You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
" mowed down teens in 4x4 and reversed over one of them - because they were walking in the road "
no words.
I'll have to keep this slightly vague as he is 'not a nice man' in the darkest possible sense. Loosely related to my other half via her estranged side of the family. He is 'currently seeking help for irrational outbursts'....yep, Peruvian marching powder, it's a hell of a thing. Also very profitable to sell so I believe.....must be able to pay for a decent solicitor to stay out of jail after that charge sheet.
If you want to do serious harm to someone, use a car and you'll get a slap on the wrist.
It's things like this that cause people to not involve the police and take the law into their own hands.
I'm no legal expert but I'd describe how he deliberately injured several people and then left the scene without reporting it as a category 1, but reading his actual conviction it sounds more like category 2. Yet we're putting people into prison for things they wrote on Facebook.
Yet we’re putting people into prison for things they wrote on Facebook.
I've no problem with people being jailed for calling for attacks on other people based on where they're from. But it's insane you can mow people down with your car and claim "a bit of a temper" as mitigation.
Cars can be lethal weapons. If you killed them you may have been sentenced for murder, and I would be sentencing you to life, with perhaps 20 to 25 years to serve. Fortunately for them and fortunately for you, those injuries were not as grave as they might have been.''
Except you wouldn't have would you, you ****er judge, otherwise you'd actually have given them an appropriate sentence for the crime he did commit.
The mind boggles that scum like that are elevated to high positions in the judiciary.
WTF?
Is there a legal mechanism whereby members of the public can cause a review of the judges' decisions?
The only thing that surprises me is the car he was in.
When I read the headline I immediately assumed a Range Rover, BMW X5 or Audi Q7 but it was a Toyota.
I eagerly await the next advertising campaign stressing which 4x4 is superior for running over teenagers
If you ignore the fact he was in a car, and just apply logic he attacked a random with a weapon and broke their arm, does a suspended sentence make more sense? Not sure
Is there a legal mechanism whereby members of the public can cause a review of the judges’ decisions?
Apparently you can, in fact anyone can even if not connected to the case but you only have 28 days.
Request a review
A member of the public can request a review of a sentence by sending a request to the AGO through the ULS Scheme online. A referral to the Court of Appeal must be made within 28 days of the sentence being handed down.
If you ignore the fact he was in a car, and just apply logic he attacked a random with a weapon and broke their arm, does a suspended sentence make more sense? Not sure
Not sure it makes sense, but I think it depends on the weapon. Harsher sentencing for knives than for a bat iirc.
You don't get sentenced for the offence we think you have committed or should have been charged with. The judge will be working within guidelines, and those guidelines may be more lenient due to prison overcrowding.
Even if you tot up the seriousness of the offence using these guidelines, add in the plentiful aggravating factors - pedestrians, his own children present, give him a discount for the guilty plea and presumably previously clean record, it's hard to see how he avoids prison time. The judge clearly thought there was intent and premeditation, given his comments about how it could have been a murder charge if one of them had died.
FFS he went and got his mates and went hunting for his victims...
Is there a legal mechanism whereby members of the public can cause a review of the judges’ decisions?
Sort of. You can ask the Attorney General to consider using their powers to refer to court of appeal for being unduly lenient, but its worth making sure you actually understand what it is you are complaining about. From the article:
Hulme pleaded guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and using threatening behaviour.
He received a two-year suspended sentence, with orders to complete 20 rehabilitation activity days and 200 hours of unpaid work. He was also ordered to pay £2,000 in compensation to the more seriously injured boy and £500 to the other injured lad. His not guilty pleas to causing GBH and affray were accepted.
