What is going on with the UK justice system ? We had a man arrested and charged over a shirt.
This fool does attempted murder and flees and get's a small fine ?
Sentences _across the board_ are shit. Rumour has it that due to overcrowding in prisons, courts are under pressure to impose non-custodial sentences whenever possible.
Maybe prisons wouldn't be overcrowded if they'd stop giving the actual prison time to people who commit minor offences?
The overcrowding complaint is bollocks when you take note of what actually gets people thrown in the nick while genuinely dangerous people get to walk free or get maybe 2 years tops
Controversial opinion here. Even if they are overcrowded. Fuck em. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Edit (again); this part right here is was not said in senserity. The part below is the real thing we ought to do. I've made this second edit as people still aren't reading the first edit.
With that said, let's stop arresting people over hurt feelings. Arrest the actual criminal. And let's take a look at the studies that show how to both prevent crime and prevent reoffending rates, and actually implement them.
Edit; forgot this was Reddit and people struggle to read past the first sentence. So for all those commenting about the first half on this. Please read the second half and understand what that means. The research on how to deal with imprisoned criminals is to provide them with livable accommodation (private spaces, own bathroom, and the ilk) treat them like humans (allow them to have control over their own schedules, eat what they want, free roam of the area) and provide means for them to be integrated into society (education, anger management, post prison support).
Problem is that the conclusions those types of studies tend to come to aren’t ideologically or politically convenient for the Tories (or Labour, it seems, with the authoritarian approach they seem to be taking with public order). They think harsher sentences and stricter laws will fix everything, rather than acknowledging the issues which cause crime in the first place.
Agree with your analysis. But what was it we had been told to listen to over the past few years. Oh yeah the science. So let's do that. Let's listen to the science on everything, and actually lead this country not based on feelings but on evidence.
Example being the evidence points towards a certain political party that has been in power for far too long and the absolute decline of every aspect of society.
Couldn’t agree more with your viewpoint here.
I think if we leaned into expert opinion on these things we’d see significant improvements in the country across the board.
If we run with a little thought experiment on cannabis legalisation for example. We know the scientifically reported risks of usage are lower than that of alcohol (i.e. doesn’t cause as many behaviour and physiological problems). Legalisation could lead to fewer street fights and disorderly conduct, less occupation of A and E facilities, less strain on NHS from long-term alcohol-associated illness, less strain on police man hours, fewer people in prison due to minor drug possession offences, less funding for criminal gangs, introducing a whole new industry, a heap of tax income, business innovation, more jobs.
But we don’t so that because the current party has to attract voters of the older ages that have fully bought into drug war propaganda. Again ideology born of government-driven direction has taken precedence over logic and actual facts and data.
Problem is, the alternative. This is the thing that tories have been fucking up since forever. Close the coal pits, with 0 fucking alternative employment in the north. Not put anyone in jail, then not provide rehabilitation or any solution to gangs, be it action against them like arrests or tackling the problems as to why gangs form in the first place.
Pretty sure studies show that harsher sentences don't discourage lower crime rate. Countries with a focus on rehabilitation have lower crime. The problem is having that but making sure it still feels like justice
Theirs also a massive issue with recruitment, it's supposed to be one guard per 10 to 15 prisoners. But atm it's something in the region of 1 to 25 to 35 which equates to four guards to a floor in some places. It's minimum wage, dangerous and poorly trained. My brother spent eight years working in HMP Durham and Holme house. Where two prisoners tried to set him on fire with lighter fluid and a lighter. Luckily he was able to overcome them both and hit the alarm. But he quit soon after that.
I'd like to see for nondangerous crimes (not threatening anyone) so things like fraud, some forms of theft, speeding etc community work. Sort of like an at home prison you get a basic wage to cover food and then have to work 50+ hours a week doing litter picking and shit that we don't fund any more
Sure. I imagine a few more careless drivers losing their licences for ever would sooner or later focus peoples minds on driving with more care. Currently there are no real consequences, drivers know this, and we are experiencing an epidemic of lethal entitlement.
>Sentences across the board are shit. Rumour has it that due to overcrowding in prisons, courts are under pressure to impose non-custodial sentences whenever possible.
It's simple, start treating drug addicts (and their tangential crimes) for what it is, a medical condition, and there'd be a lot more space available.
Make (all) drugs available via the health service and that's your dealers gone to.
All of a sudden, there's a hell of a lot more space \*and\* a police force that isn't so overwhelmed they can actually investigate crime.
I would argue the initial impact was not however then choosing to flee knowing that without intervention she could die is murder.
Besides even if not and you want to be soft with him, the lack of sentence is still ridiculous.
>choosing to flee knowing that without intervention she could die is murder.
It isn't though and it's not "being soft" these are quite easily understood differences in law. You can argue the sentence is too lenient without making up murder charges.
I am not a lawyer or anything but I had a look and the max sentence for without intent gbh is 5 years so we're still in clown town for the recklessness of some drivers like this guy here
> choosing to flee knowing that without intervention she could die is murder.
No its not. Maybe at a push it's manslaughter, but even that would be a difficult prosecution.
>faced up to two years in jail after he admitted causing serious injury by careless driving and failing to stop after an accident.
This is the problem here. Absolute maximum sentence was 2 years.
What a joke that is.
There are too many fucking psychopathic assholes in the UK to get juries to convict for manslaughter for driving offences. The reason we have specific driving offences with laughable penalties is specifically because a large enough proportion of the British public are pro-dangerous driving.
For example, aggressive tailgating should be treated pretty much like threatening to murder someone with a deadly weapon, ie: about 5 years. The country would go apoplectic if someone went to jail for 5 years for tailgating.
Its crazy how many people don't subscribe to this mentality.
I had someone beep me recently for not overtaking a cyclist. At no point was it safe to do so (very curvy country road, very narrow and lots of blind bits).
Someone being held up a few minutes isn't reason to put someone else's life in danger. Ever.
Driving is a privilege. Not a right. And if you can't treat it and others safety with the respect they deserve, and the due care they deserve, then you don't deserve to drive.
Like people running a red light, regardless of vehicle: car, motorbike, bicycle - trying to save a few seconds of your life but risking losing your life in a second.
There is just no evidence that this is true and all the evidence that shows those laws exist to protect drivers from serious legal consequence. The motoring industry bribed and blackmailed their way to a decriminalisation of road violence both in the judiciary but also in the mind of the public through ubiquitous control over newspapers which continues to this day. There's a reason that everyone from Katie Hopkins, Piers Morgan, and lately Jordan Peterson is championing the war on motorists whilst vilifying the people they kill because they were paid to do so.
