Dont know about anyone else but I think he got off lightly,10 yrs would have been more appropiate.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/Joyrider-jailed-after-killing-gran.3822109.jp

I remember that heart breaking story when it happened, that is simply not right. I'd like to think that it is because the judge has some restriction on his sentencing and not that he's stupid.

Normally I would think longer would be appropriate, but as he was brain damaged and blinded in the crash, then maybe it is punishment enough.

i think thats extreme as he cant remember nothing and is also brain damaged and blind for the rest of his life.

Here (http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=675) are the sentencing guidelines for the judge for causing death by dangeous driving cases.

People do recless things everyday, take chances. Its only when the worst out come happens that it seems it wasnt worth it.

Im sure this young lad will regret it no matter if the jail term was less and will concider himself very lucky to have survived his recless bahavour himself.

The trouble with the young is life isnt thought about as much as us older wiser people, thats why we send them off to wars for us.

Here (http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=675) are the sentencing guidelines for the judge for causing death by dangeous driving cases.

Nothing in them (hardly surprising) about how long - or even whether - it is appropriate to jail someone who is so much brain damaged that they're effectively no longer the same person who caused the accident. That's a thorny one.

i think thats extreme as he cant remember nothing and is also brain damaged and blind for the rest of his life.

Just because he can't remember does not mean he did not know what he was doing at the time and his personal condition is solely down to the fact that as an already disqualified driver he stole a motorbike, drove at excessive speed and killed someone. 5 1/2 years is a complete joke of a sentence (out in less than 3 years !).

Normally I would think longer would be appropriate, but as he was brain damaged and blinded in the crash, then maybe it is punishment enough.

No it isn't. Funny how he was determined not to plead guilty, with his solicitors claiming he couldn't have a fair trial etc etc because he couldn't remember anything and as soon as the judge said no, we're going to try him anyway, he (or they) decided to plead guilty. It was a disgusting, horrendous crime and the world would be a better place without him.

Just because he can't remember does not mean he did not know what he was doing at the time and his personal condition is solely down to the fact that as an already disqualified driver he stole a motorbike, drove at excessive speed and killed someone. 5 1/2 years is a complete joke of a sentence (out in less than 3 years !).

The exact same argument would see a corpse sentenced to ten years, if the person who committed a dangerous driving offence killed himself as well as others. Just because he's now dead doesn't mean he did not know what he was doing at the time and .....

Nothing in them (hardly surprising) about how long - or even whether - it is appropriate to jail someone who is so much brain damaged that they're effectively no longer the same person who caused the accident. That's a thorny one.It does say this (f) The fact that the offender has also been seriously injured as a result of the incident caused by the dangerous driving – the Panel stresses that only a very serious, or life changing injury, should have a significant effect on the sentence in mitigating factors when sentencing.

It does say this in mitigating factors when sentencing.

Ah, so it does. I missed that!

Probably it was a large reason why he got off so lightly.

I know i am gonna get a hammering for saying this, but it is justice that he has permantly impaired his own life. many incidents like this end up with the victim being killed or permantly disabled/traumatised. Like Naseem Hamed when his reckless driving crippled and ruined the lives of Anthony Burgin and his girlfriend who were in the other car. Naseem walked away unharmed. Not that i would deliberatley wish harm to anyone but it just seems unfair that the people who cause these accidents 'walk away' from them and the innocents are the ones left behind to rebuild their lives.

*steels self for onslaught of annoyed forummers*

The exact same argument would see a corpse sentenced to ten years, if the person who committed a dangerous driving offence killed himself as well as others. Just because he's now dead doesn't mean he did not know what he was doing at the time and .....

Even by your standards, this is a completely ridiculous attempt at an argument

The defence team often winds the judge round their little finger and exagerrate the plight of the defendant in order to reduce the sentence. I can understand a lighter sentence as an incentive for a guilty plea but I think that he should still have got a stiffer sentence with a possible reduction further into it depending on how his condition turns out to be in the longer term.

Even by your standards, this is a completely ridiculous attempt at an argument

It is ridiculous, indeed. That's exactly what I was pointing out.

I know i am gonna get a hammering for saying this, but it is justice that he has permantly impaired his own life. many incidents like this end up with the victim being killed or permantly disabled/traumatised. Like Naseem Hamed when his reckless driving crippled and ruined the lives of Anthony Burgin and his girlfriend who were in the other car. Naseem walked away unharmed. Not that i would deliberatley wish harm to anyone but it just seems unfair that the people who cause these accidents 'walk away' from them and the innocents are the ones left behind to rebuild their lives.

