Are the courts too soft?

[Cyclone]

I wonder why they've chosen not to include it in the prosecution then...

[El Cid]

I wonder why they've chosen not to include it in the prosecution then...

 

And in the Scotland bin lorry crash?

[Cyclone]

And in the Scotland bin lorry crash?

 

Driving after the disqualification should have attracted the maximum penalty. That was absolutely inexcusable.

[Santo]

I wonder why they've chosen not to include it in the prosecution then...

 

Because he didn't obtain a license, he already had one. He told his optician he wasn't a driver. Had he said he was a driver he would have been required to surrender his license because his eyesight wasn't to the standard required.

 

Though, he did by the looks of it, fill in an application form to renew his licence and omitted the fact his eyesight was poor. Which is also a criminal offense and invalidates the license.

 

You could ask the CPS why he wasn't also charged with that offense. They love getting emails from people that aren't lawyers

Edited August 17, 2016 by Santo

[999tigger]

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.

 

He pleaded guilty to careless driving.

 

We have already posted the sentencing guidance for careless driving.

If you want to know the judges thinking then ask for a trasncript of the decision from the court.

 

You didnt know what he was charged with and failed to check.

You didnt know there were sentencing guidelines.

You didnt check those guidelines.

 

Its always worth doing the above so you can then make informed and knowledgeable comments or decisions.

[Santo]

He pleaded guilty to careless driving.

 

We have already posted the sentencing guidance for careless driving.

If you want to know the judges thinking then ask for a trasncript of the decision from the court.

 

You didnt know what he was charged with and failed to check.

You didnt know there were sentencing guidelines.

You didnt check those guidelines.

 

Its always worth doing the above so you can then make informed and knowledgeable comments or decisions.

 

The Lorna Jackson quote is a red herring. He didn't get community service, he got a custodial sentence (as she demands) but it was suspended.

[Cyclone]

Because he didn't obtain a license, he already had one. He told his optician he wasn't a driver. Had he said he was a driver he would have been required to surrender his license because his eyesight wasn't to the standard required.

 

Though, he did by the looks of it, fill in an application form to renew his licence and omitted the fact his eyesight was poor. Which is also a criminal offense and invalidates the license.

 

You could ask the CPS why he wasn't also charged with that offense. They love getting emails from people that aren't lawyers

 

Fine.

 

It should be a crime to lie in order to avoid having to surrender your license.

 

I hope it's okay with you if I just publicly say "I wonder" instead of emailing the CPS.

[Santo]

Fine.

 

It should be a crime to lie in order to avoid having to surrender your license.

 

I think it is.

 

He probably wasn't charged with that because in of itself that offense will only usually incur a ban and fine. Death by careless driving also results in a mandatory ban and he pleaded guilty to that. There is also a discretionary re-test. His eyesight is so bad he will probably never be fit to drive again so the charge and conviction of driving with an invalid license is effectively meaningless.

 

Because he killed someone he faced the charge of death by careless driving. He wasn't speeding, he wasn't drunk, he didn't run a red light when he knocked the lady over. It was careless because he can't see well enough. He pleaded guilty and got a suspended custodial sentence.

 

It depends. When I read 'I wonder' I interpreted it as containing a level of sarcasm on your part. As if you knew better. You didn't.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Santo

[L00b]

You could ask the CPS why he wasn't also charged with that offense.

Isn't there a requirement to prove the intent underlying such a lie, in the context you and Cyclone are discussing?

 

After all, a lie, in and of itself, is 'just' an untruth, not 'the crime'.

 

As a matter of equity, it strikes me that it is the context, the calculated outcome, of a lie that loads it with an element of criminality.

 

And proving that calculation is a damn side harder than proving an assertion or act or omission (...) to merely be untrue.

 

Which might explain why the CPS did not press that particular charge.

 

£0.02 musings

[Santo]

Isn't there a requirement to prove the intent underlying such a lie, in the context you and Cyclone are discussing?

 

After all, a lie, in and of itself, is 'just' an untruth, not 'the crime'.

 

As a matter of equity, it strikes me that it is the context, the calculated outcome, of a lie that loads it with an element of criminality.

 

And proving that calculation is a damn side harder than proving an assertion or act or omission (...) to merely be untrue.

 

Which might explain why the CPS did not press that particular charge.

 

£0.02 musings

 

Perhaps a mixture of both.