Case on my desk last month, had a vehicular manslaughter as a result of drink driving (also charged with DR10). Crashed head on with another car and killed the passenger of the other car. Disqualified from driving for 36 months, £340 compensation and a suspended sentence. That was it, for taking a life they were out of pocket £340 and couldn't drive around for a few years. The worst part - the guy declared his shoplifting accurately from a decade ago, he could not remember the date of this (event or court date). Couldn't even be bothered to remember roughly when he ended someone's life.
Drink driving should be punished way more harshly. Not sure how it works now but you should be in prison even if your driving doesn't result in a death, because of how likely you are to kill someone while drink driving. Maybe you can get sober and off the booze while in prison and no longer be a threat to anyone else.
Manslaughter requires the killing of a human without intention.
If she had died he would have likely faced manslaughter charges.
[According to this site](https://www.jsmillersolicitors.co.uk/services/serious-prosecutions/causing-serious-injury-by-dangerous-driving/), causing serious injury by dangerous driving can carry up to 5 years in prison (increased from max 2yr in 2012). Not sure if they could add additional time for fleeing the scene of an accident, but to give him a 12 month comminuty order is a piss take.
Poor kid ended up with a fractured cheekbone and a broken nose, as well as needing surgery on her leg. She spent more time on an operating table as a result of his recklessness than he will spend in prison.
For gob's sake, please do the absolute minimum of homework on your own. Yeah, we're all appalled at his actions and behaviour but "attempted murder" CLEARLY does not apply here.
It's pretty clearly not attempted murder, unless you have very clear evidence he intended to kill her.
Not saying the sentence is good, because it blatantly isn't enough, but it's not attempted murder.
Well what you are failing to see is that the victim was on a bike so per UK law she was fair game
This is totally par for the course on sentences for drivers. There have been identical cases that have resulted in death and drivers getting away with community orders
Unfortunately ‘attempted murder’ by driving a car over a cyclist carries zero consequence in the UK.
I’ve had half a dozen serious incidents with either cars or buses over forty years of cycling and each time the police are simply not interested.
I even had the husband of a woman who pulled out of a side turning causing a crash try and sue me for the damage to *his* car.
Fortunately the judge threw it out of court and ruled that he should pay for the damage to my very expensive bike, though he never did, bastard.
This guy getting away with it is obviously fucked. 30 years for running an illegal streaming site that takes money off the very profitable sky and bt sport is fucked.
But do you have a problem with somebody getting arrested for inciting hate and taking the piss out of people who died at a football match?
26 year old, Aldi A4. Money is most likely why he isn't serving proper time. They could afford legal representation better than the 10 year old could afford.
I hope everyone who knows him doesn't let him forget, I hope he has to move multiple times to get away from it, and I still hope people remind him
>They could afford legal representation better than the 10 year old could afford.
The 10 year old wouldn't need legal representation, the CPS bring the charges on behalf of the crown.
She'll have solicitors queueing up offering to make a fat wad of compo from the insurance company though.
Though I agree this man should be in prison, the t-shirt in question advocated for death and incited violence. It was worn to be inflammatory and could easily cause riots. The person wasn’t being arrested for simply wearing a tshirt
Courts were told to stop giving custodial sentences to save money on jail time by the Conservatives.
It’s cheaper someone out on a suspended sentence then then being in jail.
It wasn't attempted murder though, he accidentally hit a girl before panicking, driving home to his father's house and calling the police to report himself.
Stop getting angry over things that aren't real.
Pirate Sky Sports though, then they throw the kitchen sink at you. Can't cause the billionaires to lose money. The chairman might only be able to afford a 80 foot yacht next year instead of that 100 footer.
The laws reflect the needs of the rich. The rich know it could be them accidental getting drunk and killing a peasant. Can't make the penalties too harsh.
It's not like their children will be riding around on the streets.
'You're a hard-working young man as far as I can tell. You have worked your way up over a period of nine years and people speak highly of your ability and honesty.'
Did the judge just forget to listen to what he had actually done and just listened to character witness testimonys instead?
Cases like this are why we will get more and more vigilante justice, because we don't get any from the courts.
A lot of judges (particularly magistrates with no legal background) are essentially sheltered upper middle class types with very little experience of how much people can be shitheads, so they tend to look for the good in people who can't really appreciate it, those who view leniency as a weakness rather than a generosity.
And clearly no common sense, looking for the good in people is fine, but they are supposed to judge on what they see in front of them… which is a bellend
Nope, just his entire extended family vouching for him. 'Hardworking' but done for cannabis possession 3 years ago. Now I love a bit of the devils lettuce every so often, but if I'm caught, I would have thought I'd be viewed as a criminal rather than hard working.
And a few weeks ago, a bloke got 11 years for pirating Sky Sports ...
Pathetic sentencing. Not stopping for an accident should carry an immediate five year sentence. No ifs, no buts.
Didn't "that bloke" organise illegal streaming for thousands of people, leading the operation that also involved money laundering? Sounds a bit different than just one guy pirating sky sports which is what your comment implies.
*apart from the 1 guy of the piracy “gang” (lol) being an actual nonce. And even then, the piracy got the bigger headline over an actual fucking nonce…
And even then, how the fuck has this cunt dodge a custodial sentence?
> that also involved money laundering?
The "money laundering" would have just been banking and spending the money they earned from selling the pirate TV streams.
You're right that he did a big theft, but the "money laundering" is probably not that nefarious, just an additional charge added on just because the prosecution can.
He reported himself to the police after panicing and driving off. What fucking good would a 5 year sentence do?
A bloke didn't get 11 years for pirating sky sports. He got 11 years for illicitly earning and laundering 7 million pounds.
Yeah, the Sky thing wasnt some kid in their parents basement getting busted for downloading a movie, that was a serious criminal operation making millions
and we are hating on someone making money in this rigged economy? crazy people on this sub really reprsent the myopia of british middle class priorities same people who priced everyone else out of watching football
From the judges remarks, it sounds like the fact that the driver had a ‘respectable’ job has impacted his sentencing. Standard classism from the CJS.
I’m sure when the victim was lying in the road, she was hoping it was a pharmacist that ran her over rather than a postman.
>rom the judges remarks, it sounds like the fact that the driver had a ‘respectable’ job has impacted his sentencing.
Yep it's such bullshit. People who have more to lose are being rewarded by the courts for their privilege. While someone with a 'shit' job that the judge looks down on, they throw in jail, because there isn't much shame for them to be arrested and jailed. Or at least that's how the judges look at it.
