Texting driver jailed for 9 years for killing cyclist appeals sentence

davel wrote:

Via 'amortisation' ^ you've wandered into my area of expertise - but I don't think you meant to refer to an asset decreasing in value, Dan.

Yours, a similarly misunderstood and skint banker.

I have no idea what amortisation means, so if I've used the word then it'll be my phone's autocorrect! I can't find where i used it to correct...

EDIT: found it! Should have read "admiration"...

Dan S wrote:

Since a few people have mentioned it, shall we look at the Sentencing Guidelines? For those interested, they can be found here: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.sente... It's death by dangerous driving: p11. Plainly Level 1: flagrant disregard for the rules of the road and the great danger to others. Starting point 8 years, range 7-14 (after trial, not allowing for guilty plea). Various of the other aggravating factors listed apply: previous driving convictions (very much so); other offence committed at the same time (texting); and you could argue that deleting the texts (I think I read that in the story) is equivalent to driving off to hide guilt. These factors mean that we are well above 8 years now. As far as I can see, none of the mitigating factors apply. Now you give the 1/3 discount for early guilty plea. (Here did plead early, I think I read?) This is where we could have saved ourselves some work: a sentence of 9 years with full credit means that she started at 13.5 years. Even taking the maximum sentence, you only get to 9 years 4 months. So basically Judge Evans threw the book at him. Unfortunately, the book isn't big enough, but that's Parliament's fault, not the lawyers' or judge's. So is it likely to come down? From what I can see (and you can't reliably judge from newspaper and internet reports, as I frequently say), no. Given that he basically got the maximum, he probably figured that he may as well appeal, but I think it'll probably stand.

See, I wonder whether his appeal is based on the fact that he claims it's level 2.

bendertherobot wrote:

Dan S wrote:

Since a few people have mentioned it, shall we look at the Sentencing Guidelines? For those interested, they can be found here: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.sente... It's death by dangerous driving: p11. Plainly Level 1: flagrant disregard for the rules of the road and the great danger to others. Starting point 8 years, range 7-14 (after trial, not allowing for guilty plea). Various of the other aggravating factors listed apply: previous driving convictions (very much so); other offence committed at the same time (texting); and you could argue that deleting the texts (I think I read that in the story) is equivalent to driving off to hide guilt. These factors mean that we are well above 8 years now. As far as I can see, none of the mitigating factors apply. Now you give the 1/3 discount for early guilty plea. (Here did plead early, I think I read?) This is where we could have saved ourselves some work: a sentence of 9 years with full credit means that she started at 13.5 years. Even taking the maximum sentence, you only get to 9 years 4 months. So basically Judge Evans threw the book at him. Unfortunately, the book isn't big enough, but that's Parliament's fault, not the lawyers' or judge's. So is it likely to come down? From what I can see (and you can't reliably judge from newspaper and internet reports, as I frequently say), no. Given that he basically got the maximum, he probably figured that he may as well appeal, but I think it'll probably stand.

See, I wonder whether his appeal is based on the fact that he claims it's level 2.

That may well be his point, I suppose. I think it's a bad point that would be doomed to fail, but it may well be what he's arguing.

kil0ran wrote:

The problem is sentencing inconsistency. Here's another Hampshire case where the convicted driver subsequently appealed - I think he got 4 months cut off his sentence in the end.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-34222934

I suppose if you're banged up for 8 years and an appeal might reduce your sentence by 5 or 10% its still worth the risk of appealing. Always the option down the line to be a model scrote and earn time off for good behavior...

 

There are a number of differences: the offence charged was different; no evidence of texting; previous convictions etc. There are almost certainly more. Much (not all, but much) of the perceived inconsistency comes from the inability of a couple of paragraphs to report the full facts of a case. Even if the reporter is trying to be fair and balanced, which isn't always the case, you just can't sum up all that information that quickly.

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

The reduce by 1/3rd for pleading guilty still applies ? So must have been given the maximum as a starting point which is possibly a first,it's probably going to reduce to around only 4-6yrs then

Awavey wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

The reduce by 1/3rd for pleading guilty still applies ? So must have been given the maximum as a starting point which is possibly a first,it's probably going to reduce to around only 4-6yrs then

You've lost me. The discount for guilty plea gets given by the initial judge. Why would it mean the sentence is going to reduce to 4-6 years?

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

Because why should we be outraged that this bit of pond life carried on being a dangerous fuckwit, despite having been caught 8 times previously, until eventually he managed to kill someone? God forbid we should expect him to be punished halfway properly when there might be a weaselling way to reduce his sentence.