So the crown accepted it was neither GBH nor affray - the judge is then sentencing on assault and the road traffic act offences. Make sure you read the sentencing guidelines and apply them to what was actually said in court, not what you think he did becuase the Judge has to work with the agreed narration not his own supposition about the events. I'm pretty sure that for this sentence there will have been a background report too, which you will never see. I dare say part of the defence mitigation is "he employs 15 people who will immediately be out of work without him". So the judge's dilemma is make 15 people redundant, send him to jail - automatically released at 1/2 way and probably closer to 40% because there is no room. If he's in jail the victims probably get no compensation. He probably gets no meaningful rehabilitation (at a <12 month prisoner in a broken system). After he's release he's more likely to reoffend. OR I can leave him with the threat and hopefully get him to behave for 2 years, have him do something "worthwhile" in the community, attend 20 days or rehab, and compensate the victims. Presumably he was also banned from driving (i'm pretty sure its mandatory).
Except you wouldn’t have would you, you **** judge, otherwise you’d actually have given them an appropriate sentence for the crime he did commit.
The crime I assume you think he should have been sentenced for, attempted murder, was not what the CPS chose to charge, and then on the day they accepted lower charges - suggesting they weren;t confident they could prove what you think he did. The judge MUST sentence within the guidelines unless he has (and states) very good reasons. If he goes too tough he almost certainly will be appealed. If he goes too soft the crown can appeal but will only be successful if its a sentence that no reasonable judge would have imposed in the circumstances. I'm not convinced the AG will think this is so far outside the range that it merits thousands of pounds more of taxpayers money, but even if they do, I think it will pivot a lot on what the social work report says.
The mind boggles that scum like that are elevated to high positions in the judiciary.
I think you've lost the argument when you start calling judges scum because you don't understand the sentence on a case reported in the MEN. The headline and the sentence don't seem to fit together - but if the headline is accurate, I'd suggest the question is really for the Crown Prosecutor why they accepted a lower charge, or even why it was not prosecuted as attempted murder. You'll never get an explanation from them. If the judge has got it wrong there is a process of appeal and all judges learn from those outcomes. I'm not aware of any such process for prosecutors (victims may have a right to review but given they didn't give an impact statement that is likely difficult). If the law is wrong its politicians, not judges who need to sort that.
I hope he has been banned from driving as I have to cycle on Cheshire roads. I really don't like having to share the road with people like him.
Poly is "The Secret Barrister" and I claim my £5.
I am surprised the CPS accepted the lower guilty plea given the reported version of events though. I guess we also need to accept that a jury of his/our peers will not have the same experience and/or bias that a forum of cyclists who risk this kind of nutter every day would have.
When sentencing, are employers really given more grace than employees?
When sentencing, are employers really given more grace than employees?
I assume a societal view has to be taken somehow - if you send an employee to prison for a year one family may end up on benefits/homeless. If you send an employer to prison, and his small business fails without him, that's 6-10 innocent families ruined maybe.
Obviously that skews "all are equal in the eyes of the law". We like to slag off judges we disagree with, it's easy to fail to understand how complex the decisions they have to make are.
I’ve no complaints about judges, they literally don’t write the laws or the rules. But the idea that being an employer is a mitigating factor doesn’t sit well with me. Feels Victorian. Lock up the mill worker, have a stern word with the mill owner.
I eagerly await the next advertising campaign stressing which 4×4 is superior for running over teenagers
If I recall correctly BMW advertising refers to this as “road presence”.
200 hours and 20 for rehabilitation is in lieu of a six month prison sentence. The driver who left me for dead in a hit and run received the same as she was sole carer for a five year old and elderly parents. She pleaded guilty at the latest opportunity. The guilty plea is what kept him out of prison. If he fails to complete the 200 hours, he will serve time. It’s the maximum sentence that can be imposed without a custodial sentence and is seen as equivalent.
I hope he has been banned from driving as I have to cycle on Cheshire roads. I really don’t like having to share the road with people like him.
That was my immediate thought, no mention that he will be kept off the roads, which for me is more than an issue than whether he is in prison or not.
I know that unlike some countries UK legislation/courts don't allow for it but imo someone like that should receive maybe a 10 year driving ban, if not a lifetime ban.
Obviously it would cause them to make big adjustments to their lives, and in this case presumably add a significant cost to their business, but I am sure that the thought of never being allowed to drive again would act as a massive deterrent.
I consider being allowed to drive and share the roads with other users to be a privilege not a basic guaranteed right, that is after all is why we have driving tests and people need to prove they deserve that privilege.