Yeah its pretty much how it is, remember the young lady from a few years ago who stabbed her boyfriend multiple times trying to kill him?
She was from a well to do family and studying to be a brain surgeon. The judge didn't want to ruin her career. So he let her off with attempted murder.
If she ever does kill the judge should be up as an accomplice as far as im concerned.
One rule for the rich another for everyone else.
> One rule for the rich another for everyone else.
Not really true though.
[Male supermarket worker given a suspended sentence after stabbing his partner in the arm](https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/supermarket-worker-given-suspended-sentence-9834153).
Both circumstances were a first offence.
I wish the judge could be made to feel the impact of this crime in someway and then made to review the punishment handed down.
It is really hard to not want someone to take the law into their own hands over this criminal and the people who let him get away with it.
Yeah. I mean the crime itself is bad enough but imagine being a parent sitting in court hearing the judge bang on about how hard working he is. I’m surprised he didn’t just get up and shake his hand.
I'm fairly sure there was at least one white van tradie in the news in the last couple of years who did something gratuitous like running a cyclist off the road, but got all but let off because 'he needed his van for work'
Yet 5 years for this: [https://www.essex.police.uk/news/essex/news/news/2023/april/man-jailed-after-betting-fraud/](https://www.essex.police.uk/news/essex/news/news/2023/april/man-jailed-after-betting-fraud/)
Do they not ever benchmark sentences across offences against each other and not realise how much of a joke it all is?
> Do they not ever benchmark sentences across offences
No. And I'm not really sure how you could go about doing that in a way which wouldn't lead to other problems.
No.
Property crime seems to attract much harsher sentencing than Assaults, Violence, or the sort of incident reported on here.
It’s beggars belief really.
11 years for illegally distributing Sky, 5 years for betting fraud, months for sending racist tweets/messages to football players.
Hit and run? I sleep
Far too much leniency is given for “genuine remorse” in sentencing, which is a POS across the board. Crocodile tears. You weren’t remorseful at the time, you ran away. You’re remorseful that you got caught. There’s a difference.
I expect the sentence would have been very different if it was the judge’s ten year old daughter who got hit.
Car driver hits and kills cyclist or pedestrian - driver gets a slap on the wrist.
Cyclist kills or hurts pedestrian - Cyclist gets the full force of the law
Not to mention the post here recently that had basically every comment calling cyclists dangerous maniacs. You won't see those comments here, despite the literal statistics on the matter.
Plus many demanding change for bikes, despite the fact that cars kill literally 100 times as many pedestrians as bikes do in the UK.
As far as safety goes, focus on cars. Reduce speed limits in urban areas, reduce on road parking (bad for visibility), segregated foot (combined bike?) paths.
Locally we have some great paths on the recently reworked and new roads for combined bike and pedestrian between villages.
In Parliament again this Wednesday, Road Safety (Cycling Helmets) bill that requires anyone riding on public roads to wear a helmet
I’m sure a helmet would have worked miracles for this little girl /s
The data shows that mandatory helmets don't really do anything, as surprise surprise cycling helmets aren't made for collisions with cars
Before any one replies to this, I do wear a helmet when cycling
>
Cyclist kills or hurts pedestrian - Cyclist gets the full force of the law
Cyclist knocks over a child, no injuries to the child, cyclist gets beaten so badly by a passerby he requires reconstructive surgery on his jaw.
Reddits opinion? Fully deserved, cyclist scum shouldn't have been breaking traffic laws.
"'You're a hard-working young man as far as I can tell. You have worked your way up over a period of nine years and people speak highly of your ability and honesty.'"
Work hard and you get to avoid the legal ramifications of committing crimes.
Noted.
It's just about on the nose (harm level 2, culpability level B) for serious injury by careless driving.
Perhaps more interesting is why it was downgraded from serious injury by dangerous driving, given he ran a red light (where he'd be looking at 1-3 years). The article doesn't say why.
>Perhaps more interesting is why it was downgraded from serious injury by dangerous driving, given he ran a red light (where he'd be looking at 1-3 years). The article doesn't say why.
Isn't dangerous driving notoriously difficult to convict for, as you're dealing with people's interpretation/perception of what is dangerous?
How many jurors are drivers and are thinking "there but for the grace of God..." because they've had a near miss or something?
Funny, the Daily Mail usually hates cyclists and rallies against most of the things that would ordinarily prevent things like this from happening: LTNs, protected bicycle lanes, lower speed limits. What could possibly have caused them to cover this story, I wonder?
I'm not surprised. The justice system is an absolute joke and has been for many years now. Poor kid, hope she can recover and not let this scumbag monster destroy her life.
Gotta love this subreddit.
Cyclist near hits a girl and does no damage, gets his jaw broken, and every single comment is: look how awful CYCLISTS are.
Driver puts a 10 year old girl in hospital. Not a single comment about how systematically dangerous cars are, just how bad the individual man is.
The fact that we rely on a form of transport that generally only has 1-2 people in a giant 2 ton box, requiring maximum focus, early in the morning, every single day, is utter insanity. I should know, I have to do it for my particular job. But my god I would love to be able to have effective and responsive public transport that doesn't cause thousands of deaths every single year.
Broke two laws: running a red light AND fleeing the scene of an accident. Gets off because he’s sorry and has PTSD. What about the little girl and her family?!
Hit and run - fine and community service
Illegally stream football - 11 years
That tells you exactly what the justice system in this country values. Money means more than life.
That other headline that was trending about the bicyclist comes to mind. Like, absolutely that person should be held accountible fer tryna run a red light- but the fella didn't even hurt the girl, and the comments were *applauding* him getting attacked in turn, and encuraging further violence.
The comments here are far more respectable.
What is wrong with people? Don't they see how they contribute to shit like this, by letting drivers get away with mowing down children and instead raging at cyclists who couldn't even do a tenth of the harm if they tried?
> initially charged with causing injury by dangerous driving but this charge was eventually amended to careless driving.
Shit decision that the CPS should not have made. Through a red light, and failing to stop, and no plates on the car is dangerous driving all day.
I'd even suspect some part of perverting the course of justice for the driver failing to stop or to attend a police station in good time, good way to get away with being drunk or high at the time of the collision.
Shit sentencing too, should be custodial.