Maybe we could give him some compensation for his mental distress? After all, killing someone must be a bit traumatic, even for someone with this little brain.

oldstrath wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

I think the point bendertherobot is making is that people should be sentenced according to the law and that if the sentence is in fact higher than the law suggests then appealing is not unreasonable. Whether the law should allow a higher sentence is a different matter (and for the record, I think it should).

 

Because why should we be outraged that this bit of pond life carried on being a dangerous fuckwit, despite having been caught 8 times previously, until eventually he managed to kill someone? God forbid we should expect him to be punished halfway properly when there might be a weaselling way to reduce his sentence.

Maybe we could give him some compensation for his mental distress? After all, killing someone must be a bit traumatic, even for someone with this little brain.

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

You come into a comments thread full of outrage with your logic? Go and get your pitchfork or flaming torch and line up with the others...

DanS wrote:

When you first appeal, your grounds of appeal (the document you spent hours drafting for free) gets sent to a single judge of the Court of Appeal and they decide whether they think there may be some merit in it. If they agree then the case goes to a full hearing of the Court. If the Single Judge thinks your appeal is without merit then they refuse leave to appeal and the case stops there.

I can confirm this, having marshalled for a Red Judge. This was the evening's workload.

Dr_Lex wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

 

You come into a comments thread full of outrage with your logic? Go and get your pitchfork or flaming torch and line up with the others...

Should people not be outraged at perceived injustice, weak sentencing, even the very laws themselves.

Logically, that is?

unconstituted wrote:

Dr_Lex wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

 

You come into a comments thread full of outrage with your logic? Go and get your pitchfork or flaming torch and line up with the others...

 

Should people not be outraged at perceived injustice, weak sentencing, even the very laws themselves.

 

Logically, that is?

 

 

Certainly they should, but it needs to be expressed as such. Some of the comments basically say "how dare he appeal?". Bendertherobot's point is that if he's been sentenced wrongly according to the guidelines then it's no good being outraged about the fact he's appealing, just against the laws.

Dan S wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Dr_Lex wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

 

You come into a comments thread full of outrage with your logic? Go and get your pitchfork or flaming torch and line up with the others...

 

Should people not be outraged at perceived injustice, weak sentencing, even the very laws themselves.

 

Logically, that is?

 

 

Certainly they should, but it needs to be expressed as such. Some of the comments basically say "how dare he appeal?". Bendertherobot's point is that if he's been sentenced wrongly according to the guidelines then it's no good being outraged about the fact he's appealing, just against the laws.

I don't agree that it must be expressed in some specfic form. 

Any response that draws outrage is saying the same thing, that they believe that the current sentence is deserved, or even too lenient, regardless of legislation. 

I bet you can't find one single poster who you took a sideshot at who wouldn't know that an appeal needs a reason in law to be granted.

People are more than free to express their moral standing and to chastise them for that position being at odds with the legal one is actually a break down in logic on your part in my eyes. Worse, it shows an inability to understand people.

unconstituted wrote:

People are more than free to express their moral standing and to chastise them for that position being at odds with the legal one is actually a break down in logic on your part in my eyes. Worse, it shows an inability to understand people.

I think he understands people just fine - but is pointing out where their anger could be usefully directed and where it might may fall flat.

fukawitribe wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

People are more than free to express their moral standing and to chastise them for that position being at odds with the legal one is actually a break down in logic on your part in my eyes. Worse, it shows an inability to understand people.

 

I think he understands people just fine - but is pointing out where their anger could be usefully directed and where it might may fall flat.

He has suggested himself that he doesn't understand them with his snide remark about logic. I don't see him saying their anger could be usefully directed, and I'm not even certain what that would mean or why it would matter as there is a process which doesn't not care for their input at this stage.

Who is qualified here to give lectures on how they should communicate or direct their outrage in any case.

unconstituted]</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[quote=unconstituted

wrote:

People are more than free to express their moral standing and to chastise them for that position being at odds with the legal one is actually a break down in logic on your part in my eyes. Worse, it shows an inability to understand people.

I think he understands people just fine - but is pointing out where their anger could be usefully directed and where it might may fall flat.

unconstituted wrote:

He has suggested himself that he doesn't understand them with his snide remark about logic.

I bow to your omnipotence about his manner of speaking and thought processes at the time.

unconstituted wrote:

I don't see him saying their anger could be usefully directed,

That would be my wording about the suggestion that people check the legislation (entitlement to appeal) rather than, e.g. get justifiably pissed off about inadaquate sentencing in the first place which is something people can get involved in changing.

unconstituted wrote:

and I'm not even certain what that would mean or why it would matter as there is a process which doesn't not care for their input at this stage.