*steels self for onslaught of annoyed forummers*

I'm with you on this. They knew what they were doing "at the time of the event", that's what counts, not their remorse afterwards.
The world would be a better place without these morons!

It is ridiculous, indeed. That's exactly what I was pointing out.

Yes because every week the courts are overwhelmed with the trials of corpses. You just can't get through the magistrates doors for dead bodies these days.

Maybe that's the cause of all the prison overcrowding too eh ? All those naughty corpses who have been found guilty of heinous crimes serving their sentences. After all, no sense in sentencing them to death is there because they are already dead.

Which makes them totally different than someone who is still alive.

And under English law a corpse cannot be tried for anything as they are not capable of defending themselves.

If the man is technically brain dead and blind what possible use is it to jail him?
If he knows why his liberty is being taken away then jail time does serve a purpose but if he doesn't know the difference then why?
I dont think for one minute he should have got that punishment if he was in control of all his faculties but i cant see the point in his present condition.
If they are going to make a statement of intent then they should have jailed Hamed or any other role model that commits this sort of crime for 10 - 15 years.
As to what sort of punishment he should get then who knows but jail is not the answer.

Yes because every week the courts are overwhelmed with the trials of corpses. You just can't get through the magistrates doors for dead bodies these days.

Maybe that's the cause of all the prison overcrowding too eh ? All those naughty corpses who have been found guilty of heinous crimes serving their sentences. After all, no sense in sentencing them to death is there because they are already dead.

Which makes them totally different than someone who is still alive.

And under English law a corpse cannot be tried for anything as they are not capable of defending themselves.You're missing Heyesey's clear point. He is saying that the person on trial can be different to the one who caused the accident and took it to the extreme by using the corpse analogy.

difficult situation, how is life in jail being blind going to do anything. On the flip side, you could argue he should never have been on that bike, and had it not been for the fact he stuck Mrs Marsden then perhaps he may still have sustained the same injury by hitting a non-living object.

Well said hepstall.

No-one forced him onto that motorbike. No-one forced him to drive at that old lady, killing her. who, exactly made him drive at that stupid, stupid speed?

Justice needs to be done, and needs to be seen to be done, and sentencing needs to be appropriate, without being vengeful.

Well said hepstall.

No-one forced him onto that motorbike. No-one forced him to drive at that old lady, killing her. who, exactly made him drive at that stupid, stupid speed?

Justice needs to be done, and needs to be seen to be done, and sentencing needs to be appropriate, without being vengeful.On that basis is his sentence just?

IMO he's got the very least he deserved.

IMO he's got the very least he deserved.Where does it go from punishment to revenge though, how can that be quantified? It could be said that his injuries in themselves are punishment and that anything else is vengeful. I don't have an issue with that btw, I think that this couples family ought to get some revenge for their suffering.

IMO he's got the very least he deserved.

Well said! He knew what he was doing when he took the bike, that is what people are missing the point about. Had he not sustained his injuries would he have had compassion for the lady he killed?

His injuries were self inflicted and i am not really sure that they should be taken into consideration. You cant really say....'oh well he has blinded himself, so thats enough punishment'

I've seen this lad so many times, in town etc.
He's gotten on my bus loads. I even waited at the same bus stop with him once (this was before i knew what he'd done). I used to feel quite sorry for him, because he seemed to vunerable and needed help to get on the bus, and walk around.
But when i shared a bus stop with him, he was quite rude, and im almost certain he made a very rude remark to one of the girls he was standing with who would then help him on the bus. I think he said something about how he'd like to **** me.

Nonetheless. I've seen how he is. He's extremelly vunerable. He has to hold onto people when walking in public.
So this, plus his sentence. I believe he's been punished enough.
Plus he'll have to live with this for the rest of his life.

The story is pretty heartbreaking though

I've seen this lad so many times, in town etc.
He's gotten on my bus loads. I even waited at the same bus stop with him once (this was before i knew what he'd done). I used to feel quite sorry for him, because he seemed to vunerable and needed help to get on the bus, and walk around.
But when i shared a bus stop with him, he was quite rude, and im almost certain he made a very rude remark to one of the girls he was standing with who would then help him on the bus. I think he said something about how he'd like to **** me.