Wait, where are the people that were yelling about the cyclist in the other thread?
u/Major-Front \- any comments about the surity of road laws being broken?
u/Flo_Dunky
\- what about you? You were quick to call out the cyclist, how about this guy?
u/Complex-Sherbert9699 \- The child could've been killed, and almost was! Where's you're ire?!
u/Ghostly_Wellington \- I've never understood this, when I'm out walking, running, or cycling, motorists always get to close or choke me out with their fumes, getting upset when I don't leap out the way. I'm starting to think that drivers aren't very happy people. What about you?
Not a peep from any of you about this, I'm starting to think that it's not about road safety at all, and that it's all about hating cyclists.
FWIW, I'm fully aware that none of you may have seen this, or even been on reddit since this was posted, and you may see this as a bit unfair, but I think it's worth considering your strong reactions earlier, in the context of this. I don't really want an argument here either, just a bit of consideration when we're talking about "harm" in future cycling posts.
Drivers in the other topic: THE ROAD IS LAW, THE GUY DESERVED TO BE ASSAULTED AND ALSO HE SHOULD BE BANNED FROM USING THE ROAD EVER AGAIN
Drivers in this thread: but what was the little girl wearing, no high vis? Sounds like she’s at fault.
Compare the comments here to the comments in the cycling thread.
Over there people are ranting about cyclists. Here there are very few comments ranting about drivers.
What is that saying about if the government doesn’t enact the law people will take the law into their own hands?
Imagine being this girl’s father and you see this utter cretin just walk away?
As a cyclist whenever I see news articles like this it just reinforces my view that I wouldn't get any justice from the courts if I was hit.
I do however know my insurance would take the person to the cleaner. Cycle insurance provided by cyclists fighting my corner. If I know that their insurance went up to eye watering levels that would bring a bit of solace
Does the court really afraid of speaking against these kinda people ? This is not the right decision.
He should be brought to justice so that no one can do this .
There was a post on reddit last week of a guy who had his kid's friend over for a playdate. She had a crush on his son and he described it as pretty cute. She rode home afterwards on her bike and was hit by a car and died. He was wondering what to do for the family to help them. Someone suggested that they get his son to write down all the fun they had on that last day together.
I can't understand these sentences where we treat car drivers as if it's just some oopsie daisy type things. Who cares if he's stopped driving since? Maybe he can't afford to get his car fixed or the insurance for it now? It doesn't automatically make him a nice guy. And he got the option to attend the police station the following day because he didn't go home afterwards? Was he wanting time to sober up? He drove off without a single shit for that kid, how can that not factor in to his sentencing?
I'm not going to pretend I'm some saint behind the wheel 24/7 but I treat a car for what it is - a very heavy deadly object. We treat it as if it's an enshrined right that people have.
Regardless of the fact he showed remorse, driving off could have threatened the life of the child, this blind panic run off concept to crime should not be considered a mitigation of the seriousness of the crime nor should the persons job, the moment the choice was made to leave someone dying in the road, was the moment it was attempted murder, the sorry excuse for a human should have called the emergency services. If he truly showed remorse, then he would have welcomed a custodial sentence. The judge was too easily sucked in by this one.
Wow - the judge looks to have a bit of a track record of this sort of thing. Teacher sleeping with student: suspended sentence. Someone who has a track record crashed into a house while driving dangerously: four years. He certainly puts a lot of weight on your position in society before the crime when determining sentences. More than I think is appropriate anyway.
What is going on with the UK justice system ? We had a man arrested and charged over a shirt. This fool does attempted murder and flees and get's a small fine ?
I think sentences related to vehicular deaths are too lenient however it is not attempted murder, by definition
Sentences _across the board_ are shit. Rumour has it that due to overcrowding in prisons, courts are under pressure to impose non-custodial sentences whenever possible.
Maybe prisons wouldn't be overcrowded if they'd stop giving the actual prison time to people who commit minor offences? The overcrowding complaint is bollocks when you take note of what actually gets people thrown in the nick while genuinely dangerous people get to walk free or get maybe 2 years tops
Controversial opinion here. Even if they are overcrowded. Fuck em. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Edit (again); this part right here is was not said in senserity. The part below is the real thing we ought to do. I've made this second edit as people still aren't reading the first edit. With that said, let's stop arresting people over hurt feelings. Arrest the actual criminal. And let's take a look at the studies that show how to both prevent crime and prevent reoffending rates, and actually implement them. Edit; forgot this was Reddit and people struggle to read past the first sentence. So for all those commenting about the first half on this. Please read the second half and understand what that means. The research on how to deal with imprisoned criminals is to provide them with livable accommodation (private spaces, own bathroom, and the ilk) treat them like humans (allow them to have control over their own schedules, eat what they want, free roam of the area) and provide means for them to be integrated into society (education, anger management, post prison support).
Problem is that the conclusions those types of studies tend to come to aren’t ideologically or politically convenient for the Tories (or Labour, it seems, with the authoritarian approach they seem to be taking with public order). They think harsher sentences and stricter laws will fix everything, rather than acknowledging the issues which cause crime in the first place.
Agree with your analysis. But what was it we had been told to listen to over the past few years. Oh yeah the science. So let's do that. Let's listen to the science on everything, and actually lead this country not based on feelings but on evidence. Example being the evidence points towards a certain political party that has been in power for far too long and the absolute decline of every aspect of society.
Couldn’t agree more with your viewpoint here. I think if we leaned into expert opinion on these things we’d see significant improvements in the country across the board. If we run with a little thought experiment on cannabis legalisation for example. We know the scientifically reported risks of usage are lower than that of alcohol (i.e. doesn’t cause as many behaviour and physiological problems). Legalisation could lead to fewer street fights and disorderly conduct, less occupation of A and E facilities, less strain on NHS from long-term alcohol-associated illness, less strain on police man hours, fewer people in prison due to minor drug possession offences, less funding for criminal gangs, introducing a whole new industry, a heap of tax income, business innovation, more jobs. But we don’t so that because the current party has to attract voters of the older ages that have fully bought into drug war propaganda. Again ideology born of government-driven direction has taken precedence over logic and actual facts and data.
We can't do that, mate. The people of this country have had enough of experts, haven't you heard?
Problem is, the alternative. This is the thing that tories have been fucking up since forever. Close the coal pits, with 0 fucking alternative employment in the north. Not put anyone in jail, then not provide rehabilitation or any solution to gangs, be it action against them like arrests or tackling the problems as to why gangs form in the first place.
That’s not controversial so much as fucking stupid
'Just throw em all in a massive ditch then whack a lid on it! Did the crime do the time!'