Come again ?

unconstituted wrote:

Who is qualified here to give lectures on how they should communicate or direct their outrage in any case.

Ummm - you apparently..

fukawitribe]</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[quote=fukawitribe

wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

People are more than free to express their moral standing and to chastise them for that position being at odds with the legal one is actually a break down in logic on your part in my eyes. Worse, it shows an inability to understand people.

 

I think he understands people just fine - but is pointing out where their anger could be usefully directed and where it might may fall flat.

unconstituted wrote:

He has suggested himself that he doesn't understand them with his snide remark about logic.

I bow to your omnipotence about his manner of speaking and thought processes at the time.

unconstituted wrote:

I don't see him saying their anger could be usefully directed,

That would be my wording about the suggestion that people check the legislation (entitlement to appeal) rather than, e.g. get justifiably pissed off about inadaquate sentencing in the first place which is something people can get involved in changing.

unconstituted wrote:

and I'm not even certain what that would mean or why it would matter as there is a process which doesn't not care for their input at this stage.

 

Come again ?

 

unconstituted wrote:

Who is qualified here to give lectures on how they should communicate or direct their outrage in any case.

 

Ummm - you apparently..

So to recap, he didn't say anything about directing outrage and you've descended into weird oneup internet guy again. 

unconstituted wrote:

So to recap, he didn't say anything about directing outrage and you've descended into weird oneup internet guy again. 

Nope - and sounds like we're talking about different people anyway judging from the other comment.

fukawitribe wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

So to recap, he didn't say anything about directing outrage and you've descended into weird oneup internet guy again. 

Nope - and sounds like we're talking about different people anyway judging from the other comment.

Yes, I think that his attack, while it did read as being directed at me, was actually attacking somebody else.  The attack on me seems to be for taking us off onto some wild tangent about sentencing law when people are discussing the sentence passed on somebody and asking about the law...

unconstituted wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

He has suggested himself that he doesn't understand them with his snide remark about logic. I don't see him saying their anger could be usefully directed, and I'm not even certain what that would mean or why it would matter as there is a process which doesn't not care for their input at this stage.

Oh, OK, you're not actually talking to me then? Because the "snide comment" about logic wasn't me...

unconstituted wrote:

Dan S wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Dr_Lex wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

 

You come into a comments thread full of outrage with your logic? Go and get your pitchfork or flaming torch and line up with the others...

 

Should people not be outraged at perceived injustice, weak sentencing, even the very laws themselves.

 

Logically, that is?

 

 

Certainly they should, but it needs to be expressed as such. Some of the comments basically say "how dare he appeal?". Bendertherobot's point is that if he's been sentenced wrongly according to the guidelines then it's no good being outraged about the fact he's appealing, just against the laws.

 

I don't agree that it must be expressed in some specfic form. 

Any response that draws outrage is saying the same thing, that they believe that the current sentence is deserved, or even too lenient, regardless of legislation. 

I bet you can't find one single poster who you took a sideshot at who wouldn't know that an appeal needs a reason in law to be granted.

People are more than free to express their moral standing and to chastise them for that position being at odds with the legal one is actually a break down in logic on your part in my eyes. Worse, it shows an inability to understand people.

It's possible you're confusing me with bendertherobot. I've not chastised anybody for their moral position being at odds with the legal one. I've made it pretty clear that my moral position is also at odds with the legal position. I simply said that if you're outraged at the law then you shouldd be angry with the law. If you're angry with the defendant (and you should be), then that should be anger about what he did when driving, not for appealing against a sentence if the sentence is wrong (which I don't think it is).

Dan S wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Dan S wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Dr_Lex wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

 

You come into a comments thread full of outrage with your logic? Go and get your pitchfork or flaming torch and line up with the others...

 

Should people not be outraged at perceived injustice, weak sentencing, even the very laws themselves.

 

Logically, that is?

 

 

Certainly they should, but it needs to be expressed as such. Some of the comments basically say "how dare he appeal?". Bendertherobot's point is that if he's been sentenced wrongly according to the guidelines then it's no good being outraged about the fact he's appealing, just against the laws.

 

I don't agree that it must be expressed in some specfic form. 

Any response that draws outrage is saying the same thing, that they believe that the current sentence is deserved, or even too lenient, regardless of legislation. 

I bet you can't find one single poster who you took a sideshot at who wouldn't know that an appeal needs a reason in law to be granted.

