Woman jailed for 4 years for hit and run death.

[milquetoast1 10]

1. Consideration of the excessive speed. It is likely that Egan's speedometer read above 70mph. 65mph is a conservative estimate reached through reference to domestic cctv images.

 

What about the speedometer in the car she was chasing? Isn't the driver of this car culpable to an extent as well? The driver of this car was sober, so should have been more aware of the potential of his driving. He also knew he was being chased by an emotionally unstable woman.

 

Was there laughing and joviality in this car as they were chased at high speed? We will never know since Liam Dent and Azad Khan got off without any charges, because they won't say who was driving.

 

There seems to be an increasing number of people claiming, or being advise to claim, that the other person was driving in these sort of cases.

 

I accept Cyclone's arguments that they cannot be charged with the crime of dangerous driving when it cannot be proved who was driving, but I think they should be charged with obstructing justice.

[Cyclone 10]

 

In my opinion, considering the circumstances, Eric's death was premeditated by the murderous irresponsibility of Egan.

That's not what premeditation means. She would have needed an intent to kill someone with that car for it to be murder.

It was murder and should be treated as such.

It can't be, unless you can prove the intent to kill.

Sentencing should distinguish between genuine accidents, such as a child running in front of a car doing the speed limit, and murderously reckless drivers such as Egan.

Sentencing isn't even an issue when a child runs in front of a car that isn't speeding. Why would there be a prosecution of a driver that hasn't broken the law?

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 10:28 ----------

 

But that's precisely what we do when we punish people for speeding, dangerous driving, driving whilst drunk, etc ... we punish people for the potential of their actions.

True, but the vast majority of our law isn't like that, and we have specific offences to use when there is a harmful outcome from these 'lesser' offences.

 

It's merely luck that differentiates the dangerous driver that causes harm from the dangerous driver that does not, so I agree with Easter Sundae that punishment should reflect this.

That's the case with pretty much all human behaviour, lawful and unlawful. The level of risk differs each time, but it's chance that determines the outcome.

 

It's not about punishing everybody, or even more people, just apportioning the punishment across all those that drive with intent to be dangerous rather than those that drive with intent to be dangerous and cause harm.

If we were to start punishing all offences based on the potential then common assault would start attracting the same tariff as manslaughter, as that's a real risk if you punch someone. The fact is that it's a small risk and we only punish people for it if that risk materialises.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 10:30 ----------

 

That's the problem with the current call for increased punishment for causing a death, it is ONLY a punishment. it is not a deterrent at all.

 

Sentencing as a deterrent basically doesn't work at all anyway. So whether it's for causing a death, or whether you introduce a draconian punishment for merely the act of driving dangerously, it will have no effect as people will believe that they are unlikely to be caught (and they are probably correct).

[alas_alas 10]

Re BIB. But if the punishment is based predominantly on the basis that you have killed someone, then drivers who drive dangerously, but do not expect to actually kill anyone (ie the vast majority of dangerous drivers), will think that it doesn't apply to them, so punishment based on causing a death is no deterrent at all. That's the problem with the current call for increased punishment for causing a death, it is ONLY a punishment. it is not a deterrent at all.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 10:23 ----------

 

 

Right, the specifics of the case.

 

If she had been given a longer sentence as you suggest, who would have been deterred from driving dangerously?

 

Your argument doesn't make sense. The law creates deterrents through punitive measures.

 

For instance, you can't police every incident of dangerous knife handling, but you can increase sentences for knife crime. Of course, knives are essential in many situations. It would be ludicrous to talk about hypothetical knife attacks that don't happen.

 

You have to punish the crime. So it's already illegal to carry a knife in certain situations. It's illegal to drink drive and exceed the speed limit. The problem here is that the sentence given for killing a man on top of these offences barely exceeds the punishment for those other acts.