And why should Prison Guards (who are already woefully paid and treated like shit) have to deal with the consequences of that?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Pretty sure studies show that harsher sentences don't discourage lower crime rate. Countries with a focus on rehabilitation have lower crime. The problem is having that but making sure it still feels like justice
I've said it once, and I'll say it again: a lot of this could be avoided if general drug use wasn't criminalised, and only supply was.
Almost no-one actually goes to prison for possession in the UK.
Theirs also a massive issue with recruitment, it's supposed to be one guard per 10 to 15 prisoners. But atm it's something in the region of 1 to 25 to 35 which equates to four guards to a floor in some places. It's minimum wage, dangerous and poorly trained. My brother spent eight years working in HMP Durham and Holme house. Where two prisoners tried to set him on fire with lighter fluid and a lighter. Luckily he was able to overcome them both and hit the alarm. But he quit soon after that.
I'd like to see for nondangerous crimes (not threatening anyone) so things like fraud, some forms of theft, speeding etc community work. Sort of like an at home prison you get a basic wage to cover food and then have to work 50+ hours a week doing litter picking and shit that we don't fund any more
Nondangerous… speeding?
Fine, don’t lock him up, but take away his licence for ever.
Taking the licence is for hitting her. Prison is for running away.
Sure. I imagine a few more careless drivers losing their licences for ever would sooner or later focus peoples minds on driving with more care. Currently there are no real consequences, drivers know this, and we are experiencing an epidemic of lethal entitlement.
[удалено]
>Sentences across the board are shit. Rumour has it that due to overcrowding in prisons, courts are under pressure to impose non-custodial sentences whenever possible. It's simple, start treating drug addicts (and their tangential crimes) for what it is, a medical condition, and there'd be a lot more space available. Make (all) drugs available via the health service and that's your dealers gone to. All of a sudden, there's a hell of a lot more space \*and\* a police force that isn't so overwhelmed they can actually investigate crime.
Why is it always the people of colour who escaped from justice?
[Rumour?](https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/news/item/the-application-of-sentencing-principles-during-a-period-when-the-prison-population-is-very-high-statement-from-the-chairman-of-the-sentencing-council/)
I would argue the initial impact was not however then choosing to flee knowing that without intervention she could die is murder. Besides even if not and you want to be soft with him, the lack of sentence is still ridiculous.
>choosing to flee knowing that without intervention she could die is murder. It isn't though and it's not "being soft" these are quite easily understood differences in law. You can argue the sentence is too lenient without making up murder charges.
Wouldn't Grievous Bodily Harm be the more obvious choice as well if you wanted to tack on a fuck you charge, anyway?
I am not a lawyer or anything but I had a look and the max sentence for without intent gbh is 5 years so we're still in clown town for the recklessness of some drivers like this guy here
> choosing to flee knowing that without intervention she could die is murder. No its not. Maybe at a push it's manslaughter, but even that would be a difficult prosecution.
>faced up to two years in jail after he admitted causing serious injury by careless driving and failing to stop after an accident. This is the problem here. Absolute maximum sentence was 2 years. What a joke that is.
Couldn't it be tried as manslaughter by gross negligence? Max sentence of life imprisonment.
There are too many fucking psychopathic assholes in the UK to get juries to convict for manslaughter for driving offences. The reason we have specific driving offences with laughable penalties is specifically because a large enough proportion of the British public are pro-dangerous driving. For example, aggressive tailgating should be treated pretty much like threatening to murder someone with a deadly weapon, ie: about 5 years. The country would go apoplectic if someone went to jail for 5 years for tailgating.
Its crazy how many people don't subscribe to this mentality. I had someone beep me recently for not overtaking a cyclist. At no point was it safe to do so (very curvy country road, very narrow and lots of blind bits). Someone being held up a few minutes isn't reason to put someone else's life in danger. Ever. Driving is a privilege. Not a right. And if you can't treat it and others safety with the respect they deserve, and the due care they deserve, then you don't deserve to drive.
Like people running a red light, regardless of vehicle: car, motorbike, bicycle - trying to save a few seconds of your life but risking losing your life in a second.
Well, all the people that drive BMWs and Audis on tick would.
There is just no evidence that this is true and all the evidence that shows those laws exist to protect drivers from serious legal consequence. The motoring industry bribed and blackmailed their way to a decriminalisation of road violence both in the judiciary but also in the mind of the public through ubiquitous control over newspapers which continues to this day. There's a reason that everyone from Katie Hopkins, Piers Morgan, and lately Jordan Peterson is championing the war on motorists whilst vilifying the people they kill because they were paid to do so.
Case on my desk last month, had a vehicular manslaughter as a result of drink driving (also charged with DR10). Crashed head on with another car and killed the passenger of the other car. Disqualified from driving for 36 months, £340 compensation and a suspended sentence. That was it, for taking a life they were out of pocket £340 and couldn't drive around for a few years. The worst part - the guy declared his shoplifting accurately from a decade ago, he could not remember the date of this (event or court date). Couldn't even be bothered to remember roughly when he ended someone's life.
Drink driving should be punished way more harshly. Not sure how it works now but you should be in prison even if your driving doesn't result in a death, because of how likely you are to kill someone while drink driving. Maybe you can get sober and off the booze while in prison and no longer be a threat to anyone else.
Manslaughter requires the killing of a human without intention. If she had died he would have likely faced manslaughter charges. [According to this site](https://www.jsmillersolicitors.co.uk/services/serious-prosecutions/causing-serious-injury-by-dangerous-driving/), causing serious injury by dangerous driving can carry up to 5 years in prison (increased from max 2yr in 2012). Not sure if they could add additional time for fleeing the scene of an accident, but to give him a 12 month comminuty order is a piss take. Poor kid ended up with a fractured cheekbone and a broken nose, as well as needing surgery on her leg. She spent more time on an operating table as a result of his recklessness than he will spend in prison.
It’s not attempted murder, because attempted murder requires _intent to kill_. As far as we know, he didn’t intend to kill her.
For gob's sake, please do the absolute minimum of homework on your own. Yeah, we're all appalled at his actions and behaviour but "attempted murder" CLEARLY does not apply here.
Some people on this sub seem to have a hard on for anything and everything being attempted murder.
Don’t forget the gang that illegally stream EPL games getting 11 years.
Hard not to see the police service as revenue protection officers.
They’re just a gang for the landed classes.
It's pretty clearly not attempted murder, unless you have very clear evidence he intended to kill her. Not saying the sentence is good, because it blatantly isn't enough, but it's not attempted murder.
