangerous and help the not so skilled become more skilled - as we try to do up in my patch

We also want a justice system which metes out a punishment which fits the actual crime.

No need to repeat everything, but couldn't agree more with the above.

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

Mahali,

I read that story along with two othe similar ones in the papers yesterday. Apparently the sentence was reduced because they showed remorse. Well I'm sorry, but the cynic in me wonders how similar self-pity can look to remorse, and what a shame people can't be made to feel remorse (if thats what it is) before they choose to use their local streets as arace track.
Society does seem to have a problem in adequately punishing people for causing the death of another person using a motor vehicle doesn't it? In fact, it's whilst pondering cases like this one that I often wonder to myself whether I'm backing the right horse (in Safe Speed) in this whole speed camera debate. I have to remind myself that these incidents are caused by a minority of badly behaved people (who are quite likely to be as badly behaved on foot as they are behind the wheel) against whom speed cameras and talivans are utterly useless. The vast majority of people know the difference between appropriate and reckless behaviour.

I Totally agree. How can remorse come into it? They decide their actions and should be made payable. End of story.Guilty- Definition-RESPONSIBLE FOR AN OFFENCE OR WRONGDOING.

_________________
RoADA Member -GOLD 2008
If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.

Well said In Gear and others.

Let me make it clear that I am wholly supportive of appropriately severe sentences for people who cause death and injury on the roads through reckless driving behaviour.

However, it's often said that "hard cases make bad law", and there are several important points to consider:

* sentencing should be broadly similar in comparable cases. If a judge in one case passes a sentence far stricter, or far more lenient, than a judge in a comparable case, then the Court of Appeal has a duty to override it. There are also numerous recent cases of stricter sentences being imposed. Those don't tend to gain the same column inches.

* if the "revised" sentence had been imposed from the start, there may have been some muttering about it, but there wouldn't have been anything like the same outcry as there was about the reduced sentence. So judges should get the sentence right in the first place

* guidelines as to the appropriateness of sentencing for particular cases are ultimately for Parliament to set, not judges

* it is also doubtful to what extent sentences in road traffic cases influence driver behaviour, as even the most irresponsible driver does not believe that he is going to kill or maim someone. That isn't an argument against severe sentences, but we must recognise that their deterrent value will be very small

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Co-incidence perhaps, but todays Sunday Expres features their campaign to change the law regarding motoring deaths.

In a nutshell they want:

A new criminal offence of "death by driving" to cover the whole spectrum of offences between 'careless' and 'dangerous'
All road death and injury cases are tried in a crown court
Bring pressure on the CPS to treat road deaths as seriously as other killings
The police must investigate death or serious injury on the roads as exhaustively as they investigate other instances
Launch a campaign to educate motorists about the risks of negligent driving

Its honourabe and well intentioned but as PeterE said:



Agreed, if such a change in the law would force into the thick skulls of those who habitually drive in a crass and dangerous manner the idea that they may just get banged up as a consequence of their actions, then fine. But will it?



Absolutely, but of course the other end of the spectrum is seeing inncoent people up in court. What happens if someone steps off the pavement directly in front of a driver proceeding in a perfectly lawful and safe manner? Does that individual have to endure months of hell as the case is brought before the courts? I would like to think that where the incident was cut-and-dried (ie definately not the drivers fault) it would go no further - but they wouldn't get it right every time.

And In-Gear, what do you think about their insistence on teh police investigating each death/injury more fully. What impact would this have on your time/resources? This is not to infer such cases aren't worthy of fuller investigation BTW.

Yes, I'm well aware of this, which is why I said "appropriately severe" in the original post.

It would be quite wrong for drivers who have been the victim of someone else's misjudgment or irresponsibility to be dragged through the courts.

I've given this a lot of thought, but on consideration I feel it probably would be a good idea to introduce a new offence of "causing death by negligent driving" which sits between "causing death by dangerous driving" and "careless driving".

This would perhaps allow the courts the option of disqualification for up to three years and a one year prison sentence - which in most cases would probably be suspended.

Currently there is too much of a gulf between the two available offences.

But in my view this would mostly apply to offences currently judged at the lower end of the "causing death by dangerous driving" spectrum.

I know of several cases where people have been convicted of this offence where all they seem to have been guilty of is a one-off error of judgment.

In one case in particular, a driver was convicted of CDBDD and given a sentence of imprisonment when he hit a grandmother and granddaughter crossing a busy road in Manchester. He had not been drinking, he was driving within the speed limit, but because of the poor visibility (it was dusk) he did not see them. They were perhaps unwisely standing in the middle of a wide road waiting for a gap in the opposite direction. He was undoubtedly guilty of some offence, and no doubt would have been mortified by what happened, but, apart from that one error, his driving was not dangerous, and his sentence was unjust. The prison sentence was later quashed on appeal, fortunately.

And dare I mention Gary Hart?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Fear that is the problem mate. As posted on by me on PH - deterrent for the likes of most here ... but for for the hard core?

Local Manchester and Bolton papers were full of a story concerning one now 19 year old who had been banned twice before for dangerous driving - the second ban imposed in April 2003 for 3 years....

He drove his car at such a speed that the engine ripped out of the chassis and his friend (back seat passenger - perhaps not weearing seat belt) catapulted out of the rear window and collided with a lamp post some 40 metres away..... Driver ran off and turned up in hospital with surprisingly minor injuries under a false name. His pal is learning how to talk again and unlikely to either regain use of legs and left arm.
Bolton Crown Court - according to reports sentenced him to 15 months prison and another two year ban. (Which means he could be driving by 2006 ...????)

