Killer driver jailed for eight and a half years

ironmancole wrote:

Harold Shipman - Medical licence? No.
Ian Huntley - Job as a caretaker? No.
Myra Hindley - Baby sitter? No.
Pilot with an alcohol problem fly you on holiday? No.

So...Kile Straker back on the roads? Why have the courts even permitted it?

Double standards and insane leniency as always.

Part of the problem is that because driving is seen pretty much as a right in this country, 'banning' is treated as a punishment. If we regarded driving as a privilege, and revoking the license not as punishment but simply as protecting the public, we could remove the issue from the courts and make it simply administrative.

The other necessary step would be to use biometric technology to ensure only license holders drove.

JamesSpears100 wrote:

I cycle my kid's and wife cycle we walk. Not good enough!

I understood everything you wrote...up until that point.

rliu wrote:

Every time a trial or an accident is reported on road.cc people come on here calling for tougher sentencing, and I completely sympathise with that. Just the other day I had a near miss with a bus and the driver started accusing me of being at fault and throwing all the hackneyed cliches about cyclists being reckless for simply being on the road at me. If he had knocked me off and injured me I certainly would have wanted the strongest punishment possible under the law. But every time an accident happens which causes serious injury or death the tragedy has already happened and no matter how strong the punishment the dead victim isn't going to be brought back. It's far more important we do things like put in a cycle awareness course into every driving test or even make all drivers cycle for a day in traffic, or provide segregated lanes and advance stop areas for bikes on the roads, to prevent future tragedies.

Unless you have a camera to prove otherwise drivers will continue to lie about what happened knowing full well that without footage it will be your word against theirs. Having no witnesses in most cases seals the deal shut in favor of the driver and many have been getting away with "it" for years so they know how to game the system in their favor.

I am one of those people who wears a camera. As result of an accident where the driver stated i swerved into them.

California where i lived for 20 years just implemented a 3 foot passing rule which is something that this country needs desperately.

Passing us with inches to spare leaving us no room to maneuver and then claiming we swerved into them when we avoid dangers such as pot holes, glass, man covers is insulting to us.

29erKeith wrote:

oozaveared- ok cheers for the explanation, you're clearly a lawyer\in a legal profession of some type.

I see the value of the discount for "the system" and those within it such as yourself, in time and money, but not for the victim and the family.

"The first opportunity", his guilty plea was far! from the first opportunity. It sounds as it it was weeks or months into the process. The first opportunity was at the scene, the second when he got home after hiding the car and realising what he did, he could have handed himself in......

Not weeks or month later after the police had caught him, then he'd denied it until he had no realistic choices left.

At that point perhaps a discount but not a third! and to call it "the first opportunity" to me is nonsense!

Saving police and court time is not a trivial thing. If all these slam dunk cases took their full course in court sooner or later you start running out of prosecutors or police officers or court space or judges not to mention juries. What happens next is that cases start getting looked at again to see whether they are worth the candle. If that becomes the case then it really will be worth holding out on a "not guilty" plea in the hope that the prosecution gives up runs out of resources, cocks something up. And lawyers and clients can easily add to that burden. Go sick on a court date and that's more time wasted, ask for documents at a week's notice and then when the CPS deliver them even a fraction late ask for the adjournment. And that means it's harder to be convicted as a criminal. So in the end you send a lot fewer criminals to jail. None of us want that. Imagine for example that every speeding motorist didn't take the FPN 3 points and the fine. That they all went to court and pleaded not guilty and required the police officer dealing to turn up in person to give evidence and maybe call the civilian evidence collator to turn up in person and testify on oath that this picture has not been interfered with and provide proof that the camera is properly calibrated and in full working order. How many cases could the court deal with?

The first opportunity for lay people means a confession to a cop on the spot. But you haven't been charged yet. You can't actually enter a plea until you have been charged. The CPS can't charge you until the police refer the case. Your first opportunity to plead therefore is when the charge is laid. In this case that's what he did.

You can't actually plead guilty to a charge that hasn't been laid or put to you. That might seem odd but it is also logical. If you could just say to a police officer "it was me, I did it" ie a confession. and that was regarded as a guilty plea to a notional charge on which a sentence could be passed it would cause mayhem. What if what you thought what were pleading guilty to was one thing and the police said it was another. ie if this guy stopped at the time and told the first police officer he saw, that he killed the guy. it was his fault. What actual charge is he pleading guilty to? Is it due care? or Causing death by CD Causing death by DD? and even if that was clear to all was it the offence seriousness 1, 2 3 or 4.

All this stuff is actually logical when you think about it.

oozaveared wrote:

The first opportunity for lay people means a confession to a cop on the spot. But you haven't been charged yet. You can't actually enter a plea until you have been charged. The CPS can't charge you until the police refer the case. Your first opportunity to plead therefore is when the charge is laid. In this case that's what he did.

Apologies if I've misunderstood your post but he actually changed his plea to "guilty" about 3 or 4 days before the trial was due to start which was 15 months after the "accident".

dts3_1999 wrote:

oozaveared wrote:

The first opportunity for lay people means a confession to a cop on the spot. But you haven't been charged yet. You can't actually enter a plea until you have been charged. The CPS can't charge you until the police refer the case. Your first opportunity to plead therefore is when the charge is laid. In this case that's what he did.