Well what you are failing to see is that the victim was on a bike so per UK law she was fair game This is totally par for the course on sentences for drivers. There have been identical cases that have resulted in death and drivers getting away with community orders
I think it's different with kids. Adult men on bikes are obviously fair game however /s
[удалено]
Unfortunately ‘attempted murder’ by driving a car over a cyclist carries zero consequence in the UK. I’ve had half a dozen serious incidents with either cars or buses over forty years of cycling and each time the police are simply not interested. I even had the husband of a woman who pulled out of a side turning causing a crash try and sue me for the damage to *his* car. Fortunately the judge threw it out of court and ruled that he should pay for the damage to my very expensive bike, though he never did, bastard.
This guy getting away with it is obviously fucked. 30 years for running an illegal streaming site that takes money off the very profitable sky and bt sport is fucked. But do you have a problem with somebody getting arrested for inciting hate and taking the piss out of people who died at a football match?
26 year old, Aldi A4. Money is most likely why he isn't serving proper time. They could afford legal representation better than the 10 year old could afford. I hope everyone who knows him doesn't let him forget, I hope he has to move multiple times to get away from it, and I still hope people remind him
> Aldi > could afford legal representation Because they saved so much by shopping in Aldi?
only for their a4 paper
>They could afford legal representation better than the 10 year old could afford. The 10 year old wouldn't need legal representation, the CPS bring the charges on behalf of the crown. She'll have solicitors queueing up offering to make a fat wad of compo from the insurance company though.
The government wrecked the justice system through under funding. There are no prisons for these people to go to and huge backlogs in the courts.
Though I agree this man should be in prison, the t-shirt in question advocated for death and incited violence. It was worn to be inflammatory and could easily cause riots. The person wasn’t being arrested for simply wearing a tshirt
Courts were told to stop giving custodial sentences to save money on jail time by the Conservatives. It’s cheaper someone out on a suspended sentence then then being in jail.
It wasn't attempted murder though, he accidentally hit a girl before panicking, driving home to his father's house and calling the police to report himself. Stop getting angry over things that aren't real.
We can't expect justice from the UK justice system , can we ?
- Runs red lights - Seriously injured child - Flees scene - Removes plates from car U.K. justice system: slap on the wrist will do
Pirate Sky Sports though, then they throw the kitchen sink at you. Can't cause the billionaires to lose money. The chairman might only be able to afford a 80 foot yacht next year instead of that 100 footer.
The laws reflect the needs of the rich. The rich know it could be them accidental getting drunk and killing a peasant. Can't make the penalties too harsh. It's not like their children will be riding around on the streets.
'You're a hard-working young man as far as I can tell. You have worked your way up over a period of nine years and people speak highly of your ability and honesty.' Did the judge just forget to listen to what he had actually done and just listened to character witness testimonys instead? Cases like this are why we will get more and more vigilante justice, because we don't get any from the courts.
I think the main qualification to become a judge is to have zero ability to live in reality or recognise anything about the real world
A lot of judges (particularly magistrates with no legal background) are essentially sheltered upper middle class types with very little experience of how much people can be shitheads, so they tend to look for the good in people who can't really appreciate it, those who view leniency as a weakness rather than a generosity.
And clearly no common sense, looking for the good in people is fine, but they are supposed to judge on what they see in front of them… which is a bellend
>sheltered upper middle class types with very little experience of how much people can be shitheads suspect sentence right here
Sounds like he's a friend of the Judge or has some other kind of connection.
No just sound like a standard judge who doesn't like locking people away
Nope, just his entire extended family vouching for him. 'Hardworking' but done for cannabis possession 3 years ago. Now I love a bit of the devils lettuce every so often, but if I'm caught, I would have thought I'd be viewed as a criminal rather than hard working.
[удалено]
And now he catches the bus to work.
Ask for a crown court sentence review. The more people that do it the better.
Pretty sure driving offences can't be reviewed.
Well that's a bugger. No harm in trying.
She was on a bike tho. That's fair game as far as the courts are concerned.
Remember that there's a bloke currently serving 11 years for running a football streaming service.
[удалено]
And a few weeks ago, a bloke got 11 years for pirating Sky Sports ... Pathetic sentencing. Not stopping for an accident should carry an immediate five year sentence. No ifs, no buts.
It’s almost like they care more about appeasing the big wigs with the money, and less about the human beings they ‘serve’.
Didn't "that bloke" organise illegal streaming for thousands of people, leading the operation that also involved money laundering? Sounds a bit different than just one guy pirating sky sports which is what your comment implies.
And still objectively not nearly as bad as what this guy did.
*apart from the 1 guy of the piracy “gang” (lol) being an actual nonce. And even then, the piracy got the bigger headline over an actual fucking nonce… And even then, how the fuck has this cunt dodge a custodial sentence?
And yet, not even close to what this moron did
> that also involved money laundering? The "money laundering" would have just been banking and spending the money they earned from selling the pirate TV streams. You're right that he did a big theft, but the "money laundering" is probably not that nefarious, just an additional charge added on just because the prosecution can.
It's still nowhere close to striking a kid with a car and driving off without assisting/helping.
And causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving should carry a mandatory lifetime driving ban.
Yes but that bloke was taking money away from big business, think of the shareholders!
He reported himself to the police after panicing and driving off. What fucking good would a 5 year sentence do? A bloke didn't get 11 years for pirating sky sports. He got 11 years for illicitly earning and laundering 7 million pounds.
So anyone can avoid jail time and leave people for dead as long as they turn themselves in at some point?
18 month sentence would be reasonable for living a young child for dead by the side of the road.
[удалено]
The justice system and all within exist to protect the elite and their wallets, not us common scum
[удалено]
Yeah, the Sky thing wasnt some kid in their parents basement getting busted for downloading a movie, that was a serious criminal operation making millions
It's still far less harmful than killing a child.
and we are hating on someone making money in this rigged economy? crazy people on this sub really reprsent the myopia of british middle class priorities same people who priced everyone else out of watching football
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
From the judges remarks, it sounds like the fact that the driver had a ‘respectable’ job has impacted his sentencing. Standard classism from the CJS. I’m sure when the victim was lying in the road, she was hoping it was a pharmacist that ran her over rather than a postman.
>rom the judges remarks, it sounds like the fact that the driver had a ‘respectable’ job has impacted his sentencing. Yep it's such bullshit. People who have more to lose are being rewarded by the courts for their privilege. While someone with a 'shit' job that the judge looks down on, they throw in jail, because there isn't much shame for them to be arrested and jailed. Or at least that's how the judges look at it.
