Road rage driver who chased cyclist and then rammed him spared jail

ktache wrote:

Drink driving is deliberate, and that causes huge amount of death and destruction, some of which needs to be compensated for.  And speeding.  In fact most crashes are caused by some form of stupidity, much of it against the law, even if not prosecuted or convicted.  Driving without due care and attention at the very least.

There would be a lot less crashes if everyone drove to their full legal requirements and responsibilities.

There are very, very, very few accidents.  Many, many more crashes, collisions and incidents.

My daughter has a worrying addiction to 'Police Interceptors' and all of that sort of telly programme.  I've lost count of the number of times some bloke (or woman, its equal opportunity) gets stopped.  They get out of their car, slurring their speech and stumbling, and then have a go at the police officers, usually saying something along the lines of "Why don't you go arrest real criminals?".

(Last night, some bloke who'd been stopped for speeding and was three times over the blood alcohol limit was told by the police officer "Its people like you who kill people, mate" to which he replied "But I'd never kill anyone!".

Which I suspect demonstrates the attitude of the average man driving a car through Clapham when he should be on the fabled omnibus).

De Sisti wrote:

Consider the recent  case of PC Andrew Harper who was killed after being hit/dragged by a car. The police have already said it was murder, rather that death by dangerous driving. They have not even considered whether there was any intent for the officer to have been killed. 

 

They don't say, they arrest on suspicion of. The process then begins in establishing if there is a suitable level of evidence to charge with the offence, or any other(s).

crazy-legs wrote:

Imagine now that a cyclist and a pedestrian had had an altercation and the cyclist had then deliberately ridden at the pedestrian, skidding into them. The terrified pedestrian tries to run away and the cyclist turns round, rides after them again and skids the rear wheel into them, tripping them into s kerb where the pedestrian breaks their pelvis.

Let's guess at the miles of newspaper headlines that would generate and the many months of jail time the cyclist would serve.
Bet it'd be a considerably tougher sentence than has been handed to the driver in this instance.

No need to imagine. Look at the column inches given over to Lord Robert Winston being attacked by a female cyclist in the street and there is no evidence that event even happened.

2Loose wrote:

I can only assume that damages and loss of earnings etc. will come from Carroll's insurance company and future insurance cost increases will turn out to be a greater punishment than the slap on the wrist that the judge gave him.

I hope so but when you take out car insurance you're insuring yourself against third party claims in the case of an accident. This was no accident, it was a deliberate criminal act. Imagine I use my car to do a ram raid and I'm caught. Do you think my insurance company would pay out for the damages?

iandusud wrote:

2Loose wrote:

I can only assume that damages and loss of earnings etc. will come from Carroll's insurance company and future insurance cost increases will turn out to be a greater punishment than the slap on the wrist that the judge gave him.

I hope so but when you take out car insurance you're insuring yourself against third party claims in the case of an accident. This was no accident, it was a deliberate criminal act. Imagine I use my car to do a ram raid and I'm caught. Do you think my insurance company would pay out for the damages?

I'd need to go through the small print on my policy, but I think if I went ram raiding then my insurance company would pay up and then sue me to recover the money they paid out.

Tom_77 wrote:

iandusud wrote:

2Loose wrote:

I can only assume that damages and loss of earnings etc. will come from Carroll's insurance company and future insurance cost increases will turn out to be a greater punishment than the slap on the wrist that the judge gave him.

I hope so but when you take out car insurance you're insuring yourself against third party claims in the case of an accident. This was no accident, it was a deliberate criminal act. Imagine I use my car to do a ram raid and I'm caught. Do you think my insurance company would pay out for the damages?

I'd need to go through the small print on my policy, but I think if I went ram raiding then my insurance company would pay up and then sue me to recover the money they paid out.

 

Instinctively I thought so too, but there are cases that say the insurer isn't liable (even to an innocent third party) for deliberate acts of their insured. However, in that scenario, the driver is effectively uninsured, and so the victim would normally be able to recover from the Motor Insurers' Bureau instead. Either way, the criminal driver is going to find it more difficult and expensive to get future insurance. Also, do people tend to go ram raiding in their own, fully insured, traceable cars? 

quiff wrote:

Tom_77 wrote:

iandusud wrote:

2Loose wrote:

I can only assume that damages and loss of earnings etc. will come from Carroll's insurance company and future insurance cost increases will turn out to be a greater punishment than the slap on the wrist that the judge gave him.

