View previous topic | View next topic

Life Imprisonment...or not?

Page 6 of 8
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

PDR
1384316.  Thu Jul 01, 2021 11:28 am Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
the greatest cars ever to come out of America


Well yes, but that's not exactly a high bar, is it. It's like saying Gove is one of the most honest and competent ministers in the Johnson cabinet...

PDR

 
tetsabb
1384553.  Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:14 am Reply with quote

On a related topic, I was thinking about this incident the other day, when one of our traffic officers was killed, and another permanently disabled.

Does anyone agree that an 8-year driving ban is a bit lenient? Should he ever be allowed to drive again?

 
crissdee
1384556.  Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:23 am Reply with quote

I think if it is established in a court of law that your driving caused the death of another person, then the MINIMUM should be a lifetime ban, with the option of jail time dependent on circumstances.

Furthermore, if I felt that my driving had caused so much harm, I would voluntarily surrender my licence and never get behind the wheel again, but maybe that's just me. I hope not though...

@PDR. They were magnificent for what they were designed for. Crude, ill-handling, brutes by European standards undoubtedly, but they were not designed for the European market.

 
PDR
1384561.  Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:20 am Reply with quote

In this particular case he got 7 years in jail which is on a par with non-murder killings. Whether death by extreme recklessness of this kind should be considered as murder is a different topic, but as the current practice stands that sounds right. The sentencing guidelines start from 8 years for this (most serious) category of CDBDD and can run up to a maximum of 14 years. From this are then deducted the guilty-plea discount of up to a third and a couple of mitigation points, so I suspect they probably gave him something like ten and a half years before the guilty discount.

I would call the eight year driving ban to lenient, because it would be concurrent with his jail sentence (and so would effectively be a driving ban of between one and four and a half years depending on how much remission he gets). There is only a minimum on the driving ban (12 months) in the legislation - no upper limit. Personally I'd want it to be at least 5 years after his release, with a requirement to retake his test, but the law doesn't allow for a consecutive ban. With this offence on hs record even once the ban is served he'd find it almost impossible to get insurance anyway.

But as the law requires the prison term and the driving ban to be concurrent I would be looking at doing a 50-50 and having a 7 year jail term with a 14 year driving ban.

PDR


Last edited by PDR on Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:46 am; edited 1 time in total

 
Jenny
1384580.  Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:37 am Reply with quote

The guy describes himself as "remorseful" but then this was in his statement to police:

"I accept the mobile phone analysis shows I was both sending and receiving messages on my phone prior to the accident.

"However, I do not accept any suggestion that I was distracted at the time of the collision and I do not accept the use of my mobile phone caused or contributed to this tragic accident."


How can you be remorseful when you don't accept that you did anything to contribute to the death of one person and the disabling of another?

 
PDR
1384581.  Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:44 am Reply with quote

To be fair, that's not what he's saying. He accepts that his poor driving caused death and injury, but does not accept that his phone use contributed to his poor driving. If (for example) he did frequently phone and text while driving, but can clearly remember that at the time of the accident he was not doing either, then I can understand his position.

I have no idea whether this is what happened or what was claimed, I'm merely suggesting that his statements aren't inherently contradictory.

PDR

 
Jenny
1384588.  Mon Jul 05, 2021 11:03 am Reply with quote

Whether he 'accepts' it or not is irrelevant. The fact is that it did. The last message was sent a minute and a half before the crash, and there were another 25 sent during the previous 23 miles, which at the speed limit on a motorway, assuming he wasn't actually speeding as well (and somehow I think he probably was, but that is speculation on my part), means that he was sending more than one a minute. Since the last one contained a link, it was definitely sent by text, which means his vehicle was not fully under his control whatever speed he was driving.

 
barbados
1384590.  Mon Jul 05, 2021 11:23 am Reply with quote

Assuming he was driving at the speed limit (although the report suggests he was speeding) he was just shy of two miles away from the site of the accident.
While using your phone while driving is a total dick thing to do, I can see where he is coming from, and would suggest that the weather conditions (according to the report) played a large part in the events as they played out. That would suggest, that in his mind, the speeding and the weather were responsible - not the mobile usage.

 
tetsabb
1384593.  Mon Jul 05, 2021 11:32 am Reply with quote

Very valid point PDR makes about Mr Morrison ever getting insurance again.
And crissdee says he would give up driving if he killed someone in such circumstances, I should mention that I believe that the woman responsible for the first death of one of our traffic officers in Srpt 2012 did precisely that.

 
crissdee
1384605.  Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:22 pm Reply with quote

Speed and proximity to accident site are, imho, irrelevant. Using your phone while driving is, afaik, ILLEGAL. Unless he claims that he did not know this, he deserves the full weight of the law to land squarely on his head.

 
suze
1384610.  Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:39 pm Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
Unless he claims that he did not know this, he deserves the full weight of the law to land squarely on his head.