People are more than free to express their moral standing and to chastise them for that position being at odds with the legal one is actually a break down in logic on your part in my eyes. Worse, it shows an inability to understand people.

It's possible you're confusing me with bendertherobot. I've not chastised anybody for their moral position being at odds with the legal one. I've made it pretty clear that my moral position is also at odds with the legal position. I simply said that if you're outraged at the law then you shouldd be angry with the law. If you're angry with the defendant (and you should be), then that should be anger about what he did when driving, not for appealing against a sentence if the sentence is wrong (which I don't think it is).

When I said you, I meant 'he'. Was referring to Dr_Lex who made some snide remark about logic. Sorry about that.

It's fine for you though Dan to have the opinion that people are entitled to be angry about the defendant's actions, but not the sentencing if it's erred in law.

Personally I think people are entitled to be angry at both. They're more than free to think he should put up and shut up. They don't even need a reason, other that some notion of wrongness. And I'd appreciate their input as much as a wall of text analysis of some copypasta from lexisnexis or wherever.

Knowing a bit of law isn't a stick to beat people voicing their distate with. If people make a legal point and it's wrong, then that's the time to chime in. I think we had a conversation recently where I made a bad interpretation of a case and it took a while but you brought me round. That was appropriate. 

But banging on about sentening guidelines when people are annoyed at the state of affairs for cyclists generally. Really?

unconstituted wrote:

Dan S wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Dan S wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Dr_Lex wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

 

You come into a comments thread full of outrage with your logic? Go and get your pitchfork or flaming torch and line up with the others...

 

Should people not be outraged at perceived injustice, weak sentencing, even the very laws themselves.

 

Logically, that is?

 

 

Certainly they should, but it needs to be expressed as such. Some of the comments basically say "how dare he appeal?". Bendertherobot's point is that if he's been sentenced wrongly according to the guidelines then it's no good being outraged about the fact he's appealing, just against the laws.

 

I don't agree that it must be expressed in some specfic form. 

Any response that draws outrage is saying the same thing, that they believe that the current sentence is deserved, or even too lenient, regardless of legislation. 

I bet you can't find one single poster who you took a sideshot at who wouldn't know that an appeal needs a reason in law to be granted.

People are more than free to express their moral standing and to chastise them for that position being at odds with the legal one is actually a break down in logic on your part in my eyes. Worse, it shows an inability to understand people.

It's possible you're confusing me with bendertherobot. I've not chastised anybody for their moral position being at odds with the legal one. I've made it pretty clear that my moral position is also at odds with the legal position. I simply said that if you're outraged at the law then you shouldd be angry with the law. If you're angry with the defendant (and you should be), then that should be anger about what he did when driving, not for appealing against a sentence if the sentence is wrong (which I don't think it is).

When I said you, I meant 'he'. Was referring to Dr_Lex who made some snide remark about logic. 

It's fine for you though Dan to have the opinion that people are entitled to be angry about the defendant's actions, but not the sentencing if it's erred in law.

Personally I think people are entitled to be angry at both. They're more than free to think he should put up and shut up. They don't even need a reason, other that some notion of wrongness. And I'd appreciate their input as much as a wall of text analysis of some copypasta from lexisnexis or wherever.

Knowing a bit of law isn't a stick to beat people voicing their distate with. If people make a legal point and it's wrong, then that's the time to chime in. I think we had a conversation recently where I made a bad interpretation of a case and it took a while but you brought me round. That was appropriate. 

But banging on about sentening guidelines when people are annoyed at the state of affairs for cyclists generally. Really?

 

Not sure what you mean by copy and paste from LexisNexis: pretty sure everything I've posted is my own work.

More to the point, I posted the legal bit about possible consequences of an appeal because someone asked in terms for somebody with legal knowledge to do so. I posted about the Sentencing Guidelines because more than one person had posted on that topic: bendertherobot asked whether anybody had looked at them and somebody else had suggested that the sentence was likely to come down to 4-6 years. Others had already posted about whether he was lucky to only get 9 years and so on. You yourself commented that the sentence should be reviewed and increased.

Sentencing Guidelines being relevant to whether or not a sentence is going to come down to 4-6 years, whether he was lucky to get 9 etc, quite apart from being relevant to the post where somebody actually asked whether anyone had looked at the Guidelines, I figured that maybe a discussion of the Guidelines might be relevant.

Dan S wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Dan S wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Dan S wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Dr_Lex wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

 

You come into a comments thread full of outrage with your logic? Go and get your pitchfork or flaming torch and line up with the others...