However well he performed during his driving test this particular arsehole has proved that due to his character he does not deserve the privilege of holding a driving licence, which I presume he still unfortunately holds.
That is absolutely shocking. We lost a colleague due to similar circumstances, they tried a to get away with it too. Thankfully the jury and judge didn’t they’re in prison for a long time but a family, friends and colleagues lost a great guy.
Yet we’re putting people into prison for things they wrote on Facebook.
Threatening to set fire to a building with people inside because you’re a racist you mean.
I’d suggest the question is really for the Crown Prosecutor why they accepted a lower charge, or even why it was not prosecuted as attempted murder.
Because they know, either from counsel to counsel chat or from his brief that he'll plead to a lower charge, CPS are completely risk adverse and have to work in a system that is on its arse so have no appetite for any fights.
I know that unlike some countries UK legislation/courts don’t allow for it but imo someone like that should receive maybe a 10 year driving ban, if not a lifetime ban
Ten year bans are fairly common in Ireland and that's in rural areas without the public transport of GB.
but I am sure that the thought of never being allowed to drive again would act as a massive deterrent.
unfortunately deterrence only acts with folk thinking rationally. This chap had lost his ability to think rationally.
Unfortunately, this type of case is quite usual. Apart from an occasional aberration, judges are bang on with their decisions and follow national guidelines. Where guidelines don't yet exist they'll follow sentencing benchmarks set in similar cases. Some recent Just Stop Oil sentences followed benchmarks
A sentence has to be "unduly" lenient to be appealed, but a major stumbling block can be the wishes of the victim and the MEN article says, "The victims do not wish to provide a victim personal statement (VPS)... They just want to move on with their lives.”
So the crown accepted it was neither GBH nor affray
No, it's more subtle; the Crown will take take the guilty plea to a lesser offence. That's a successful prosecution stat without using unnecessary court time and expense and fits with the victim's wishes (see VPS comment ^^).
A broken arm tends towards GBH. Reversing into someone in a SUV could elevate that to GBH with intent, so that crime had already dropped on charge because the intent couldn't be shown https://www.jdspicer.co.uk/site/blog/crime-fraud/what-injuries-are-classed-as-gbh
This causes a tension in police stats because they will have recorded the crimes as GBH and affray, if you watch the Beds Police series "24 hours in Police Custody" you'll see this in tension in every episode (and probably feel some frustration) https://www.channel4.com/programmes/24-hours-in-police-custody
Media often doesn't report crime accurately, however, causing serious injury by dangerous driving. Obligatory disqualification: minimum 2 years with compulsory extended re-test https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/causing-serious-injury-by-dangerous-driving/
I’ve read the arguments with interest. My instinct is that he got off lightly. Although i understand there are things i don’t know about the case and systems that have to be made to work
But I’m very glad due process was done. There are lots of people that drive in a way likely to cause harm who face no consequences at all. There are people who drive in a way likely to cause harm and do cause harm and face no consequences. So at least these victims got their day in court
Interesting hearing a bit of back story, maybe part of the reason the teens chose not to give a victim impact statement and "get on with their lives"?
Good points poly. My ire should probably be directed elsewhere within the judicial system. Is it the CPS that decided what to charge with,? Either way the system clearly doesn't work and the outcome is laughable.
Btw I wasn't implying they should have charged him with attempted murder. I am ( patently obviously ) not a legal person but I would hope there was something between " minor traffic offence" and attempted murder that might have stuck.
And yes, I do get that the prisons, police, cos etc have been decimated by Tory cuts.
Possible alternative thread title: scrotes unwisely picked a fight with a bigger fish swimming round in the same fetid pond.
Yeah, the mainstream media does us no favours here, doubly so with local press for local people. "Man runs over children, gets a slap on the wrist, another man says some hurty words and goes to jail" generates sales/clicks but as demonstrated on this very thread it creates malaise and unrest amongst the populace about the perceived injustice.
