What a joke of a sentence for killing a child

[Bill Plant 10]

I think the police will have got to know him very well over the past few months.

 

http://www.thestar.co.uk/video/news/jasmyn-chan-s-killer-sentenced--4014866132001

 

the phrase "made worse by the appalling characteristics of the driver" speaks volumes.

 

Thats just a personal opinion though and the way i heard it i felt the police man was refering to the night of the incident and the fact he drove off.

[RonJeremy 10]

I'm not sure we can call this a clear cut 'accident'. The fact is, you don't have insurance (maybe because of previous? we don't know), you don't have a license, you admit you've smoked too much cannabis resulting in permanent damage to your brain, you snorted two lines of coke that day....that's certainly stacking up the odds, isn't it? Maybe 'accident waiting to happen' would be a better description.

 

Indeed - and that was probably why he didn't get a non-custodial sentence.

 

He wasn't innocent, but then again, he wasn't guilty of murder. - And he seemed to be driving like a <choose suitable word>

 

---------- Post added 27-01-2015 at 14:16 ----------

 

Correct he was not . But never harmed anyone and carried it for protection if you get what i mean ?

 

Yes - people like that are in a catch 22 situation - they need to carry protection, and they are imprisoned if they do. I feel somewhat sorry for him on the face of it.

[Mr Bloom 10]

Thats just a personal opinion though and the way i heard it i felt the police man was refering to the night of the incident and the fact he drove off.

 

I doubt it. I presume his statement will have been prepared and scrutinised on behalf of the force before it was made.

[mafya 243]

She should also have got a longer sentence.

 

I agree she should have got longer and in comparison to that sentence this guy got nearly double. This guy was a prick for driving off and trying to save his own skin and hopefully he may lose all his remission and end up serving most of the 7.5 yrs inside.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

I agree it should and in comparison to that sentence this guy got nearly double. This guy was a prick for driving off and trying to save his own skin and hopefully he may lose all his remission and end up serving most of the 7.5 yrs inside.

 

Also, if you looked at the comments made by the police in the video posted by the Star and the court report for the woman's crash, you can see that the accident involving the girl was a one off moment of madness whereas the man was described as having appalling characteristics.

 

Also the girl handed herself in/admitted the offence in a matter of hours after her incident whereas the man handed himself in 4 days after his crash.

 

I'm not defending the girl involved in her horrible crash, I'm just pointing out reasons as to why their sentences were so different.

[Bill Plant 10]

I doubt it. I presume his statement will have been prepared and scrutinised on behalf of the force before it was made.

 

Yeah, course they would. I didnt think of that.

 

---------- Post added 27-01-2015 at 14:44 ----------

 

I agree she should have got longer and in comparison to that sentence this guy got nearly double. This guy was a prick for driving off and trying to save his own skin and hopefully he may lose all his remission and end up serving most of the 7.5 yrs inside.

 

That would go some way to restoring some peoples faith in the justice system. It Wont happen though will it. Our system just seems too soft in general.

[DaveGas 10]

I see where you are coming from but just for a second imagine the blind panic the driver was probably in after hitting the children. Obviously he panicked, obviously he did the wrong thing but thats not to say he isnt sorry for what he did. He may be just a good actor or a sick freak who can turn on the tears but i dont know him so i have to take his reaction at face value.

 

Or just a complete coward who knew he should not have been driving!!

[Dannyno 19]

Leaving aside the question whether sentences in general are too soft or not, it is a political and social problem that so many people don't understand how sentencing guidelines are applied.

 

This site is helpful in that respect:

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentencing/how-sentences-are-worked-out/

 

You have to see offences on a continuum. In relation to killing people with cars, it ranges from deliberately driving your car at a person with the intention of killing them while being drunk and speeding, to someone throwing themselves in front of your car as you go a couple of miles an hour faster than the speed limit, or maybe accidentally reversing into someone without knowing they were there. And then you've got all the other factors: did you plead guilty or not, were you insured or not, was it your car or had you stolen it, do you have an otherwise clean record, were you speeding, did you stop, have you shown remorse... and so on.

 

Now, it might be that you think all of that through and still think the sentence should be higher. But at least you will have thought it through.

 

The death by dangerous driving guidelines are here:

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/web_causing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf

[Bill Plant 10]

Or just a complete coward who knew he should not have been driving!!

 

I wont argue that could well be the case. I like to try to see the good in everyone though. Sometimes to my detriment.

[charmer 10]

Twice the speed limit and you call that an accident? Did he accidentally leave the scene and accidentally dispose of the vehicle as well?

 

Yes, the death was an accident unless you have evidence to suggest it was deliberate? If you do then please contact the police as it would be murder.

 

The leaving of the scene was obviously not an accident, but that wasn't what was being discussed.

 

 

All in all, I think that the sentencing is about right, bordering on the side of harsh. Sentencing guidelines for a crime like this end at about 7 years, so he is slightly outside the suggested range, probably because he drove off.

 

I think his actions afterwards contributed to 2-3 years of his sentence.

 

It may well be reduced on appeal.

[rarmxbd 11]

Yes. It was an accident. In law he was guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. By speeding it doesn't mean he deliberately killed her but that by driving dangerously he did so. As it wasn't deliberate it had to be an accident.

 

Snorted two lines of cocaine (should have thought am I fit to drive)

Cannabis smoker (again am I fit to drive)

No licence (again Am I legal plus capable)

No insurance ...

Driving at over 60mph ?

Failing to stop (I'm not stopping I not fit and have no license and no insurance)

 

71/2 years for him life sentence for mum and dad

[tinfoilhat 11]

If he is likely to be out in 3 years time, then this is a travesty. The driver obviously had no regard for anyone else when he set off driving without insurance or a license. It should be a seven and half years minimum sentence, in my opinion.

 

I don't know who the police man is in the star video footage but he comes across very well.

 

For Jasmyn's family and friends, there are really no words....reading about your statements after the trial though, you have represented Jasmyn beautifully. There is no doubt that she was a wonderful girl, from a loving family, and that love will go on forever. God bless you all and keep you safe until you are with one another again. x

 

It is an awful thing to happen, I know of a family where the same thing happened in similar circumstances many years ago (less than 3 years jail btw) and they haven't got over it.

 

But you've mentioned "no insurance" a couple of times as if it's some barrier, a magic parchment that will stop people driving like morons which it absolutely won't. It's a bit of paper which has no control of the vehicle and driver it insures once they're behind the wheel.