I hope so but when you take out car insurance you're insuring yourself against third party claims in the case of an accident. This was no accident, it was a deliberate criminal act. Imagine I use my car to do a ram raid and I'm caught. Do you think my insurance company would pay out for the damages?

I'd need to go through the small print on my policy, but I think if I went ram raiding then my insurance company would pay up and then sue me to recover the money they paid out.

 

Instinctively I thought so too, but there are cases that say the insurer isn't liable (even to an innocent third party) for deliberate acts of their insured. However, in that scenario, the driver is effectively uninsured, and so the victim would normally be able to recover from the Motor Insurers' Bureau instead. Either way, the criminal driver is going to find it more difficult and expensive to get future insurance. Also, do people tend to go ram raiding in their own, fully insured, traceable cars? 

Well, I always use my own car, having reported it stolen an hour before, but after seven consective incidents, the local police are looking decidely quizzical.

hirsute wrote:

What exactly do you have to do to go to jail ? Would killing the cyclist be enough, as I'm not sure.

  Arrange a shipment of ricin to precede your visit?

dee4life2005 wrote:

assault with a deadly weapon and he doesn't see any jail time! how is this any different to swinging a baseball bat at someone, stabbing them, or shooting them etc. You do either of the later and you'd almost certainly be seeing jail time, whether you injured the person or not. It's about time that the law was updated and these soft sentences for vehicular assault, against cylists in particular, are given harsher penalties - or the out-of-touch judges are removed from their posts and replaced by someone with a more hardline attitude to such incidents.

I understand the despair, but... Re: comparisons with other violent offences: it is actually unlikely you would serve a custodial sentence where no actual injury is caused. For GBH you might, but to get a conviction the prosecution has to prove that the defendant intended to / foresaw that they would cause some harm (though not necessarily the level that they actually caused). For dangerous driving, there is no such requirement to prove intent. So if you charged this driver with GBH, you would have to prove that he meant to cause harm. Not impossible, but more difficult than the driving charge, and the prosecution has to assess the public interest when making charging decisions. As for the other justice system bingo on "soft sentences" and "out of touch judges", the sentencing myths page here has you covered, plus a game of "You Be The Judge":  https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentencing/sentencing-myths/        

quiff wrote:

dee4life2005 wrote:

assault with a deadly weapon and he doesn't see any jail time! how is this any different to swinging a baseball bat at someone, stabbing them, or shooting them etc. You do either of the later and you'd almost certainly be seeing jail time, whether you injured the person or not. It's about time that the law was updated and these soft sentences for vehicular assault, against cylists in particular, are given harsher penalties - or the out-of-touch judges are removed from their posts and replaced by someone with a more hardline attitude to such incidents.

I understand the despair, but... Re: comparisons with other violent offences: it is actually unlikely you would serve a custodial sentence where no actual injury is caused. For GBH you might, but to get a conviction the prosecution has to prove that the defendant intended to / foresaw that they would cause some harm (though not necessarily the level that they actually caused).        

The victim suffered a fractured pelvis. The driver followed the victim before ramming him, which would indicate a certain degree of intent.

Beatnik69 wrote:

quiff wrote:

dee4life2005 wrote:

assault with a deadly weapon and he doesn't see any jail time! how is this any different to swinging a baseball bat at someone, stabbing them, or shooting them etc. You do either of the later and you'd almost certainly be seeing jail time, whether you injured the person or not. It's about time that the law was updated and these soft sentences for vehicular assault, against cylists in particular, are given harsher penalties - or the out-of-touch judges are removed from their posts and replaced by someone with a more hardline attitude to such incidents.

I understand the despair, but... Re: comparisons with other violent offences: it is actually unlikely you would serve a custodial sentence where no actual injury is caused. For GBH you might, but to get a conviction the prosecution has to prove that the defendant intended to / foresaw that they would cause some harm (though not necessarily the level that they actually caused).        