[Cyclone 10]

I accept Cyclone's arguments that they cannot be charged with the crime of dangerous driving when it cannot be proved who was driving, but I think they should be charged with obstructing justice.

 

They can't be charged with OJ, they have the right to silence and they are exercising it.

 

It's a failure of forensics to determine beyond reasonable doubt which was the driver which is making it impossible to prosecute.

[Eater Sundae 12]

Your argument doesn't make sense. The law creates deterrents through punitive measures.

For instance, you can't police every incident of dangerous knife handling, but you can increase sentences for knife crime. Of course, knives are essential in many situations. It would be ludicrous to talk about hypothetical knife attacks that don't happen.

 

You have to punish the crime. So it's already illegal to carry a knife in certain situations. It's illegal to drink drive and exceed the speed limit. The problem here is that the sentence given for killing a man on top of these offences barely exceeds the punishment for those other acts.

 

Yes, so in order to deter dangerous drivers from driving dangerously, it is necessary to punish dangerous driving.

 

If you then choose to punish much more heavily those that go on to kill someone, then that punishment is not a deterrent, it is purely a punishment.

 

Lets say we have 2 levels of punishment:

 

Dangerous driving - a 2 year ban

Causing death by dangerous driving - life imprisonment.

 

If (but only if) there was an expectation of being caught, then these punishments might act as a deterrent.

 

The potential dangerous driver might see the 2 year ban as a deterrent to put him off driving dangerously, but the threat of life imprisonment will be no deterrent at all, as he isn't intending (or expecting) to kill anyone, so it doesn't apply to him.

 

Heavy punishment for "causing death by" as an add on to another driving offence is a punishment. It is not a deterrent.

[milquetoast1 10]

If we were to start punishing all offences based on the potential then common assault would start attracting the same tariff as manslaughter, as that's a real risk if you punch someone. The fact is that it's a small risk and we only punish people for it if that risk materialises.

 

Yes I know, but we are talking about motoring offences. We do punish people based on potential for motoring offences, and you have accepted that.

 

Easter Sundae and myself are not arguing for potential based prosecutions for common assault, merely that in a system where we have already established that potential based prosecutions are appropriate (motoring), less harm would result if the punishment was more front-loaded.

 

There is another thread on here about a driver who clearly drives in a dangerous manner, and is known to many here because of her driving. Drivers like this need to be deterred from driving like this now, rather than throwing the book at them when it's too late.

[Eater Sundae 12]

Yes I know, but we are talking about motoring offences. We do punish people based on potential for motoring offences, and you have accepted that.

 

Easter Sundae and myself are not arguing for potential based prosecutions for common assault, merely that in a system where we have already established that potential based prosecutions are appropriate (motoring), less harm would result if the punishment was more front-loaded.

 

There is another thread on here about a driver who clearly drives in a dangerous manner, and is known to many here because of her driving. Drivers like this need to be deterred from driving like this now, rather than throwing the book at them when it's too late.

 

Re bibs. Very well put in my opinion. (Not surprising as I agree with your points).

 

(As it happens I'm all for increased punishment for the sorts of assaults which occasionally cause death, purely because they are a known cause of occasional death - it happens enough to not be a surprise when it does happen. Someone who decides to punch someone knows that it can happen. But that's for another thread).

[redfox 10]

Can we please stop suggesting that to be prosecuted for murder there is a need to prove an intention to kill. What is required is proof of an intention to cause really serious harm - To prove attempted murder you do in fact have to prove an intention to kill.

 

In the circumstances of this case we should perhaps be more concerned about the level of sentence suggested by the guidelines as opposed to arguing about the name of the offence

[alas_alas 10]

Can we please stop suggesting that to be prosecuted for murder there is a need to prove an intention to kill. What is required is proof of an intention to cause really serious harm - To prove attempted murder you do in fact have to prove an intention to kill.

 

In the circumstances of this case we should perhaps be more concerned about the level of sentence suggested by the guidelines as opposed to arguing about the name of the offence

 

Precisely. Well argued.

