[Closed] Road Collision Prosecutions

The charge is murder as they deliberately drove at him, mounting the reservation to do so and at a speed that, especially in a car like that, only had one likely outcome.

In contrast most people driving like dicks are not aiming to maim or kill people, let alone do so on purpose to evade arrest by the police.

We dont know their side of the story, maybe the sun was in their eyes or they panicked. There are potentially similar cases reported previosly when murder would definetly not be the charge. The lady recently who drove her q7 at a guy and demolished a shop for example, the charge was assault with intent, not attempted murder.

It was 0210hrs in the morning, they had committed burglary they were attempting to get away, they mounted the reservation and mowed down a copper. No sunshine, no excuses, sufficient grounds has been agreed by CPS to demonstrate the defendants intent, hence the charge of murder...

It is in the hands of the courts now and the defendants if found guilty of murder will be sentenced according to sentencing guidelines..... we shall see 😕

Murder because it was a police man, anyone else and it would be death by dangerous driving. Really bugs me how they go all out when its one of their own but a normal member of the public and its just a petty crime.

Wilbert the difference in your two cases is intent. The intent required to prove murder is the intent to kill OR cause a serious injury . the intent required to prove attempt murder is the intent to kill. Hence lady is charged assault with intent to gbh scrote with murder it is quite possible for them both to have had similar intentions and still be quilty of their respective serious crimes.

anyone else and it would be death by dangerous driving.

it really wouldn't

"one of our own"........

Wilbert the difference in your two cases is intent

If we accept that driving a big car at somebody at a decent speed is likely to kill them if it hits, then the intent was there for her too (assuming it was found that she did it deliberately)

If we don't accept the initial premise about it being potantially fatal, then the scouse buglars could claim that they had no idea it would kill the copper and we're down to manslaughter or DBDD aren't we?

AFAIC, the intent is the same in each case

Presumably they have some good evidence from in-car cameras that shows exactly what happened and the intent to kill was there

People like this shouldn't be allowed to mix with society in general, so hopefully a very long sentence if convicted

Robj20...............A man has died, he has left a young family. Your comment is offensive to his family, friends and colleagues.

If I was the defendant's lawyer I would try to argue that the killing was not deliberate because my client crossed the central reservation to avoid the stinger that the Officer had just deployed, accidentally hitting the officer himself. So I would be hoping for manslaughter, rather than murder.

the charge was assault with intent, not attempted murder.

that would be because for attempted murder, you have to prove intent to kill. For murder you only need to prove intent to cause serious injury, and it lead to their death. Very rare to get charges for attempted murder, they usually charge S.18 GBH (with intent to seriously injure). Sorry if actual knowledge of the law gets in the way of your indignation, but in your cited case if the victim had subsequently died of their injuries, then they [i]would[/i] have been charged with murder (assault with intent + death = murder).

which also answers

AFAIC, the intent is the same in each case

because it's NOT the same intent.

Murder because it was a police man, anyone else and it would be death by dangerous driving. Really bugs me how they go all out when its one of their own but a normal member of the public and its just a petty crime.

yes, that's exactly how it is 🙄

So I would be hoping for manslaughter, rather than murder.

look at recent cases in the news- baby shaken to death, offender admits manslaughter not murder, woman stabbed neighbour to death after discovering he was a convicted sex offender, found guilty of manslaughter not murder as it was an "exceptional case" in the words of the judge 🙄 so manslaughter plea and convictions are very common in murder cases.

A bit of local insight, i live a mile away from that RTC, its a dual carrigeway with a 40 mph speed limit, no central reservation barriers, and street lights switched off during the night to save cash, a few signs saying so on the lampposts, they broke into an estate agents, stole the keys to the pick up truck and drove round, where spotted by police, and a stinger was put across the road, they then hit a police officer and sadly killed him.

They then drove off and dumped the vehicle a distance away , 6 people where later arrested and one has been charged, he appears in court today aged 18.

There would have been cctv fitted in the chasing police cars along with the CCTV on the column at the roundabout facing the direction of the RTC.

If I was the defendant's lawyer I would try to argue that the killing was not deliberate because my client crossed the central reservation to avoid the stinger that the Officer had just deployed, accidentally hitting the officer himself. So I would be hoping for manslaughter, rather than murder.