As Poly said, the Judge will have case law and will have to make that gel with the crime, they can't just make it up. A guilty plea, contrition, mental health issues, the agreement to seek help, the lack of a statement from the victims, the impact on other innocents etc etc could all have worked in the defendant's favour. Premeditation, intent and so forth would have been held against him.
maybe part of the reason the teens chose not to give a victim impact statement and “get on with their lives”?
Fear?
Tory cuts.
Damn you, autocorrect.
Fear?
Possibly.
Possible alternative thread title: scrotes unwisely picked a fight with a bigger fish swimming round in the same fetid pond.
If being a gobby, annoying prick was in any way a justification for being run over I dare say this would be a very empty forum.
And yes, I do get that the prisons, police, cos etc have been decimated by Tory cuts
Except that police numbers were boosted by Boris to greater than 2009 levels and Crown Court sitting days have been reduced by the current Labour government
Prisons are due a massive shake-up, hence the 2024 appointment of Lord Timpson to the post of Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending
Except that police numbers were boosted by Boris to greater than 2009 levels
Really?
From that report:
Total police officer strength decreased from 2010 to 2018 but has since been increasing. On 31 March 2024 there were 170,500 full-time equivalent (FTE) police officers in the United Kingdom. This was a 10% increase from the number of police officers operating in 2003, when these figures were first recorded by the Home Office, but a 0.7% fall from the peak number of officers in 2010.
Although it's patchy across the UK, and well behind population growth.
Wasn't it Teresa May who got rid of 22,000 police from 2010? So Boris was merely undoing the damage caused earlier.
https://www.polfed.org/news/latest-news/2019/why-we-re-all-glad-to-see-the-end-of-may/
We should be completely clear that driving bans are not punishment: they’re a public safety measure.
I don't see why it can't be both? It's hard to argue that driving is a privilege not a right, then claim that a removal of privileges isn't a punishment.
I’m with zomg on this… failing eyesight? Privilege removed. History of causing collisions? Privilege removed. Shouldn’t need proof of intent to lose the privilege. Any punishment for a crime should be separate (ie. in addition) to keeping unsafe drivers off the road.
So the going back to the club and getting mates and then going hunting for the lads is fine?
Yeah the sequence of events (as related in the article) looks like, shouty shoving and fisticuffs in the street, pop back to snooker hall (leaving your nipper in car) to get some mates then head out hunting in the 'pursuit special'... doesn't sound very "heat of the moment" to me...
Also says he had not guilty pleas to GBH and affray accepted... If getting out of the motor for some physical altercation isn't affray what is?
Apparently an ADHD diagnosis (does ADHD make people into hyper-aggressive pricks? None of the sufferers I've ever met fit that archetype) and some mitigating waffle gets you down to a slap on the wrist as if it's another driving whoopsy...
Don't care if he's got kids, a business or a condition, he's clearly a throbber and a bully and some time out (from society) might be a good thing (for him and the rest of us). Unfortunately they've not asked me to set the sentencing guidelines yet...
Again,
Do I think he should have been sent down? Based on the evidence as reported, yes. He clearly either needs mandatory rehabilitation or incarceration.
But, I am not in full possession of the facts and hand-wringing about sentencing doesn't get us anywhere. You know the Internet memes about experts vs opinions? Does anyone here claim to know better than an actual Judge with the legal weight of Clerks To The Justices and the rest of the courts system behind them? (I mean, I'd be surprised if we didn't have a Judge or two, but...)
I’m sure there’s more to it than makes the report, let alone the headline.
I certainly don’t want to pay £50k a year to imprison him.
I also certainly don’t want him to be able to continue to drive - a ten year ban wouldn’t make his employees lose their jobs, but might help him contain his anger! Seems like the proper outcome.
Don't worry Cougar, I'm fully aware I'm just another internet Opinion haver, spouting after the fact and having read one article.
The thing that was notable to me though was:
Hulme pleaded guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and using threatening behaviour.
He was seemingly given three charges that fitted his actions, and (assumptions time) thanks to having enough financial resources two of the three charges he pled guilty to and was convicted of, were lesser, this reducing his chances of prison time. Had he been found guilty of GBH and Affray on top of the injury by dangerous driving there's a stronger chance he'd be banged up right now...
