Are the courts too soft?

[LeMaquis]

That is it then, he should have received 2 years in jail(page 11), the minimum sentence for dangerous driving.

"Disqualification for a minimum of two years is obligatory on conviction."

The BBC news item is very poor though, because it does not specify whether he was convicted of dangerous or careless driving; or a driving license offence.

 

Edit, According to the guidelines he should have got 8 years

 

He wasn't charged with dangerous driving;

 

"The judge said it was clear from CCTV footage that Sutcliffe was not driving dangerously".

 

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/14685274.Suspended_sentence_for_driver__81__with_poor_eyesight_who_caused_death_of_pedestrian/

[El Cid]

He was probably charged with a lesser offence then, due to a higher likelihood of conviction.

 

Guidelines are exactly that as well. There is no ongoing danger to the public, this man is never likely to drive again now that he's banned, and there is no good to be achieved by putting extremely old people in jail to die.

You seem to be focusing on the role of jail as punishment, but it's primary purpose is rehabilitation and to protect the public from any further harm.

 

I am generally against telling judges what sentence to give; but when your deliberate actions cause a death, there should be a minimum jail term.

Just like the Glasgow bin lorry crash, which caused deaths, and the driver did not go to jail.

He also had his driving license taken away, but was arrested for driving his own car, after the court case. So he, and the man that killed this lady are a danger to the public.

 

---------- Post added 17-08-2016 at 08:50 ----------

 

He wasn't charged with dangerous driving;

 

"The judge said it was clear from CCTV footage that Sutcliffe was not driving dangerously".

 

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/14685274.Suspended_sentence_for_driver__81__with_poor_eyesight_who_caused_death_of_pedestrian/

 

And this is why I asked about overall sentencing. Should such offenses be treated like driving whilst over the alcohol limit? Someone that knowingly is not as safe as a sober driver, what would be the sentence for that?

 

---------- Post added 17-08-2016 at 08:53 ----------

 

Causing death by driving: unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured

drivers, which is what he would have been had he told the truth.

 

Maximum penalty: 2 years imprisonment minimum

disqualification of 12 months, discretionary re-test

[Cyclone]

A minimum jail term to serve what purpose of the 3 purposes? Protection, rehabilitation or punishment...

 

Someone who drives after having their license revoked has demonstrated that they are a continuing danger, I agree. A jail sentence is appropriate at that point.

[999tigger]

That is it then, he should have received 2 years in jail(page 11), the minimum sentence for dangerous driving.

"Disqualification for a minimum of two years is obligatory on conviction."

The BBC news item is very poor though, because it does not specify whether he was convicted of dangerous or careless driving; or a driving license offence.

 

Edit, According to the guidelines he should have got 8 years

 

 

 

Nope it was death by carelss driving.

 

If you believe the CPS , the ppolice and judge got it wrong, then you had better tell them. Og look I pasted the relevant etx for you, but you choise to ignore it.

Edited August 17, 2016 by 999tigger

[Santo]

That is it then, he should have received 2 years in jail(page 11), the minimum sentence for dangerous driving.

"Disqualification for a minimum of two years is obligatory on conviction."

The BBC news item is very poor though, because it does not specify whether he was convicted of dangerous or careless driving; or a driving license offence.

 

Edit, According to the guidelines he should have got 8 years

 

He pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving. That reduces the sentence by 1/3 by itself.

 

You only asked if there are guidelines. There are.

 

If you don't like the sentence he got, go appeal.

[El Cid]

Nope it was death by carelss driving.

 

If you believe the CPS , the ppolice and judge got it wrong, then you had better tell them. Og look I pasted the relevant etx for you, but you choise to ignore it.

 

Lorna Jackson, from the road safety charity, Brake, said she still hoped custodial sentences would be a "starting point"(causing death by careless driving).

She said: "If someone in my family had been killed by a driver I wouldn't be satisfied for them to get a community sentence.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7178120.stm

 

Telling fibs to a doctor in order to keep your license is not a minor matter.

Perhaps fraud surrounding getting a driving license should be the serious charge.

 

---------- Post added 17-08-2016 at 13:09 ----------

 

If you believe the CPS , the ppolice and judge got it wrong, then you had better tell them. Go look I pasted the relevant etx for you, but you choose to ignore it.

 

I sent an email to uls.referrals@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk they may look at the case again, or they may feel the judge/CPS acted correctly.

Edited August 17, 2016 by El Cid

[geared]

Telling fibs to a doctor in order to keep your license is not a minor matter.

Perhaps fraud surrounding getting a driving license should be the serious charge.

 

Honestly it's just a simple plaster over the obvious problem, the process for OAP's to obtain/keep the licence is too simple, too open for abuse and does nothing to take into account the driving ability of the person.

[Santo]

Lorna Jackson, from the road safety charity, Brake, said she still hoped custodial sentences would be a "starting point"(causing death by careless driving).

She said: "If someone in my family had been killed by a driver I wouldn't be satisfied for them to get a community sentence.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7178120.stm

 

Telling fibs to a doctor in order to keep your license is not a minor matter.

Perhaps fraud surrounding getting a driving license should be the serious charge.

 

---------- Post added 17-08-2016 at 13:09 ----------

 

 

I sent an email to uls.referrals@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk they may look at the case again, or they may feel the judge/CPS acted correctly.

 

Or they will tell you that he wasn't convicted of:

 

murder

rape

robbery

some child sex crimes and child cruelty

some serious fraud

some serious drug crimes

crimes committed because of the victim’s race or religion

 

and therefore politely ignore your email.

[Cyclone]

Honestly it's just a simple plaster over the obvious problem, the process for OAP's to obtain/keep the licence is too simple, too open for abuse and does nothing to take into account the driving ability of the person.

 

It's arguable that the process is too easy to circumvent, but that doesn't mean that it's not the fault of the person who circumvented it.

It should be a crime to lie in order to obtain a driving license.

[Santo]

It's arguable that the process is too easy to circumvent, but that doesn't mean that it's not the fault of the person who circumvented it.

It should be a crime to lie in order to obtain a driving license.

 

It is a crime.