 

As I mentioned earlier, this is compounded by the fact Egan's sister died in similar circumstances. She knew very well the potential outcome of her actions by choosing to drive that morning.

[Cyclone 10]

Can we please stop suggesting that to be prosecuted for murder there is a need to prove an intention to kill. What is required is proof of an intention to cause really serious harm - To prove attempted murder you do in fact have to prove an intention to kill.

 

Happy to stand corrected on the details. The point still stands, she had no intent to cause harm at all, she couldn't be prosecuted for murder.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 12:50 ----------

 

Yes, so in order to deter dangerous drivers from driving dangerously, it is necessary to punish dangerous driving.

No, there is little evidence that harsh punishments act as any kind of deterrent.

 

If you then choose to punish much more heavily those that go on to kill someone, then that punishment is not a deterrent, it is purely a punishment.

This is also one of the purposes of justice in this country.

 

Lets say we have 2 levels of punishment:

 

Dangerous driving - a 2 year ban

Causing death by dangerous driving - life imprisonment.

 

If (but only if) there was an expectation of being caught, then these punishments might act as a deterrent.

 

The potential dangerous driver might see the 2 year ban as a deterrent to put him off driving dangerously, but the threat of life imprisonment will be no deterrent at all, as he isn't intending (or expecting) to kill anyone, so it doesn't apply to him.

 

Heavy punishment for "causing death by" as an add on to another driving offence is a punishment. It is not a deterrent.

 

Neither sentence is a deterrent really as people don't expect a) to be caught, b) for it to happen.

It is valid to punish people for the outcome of their actions though.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 12:51 ----------

 

Yes I know, but we are talking about motoring offences. We do punish people based on potential for motoring offences, and you have accepted that.

 

Easter Sundae and myself are not arguing for potential based prosecutions for common assault, merely that in a system where we have already established that potential based prosecutions are appropriate (motoring), less harm would result if the punishment was more front-loaded.

 

There is another thread on here about a driver who clearly drives in a dangerous manner, and is known to many here because of her driving. Drivers like this need to be deterred from driving like this now, rather than throwing the book at them when it's too late.

 

She is not deterred because there is little chance of being caught. She probably doesn't even know (or care) what the potential sentences are.

 

If she were caught today and prosecuted today, the current tariff would be sufficient to see her off the road and her behaviour likely changed in the future.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 12:52 ----------

 

(As it happens I'm all for increased punishment for the sorts of assaults which occasionally cause death, purely because they are a known cause of occasional death - it happens enough to not be a surprise when it does happen. Someone who decides to punch someone knows that it can happen. But that's for another thread).

 

It is highly unlikely though, I think each case should be judged on it's merits.

[alas_alas 10]

Happy to stand corrected on the details. The point still stands, she had no intent to cause harm at all, she couldn't be prosecuted for murder.

 

I can't really understand why you're arguing for Egan's relative 'innocence' in this case.

 

Do you think there is no thought of harm to others if you got in your car, drunk, then drove almost double (if not more) the speed limit in a residential area, crashing out of control, resulting in the instantaneous death of a cyclist? Your interpretation is there is no intent to cause harm, mine is that this is murderously reckless, similar to carrying a knife to a fight (then using it).

Edited September 8, 2017 by esme
quote tags

[Halibut 12]

 

I can't really understand why you're arguing for Egan's relative 'innocence' in this case.

 

Do you think there is no thought of harm to others if you got in your car, drunk, then drove almost double (if not more) the speed limit in a residential area, crashing out of control, resulting in the instantaneous death of a cyclist? Your interpretation is there is no intent to cause harm, mine is that this is murderously reckless, similar to carrying a knife to a fight (then using it).

 

That's it in a nutshell. Miss Egan had no intention of causing harm.

 

Your 'murderously reckless' is a concept which doesn't exist in law.