That's a common theme with a lot of these reported driving cases, retain a good defence and you can wriggle out of the full consequences mainly by bartering over what to plead and what not to. The Judge, as you rightly point out, can only sentence on the basis of the final judgement. Obviously we weren't there, but I do wonder if his entered pleas were challenged much by the CPS, or if the increased possibility of an easier 'win' ended up trumping more a appropriate outcome.
Either way he's out and free to keep making choices, maybe he's showing true contrition, maybe a driving ban and some counselling will help him manage his anger... Or maybe he's back on the powder within 18 months, behind the wheel in 24 and some other poor bastard gets his special attention within 36 when this unpleasant episode is just a disappearing memory for him... I don't think many leopards change their spots.
Anyone else confused as to why death would have meant a murder charge (according to the judge) but this wasn't assault?
Anyone else confused as to why death would have meant a murder charge (according to the judge) but this wasn’t assault?
Yes me. But you phrased it much better 🙂
And taking what poly said into consideration, it seems clear that even if the kid had died the CPS wouldn't have charged him with murder but whatever lesser charge they think would have been easier to make stick. And the judge would have sentenced him on that, not murder.
So yes, the judge's statement does seem wrong.
(assumptions time) thanks to having enough financial resources
Assumptions indeed. How about "thanks to the Judge following due process"?
Had he been found guilty of GBH and Affray on top of the injury by dangerous driving there’s a stronger chance he’d be banged up right now…
Sure. But the CPS (assumptions time) concluded that they wouldn't get those charges to stick.
That’s a common theme with a lot of these reported driving cases
Whilst we're assuming things, I wonder whether the word "driving" is redundant here. Because...
I do wonder if his entered pleas were challenged much by the CPS, or if the increased possibility of an easier ‘win’ ended up trumping more a appropriate outcome.
... I would say this is plausible, likely even. It's plea bargaining, if an accused accepts a lesser charge without fuss then we avoid drawing out a legal fight for months with the possibility of losing at the end of it.
The entry point to this line of argument seems to be that the CPS is daft and you can just buy your way out of a conviction. Whilst I don't doubt that having a good lawyer will help your case, the former point I would take issue with. This is a mature process.
The entry point to this line of argument seems to be that the CPS is daft and you can just buy your way out of a conviction.
Could I suggest:
the CPS is underfunded, under resourced and has very low targets in terms of what they try to achieve. They seem to take frequent opportunities to go for easier wins in an attempt to try to make their stats look less bad. As a result a lot of crims seem to get off lightly..
Anyone else confused as to why death would have meant a murder charge (according to the judge) but this wasn’t assault?
It's just speculation by the judge TBF, and he's right it could hypothetically have meant a Murder charge, but as I noted^^, what you are charged with, what you plead guilty to and what you are ultimately convicted of can be quite different things...
No doubt had he been charged with murder, a good brief would have gotten it down to 'causing death by dangerous driving'...
The goal isn't to prove innocence, it's to minimise the charge and thereby the maximum sentence when found guilty. Strictly speaking he didn't "get off" he's been convicted and sentenced, just for a lesser crime than he was initially charged with. That's what the system working looks like... Apparently.
Could I suggest:
the CPS is underfunded, under resourced and has very low targets in terms of what they try to achieve. They seem to take frequent opportunities to go for easier wins in an attempt to try to make their stats look less bad. As a result a lot of crims seem to get off lightly..
Also seems plausible.
The goal isn’t to prove innocence
Nail on the head. The goal is to prove guilt.
What thegeneralist said, I don't think the CPS is daft, but available resources Vs convictions is a calculation they have to make.
Feel free to pick.my ramblings apart cougar, but they are just the unstructured thoughts of an uninformed, grumbling halfwit on the internet with an axe to grind... You know what they say about arguing with idiots 😉
And do you suppose I'm any different? 🙂
There's not much point in a discussion forum if we don't use it to discuss things.
Really?
In the context of a 2024 thread about a case in Cheshire, yes, really.
