Widow of cyclist killed by drink-driver says he should have been jailed for life

in these sort of events there needs to be more advice for the family as the police and cps only relays information that benefits them doing the least amount of work possible. If we was given all the information we would have done things differently

frankie, i dont think anyone on this forum would expect you to forgive him, i cant imagine how you feel about all this but rest assurred you have the thoughts of everyone on this forum.

I am the daughter of George Orrey. I firstly want to confirm that the charge was careless and not dangerous driving. Kingsley Gordon-Allen in my eyes is a heartless killer and will definitely go on to seriously injure/ murder further innocent people as he proved attacking yet another innocent man on new years day resulting in the poor man losing an eye - but atleast he did walk away. At 20 years old he has been in trouble many times before killing my dad and driving a mile in his smashed up car leaving my dad to die alone. I will NEVER forgive him and his family disgust me - saying at court that we need to accept accidents happen!!! This was no accident he intentionally got into his car very drunk, drove over 30 minutes in this state, killed my dad, drove a further mile, left the car and ran to get a taxi to go home to bed!!! I know many people will disagree with this but as far as I am concerned this country should operate a life for a life justice system - end of.

Time to end this "Death by dangerous / careless" nonsense. We only need murder and manslaughter, with sentences appropriate. Doesn't matter if you kill someone with a knife, a gun, or a car. They're still dead by your hand. There is no other "careless death" law except for drivers.

Causing death by dangerous or careless driving should be a automatic life ban from driving, no exceptions.
Likewise for a second offence of being caught over the alcohol limit.

Driving whilst pissed isn't "careless" its downright dangerous!

unless clearly stated as an accident, any death should result in your "life" being taken away, i.e. jail for life.

this guy will be out in 4 years on good behavior after watching plenty of Sky Sports tv in his cell while the widow will still be grieving coming up to her 40th wedding anniversary.

I find it hard for any accident to be classified as careless,

But feel it should automatically be dangerous driving if you are breaking the law whilst driving and cause an accident.
If you knowing break the law by being on the Phone, Speeding , drunk etc. the defence of carelessness should be unavailable as your decisions have automatically created a dangerous situation.

This driver should be strung up not sent to prison. Some might say his 8 year sentence is a joke, some might say his sentence is harsh given that many drivers that kill get a handshake from the judge and jury. Either way something is badly wrong with our justice system that allows some one to get back in a car albeit after some time who previously showed such contempt for other road users by driving pissed, three times over the limit, then fled when he realised what he had done. The scum bag should be strung up, but sadly all the liberal do gooders and Guardian readers won't hear of it. They do those that have to deal with the loss of their loved ones a great disservice.

"The driver should be made to stand in that mortuary and look at what they have done. Maybe then they will show some remorse, looking at what they have left on the side of the road."

If they don't show remorse they should be locked up for life as they are probably a dangerous psychopath.

This goes way beyond "dangerous driving".

This guy is a scumbag;
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/10919023.Attacked_man_loses_eye/

Careless?! How the cocking balls was this not a charge of dangerous driving?! The CPS need to take their head out of their arses. Grrrrrrrr......

I don't know what I think about the sentence itself. I don't really know what my view is about prison sentences generally - one can _always_ up the ante and insist it should be higher. I suppose the main question is consistency.

But I remain baffled about the whole concept of 'careless' vs 'dangerous' driving. It makes very little sense to me.

Driving while seriously under the influence of alcohol seems to me to be clearly dangerous. Driving at twice or more the speed limit is surely dangerous. Who or what decided that is merely 'careless'?

Is there any actual science behind this? Any factual basis for decreeing that, for example, driving at twice the speed limit (as in the case of the guy who recently had his sentence halved after killing a child) is not, in fact, dangerous? I note that in that case the driver lost control after hitting a speed bump at nearly 40mph, which, to me, I guess naively, suggests that driving at that speed in a 20mph residential speed-bump area is, in fact, rather dangerous.

Are there no guidelines on these matters? And if so, should they not be redrawn so they actually make sense?

I agree with levermonkey here, it should never be careless when you look at his readings. 3 times the limit is at least 105mg of alcohol in 100ml of breath, also remember he left the scene and was not caught till later so his readings at the time of the accident could have been higher.

Two things surprised me.

1) That his sentence was as high as 8 years.
2) "Causing death by careless driving whilst unfit through alcohol." How the Hell can that be careless? Even if you had been living under a rock on Mars for the last hundred years you would understand that drinking and driving are totally unacceptable. He knowingly drank alcohol, he knowingly got in a motor car, he knowingly drove it on the public road. How is that not classed as dangerous?

This man left a fellow human being to die in the street and it seems to count for nothing. He pleads guilty in court and because he is saving the justice system time and money that counts for everything.

IT IS WRONG! IT IS WRONG! IT IS WRONG!

Yep, hit and runs resulting in death should attract a mandatory lifetime ban. Easy implimented, easily understood. The thing is, with so many of us choosing not to drive, it's perfectly possible for an offender to adapt to a life without a car, even if the average Jaguar driving judge sees it differently.

Lifetime ban, no question. This is where sentencing currently falls pathetically short of what is necessary. Driving licenses are actually quite hard to get these days, yet they are insultingly easy to keep.

you don't get much justice through the courts, and why only careless driving? If this happened to someone I love, I'd seek my own retribution

Why doesn't leaving the scene mitigate the guilty plea?

WTF does the guilty pleas ALWAYS count for so much more than all the aggravating circumstances!?

So if kill some one with a gun and sober I get 25 years but being pissed up driving a lethal weapon only 8 years. Glad I now live in a country where we still have capital punishment

Anyone who causes death by their driving should never drive again. And in this case, the prison term should have been 12 years.

Don't understand how this is not murder - if I killed someone with a knife while too pissed to know better would I be let off this lightly?

At the very least he should lose the right drive, ever.