Apologies if I've misunderstood your post but he actually changed his plea to "guilty" about 3 or 4 days before the trial was due to start which was 15 months after the "accident".

I think Roger Geffen (CTC ) who speculated that the 8.5 years was nearly 14 (maximum) minus a third might have been wrong. Some people think the discount is always one third for a guilty plea. But a plea after a trial date is set but before the court is convened is a 25% discount. So it's far more likely that the sentence was actually 11 years 4 months minus a 25% discount rather than 12 years 9 months minus one third. I can't find the sentence notes anywhere to check and therefore I may be wrong on the calculation as there is room for the judge to adjust the formula in special circumstances but it's rare. These are only guidelines mind but judges stick to the formula like glue because to depart from it opens the chance of appeal upward or downward.

My bet is that it was an 11.3 - 25% rather than a 12.75 - 33%.

oozaveared wrote:

I think Roger Geffen (CTC ) who speculated that the 8.5 years was nearly 14 (maximum) minus a third might have been wrong. Some people think the discount is always one third for a guilty plea. But a plea after a trial date is set but before the court is convened is a 25% discount.

So I guess, what more would the convicted have to have done to get the maximum sentence???

mrmo wrote:

oozaveared wrote:

I think Roger Geffen (CTC ) who speculated that the 8.5 years was nearly 14 (maximum) minus a third might have been wrong. Some people think the discount is always one third for a guilty plea. But a plea after a trial date is set but before the court is convened is a 25% discount.

So I guess, what more would the convicted have to have done to get the maximum sentence???

It's really quite hard to get the maximum sentence for anything. In theory (and logically) it means that there were no mitigating factors at all (and there were none here that I can see). but that all the possible aggravating factors were present. So if he was also drunk for example. It's a logical thing because let's say for example that someone did the same thing next week and did all of this (so in English common law should receive the exact same sentence) but somehow or another the police were able to prove that the driver was also drunk at the time. He should logically get a higher sentence because he had an additional arggravating factor to consider. If they both got the maximum then that wouldn't follow a logical path that more aggravating factors trigger higher sentences. In effect the drunk driver would have paid no additional penalty for being drunk as well. That's why the absolute maximum doesn't get triggered that often. It's logically tricky unless every single aggravating factor that could possibly exist is present.

A V Lowe wrote:

"He was traced as the 'owner' of the car"

A bit of an obvious Policing intelligence issue here - isn't it a bit odd to be a car owner (and no SORN on the car - so it must had VED ..and the owner must have a valid insurance policy to get this?).

It also shows the need to change the system which has a special sort of killing that euphemistically calls it causing death by rather than manslaughter/murder, as it would be if he had been riding a bike, or using any ither machinery.

The DVLA does not register who owns or is driving a car but who the registered keeper is. That may be a company. I am the registered keeper of a Smart Car that my wife drives to work, but she is the main driver for insurance purposes. Ipso facto if my wife triggers a speed camera then it's me that gets the notice of intended prosecution and it's at that point that I have to say it was her driving not me. Then she gets the notoce of intended prosecution.

And that's with people that are kosher and aren't playing the system. Small cheap cars change hands for a few hundred quid, less than that sometimes. It's property so it has legally changed ownership on the shake of a hand and the cash being paid. That may happen dozens of times. It's why you have to pay attention when selling a car that you transfer the V5C properly.

So yes the police may well have taken several weeks to establish that the vehicle was the one involved, that it belonged to and was driven by this dickhead. That he was without doubt the driver at the time of the collision. And no, there may have been no official document to show any that. It may have been registered to someone else and changed hands for cash many times since the last registered keeper filled in a form. He may have been driving with insurance for another vehicle but like mine with third party coverage for any vehicle with the owner's permission.

Before we criticise the cops again just think how difficult it is to do all that and in such a methodical fool proof way that a defence lawyer can't find one error in the trail nor any part of that trail that may fall down if pressure were applied. That is not easy.

timfearn wrote:

Why do they allow driving bans to be concurrent with prison sentences? He should do his 8.5 years THEN face a 10 year driving ban, rather than being banned for a paltry 18 months on his release.

Or, more sensibly, he should never be allowed to drive again.

There is a change in the law, which I don't think is yet in effect, for driving bans to start on release from prison.

timfearn wrote:

Why do they allow driving bans to be concurrent with prison sentences? He should do his 8.5 years THEN face a 10 year driving ban, rather than being banned for a paltry 18 months on his release.

Not sure about Down in England but up here in Scotland we could be out in 4 years 2 1/2 months, on parole.

I don't know when the guilty plea was indicated, nor whether he expressed any remorse but credit for guilty pleas is enshrined in statute. Its 1/3rd off the sentence calculated by the judge taking into account all mitigating and aggravating features if entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity. You can look up sentencing guidance council and their guidance on guilty plea sentence reduction.

antonio wrote:

To plead guilty with no remorse and to gain a reduced sentence is playing the system. The full term should apply with a reduction being gained by good behaviour.

Which is a clear demonstration that it is the system that is, and has been, wrong and needs addressing.
At least he'll have a good few years to contemplate whether driving on a ban is worth it.
Thoughts with family and friends of the victim.