There were 143,770 full-time equivalent (FTE) police officers in the 43 police forces of England and Wales as at 31 March 2009. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20110218145456/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/hosb2009.html
England and Wales: on 31 March 2024, there were 147,746 FTE police officers in England and Wales
Obviously politicians mess about with stats and compare apples with pears (headcounts v FTE, for example)
Wasn’t it Teresa May who got rid of 22,000 police from 2010? So Boris was merely undoing the damage caused earlier.
I'm very well aware of Teresa May, thank you. I was there 🙂
I've served under fourteen Home Secs, Conservative and Labour and they've all experimented with police numbers in a variety of ways. Both parties have reduced pensions and other entitlements, making retention of officers more difficult.
And full time equivalent means little when you strip out the back room support staff and leave serving officers to do that job. This removing them from the street
You're possibly more up to date than I am and each force is beholden to its PCC and chief officers. During my time the balance of staff swung massively toward support staff, freeing police officers up. PCSOs, HATOs (now National Highways), civilian investigators, civilian collision investigators, training staff, custody assistants, etc.
Police no longer escort every prisoner, abnormal loads and police football grounds, that's mostly been privatised, so the balance has swung massively there as well
“That did come up in the meeting today in terms of the capability that’s needed, but, look, to be frank, what happens in the next few weeks matters, and that isn’t a question on its own of recruitment, which takes longer, it is a question of co-ordinating the response, making sure the capability that we’ve got to share intelligence, shared data, have a co-ordinated response, and to act as quickly as possible in cases so that arrests are followed swiftly by charging.” Sir Kier Starmer Aug 2024 (following the national unrest) and reported in various media
Anyone else confused as to why death would have meant a murder charge (according to the judge) but this wasn’t assault?
If I understand you correctly, it is assault, the full definition for ABH includes "any assault occasioning actual bodily harm" https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/47
Here's an example of a murder charge using a car https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2024-06-19/chris-marriott-witness-tells-jury-how-he-watched-car-plough-into-father-of-two
I met someone who did 6months detention centre for killing someone with a car, but that was unintentional i guess, and 40+ years ago.
Also know someone stating he goes to the doc and says " if i dont get some pills I'll kill someone'. And he's big and dodgy
Claiming its OK to lose your temper is not an excuse. Sure, lose your temper, but on inanimate objects. Anger management courses was never an excuse to hurt someone. Nor is the culture,of joining in with the violence just because someone else has
But I do think "children" are under 16. I'm english
and the law is the law, if you're rich or poor
So if he had been on foot and gone at them with a knife , a baseball bat , knuckle duster or hammer, enough to hospitalise the yoof , would he now be in prison?
Hit them with a 2 ton posh car , and he isn't...
That's not right.
Hit them with a 2 ton posh car
When did a Toyota CHR become posh?
But I do think “children” are under 16. I’m english
Are they allowed to get married without parental permission, vote or leave school now?
So if he had been on foot and gone at them with a knife , a baseball bat , knuckle duster or hammer, enough to hospitalise the yoof , would he now be in prison?
I don't know, would he?
Hit them with a 2 ton posh car , and he isn’t…
That’s not right.
If true then I would agree. If not then it's a strawman.
Wounding , with intent.
He deliberately went back to confront the yoofs . Not a spur of the moment , instant retaliation in the heat of the moment thing.
The reason for going back to find them wasnt to shake hands and congratulate them on a job well done , it really can only be to inflict violence.
So if he had been on foot and gone at them with a knife , a baseball bat , knuckle duster or hammer, enough to hospitalise the yoof , would he now be in prison?
Schrödinger's assault really innit, all the what ifs, but that is not what happened so it's sort of irrelevant.
But I take your point, the bar for injuries caused using a car seem to come with an extra barrier around demonstrating intent and it seems a bit skewed still. But we know he meant to do the victims real physical harm due to his actions in the build up to using his car as a weapon. Hence my questioning why he (or rather his brief) was able to barter the secondary charges down to lesser crimes carrying lighter sentencing (acknowledging Cougar's ponts).