".... and it was really dark and my client was really tired coz it was the middle of the night"

All bullshit excuses. If he could see the long, thin, black Stinger then presumably he'd be able to see the hi-viz clad officer who deployed it, and then make a conscious decision about which one to drive over.
Hanging's too good for these animals.

Another incident of someone deliberately driving a car at someone is currently in the courts...
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/mother-driving-at-least-four-children-in-4x4-rammed-cyclist-and-smashed-into-salon-in-road-rage-row-a3083701.html

It's time they just bought helicopter gunships and blew the scum away, you've been asked to stop, but no you want to play chase, boom, and the scum was gone. We must have a few back from the middle east, keep them sharp chasing targets before we all pile into syria or where ever that mess ends.

The lady recently who drove her q7 at a guy and demolished a shop for example, the charge was assault with intent, not attempted murder.

Pyne, of New Malden, denies attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, dangerous driving, and criminal damage. The trial continues.

Hanging's too good for these animals

Murder because it was a police man, anyone else and it would be death by dangerous driving. Really bugs me how they go all out when its one of their own but a normal member of the public and its just a petty crime.

This is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read on STW... And I've read - and written - some pretty dumb shit in my time here.

Dave Phillips was a man who was brave enough to devote his career to putting himself in situations where this could happen, and all to protect people like you. While you were sleeping safely in your bed, he was dying whilst trying to protect the lives and property of people like you and your family.

And you have the nerve to question whether he's now getting preferential treatment because of the uniform he wore? I wonder if he's grateful for that. I wonder if his wife and daughters are grateful.

His case is being treated no differently to if it had been you that was killed that night, but Jesus Christ, he deserves far more than you!

in israel a few years ago, local police hold out a large pole with a stop police sign on it about 12 foot long, like a stop children lolipop man but horizontal so if you dont stop it smashes into the windscreen , and then they shoot at you.

People always stop

I dont think anyones suggesting the policmans killers are likely to be getting excess attention and probably punishment but rather they wish the same standards of enforcement were shown to drivers who kill and seriously injure people who are not police.

I dont think anyones suggesting the policmans killers are likely to be getting excess attention and probably punishment but rather they wish the same standards of enforcement were shown to drivers who kill and seriously injure people who are not police.

Had I been standing at the side of that road, the killer wouldn't have ploughed us down because we wouldn't have been trying to apprehend him and take away his liberty.

Dave Phillips wasn't just an innocent bystander, he became a victim of this crime BECAUSE his employers - the Crown - put him there.

There are no circumstances why you or I would have been there in that capacity (unless we too were Police Officers), so it's impossible to compare Dave's case with a revenge attack.

There are no mitigating circumstance, PC Phillips didn't antagonise his killers, or choose to put himself in a position where he would be killed, he did it because he was duty bound by his job to do so.

So the fact that his killers have been charged with murder has nothing to do with some perceived "looking after their own" scenario, it has all to do with the fact that someone was killed for no other reason than he was employed to try and apprehend these people.

It seems there are a few keyboard law experts that fail to be able to grasp that difference.

wilburt, the whole point is the same standards of proof, procedure and sentencing guidelines apply whether the victim is a member of the public or a police officer. Which is exactly as it should be.

The charge is murder as they deliberately drove at him, mounting the reservation to do so and at a speed that, especially in a car like that, only had one likely outcome.

It was downgraded to assault as it was seen as 'too much of a stretch [to suggest that a couple of tons of car at 20mph, deliberately ramming a cyclist]' to prosecute for attempted murder. Yes the chap got 6 months for that, but that was in light of the (many) previous issues he had been arrested for and either not charged or given warnings for. I was at first ignored (it too a week to take a statement), and then accused of 'taking things too personally'...

Yes it is murder they should be charged with.
I do think in this case being a fellow officer is motivating the officers decision making.
In my experience, and what you read online, the police do not have the same concern when it is public.
*edit* reading the post above, yes he was there due to his responsibility as a police officer and for our benefit. However the charges should be the same - murder or use of car as a 'weapon' is still the same. Perhaps injury or murder of a public servant in line of duty should be sentenced more heavily?

So in summary :

This is a Mitsubishi L200 Katana - if you tear down the high street in one indiscriminately mowing down pedestrians with it then you are a cheeky scamp who's guilty of assault or death by Dangerous Driving

[img] https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRbjjds8WmYRXnCzz7e1CY38zBneAPEe4LPgguhlVLSKWQlsC2dVg [/img]

This is an actual Katana - if you tear down the high street with one indiscriminately mowing down pedestrians with it then you are a serial killing maniac who's guilty of murder

[img] https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2DMtB8g5O9B_2N7xh4naagBnPFdrvY5v7fxA5f3Ps55bg_09M_w [/img]

Do I have that right?