As had been discussed previously, the maxim that ignorance is no defence is no longer a legal absolute. All the same, it is and must remain the default position; otherwise, we'd get everyone accused of any crime claiming ignorance of the law.


As for getting insurance while in possession of a DD80 endorsement (ie a conviction for causing death by dangerous driving), it may actually not be as difficult as is suggested. Endorsements expire after four years, and need not be declared to insurers after five. That suggests that if the convicted driver is in prison for longer than that, he will have no conviction that he need declare once he is released.

There are in any case niche brokers who specialise in finding insurance for drivers with such things on their records. Those firms claim that they can almost always offer cover, much as it probably won't be cheap.

While reading about that, I discovered that there is such a thing as a DD90 endorsement, which goes with a conviction for "furious driving". That sounds rather Victorian to me. Is it what you get for racing on the public highway?

 
Awitt
1384611.  Mon Jul 05, 2021 5:29 pm Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
Quote:
Furthermore, if I felt that my driving had caused so much harm, I would voluntarily surrender my licence and never get behind the wheel again, but maybe that's just me. I hope not though...


In Melbourne we've had the sentencing of a man who was not sorry at the time of the event, but this tragedy involved two drivers doing idiotic things on the same part of the freeway at the same time and the stars aligned on this day in April 2020.

The first was pulled over in his Porsche and while the four officers were doing their things at the side of the freeway, the drug affected and sleep-deprived truck driver ploughed into them, killing all four.

The media last year seemed to focus on the Porsche driver because of his not-caring attitude, he filmed one of the dying officers, got agitated that he was missing out on his sushi.

 
PDR
1384612.  Mon Jul 05, 2021 5:49 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:

As for getting insurance while in possession of a DD80 endorsement (ie a conviction for causing death by dangerous driving), it may actually not be as difficult as is suggested. Endorsements expire after four years, and need not be declared to insurers after five. That suggests that if the convicted driver is in prison for longer than that, he will have no conviction that he need declare once he is released.


He has a criminal conviction with a 7 year sentence. Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act any conviction with a sentence of 4 years or more is never Spent. So while he may not have to tell an insurer his license was endorsed, he will always have to tell an insurer that he has a conviction for CDBDD for which he received a 7 year sentence. When the details of the offence are then disclosed he'll be lucky to get a quote smaller than the cost of a ticket on a Virgin Galactic flight.

Quote:

While reading about that, I discovered that there is such a thing as a DD90 endorsement, which goes with a conviction for "furious driving". That sounds rather Victorian to me. Is it what you get for racing on the public highway?


IIRC that's a non-motoring offence (ie it's under common law rather than a road traffic or moto vehicle law) so it can be used in situations where motoring law doesn't apply - cyclists, people on scooters or horses etc.

PDR

 
PDR
1384613.  Mon Jul 05, 2021 5:55 pm Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
Whether he 'accepts' it or not is irrelevant. The fact is that it did. The last message was sent a minute and a half before the crash, and there were another 25 sent during the previous 23 miles, which at the speed limit on a motorway, assuming he wasn't actually speeding as well (and somehow I think he probably was, but that is speculation on my part), means that he was sending more than one a minute. Since the last one contained a link, it was definitely sent by text, which means his vehicle was not fully under his control whatever speed he was driving.


He accepts that he was using his phone illegally, and he accepts that his poor driving caused the accident. What he does not accept is the claim that his illegal phone use caused the accident. I gather he states that at the time he lost control of the vehicle he was not using (or looking at) the phone. He's not trying to deny responsibility for the accident, just that it was his use of a phone that caused it.

PDR

 
Leith
1384616.  Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:07 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
While reading about that, I discovered that there is such a thing as a DD90 endorsement, which goes with a conviction for "furious driving". That sounds rather Victorian to me. Is it what you get for racing on the public highway?

My family tree research turned up a possible cousin who was convicted of "furious driving" in Birmingham in 1882. He was fined 5s. + costs for doing twelve miles an hour in Bull Street.

Although a family of the same name were making early cars in C19th Birmingham, I suspect whatever he was driving on this occasion most likely had a horse attached.

 

Page 6 of 8
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group