However I agree with Peter's point of view because we have the "accidental" aspect. Mahali's case is different.... fairly obvious from the evidence of 100 witnesses and those involved that the standard of driving by the person who was catalyst to sequence of events was not "accidental but deliberately reckless" The account leaves few other conclusion - and it is tragic that this person cannot be brought to account.








I read the Express account. Overall - agree that we need to have redress in the courts for extreme cases ... but some of the cases in the paper are not necessarily down to sheer recklessness.

The case of the cute three year old - Leonie - for example. My youngest son (proudly reminds us that he is now "six and three quarters") and the our foster son who is just as proud to tell us that he is now four and five sixths! ) Bless.... ) Both will tell rest of family how to cross a road ... and will describe the process involved quite accurately. My six year old can even tell me the approximate speed of an approaching car. However, I would not allow either of these boys to cross a road to the ice cream van in the company of the eleven year old foster child (who also demonstrates a good understanding of road sense). So I would certainly not allow a three year old to cross a road - even a residential road - with only another under ten to care for her.

Perhaps my wife and I are old fashioned parents.......

Leonie (3) was in the care of her 9 year old brother. According to the papers little Leonie did see the car and tried to run - but her little legs and her development at that stage of her life were against her . Perhaps a responsible adult may have been able to keep her out of harm's way.

I would not have let her cross any road without being present myself.

The parents (Mr and Mrs Bradford) of the 14 year old insist that a case of manslaughter should have been brought against the man who collided with the boy and killed him.

Grief ... anger.... you want revenge. I would dearly have loved to have personally squeezed the life out of the person who nearly ended my wife's life that morning...at the time. But... he could not help suffering a stroke at the wrong moment (from our point of view) and to exact justice from his widow would have been wrong on that basis. She lost her husband ... my wife, really suffered but pulled through - and leads normal life. OK - lucky - could just as easily have not been the case though ... and I think I would still think the same way.

The witnesses say the chap was not speeding and did not go through a red light. He amber gambled and the 14 year old Michael Bradford had decided to cross the road at that point. Perhaps that explains the 6 month ban and the £100 fine - which to a grieving family is only naturally "insult". Similarly - CJ - the driver may not have been insured, may have been an illegal immigrant - but he was not exceeding the speed limit at the time CJ crossed the road on New Year's Day. Harsh as it seems - this is why the sentence for the motoring crime was less than the sentence for being in this country illegally. In short, they held that there was nothing a competent driver could have done to avoid the accident.

So basically - we must have a justice system which tales account of "accidental" death and which also really deters reckless behaviour. Not an easy compromise - especially to those grieving.

I actually find myself agreeing with the Labour MP Andrew Miller who is quoted as saying:

Andrew Miller wrote:

"We must stop talking about road accidents as though n0-one has any responsibility. But we need a legal framework which does recognise the difference between a mistake and something which a comptetent driver could reasonably have avoided

I have to agree totally with this point too in cases where the accident could not have been prevented by the driver and they did the best any competent driver would be expected to do. Speaking as a bereaved parent there is far too much difference between CDBDD and the lesser charge of careless driving. In our case the CPS have said that if the person who killed our daughter had been caught the charge of CDBDD would have been brought without doubt, but there are too many incidents of that charge being reduced to the lesser charge of careless driving which doesnt even take into account the death of a person. The laws of this country need changing and they need changing now.

_________________
please help me ask for a change in the laws surrounding road deaths by signing my petition
http://www.gopetition.co.uk/online/4549.html

Think we have already covered the French/German/Austrian and Swiss view which covers a charge of "negligent" driving.

I would also agree that we need to "drive " home the risks of driving without good old COAST. Cannot underpin enough how important this word is to one's driving.

Concentration, Observation, Anticipation, Space, Time...

Driving plan condensed into five words if you like ....

We do treat deaths seriously ....full investigation as to how accident occurred and what charges could be brought.

Of course, we go for the one which we can prove beyond reasonable doubt. CDBDD and manslaughter charges... the level of proof has to be absolutely concrete - and the onus is on the CPS (based on police and witness evidences) to prove the person is guilty and not for the defendant to prove he is innocent.

This would also apply to a "causing death by negligent driving charge" - but perhaps it would lead the courts with sufficient statutory redress as opposed to the fine and points - which in real bald terms are not that much more severe than those imposed on someone who has driven ovver the ton in early hours or someone contesting a speed cam charge instead of accepting a fixed penalty... (includes court costs..)


This is where I can understand why there is feeling of resentment by many "normal" motorists. The punishments do not reflect the level of the crime actually committed.






We do indeed investigate all incidents fully.

Like other crimes though - trails run cold... witnesses are not always accurate ... You keep cases "on hold"- even so-called "closed ones" are kept on file - you never know if something will turn up which will mean a re-opening....

Hit and runs are always difficult. No doubt " basingwerk" will tell me how much I need the black box doo-dah in your car ....

Perhaps .... but what if car has changed hands rapidly and my computer has not been updated to reveal that fact....?

What if the scrote has found a way to over-ride the system - and they will... a determined and hardened criminal mind will always find a way around your security system.

We will bring charges as we find - but we are also subject to the advice of the CPS as well. A "guilty plea" is given credit - which is why the St Neot's driver's sentence was cut on appeal =- and presumably why the one cited by the Mad Doc received a very low punishment.

I agree - it does seem bizarre and we really do need to address our scheme of punishments across the board. At the same time we cannot imprison for genuine accident and mistake.

Which means that my lads' paperwork has to be really "bomb proof"

It also means that I too have to agree with Mr Andrew Miller.