Nonetheless. I've seen how he is. He's extremelly vunerable. He has to hold onto people when walking in public.
So this, plus his sentence. I believe he's been punished enough.
Plus he'll have to live with this for the rest of his life.

The story is pretty heartbreaking though

The story is pretty heartbreaking for the family of the lady involved in his crime and, don't forget, he did commit a crime, the fact that he also sustained injuries in his crime is of no relevance. He knew what he was doing at the time he committed the crime and, he should live with the consequence just as the family of the old lady have to except they had no choice about it!

there is also a point people are missing here.

when he gets out of jail, blinded and brain damaged whop is going to pay his incapacity and disabled benefits for the rest of his life.....


oh thats right, we are. yet another drain on the system who should not be there and does not really deserve my/our money. i should imagine this young man did not pay into the system at all before his injuries and now he will take mor eout then he has ever put in.

i think the sentencing should be longer and he should live with his injuries as a way of a reminder of the life he took.

He will receive all the help financially he needs, he will be a drain on the tax-payer/health system for the rest of his life. The excuse given for him not being able to work now he's blinded/brain damaged "he injured himself, not accidently mind". We are supposed to feel pity?

He's already cost the tax payer in legal costs/police investigation costs/ health costs etc., why are we supposed to feel compassion for someone like that?

The do-gooders are creating a society of scroungers/criminals/morons who think that they can do exactly what they like, the reason being that they usually can and do while hard-working/honest/sensible people have no choice about it!

The story is pretty heartbreaking for the family of the lady involved in his crime and, don't forget, he did commit a crime, the fact that he also sustained injuries in his crime is of no relevance.


As pointed out above ... that argument applies to a corpse. Are we to assume that you want corpses locking up, if they killed themselves while committing a crime?

Dont know about anyone else but I think he got off lightly,10 yrs would have been more appropiate.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/Joyrider-jailed-after-killing-gran.3822109.jp

That Scumbag should be Hung Drawn & Quartered for what he has Done i Dread to think what he has put that Ladys family Through Especially her Husband who saw everything My heart goes out to him.

I know i am gonna get a hammering for saying this, but it is justice that he has permantly impaired his own life. many incidents like this end up with the victim being killed or permantly disabled/traumatised. Like Naseem Hamed when his reckless driving crippled and ruined the lives of Anthony Burgin and his girlfriend who were in the other car. Naseem walked away unharmed. Not that i would deliberatley wish harm to anyone but it just seems unfair that the people who cause these accidents 'walk away' from them and the innocents are the ones left behind to rebuild their lives.

*steels self for onslaught of annoyed forummers*

Well Done for Telling it as it is I Personally would go as Far as saying he should be Locked up for LIFE!!! with the key Thrown away.

As for Naseem he is One Arrogant sod who I Despise More than Anything don't get me started on him he want's knocking down a Peg or Two he must be Floyd Mayweathers other Half.:hihi:

I have to say that it does seem to make a change that someone who was actually carrying the crime out was one of the injured, rather than only innocent members of the public who suffer/die as a result of a criminal's actions.

I'm making an observation, incidentally, not gloating, by the way, in saying that. I'd far rather this man not have stolen the vehicle in the first place, and that Mrs Maskrey still be alive, with her family.

I have to say that it does seem to make a change that someone who was actually carrying the crime out was one of the injured, rather than only innocent members of the public who suffer/die as a result of a criminal's actions.

I'm making an observation, incidentally, not gloating, by the way, in saying that. I'd far rather this man not have stolen the vehicle in the first place, and that Mrs Maskrey still be alive, with her family.This case (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/7219955.stm) was in court a few weeks ago. One of the drivers in the "accident" didn't have the mental capacity to be tried due to his injuries. A comparison can therefore be made between the two drivers. One is going to get a substantial prison but will nevertheless come of prison eventually fit and well. The other is knackered forever so although he caused this himself he is paying a higher price for his idiocy than any prison sentence will give.

This case (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/7219955.stm) was in court a few weeks ago. One of the drivers in the "accident" didn't have the mental capacity to be tried due to his injuries. A comparison can therefore be made between the two drivers. One is going to get a substantial prison but will nevertheless come of prison eventually fit and well. The other is knackered forever so although he caused this himself he is paying a higher price for his idiocy than any prison sentence will give.

Fair point, but in the case of the OP he also refused Police the permission to test his blood for drink or drugs, which was his right. That would indicate he was fully aware of his rights. :suspect:

I'm not sure why a person can refuse permission to test, like this man did. I thought it was an offence to refuse to supply a sample anyway?