It's not the police deciding what to charge him with, it's the CPS, and in a case which is potentially murder, usually a senior CPS lawyer.

That ^ sounds like you weren't treated very well there. You get a wide range of attitudes within the police as with the public I guess - not justifying what you describe obviously. I've charged someone with culpable and reckless conduct for chucking a half drunk drinks can at a cyclist from a passing car, since it could have caused him to fall off into NSL traffic. Although maybe I am biased the other way?

PC Phillips didn't antagonise his killers, or choose to put himself in a position where he would be killed,

The attention this case has got on social media has been interesting. I've a strong feeling that most of those baying for capital punishment for "the scum who mowed down one of britain's finest" are probably the same ones saying "bloody helmet cam warriors" when some road rage nutter has driven their car at a cyclist.

Do I have that right?

No.

If you drove the car down the street with the intent to get to the other end of the street but you did it in a reckless manner that did not take sufficient account to the welfare of others that's dangerous driving. If you went down the street with the objective not to get to the other end of the street but to pick out pedestrians to deliberately hit with the intent to do them harm that's manslaughter, attempted murder or murder depending how good you were at it.

There simply is no analogy with a sword. If you get a sword out in a public place that is for one reason only and that is to intentionally do harm to another person.

I guess the problem in cases like Matt's is that the car has a legitimate use in that location and it is harder to persuade a jury that it was being used intentionally as a weapon. Shouldn't be, but it is.

So the fact that his killers have been charged with murder has nothing to do with some perceived "looking after their own" scenario, it has all to do with the fact that someone was killed for no other reason than he was employed to try and apprehend these people.

It seems there are a few keyboard law experts that fail to be able to grasp that difference.

They do look after their own though. Seen it time and time again. Its the way they go on the media and announce, we will spare no expense in resources in finding this person. Great so you normally do spare expense. Im all for punishing people for there crimes. Shame they dont always put so much effort in to it, i have first hand experience of it.

because it's NOT the same intent.

Sorry if actual knowledge of the law gets in the way of your indignation, but in your cited case if the victim had subsequently died of their injuries, then they would have been charged with murder (assault with intent + death = murder

If you intend to kill someone and succeed in killing them it is murder.

If you intend to kill someone and fail to do so it is attempted murder.

If you intend to cause someone grave/serious injury and end up killing them it is murder.

If you intend to cause someone grave/serious injury and do cause them grave/serious injury but don't kill them it is S18 GBH (with intent)

If you intend to assault someone but not cause a grave/serious injury but in fact end up killing them it is manslaughter.

The crime committed is determined by a combination of intention and outcome.

it was downgraded to assault as it was seen as 'too much of a stretch [to suggest that a couple of tons of car at 20mph, deliberately ramming a cyclist]' to prosecute for attempted murder

that's because it is. Which is why the woman driver in the case linked above was charged with attempted GBH - it's very very difficult to prove intent to kill, far easier to prove intent to cause serious injury.

I do think in this case being a fellow officer is motivating the officers decision making.

the police don't have the power to authorise charge for indictable- only offences. CPS make charging decisions in these cases, and they charge the offence for which there is a realistic prospect of conviction. If the PC had not died there is every probability the charge would be GBH (or attempt GBH) not attempted murder.

So are you saying there can be no such thing as attempted murder ??

I've really quite clearly NOT said that, as I've explained it is a real charge but one that is very difficult to prove, whereas it is far easier to prove intend to cause serious injury, and CPS will charge the offence they think will result in a guilty plea and/or conviction. See thegreatape's simple bullet point summary.

If you [s]get a sword out in a public place [/s] [b]drive across the central reservation in stolen pickup at 2 a.m to evade the Stinger that the clearly visible, hi-viz clad, police officer has placed there to stop you[/b], that is for one reason only and that is to intentionally do harm to another person.

You could substitute the sword for any number of innocuous but potentially fatal items.

A house brick. A golf club. A fence post. A hammer. Doesn't matter.

It's about the intent and the foreknowledge of the potential consequences of their actions.