The victim suffered a fractured pelvis. The driver followed the victim before ramming him, which would indicate a certain degree of intent.

Fractured pelvis: I know; I was just disagreeing with the suggestion that swinging a baseball bat would result in jail whether you caused injury or not. Intent: I agree that in this case they may well have been able to demonstrate intent. But the defendant could have argued that yes, he intended to knock someone off their bike to teach them a lesson, and that wasn't a nice thing to do, but he never intended or foresaw the possibility of serious injury, which is why he dobbed himself in immediately afterwards - things just got out of hand. If the magistrate / jury is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to cause harm, the conviction fails. For the driving offence, they just have to show he fell well below the standard of a reasonable driver. I was just trying to make the point that the charging and sentencing process is much more nuanced than the press articles suggest. If the CPS decide to prosecute for dangerous driving, the judge can't just send you down for attempted murder.     

quiff wrote:

dee4life2005 wrote:

assault with a deadly weapon and he doesn't see any jail time! how is this any different to swinging a baseball bat at someone, stabbing them, or shooting them etc. You do either of the later and you'd almost certainly be seeing jail time, whether you injured the person or not. It's about time that the law was updated and these soft sentences for vehicular assault, against cylists in particular, are given harsher penalties - or the out-of-touch judges are removed from their posts and replaced by someone with a more hardline attitude to such incidents.

I understand the despair, but... Re: comparisons with other violent offences: it is actually unlikely you would serve a custodial sentence where no actual injury is caused. For GBH you might, but to get a conviction the prosecution has to prove that the defendant intended to / foresaw that they would cause some harm (though not necessarily the level that they actually caused). For dangerous driving, there is no such requirement to prove intent. So if you charged this driver with GBH, you would have to prove that he meant to cause harm. Not impossible, but more difficult than the driving charge, and the prosecution has to assess the public interest when making charging decisions. As for the other justice system bingo on "soft sentences" and "out of touch judges", the sentencing myths page here has you covered, plus a game of "You Be The Judge":  https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentencing/sentencing-myths/        

I wonder if I could find it again, but there was an academic study a few years ago that claimed to find that (a) sentences for most crimes have been getting longer, and (b) that motoring offenses were an exception where sentences have, over the same time period, been getting shorter.

Also I am not sure I agree with the emphasis put on 'intent'.  I don't see why it should be so important what is in someone's head at the time they cause harm.  Putting so much emphasis on that factor (a) rewards those who cultivate a habit of stupidity and (b) privileges those in positions of power, becuase they don't need to make so much concious effort to cause harm.

Again, I'd compare with this case (where the non-custodial sentence was later overturned after a public outcry).  There wasn't any injury in this case.  I do not see that the 'intent' here was any more obvious than in the case of driving into someone.  It still seems to me that a double-standard is involved when the weapon is a car vs a knife or anything else.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/teen-filmed-trying-to-smash-his-wa...

Edit - yeah, that sentencing myths page is all very well, but it only refers to crude averages and doesn't consider the differen types of offense.  Also everyone knows violent crime peaked in the 90's, that's the case across most of the developed world.  And, relevantly, one possible explanation is the effect of an entire generation poisoned by lead in petrol.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Also I am not sure I agree with the emphasis put on 'intent'.  I don't see why it should be so important what is in someone's head at the time they cause harm.  Putting so much emphasis on that factor (a) rewards those who cultivate a habit of stupidity and (b) privileges those in positions of power, becuase they don't need to make so much concious effort to cause harm.

English law mitigates this to some extent by having a combination of subjective and objective tests for intent. So whether or not the particular defendant actually intended a given consequence of their actions (subjective intent) may not matter if those consequences would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the circumstances (objective intent). Some crimes also require only that a defendant was reckless as to the possibility of a given consequence, not that they intended it. As I say, it's more nuanced than the press reports. For an illustration (albeit in a civil law context), see https://www.ucl.ac.uk/criminal-law/news/2018/jan/ivey-v-genting-casinos-...