Jump to content

Four dead in Darnall crash 09/11/2018

Recommended Posts

In what circumstances would that sentence be imposed?

The Todwick slaughterer only got 10 years, which we all know means five.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1325311/13-pint-driver-found-guilty-over-6-deaths.html

 

Wasn't that case well before the offence of "death by dangerous driving" existed though?

 

Edit - not according to the reporting...

 

It was 2001 though, so it could well have been different sentencing guidelines and maximums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our prisons are overcrowded, violent, degrading and dehumanising places.

 

In 2016 there were 25,049 assaults, 37,784 incidents of self harm and 119 suicides.

 

You're talking rubbish.

 

I don't think their victims would see it like that: If they suffer so what, i have very little sympathy for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think their victims would see it like that: If they suffer so what, i have very little sympathy for them.

 

It depends if you have any intention of rehabilitating criminals whilst their inside. If you aren't, we'll, treat people like dog **** or never let them out at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's correct.

 

---------- Post added 11-11-2018 at 12:55 ----------

 

 

 

It depends if you have any intention of rehabilitating criminals whilst their inside. If you aren't, we'll, treat people like dog **** or never let them out at all.

 

i wonder why saudi arabia has one of or, the lowest crime rates in the world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wasn't that case well before the offence of "death by dangerous driving" existed though?

 

Edit - not according to the reporting...

 

It was 2001 though, so it could well have been different sentencing guidelines and maximums.

 

The trial judge imposed a fifteen year sentence which may or may not have been the maximum at the time. I'm assuming here that a High Court judge would have known what the maximum was for that particular offence and did not exceed it.

The appeal court then reduced the sentence to ten years, so we must assume that in the eyes of the court, the original sentence was unduly harsh.

My point was this: if that crime didn't merit a fifteen year sentence, what else would have been necessary for it to have done so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The trial judge imposed a fifteen year sentence which may or may not have been the maximum at the time. I'm assuming here that a High Court judge would have known what the maximum was for that particular offence and did not exceed it.

The appeal court then reduced the sentence to ten years, so we must assume that in the eyes of the court, the original sentence was unduly harsh.

My point was this: if that crime didn't merit a fifteen year sentence, what else would have been necessary for it to have done so?

 

you didn't read it correctly did you?

 

P+P

 

Noble, of Thorpe Salvin, South Yorks, was sentenced to three concurrent 10-year sentences for the Holmes deaths, to be followed by three concurrent five-year terms for the deaths of his friends. He was also given five months for driving while disqualified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did.

 

That's why I posted! :roll:

 

 

Well then you should be able to appreciate the difference between

a genuine accident -probably includes a lack of judgement/timing/weather conditions etc but no dangerous driving, no drugs, alcohol, speeding etc

or

people who drive dangerously - manslaughter if causing death (under the influence, speeding etc) AND as in the case of the woman you describe - she has a responsibility not to drive without being able to see properly

whatever her age

or

be able to be charged with murder if they deliberately drive into people or disobey the orders of the police to stop.

 

My opinion anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you didn't read it correctly did you?

 

P+P

 

Noble, of Thorpe Salvin, South Yorks, was sentenced to three concurrent 10-year sentences for the Holmes deaths, to be followed by three concurrent five-year terms for the deaths of his friends. He was also given five months for driving while disqualified.

 

This is hard work.

Three concurrent 10 year sentences = 10 years

Three concurrent 5 year sentences = 5 years

10 + 5 = 15

Appeal court reduces sentence by 5 years

15 - 5 = 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is hard work.

Three concurrent 10 year sentences = 10 years

Three concurrent 5 year sentences = 5 years

10 + 5 = 15

Appeal court reduces sentence by 5 years

15 - 5 = 10

 

i suggest you read again

 

it was the 5 year sentence that was unlawful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i suggest you read again

 

it was the 5 year sentence that was unlawful.

 

What am I supposed to be reading? Could you give me a link please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

X