It really boils my piss every time I watch one of these "traffic cop" shows on TV where they tell you at the end that the offenders received some paltry fine or a driving ban which they'll blatantly ignore just because they were lucky enough NOT to kill someone with their antics.

If you intend to kill someone and fail to do so it is attempted murder.

gatsby - Member
And you have the nerve to question whether he's now getting preferential treatment because of the uniform he wore?

I think that's the dumbest piece of moralising I've seen on here, and I've seen a lot.

So if I mount the pavement, at speed, and try to hit somebody with my car (sounds like she'd probably have crushed him against a wall) that's not an attempt to kill him ?

that depends on your intent. Did you intend to kill him, or intend 'just' to injure him, albeit even seriously? If you intended to just injure him, and he lived but was seriously injured, you'd be guilty of GBH not attempted murder, but if he died you'd be guilty of murder.

ATTEMPT requires a different INTENT for murder. Again, see thegreatape's post.

I think the difficulty comes from proving the intent. It's easy (relatively) to prove the harm that has actually been caused, but very hard to prove the thoughts of the defendant, unless they've been good enough to share "I'm going to kill a police officer tomorrow" with everyone in the pub the night before.

So if I mount the pavement, at speed, and try to hit somebody with my car (sounds like she'd probably have crushed him against a wall) that's not an attempt to kill him ?

drive across the central reservation in stolen pickup at 2 a.m to evade the Stinger that the clearly visible, hi-viz clad, police officer

*police
**more police

[quote=scaredypants ]So if I mount the pavement, at speed, and try to hit somebody with my car (sounds like she'd probably have crushed him against a wall) that's not an attempt to kill him ?

Maybe. The trouble with maybe is, there's your reasonable doubt right there.

There's a lot wrong with the way motoring offences are handled - not least the attitude that if by your quick reactions you avoided getting hit by the car which was deliberately driven at you the driver has done nothing wrong - but in this case the law is being applied quite reasonably and not all that differently from how it is applied in cases not involving cars. In a similar way, I don't think anybody has ever been prosecuted for attempted murder for punching somebody.

Okay, something i dont get in the latest news is this.

The lad is accused of murder, and of "attempting to wound another police office", so he only aimed at one of them and wanted to only wound the other?

t rather they wish the same standards of enforcement were shown to drivers who kill and seriously injure people who are not police.

So what other recent cases have there been where a driver deliberately killed a pedestrian?

As for standards of enforcement as far as I can ascertain every case of murder gets huge resources regardless of whether it's "one of our own" any other memmber of the public, or one criminal carrying out a hit on the other.

Okay, something i dont get in the latest news is this.

The lad is accused of murder, and of "attempting to wound another police office", so he only aimed at one of them and wanted to only wound the other?

It comes back to this...

[i]If you intend to cause someone grave/serious injury and end up killing them it is murder.[/i]

plus the scenario I omitted which is if you intend to cause some serious harm (GBH/wounding) and fail to do so its attempted GBH.

It appears that they feel they can prove that the accused intended to seriously injure both police men. He killed one, so that's murder, and failed to hurt the other, so that's attempted GBH.

It's confusing because there are two distinct states of mind where, if the outcome is killing someone, the crime is murder.

Suppose I fall out with you and your mate in a pub. I pick up a bottle, smash it on the bar, and swing it at your mate intending to slash his face and leave him with a horrible scar. In fact, I cut open his neck and he dies. The crime I have committed is murder. I also swing the broken bottle at your face, with the same intention to scar you horribly. I miss by a few inches and don't injure you at all. The crime here is attempted GBH.

If my intention during both assaults was to kill you both, then it would be murder and attempted murder.

taxi driver has been charged with murder after a car hit a man in Essex

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-32720566

Wonder how that happened when the victim wasn't a cop?

And another one.

http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/84673/trucker-charged-with-murder

So what other recent cases have there been where a driver deliberately killed a pedestrian?

[url= http://news.stv.tv/west-central/239945-joseph-townsley-jailed-for-killing-frank-baxter-in-wishaw-lorry-crash/ ]What about this one?[/url]

Thegreatape has it,

The intent or mens rea necessary to prove murder is that the action of the accused was intended to bring about the death of the person, or the intent was to wound or injure him grievously. The action caused the officer to die, so a murder charge is appropriate.