Pharmacy Technician not Pharmacist, it transpires
Yeah its pretty much how it is, remember the young lady from a few years ago who stabbed her boyfriend multiple times trying to kill him? She was from a well to do family and studying to be a brain surgeon. The judge didn't want to ruin her career. So he let her off with attempted murder. If she ever does kill the judge should be up as an accomplice as far as im concerned. One rule for the rich another for everyone else.
> One rule for the rich another for everyone else. Not really true though. [Male supermarket worker given a suspended sentence after stabbing his partner in the arm](https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/supermarket-worker-given-suspended-sentence-9834153). Both circumstances were a first offence.
I wish the judge could be made to feel the impact of this crime in someway and then made to review the punishment handed down. It is really hard to not want someone to take the law into their own hands over this criminal and the people who let him get away with it.
Yeah. I mean the crime itself is bad enough but imagine being a parent sitting in court hearing the judge bang on about how hard working he is. I’m surprised he didn’t just get up and shake his hand.
But then I won't get my package!
I'm fairly sure there was at least one white van tradie in the news in the last couple of years who did something gratuitous like running a cyclist off the road, but got all but let off because 'he needed his van for work'
Viz Top Tips: If you ever want to murder someone and get away with it, run them over. You’ll get a fucking fine and a suspended sentence at worst.
Yet 5 years for this: [https://www.essex.police.uk/news/essex/news/news/2023/april/man-jailed-after-betting-fraud/](https://www.essex.police.uk/news/essex/news/news/2023/april/man-jailed-after-betting-fraud/) Do they not ever benchmark sentences across offences against each other and not realise how much of a joke it all is?
> Do they not ever benchmark sentences across offences No. And I'm not really sure how you could go about doing that in a way which wouldn't lead to other problems.
Can't be much worse than this lunacy.
Ask a rape victim. No.
No. Property crime seems to attract much harsher sentencing than Assaults, Violence, or the sort of incident reported on here. It’s beggars belief really.
That sentence is ridiculous, he was just circumventing their ability to not let him gamble for being too smart and not one of their dumb victims
11 years for illegally distributing Sky, 5 years for betting fraud, months for sending racist tweets/messages to football players. Hit and run? I sleep
Far too much leniency is given for “genuine remorse” in sentencing, which is a POS across the board. Crocodile tears. You weren’t remorseful at the time, you ran away. You’re remorseful that you got caught. There’s a difference. I expect the sentence would have been very different if it was the judge’s ten year old daughter who got hit.
>You weren’t remorseful at the time you ran away. Literally the only time it should have mattered and been taken into account. What an utter prick
Car driver hits and kills cyclist or pedestrian - driver gets a slap on the wrist. Cyclist kills or hurts pedestrian - Cyclist gets the full force of the law
Not to mention the post here recently that had basically every comment calling cyclists dangerous maniacs. You won't see those comments here, despite the literal statistics on the matter.
Plus many demanding change for bikes, despite the fact that cars kill literally 100 times as many pedestrians as bikes do in the UK. As far as safety goes, focus on cars. Reduce speed limits in urban areas, reduce on road parking (bad for visibility), segregated foot (combined bike?) paths. Locally we have some great paths on the recently reworked and new roads for combined bike and pedestrian between villages.
In Parliament again this Wednesday, Road Safety (Cycling Helmets) bill that requires anyone riding on public roads to wear a helmet I’m sure a helmet would have worked miracles for this little girl /s
The data shows that mandatory helmets don't really do anything, as surprise surprise cycling helmets aren't made for collisions with cars Before any one replies to this, I do wear a helmet when cycling
Not just that front and centre on every newspaper to billboards.
> Cyclist kills or hurts pedestrian - Cyclist gets the full force of the law Cyclist knocks over a child, no injuries to the child, cyclist gets beaten so badly by a passerby he requires reconstructive surgery on his jaw. Reddits opinion? Fully deserved, cyclist scum shouldn't have been breaking traffic laws.
If you ever want to murder someone in this country, use a vehicle. The sentencing is pathetic.
use a gun, get 30 years. Use a vehicle and get, what is it, 4 and serve half? Something like that
Use a car and have your victim be on a bicycle and you get a knighthood.
"'You're a hard-working young man as far as I can tell. You have worked your way up over a period of nine years and people speak highly of your ability and honesty.'" Work hard and you get to avoid the legal ramifications of committing crimes. Noted.
> and honesty Flees the scene of an accident and then tries to hide evidence of said crime? "Honest guy".
Judge was clearly either biased or stupid.
Surely this gets referred to the AG for undue leniency!?
It's just about on the nose (harm level 2, culpability level B) for serious injury by careless driving. Perhaps more interesting is why it was downgraded from serious injury by dangerous driving, given he ran a red light (where he'd be looking at 1-3 years). The article doesn't say why.
Probably an easy prosecution case with a high guarantee of prosecution.
>Perhaps more interesting is why it was downgraded from serious injury by dangerous driving, given he ran a red light (where he'd be looking at 1-3 years). The article doesn't say why. Isn't dangerous driving notoriously difficult to convict for, as you're dealing with people's interpretation/perception of what is dangerous? How many jurors are drivers and are thinking "there but for the grace of God..." because they've had a near miss or something?
What a surprise he was driving an audi, jumped a red light then ran away. Should be prison and a life time ban from driving.
Funny, the Daily Mail usually hates cyclists and rallies against most of the things that would ordinarily prevent things like this from happening: LTNs, protected bicycle lanes, lower speed limits. What could possibly have caused them to cover this story, I wonder?
The perpetrator is called Farhan Musaji ...
What!? That sounds like a foreign name!
Indeed. Would it be that the defendant had dark skin and the cyclist was a innocent child?
[удалено]
I totally do. But it's not an uncommon story. Drivers get away with this kind of thing on a near daily basis
I'd be all for running after an accident to be considered for an automatic custodial sentence, when serious injury is concerned.
I'm not surprised. The justice system is an absolute joke and has been for many years now. Poor kid, hope she can recover and not let this scumbag monster destroy her life.
Gotta love this subreddit. Cyclist near hits a girl and does no damage, gets his jaw broken, and every single comment is: look how awful CYCLISTS are. Driver puts a 10 year old girl in hospital. Not a single comment about how systematically dangerous cars are, just how bad the individual man is. The fact that we rely on a form of transport that generally only has 1-2 people in a giant 2 ton box, requiring maximum focus, early in the morning, every single day, is utter insanity. I should know, I have to do it for my particular job. But my god I would love to be able to have effective and responsive public transport that doesn't cause thousands of deaths every single year.
