Jail for South Wales driver "blinded by sun" who killed cyclist

MKultra wrote:

The problem is that he most likely just lied about being blinded by the sun. Seemingly that ten seconds of blindness just happened to coincide with him running a man down. If I were the chaps family I would ask someone to check the scene out, find the exact spot where he was struck and figure out where the sun should have been in the sky at that exact day and time in clear weather conditions as I bet a pound to a penny the guy just made that bit up.

[[[[[ MKultra--- Methinks you keep your quid and win the penny! Surely impossible to "drive blind for 10 seconds". Unless, of course, blind drunk or blind texting....a scandalous outcome to the case.
P.R.

McDuff73 wrote:

Whats the difference between this guys behaviour and the coach drivers who was found not guilty of the same last week?

The only difference I can see, is the mini-bus driver found not guilty last week pleaded “not guilty”, so it was a jury that decided driving whilst not able to see where you are going is an excuse for killing some one.

In this case the driver pleaded guilty and tried to use the “blinded by the sun” in mitigation and the judge was sensible in regarding it as not a valid excuse.

As someone has already mentioned, I think in cases where a driver that pleads not guilty the judge should direct the jury on that “Sun in eyes” shouldn’t be regarded as a defence. Even more, the prosecuting Barrister should spell it out very clearly to a jury that “Sun in eyes” means driving without seeing where you are going, so is reckless (not even “just” careless) .

McDuff73 wrote:

Whats the difference between this guys behaviour and the coach drivers who was found not guilty of the same last week?

None, except this killer lacked the barefaced cheek of the other killer, so got a naughty boy slapped wrist and has to wait two years before he can put peoples' lives at risk again (assuming he doesn't just ignore the ban, like most of them).

jacknorell wrote:

At least it's an actual conviction.

And that £120 fine is simply ridiculous, how could that ever be seen as any sort of deterrent?

Yes indeed. He saved £120 on not getting new tyres.

Critchio wrote:

An while I'm on me soap box, if you get 10 years for a crime you serve 10 years and not a day less. You get out *on time* for good behaviour

Shaky soapbox, I think. The court is well aware of how the license release thing works and if they wanted him to serve 10 years inside, he'd get given an 18 or 20 year term. The license part of the term has value too. People do get sent back inside. If you would argue for longer terms, that's a different point.

Critchio wrote:

Yet again absolutely shocking sentence. What more can one say.

And this; "...No sentence will serve to reconcile them to this loss or adequately reflect their grief and anger...." really pisses me off. I am sick of reading it. Judges say it on auto-pilot but its wrong.

Victims need some closure that is fair and just. While sentencing the guy to 10 years (what he should have got in my opinion for Death by Dangerous Driving) will never ever bring their loved one back it would act as a catalyst to the healing process. Its when the sentence is a joke that the catalyst doesn't often start the process.

An while I'm on me soap box, if you get 10 years for a crime you serve 10 years and not a day less. You get out *on time* for good behaviour and you dont have your sentence reduced by 60% for early guilty pleas and good behaviour. The British Justice System is a fucking joke.

This guy will serve about 4 - 5 months before he is eligible for release on licence.

The magistrates and judges sometimes are the culprits but insofar as sentencing is concerned they can't just dio what they want. There are sentencing guidelines for eash offence and they are quite detailed. Thay have a starting point for the offence and then you mive up or down the scale of options depending on mitigating or aggravating factors. They have some wiggle room within that but they have to be able to explain their judgement in reference to the facts of the case and the sentencing guidelines.

If the guidlines said that the starting point for causing death by Dangerous Driving was a 5 year ban plus a band 5 fine. Then in this case you'd have seen it going upwards from there because of all the aggravating factors. Leaving the scene, leaving poor info, attempt to deny, prior convictions and bans.

It is the sentencing guidelines that need our attention.

mrmo wrote:

Sorry I have to ask WTF was he still in possession of a licence at all!

5 previous convictions for driving no licence or insurance. Sorry he should have been gaoled long ago for those. Why has someone had to die to see him goto gaol?

And to top it off a 2 year ban from driving! should have been stripped of his licence with no opportunity to get it back. He has shown no regard for the rules of the road.

As for the sentence, what does it matter, someone is dead. I will agree that a 1 year sentence is not much of a punishment for killing someone, and leaving the scene, and leaving false details... but as I said it doesn't bring back the victim.

But who is he going to kill next when he is back driving again?

1. I don't see why it is socially acceptable to kill someone with a car and it not be seen as manslaughter or murder.
2. Drivers licenses should last for a length of time, five years for instance, before the license has to be renewed and a test taken again.

A V Lowe wrote:

At last someone on the bench has had enough of the excuse that basically says I could not be bothered to adjust my driving to accommodate the hazardous conditions.

While of course there are exceptions which prove every rule, I doubt that presiding judges commonly have much patience with the "sun in my eyes" excuse. What they perhaps lack is the willingness to be forthright in guiding the jury to treat that as the bullshit it is, that they should have adapted to the conditions. That in turn may be because they fear that they may thus create grounds for appeal in over-directing the jury. Of course it might be better for justice if they took the chance that some of their cases were subsequently acquitted on appeal but no doubt the bean-counters would be giving them a hard time about the cost of that.

The real problem is that, whatever they might say, the jurors, as probably mainly drivers themselves, know in their hearts that they could easily commit the same offence and indeed probably have nearly done so many times but so far, luckily, not quite. They cringe from confronting their own demons and convince themselves that this is not a crime, after all the defendant is of good character and has not previously re-offended and volunteers to drive the minibus for the scouts or the disabled yada yada yada .

Bisi, had he not pleaded guilty and assuming that his pattern of behaviour was admissible in evidence (is it?) would have been easier to convict because most jurors don't actually have a string of convictions for driving without insurance or with defective tyres etc so they can't relate to him personally, any more than they likely could to a crack dealer.

MikeOnABike wrote:

The sentence isn't strong enough. He has previous for driving whilst disqualified, no insurance etc. He fled the scene of an accident and tried to hide his identity by leaving incomplete details. He should be banned from driving for life and given the maximum prison sentence under the crime of of causing death by dangerous driving.

How many more innocent people have to die before we get real justice in our country?

To the family of Paul Jones, my thoughts and best wishes to you in this sad moment in your lives.

To the scumbag driver, I hope you rot in the deepest recesses of hell.

Actually with his record it is hard to understand why he had a driving licence ever returned. I am not being a Nazi about this either. Causing death by careless or dangerous driving ought to have you off the roads for 5 - 10 years on a first offence. But if like this fellah you have simply been driving round uninsured in an unsafe vehicle and have multiple priors I don't think you should ever get you licence back. I'll caveat that. It should be 20 or more years. It may be that some 20 something can be reformed but why the hell just 2 years for a 60 year old. It's not like he's going to get any better as a driver or a person.

Ok so this Magistrate has done better than most within the rules. He has rules and if he goes too far within them then he leaves grounds for appeal. But the rules need changing.

A few nights ago saw a TV car chase on something called interceptors which my 16 year old was watching. Guy in a white van doing 80 through residential areas wrong side of the road on the pavement up foot paths I mean seriously dangerous. Eventually clips another vehicle which spins round and rolls over. The van ploughs over the pavement through a hedge and ends up in someones's garden after hitting another car.

Penalty was a few hundred pounds and a 15 month ban, The van was stolen, so no insurance.

for crying out loud.