In cases of attempted murder it is not sufficient to simply foresee that driving an L200 at someone might kill them. It is a possible consequence, but not the only possible one (as other people have been hit by L200s and survived)

However, it is possible to infer through logic that driving an L200 at somene is very likely to cause them serious injury, so if the driver admits that he drove at both officers intending to get away from them, (and in theory had one been grievously injured as a result,) the law accepts that the intent was there through recklessness.

He has not admitted an intent to kill the second officer, and so attempted murder cannot be proven, but his admission of recklessness is enough to stand a charge of attempted wounding (GBH).

In the salon case, the Q7 driver did not kill, or even seriously injure the cyclist. A case of attempted murder would be proven only if there were sufficient evidence of her intent to kill him.

There is no such evidence of intent available presumably, BUT there is evidence of recklessness, inasmuch as driving a Q7 at a cyclist is likely to injure him grievously, and so the charge of attempting to cause GBH with intent is appropriate.

By the way, before anyone else makes the mistake of suggesting preferential treatment because of the uniform etc etc, the maximum sentence for attempted wounding with intent is life imprisonment, and the evidential standards and rules do NOT change depending on the occupation of the victim.

"The lad is accused of murder, and of "attempting to wound another police office", so he only aimed at one of them and wanted to only wound the other? "

as before drives at two police obviously intends to cause serious injury to both . kills one misses or lightly harms other.
murder = intent to cause serious injury (or kill) plus action causes death.
attempt wound = intent to cause serious injury plus does not in fact cause serious injury.
so the intent for both charges may be the same though the out come different.

By the way coppers are in the group who do get preferential treatment in sentencing of their murder as the "normal starting point" for sentence is a 30 year tariff on a life sentence, Criminal Justice Act 2003. now upped or to be upped to a whole life tariff by section 27 of The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

[quote=irc ]And another one.
> http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/84673/trucker-charged-with-murder
br />

Convicted
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/mark-slater-road-rage-murder-7529228

The other one doesn't seem to have gone to trial yet.

scapegoat you go wrong when you introduce recklessness into the mix both Murder and attempted wounding are crimes of specific intent not recklessness so would require the defined intents not a recklessness as to the defined outcomes , reckless resulting in death would be manslaughter reckless resulting in a wound or gbh would be section 20 gbh not section 18 . driving recklessly would be Dangerous Driving or Causing death by dangerous driving or equivalent careless driving offences.

Heres a news article on the case and a picture of the un remorseful kid who did it, remanded in custody today, with his accomplice,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-34456424

Just cycled down there to see the flowers etc, about 12 police officers just standing there some crying, a few camera crews and other media,and quite a few other people..............

Crank boy. Not quite I'm afraid. RV Cunningham introduces the test of subjective recklessness into the consideration. The accused does not need to intend specifically to murder, but may carry out an act with intent of causing serious injury but which in actual fact results in the death of the victim. The recklessness test here is whether someone appreciates that driving a pickup at a person is likely to injure or kill them. A reasonable person would appreciate that doing so is likely to cause grievous harm, so at the point where he makes the decision to drive at him, he is guilty of attempting to wound them, and if he dies as a result, then despite the lack of intent to take his life, the intent (through subjective recklessness) is proven sufficiently to prove murder.

Which Cunningham case ? R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396 which used to define recklessness but is out of date or the more recent murder case ?

R v Cunningham [1982] AC 566 the House of Lords declined the opportunity to use the 1966 Practice Statement. The mens rea of murder remains intention to kill or intention to cause GBH.
PS I do this for a living and was reading the relevent section of Archbold when I posted my first comment to you . I am more than happy to be shown to be wrong but to do so you will need to demonstrate that recklessness to kill or recklesness to cause gbh/wound can found a conviction for murder.
Not being picky but you also conflate subjective and objective reasonableness in your post.

perchypanther - Member
It really boils my piss every time I watch one of these "traffic cop" shows on TV where they tell you at the end that the offenders received some paltry fine or a driving ban which they'll blatantly ignore just because they were lucky enough NOT to kill someone with their antics.

I'd also vote for the gunship helicopter approach to stopping those who fail to stop. Judge Dredd should be the future!

Thanks to those with knowledge of the law for their explanations, much appreciated.

By reasonableness above I intended to type recklessness.

Conversely, there is case law in Scotland that entitles a jury to convict if the accused 'acted with utter and wicked recklessness as to the consequences of his act upon his victims'. Happens that it comes from an attempted muder case but that makes no odds to the mens rea.