 

Should people not be outraged at perceived injustice, weak sentencing, even the very laws themselves.

 

Logically, that is?

 

 

Certainly they should, but it needs to be expressed as such. Some of the comments basically say "how dare he appeal?". Bendertherobot's point is that if he's been sentenced wrongly according to the guidelines then it's no good being outraged about the fact he's appealing, just against the laws.

 

I don't agree that it must be expressed in some specfic form. 

Any response that draws outrage is saying the same thing, that they believe that the current sentence is deserved, or even too lenient, regardless of legislation. 

I bet you can't find one single poster who you took a sideshot at who wouldn't know that an appeal needs a reason in law to be granted.

People are more than free to express their moral standing and to chastise them for that position being at odds with the legal one is actually a break down in logic on your part in my eyes. Worse, it shows an inability to understand people.

It's possible you're confusing me with bendertherobot. I've not chastised anybody for their moral position being at odds with the legal one. I've made it pretty clear that my moral position is also at odds with the legal position. I simply said that if you're outraged at the law then you shouldd be angry with the law. If you're angry with the defendant (and you should be), then that should be anger about what he did when driving, not for appealing against a sentence if the sentence is wrong (which I don't think it is).

When I said you, I meant 'he'. Was referring to Dr_Lex who made some snide remark about logic. 

It's fine for you though Dan to have the opinion that people are entitled to be angry about the defendant's actions, but not the sentencing if it's erred in law.

Personally I think people are entitled to be angry at both. They're more than free to think he should put up and shut up. They don't even need a reason, other that some notion of wrongness. And I'd appreciate their input as much as a wall of text analysis of some copypasta from lexisnexis or wherever.

Knowing a bit of law isn't a stick to beat people voicing their distate with. If people make a legal point and it's wrong, then that's the time to chime in. I think we had a conversation recently where I made a bad interpretation of a case and it took a while but you brought me round. That was appropriate. 

But banging on about sentening guidelines when people are annoyed at the state of affairs for cyclists generally. Really?

 

Not sure what you mean by copy and paste from LexisNexis: everything pretty sure everything I've posted is my own work. More to the point, I posted the legal bit about possible consequences of an appeal because someone asked in terms for somebody with legal knowledge to do so. I posted about the Sentencing Guidelines because more than one person had posted on that topic: bendertherobot asked whether anybody had looked at them and somebody else had suggested that the sentence was likely to come down to 4-6 years. Others had already posted about whether he was lucky to only get 9 years and so on. You yourself commented that the sentence should be reviewed and increased. Sentencing Guidelines being relevant to whether or not a sentence is going to come down to 4-6 years, whether he was lucky to get 9 etc, quite apart from being relevant to the post where somebody actually asked whether anyone had looked at the Guidelines, I figured that maybe a discussion of the Guidelines might be relevant.

That wasn't meant as a personal dig. Really. Actually that would be more bender who likes to beat commenters about sentencing guidelines in almost every article. Been watching that for maybe half a year now and always thought it was done distastefully, but I don't get the feeling he's a bad guy. He's doing what he thinks is helpful and that's okay. I actually think it's not, but not going to go on here about why, well not today. 

Here's one of my favourite moments during the whole Brexit thing and to me it sums up the endless arguments over right wing comments on sovereignty v actual legal position and why that's not the debate. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USTypBKEd8Y

unconstituted wrote:

 

That wasn't meant as a personal dig. Really. Actually that would be more bender who likes to beat commenters about sentencing guidelines in almost every article. Been watching that for maybe half a year now and always thought it was done distastefully, but I don't get the feeling he's a bad guy. He's doing what he thinks is helpful and that's okay. I actually think it's not, but not going to go on here about why, well not today. 

Here's one of my favourite moments during the whole Brexit thing and to me it sums up the endless arguments over right wing comments on sovereignty v actual legal position and why that's not the debate. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USTypBKEd8Y

Just started watching it.  Agree so far!

I freely admit to having bugbears I bang on about.  Mine are the lazy assumptions that all collisions are caused by drivers, that all such collisions should be punished in some mediaeval fashion and that the police, CPS, judges, lawyers etc don't care about cyclists...

Dan S wrote:

I freely admit to having bugbears I bang on about.  Mine are the lazy assumptions that all collisions are caused by drivers, that all such collisions should be punished in some mediaeval fashion and that the police, CPS, judges, lawyers etc don't care about cyclists...

You used the correct spelling of mediaeval!  You've made my day.