Ultimately is it in the public interest that this man is removed from society for a period of time for both his own rehabilitation and to reduce the likelihood of him engaging in further violence?
The court (as Cougar points out, who had all the salient facts) felt the public interest would be served with a non-custodial sentence...
But I would still contend that his actions were not just sudden, they took place over a period of time and escalated to the point where he used a car to deliberately injure two people.
I reckon He'll be involved in some sort of violent offence within the next decade, but that's based on nothing more than my own bias, and of course justice being blind can't just operate on such a basis for when someone is 'obviously a wrongun'. When he ****s up, I do at least hope the sentencing judge is allowed to look at his previous offending and take that into account.
100%. Well said.
It feels wrong. I know it feels wrong, it feels wrong to me too. But I twitch at reactionary responses to stories like this one.
People like to decry social media but the MEN report here is the initial hand grenade, SM is just the resulting overpressure from that. Always remember the Four Fs - First Find the Bloomin' Facts. We're marching blindly towards a right wing utopia.
I'm going out shoplifting, if I get nicked I'll use in my defence that I'm a bit "stealey" since apparently being really angry is mitigation against anger offences.
I don't see it but is there any psychological evaluation side to this? Surely if someone tells a court "I am prone to uncontrollable anger and it led me to drive over a bunch of kids" that's got a whole other side to it than just criminality. If true it's not a mitigation, it's an additional risk.
If true it’s not a mitigation, it’s an additional risk.
And it makes them being allowed to keep their driving licence even more baffling.
Someone prone to epilepsy wouldn't necessarily get a jail sentence if they were involved in a road traffic accident but they would not be allowed to keep their driving licence.
Lifetime driving bans for people guilty of criminal activity whilst driving really should become a thing.
Not knowing much about how the judicial process works, I'm curious about all the comments like "the CPS chose the offence they thought most likely to stick".
If they went with attempted murder in the first place and it didn't stick for whatever reason, does that mean he'd get off scot free? Why doesn't it just automatically drop down to next relevant level?
Or charge him with something like "we charge you with attempted murder, or possibly GBH with intent, or possibly affray, or possibly driving without due care, or possibly being a public nuisance, aargh if nothing else we'll get you on your overly bright brake lights"?
I give up this website is unusable! Many of the things some of you hope happen already are “the process”. Some others are not for good reason.
We may be straying into conjecture territory, BUT no one has mentioned the fact that the article mentions that the victims declined to provide victim impact statements. From experience this is pretty telling. It suggests that the “victims” refused to cooperate with the prosecution.
Now it may be to do with the lurid backstory of a violent drug dealing psychopath, or it may be that the kids were acting total dickheads, ended up brawling with the driver and suddenly discovered that there were consequences to their actions.
Whatever else we the STW jury might think, CPS have decided that putting a bunch of **** teens into the witness box would have made for difficult optics. Try and push a high tariff charge in those circumstances might well have ended up with “serves the little ****ers right” decision from the jury.
So line of least resistance is to offer a plea bargain deal and go for the charges his solicitor persuades him to give a guilty plea to, rather than risk a complete not guilty after a debacle of a trial.
A man still holds a valid driving licence despite having 229 penalty points, figures show.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8yq063m96o
If he can afford to pay the insurance, and I am amazed that he has found anyone willing to provide him with insurance, then he can afford to pay a chauffeur.
A chauffeur who drives safely and doesn't have penalty points on their driving licence.
It really shouldn't be just about him, other road users and pedestrians are entitled to expect people with literally hundreds of penalty points to be kept off the roads.
I saw that earlier. A 26y.o, it's absolutely astonishing. There's a bit of vague explanation of how someone might accrue points yet not receive a ban but I'm keen to see the finer details about how this person has been allowed to continue to drive. I suspect it revolves around the precept of not punishing others, thus if the miscreant is banned others will suffer even through they have done no wrong. 229 points FFS. Wow. Thus a repetitively proven unsafe driver is permitted to remain driving.
"In fact he fell over when he tried to kick out" After leaving a snooker club. Sounds like he was pissed, too.