Today's light reading was "parasitic accessory liability" in murder. I think I understand it can't work out if I agree with it and can see someone trying to stretch it to make the passenger in the car in this case guilty of murder.

I'm trying to resist the urge to go and read about parasitic accessory liability, but it's drawing me in...

I succumbed...I remember that Gnango case now. I think I end up in the same place as you - I can follow the logic of the argument(s), but it doesn't sit well. I guess with this one anything said by the passenger will become pertinent in terms of the aiding and abetting, if it could be evidenced, which I would think is unlikely.

Well I spent the evening reading two law commission reports one Scottish one English on intent in Scotland.'acted with utter and wicked recklessness as to the consequences of his act upon his victims'seems to be little different to English intent to GBH when you take on board the English definition of intent. You may or may not like the English report describes your murder law as chaotic it also lumps Scotland in with overseas jurisdictions.

I've worked in England and Scotland. One CJ system is somewhat prone to making it up as it goes along. I imagine I might agree with a lot of that report.

Couldn't see that this has been discussed on here since the verdict, but that crashed woman in the Q7 that drove at the cyclist in New Malden and then hit a hair salon. She got 3 years 😀

http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/13950300._Out_of_control__mother_of_six_jailed_for_three_years_after_driving_into_autistic_cyclist_in_Kingston_and_crashing_into_salon/

^^ that's an interesting one. She had previous for some pretty lousy driving but was still able to drive a tank like a Q7. We were chatting about this on our club run - I'd like to see some kind of endorsement on licences when there's been a conviction for dangerous driving - or even speeding if it's really extreme e.g. 50 in a 30 - so you can't drive anything above a certain size or over certain bhp.
1. It be embarrassing to explain to friends and family why you've downgraded to a Nissan Micra - social costs like this can be very powerful. Very visible too.
2. It sends a clear message that there are serious consequences
3. It limits the damage they can do to everyone else
4. It takes the argument away from defence lawyers saying the crook needs their car for work and family - they still have a car but it's embarrassingly small and slow...

The only reason she got a decent sentence was the previous, and it could be argued that if the courts had dealt with the first matter correctly, she wouldn't have had the opportunity to try to kill a cyclist with her Q7.

Absolute psycho.

and it could be argued that if the courts had dealt with the first matter correctly,

We've long gone past this point, driving is now seen as an innate right and you have to do something very extreme to get banned from the road for anything more than a year or two.

Pretty sure any car is fast enough to break the law in. I'd prefer to just see them banned outright.

^^ that's an interesting one. She had previous for some pretty lousy driving but was still able to drive a tank like a Q7. We were chatting about this on our club run - I'd like to see some kind of endorsement on licences when there's been a conviction for dangerous driving - or even speeding if it's really extreme e.g. 50 in a 30 - so you can't drive anything above a certain size or over certain bhp.
1. It be embarrassing to explain to friends and family why you've downgraded to a Nissan Micra - social costs like this can be very powerful. Very visible too.
2. It sends a clear message that there are serious consequences
3. It limits the damage they can do to everyone else
4. It takes the argument away from defence lawyers saying the crook needs their car for work and family - they still have a car but it's embarrassingly small and slow...

I was saying pretty much this to a (non-cycling) mate the other day - subject of some dick he knows who was bragging about getting off a ban due to needing a car. Mate thought this was a great idea, mostly as it'd humiliate this one particular arse, but as you say, that's the value of it.
(I was suggesting low performance car, plus some sort of specic plates, like an L plate but maybe with a dunce's hat or "coffee beans" image; my mate thought mandatory pink/orange stripes respray 😀 )

taxi driver has been charged with murder after a car hit a man in Essex

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-32720566

Wonder how that happened when the victim wasn't a cop?

Well, probably due to the fact that the victim was his estranged wife's new partner and he ran him over SIX times.

Found guilty now, will be a life term

Yes

https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/newsroom/cyclist-killed-in-aust-collision/

Sadly on a road I use 🙁

Yep - taxi driver got life, min 18 years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-34766321

Having sad that, this was a pretty straightforward murder case, the weapon just happened to be a car

Q7 woman got 3 years, and a 4 year driving ban.

Does the driving ban start when she gets out? Otherwise she's only off the road for a year after her sentence ends...

[i]“She is not a woman prone to aggressive outbursts, she is not that type of person and this wasn’t an act of violence.”[/i] !!!