IIMO, the sample should have been tested straightaway for drink and drugs for two reasons:-

one to see if he was under any influence, and two to see if he had anythng in his system that might counteract with any lifesaving (pah!) medicines the doctors may want to give him, in order to protect his wellbeing.

I feel that you should not be able to refuse to allow samples to be taken and tested.

If you haven't been drinking, or taking something illicit, you've nothing to worry about, because it's going to prove you innocent, (of DUI, at least) and if you have taken alcohol or something illicit, then you'll be bang to rights, choose what, no?

I'm not sure why a person can refuse permission to test, like this man did. I thought it was an offence to refuse to supply a sample anyway?

There's no point in refusing a test because if you do you will receive the sentence you would have got if you failed, so a driver who refuses a drink driving test will get banned for refusing it even if he wasn't over the limit.

I thought he was a disqualified motorist so, the fact that he'd stolen the bike, driven it, exceeded speed limits, killed someone why does he have the right to agree to or deny a test?

I thought he was a disqualified motorist so, the fact that he'd stolen the bike, driven it, exceeded speed limits, killed someone why does he have the right to agree to or deny a test?That's a so called human right but it doesn't matter anyway, he's been done as though he failed it.

Fair point, but in the case of the OP he also refused Police the permission to test his blood for drink or drugs, which was his right. That would indicate he was fully aware of his rights. :suspect:

Am I missing something? The article in the OP says he spent months in a coma due to the accident :huh:

I'm so undecided about this case, I can see that the injuries caused were solely because of his illegal behaviour and so should not be an issue. On the other hand I don't see how prison is the place for a blind, mentally handicapped person.

i think people are missing the point, samesamemonkey

its not about HIS injuries or the fact that prison may not be the place for a blind person with mental problems.

this is about the fact that prison IS the place for a person who has killed another through no other actions than his own. stealing a high powered motorcycle whilst he is already on a driving ban says one thing. then driving in such a dangerous manner to actually hit an elderly lady and injure her severely to cause her to bleed to death says the rest...

on second thoughts i agree with you, prison is not the right place for this young 'man'. maybee a morgue would be better. preferably via the hangmans noose

i think people are missing the point, samesamemonkey

its not about HIS injuries or the fact that prison may not be the place for a blind person with mental problems.

this is about the fact that prison IS the place for a person who has killed another



It's not about HIS death or the fact that prison may not be the place for a corpse.

This is about the fact that prison IS the place for a person who has killed another

Now can you see what an utterly stupid argument you make?

i think thats extreme as he cant remember nothing and is also brain damaged and blind for the rest of his life.
Barrington claims that he cannot remember the crash, but then he would, wouldn't he? ;)

Fair point, but in the case of the OP he also refused Police the permission to test his blood for drink or drugs, which was his right. That would indicate he was fully aware of his rights. :suspect:

Indeed. His brain seemed to be working O.K. when he refused permission for that.

I'm not sure why a person can refuse permission to test, like this man did. I thought it was an offence to refuse to supply a sample anyway?

It is astonishing, isn't it, that people can refuse their permission to have their blood tested in situations like this. Perhaps in future the police will have to ask people's permission before they arrest them too?

Seems he lost his appeal (http://www.thestar.co.uk/headlines/Deathcrash-joyrider-loses-sentence-plea.4234838.jp), pity the judge didn't extend his sentence whilst he had the opportunity, the arrogance of this defendant in appealing beggers belief.

Normally I would think longer would be appropriate, but as he was brain damaged and blinded in the crash, then maybe it is punishment enough.

Ripping his leg and hand off would have been more like it.:rant: then shoving them up his a***

On that basis is his sentence just?

Is he a friend of your or something!, I personally could not give a toss if he was blind and brain damaged, let the scum die in a ses pit for all I care.
My thoughts are more with the lady he murdered and her family.
Him I feel nothing for and if he was to be publicly skinned alive I would pay to watch it:rant:

Is he a friend of your or something!, I personally could not give a toss if he was blind and brain damaged, let the scum die in a ses pit for all I care.
My thoughts are more with the lady he murdered and her family.
Him I feel nothing for and if he was to be publicly skinned alive I would pay to watch it:rant:Eh, what are you on about? I haven't said anything that remotely indicates I'm a friend of this scumbag.

I personally could not give a toss if he was blind and brain damaged

Yeah, but now he's going to be a burden on the state for the rest of his life.