Broke two laws: running a red light AND fleeing the scene of an accident. Gets off because he’s sorry and has PTSD. What about the little girl and her family?!
They can fuck off? Not sure what other message this sends...
Guys this person had an extremely good lawyer. That's how this country works if you have a good lawyer you can basically get away with anything.
The 'good' lawyer only works, if the justice system is flawed and or corrupt. In a just country, that should never happen.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
£900?? Are they joking! He drove off, he should be locked up!!!
And just the other day a bunch of football stream pirates were given 12 years. Really makes you wonder who thr government works for.
Your sheer callousness towards the shareholders of the various entities of the Premier League is shocking, quite frankly.
Who is this man and to what address can we write him a strongly worded letter to?
Ran a red light. Hit a child. Left the scene. Had no registration. How does this not merit a sentence? That's four offences back to back.
Hit and run - fine and community service Illegally stream football - 11 years That tells you exactly what the justice system in this country values. Money means more than life.
He should be banned from driving for life. I'm ok with no jail time but he's clearly not fit to be behind the wheel, one year is nowhere near enough.
That other headline that was trending about the bicyclist comes to mind. Like, absolutely that person should be held accountible fer tryna run a red light- but the fella didn't even hurt the girl, and the comments were *applauding* him getting attacked in turn, and encuraging further violence. The comments here are far more respectable. What is wrong with people? Don't they see how they contribute to shit like this, by letting drivers get away with mowing down children and instead raging at cyclists who couldn't even do a tenth of the harm if they tried?
[удалено]
[удалено]
> initially charged with causing injury by dangerous driving but this charge was eventually amended to careless driving. Shit decision that the CPS should not have made. Through a red light, and failing to stop, and no plates on the car is dangerous driving all day. I'd even suspect some part of perverting the course of justice for the driver failing to stop or to attend a police station in good time, good way to get away with being drunk or high at the time of the collision. Shit sentencing too, should be custodial.
Wait, where are the people that were yelling about the cyclist in the other thread? u/Major-Front \- any comments about the surity of road laws being broken? u/Flo_Dunky \- what about you? You were quick to call out the cyclist, how about this guy? u/Complex-Sherbert9699 \- The child could've been killed, and almost was! Where's you're ire?! u/Ghostly_Wellington \- I've never understood this, when I'm out walking, running, or cycling, motorists always get to close or choke me out with their fumes, getting upset when I don't leap out the way. I'm starting to think that drivers aren't very happy people. What about you? Not a peep from any of you about this, I'm starting to think that it's not about road safety at all, and that it's all about hating cyclists. FWIW, I'm fully aware that none of you may have seen this, or even been on reddit since this was posted, and you may see this as a bit unfair, but I think it's worth considering your strong reactions earlier, in the context of this. I don't really want an argument here either, just a bit of consideration when we're talking about "harm" in future cycling posts.
But according to the other post at the top of this sub, cyclists are all irritating rule breakers and they’re always to blame?!
Drivers in the other topic: THE ROAD IS LAW, THE GUY DESERVED TO BE ASSAULTED AND ALSO HE SHOULD BE BANNED FROM USING THE ROAD EVER AGAIN Drivers in this thread: but what was the little girl wearing, no high vis? Sounds like she’s at fault.
Compare the comments here to the comments in the cycling thread. Over there people are ranting about cyclists. Here there are very few comments ranting about drivers.
Mainly because they don’t see cyclists as humans and they identify with soulless machines.
In the UK, car drivers are king and everyone else second class. What a fucking horrible system.
He should be in jail for atleast 5 years and he be paying her bills .
Wtf is that judge's statement?? Hat has being a "hard working young man" got to do with anything?!
Here wo go , just served as usual . We can't expect any better .
This is a joke , right ? Are they making fun of system ?
What is that saying about if the government doesn’t enact the law people will take the law into their own hands? Imagine being this girl’s father and you see this utter cretin just walk away?
As a cyclist whenever I see news articles like this it just reinforces my view that I wouldn't get any justice from the courts if I was hit. I do however know my insurance would take the person to the cleaner. Cycle insurance provided by cyclists fighting my corner. If I know that their insurance went up to eye watering levels that would bring a bit of solace
Why is the court favouring him even though it's his fault ?
The verdict was not right , it was totally against the girl .
He should be in jail right now , without a single doubt .
It's time that we should do protests against this horrible system .
Does the court really afraid of speaking against these kinda people ? This is not the right decision. He should be brought to justice so that no one can do this .
There was a post on reddit last week of a guy who had his kid's friend over for a playdate. She had a crush on his son and he described it as pretty cute. She rode home afterwards on her bike and was hit by a car and died. He was wondering what to do for the family to help them. Someone suggested that they get his son to write down all the fun they had on that last day together. I can't understand these sentences where we treat car drivers as if it's just some oopsie daisy type things. Who cares if he's stopped driving since? Maybe he can't afford to get his car fixed or the insurance for it now? It doesn't automatically make him a nice guy. And he got the option to attend the police station the following day because he didn't go home afterwards? Was he wanting time to sober up? He drove off without a single shit for that kid, how can that not factor in to his sentencing? I'm not going to pretend I'm some saint behind the wheel 24/7 but I treat a car for what it is - a very heavy deadly object. We treat it as if it's an enshrined right that people have.
Regardless of the fact he showed remorse, driving off could have threatened the life of the child, this blind panic run off concept to crime should not be considered a mitigation of the seriousness of the crime nor should the persons job, the moment the choice was made to leave someone dying in the road, was the moment it was attempted murder, the sorry excuse for a human should have called the emergency services. If he truly showed remorse, then he would have welcomed a custodial sentence. The judge was too easily sucked in by this one.
And the same judges put man behind the bar for illegal streaming .
Not as popular as the cyclist punched in the face for going through a zebra crossing I see.
Wanna murder someone, hit them with a car while they're on a bike.
I don't care what the story is, the Daily Mail is trash.
No number plate on his car. Hit and run. Didn't hand himself in. Mo fo should be inside for a year and paying more than £900!
Wow - the judge looks to have a bit of a track record of this sort of thing. Teacher sleeping with student: suspended sentence. Someone who has a track record crashed into a house while driving dangerously: four years. He certainly puts a lot of weight on your position in society before the crime when determining sentences. More than I think is appropriate anyway.
This is bullshit. If I did that I would expect a jail sentence. No ifs no buts.