Suspended sentence for lorry driver who killed cyclist and claimed he was unable to avoid hitting him

Neil753 wrote:

I can't help noticing that the BBC has a link entitled,
"Cyclist killed in crash with lorry".
A more neutral phrase might have been more appropriate..
RIP.

What? You mean like "Cyclist manslaughter caused by negligent idiot of a lorry driver"?

BBB wrote:

Or is it just nothing more than politically driven discrimination of cyclists? Would the sentence be the same if the guy slammed into a family car or run over a child on pedestrian crossing?

Yes, everyone on the roads is fair game. Except policemen. Run one of them over and it's 9 years. Alright for some.

BBB wrote:

As a foreigner (many years in the UK) it really makes me wonder what kind of people the judges in this country are and how they get to their positions. Are they soft bleeding heart lefties like many of their colleagues in a public sector?
Can someone shed some light on it, please?

Judges aren''t usually accused of being raging lefties. A disproportionate amount of them are privately educated middle aged white men - again, not a group known to be particularly left wing.

After the riots a few years back the judges were merrily sending people to prison for stealing bottles of water, so I think it is more than the section of society the judges represent instinctively identify with drivers and not cyclists.

In any case, and to be fair, the judges only sentence within guidelines provided to them. The main issue tends to be the CPS only pursuing relatively minor charges and the juries being reluctant to convict.

Chris James wrote:

BBB wrote:

As a foreigner (many years in the UK) it really makes me wonder what kind of people the judges in this country are and how they get to their positions. Are they soft bleeding heart lefties like many of their colleagues in a public sector?
Can someone shed some light on it, please?

Judges aren''t usually accused of being raging lefties. A disproportionate amount of them are privately educated middle aged white men - again, not a group known to be particularly left wing.

After the riots a few years back the judges were merrily sending people to prison for stealing bottles of water, so I think it is more than the section of society the judges represent instinctively identify with drivers and not cyclists.

In any case, and to be fair, the judges only sentence within guidelines provided to them. The main issue tends to be the CPS only pursuing relatively minor charges and the juries being reluctant to convict.

What a load of ignorant tosh.

1 Judges don't make the law, don't do the investigation, don't decide on which charges to bring and don't decide the verdict.

2 They are responsible for ensuring a fair trial within the law (if they don't it is grounds for appeal).

3 They are responsible for the sentencing. But they have to sentence in accordance with guidelines for the offence. There's a minimum, there's a maximum. Each offence has a starting point which is roughly in the middle of the two.. From that baseline judges can add or subtract from the sentence depending on aggravating or mitigating circumstances and they set out their reasoning in their judgement. Anything that is arguably either too lenient or too punitive vis a vis the guidlines and previous rulings in all courts in England and Wales or which has an error in fact or in law or in the reasoning can also be appealed.

In this case the Crown Prosecution Service brought the charge of "death by careless driving" They could possibly have brought the charge of "causing death by dangerous driving" I think they should have. Nevertheless, the max penalty for careless is 5 years. The max penalty for dangerous is 14 years.

Here are the sentencing manuals
Dangerous
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_dangerous_...
Careless
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/causing_death_by_ca...

Where judges went to school or what their politics are has almost nothing to do with the sentences they pass down.

...and BTW why does being left wing or right wing make you more or less sympathetic to road victims? - The commonly held view is that left wing people are more sympathetic to offenders and right wing people to their victims. You say so yourself moaning that offenders in the riots were given very harsh sentences. Ipso facto right wing judges are more likely to sympathise with a middle class company director victim (cyclist) killed by a working class lorry driver (criminal) dont ya think?

A sensible comment might have been that if the lorry driver had 9 seconds to see and react to sean ruff and failed to either slow down or change lane when it appears that he could have done so then he was arguably guilty of dangerous driving. In this case the CPS is to blame for the lenient sentence. If he was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving (and I think he would have been convicted for a level 3 on the information I have).

Level 3 - This is driving that created a significant risk of danger and is likely to be characterised by:

Driving above the speed limit/at a speed that is inappropriate for the prevailing conditions OR
Driving when knowingly deprived of adequate sleep or rest or knowing that the vehicle has a dangerous defect or is poorly maintained or is dangerously leaded OR
A brief but obvious danger arising from a seriously dangerous manoeuvre OR
Driving whilst avoidably distracted OR
Failing to have proper regard to vulnerable road users

I'd say that nine seconds to react and neither slowing down or changing lane and then hitting a cyclist would be a cinch for a conviction.

Starting point: 3 years custody
Sentencing range: 2-5 years custody

He did have mitigation according to the guidelines ie
Otherwise good driving record
Genuine remorse.

therefore the sentence would likely have been the minimum for CDbDD ie 2 years

The judge in this case had where the charge was CDbCID had a Starting Point of 15 months custody
Sentencing range: 36 weeks - 3 years custody

The same mitigation applies. The best we could have hoped for on this charge with these circumstances would have been a 36 week sentence. + ancillaries. He actually got that less his 25% for pleading guilty straight away.

I say again it is not the judges fault in this case but the CPS bringing a lower charge than could be justified. The judge can only sentence for the conviction he can't sentence a person for what they should have been charged with.

oozaveared wrote:

Chris James wrote:

BBB wrote:

As a foreigner (many years in the UK) it really makes me wonder what kind of people the judges in this country are and how they get to their positions. Are they soft bleeding heart lefties like many of their colleagues in a public sector?
Can someone shed some light on it, please?

Judges aren''t usually accused of being raging lefties. A disproportionate amount of them are privately educated middle aged white men - again, not a group known to be particularly left wing.

After the riots a few years back the judges were merrily sending people to prison for stealing bottles of water, so I think it is more than the section of society the judges represent instinctively identify with drivers and not cyclists.

In any case, and to be fair, the judges only sentence within guidelines provided to them. The main issue tends to be the CPS only pursuing relatively minor charges and the juries being reluctant to convict.

What a load of ignorant tosh.

1 Judges don't make the law, don't do the investigation, don't decide on which charges to bring and don't decide the verdict.

2 They are responsible for ensuring a fair trial within the law (if they don't it is grounds for appeal).

3 They are responsible for the sentencing. But they have to sentence in accordance with guidelines for the offence. There's a minimum, there's a maximum. Each offence has a starting point which is roughly in the middle of the two.. From that baseline judges can add or subtract from the sentence depending on aggravating or mitigating circumstances and they set out their reasoning in their judgement. Anything that is arguably either too lenient or too punitive vis a vis the guidlines and previous rulings in all courts in England and Wales or which has an error in fact or in law or in the reasoning can also be appealed.

In this case the Crown Prosecution Service brought the charge of "death by careless driving" They could possibly have brought the charge of "causing death by dangerous driving" I think they should have. Nevertheless, the max penalty for careless is 5 years. The max penalty for dangerous is 14 years.

Here are the sentencing manuals
Dangerous
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_dangerous_...
Careless
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/causing_death_by_ca...

Where judges went to school or what their politics are has almost nothing to do with the sentences they pass down.

...and BTW why does being left wing or right wing make you more or less sympathetic to road victims? - The commonly held view is that left wing people are more sympathetic to offenders and right wing people to their victims. You say so yourself moaning that offenders in the riots were given very harsh sentences. Ipso facto right wing judges are more likely to sympathise with a middle class company director victim (cyclist) killed by a working class lorry driver (criminal) dont ya think?

A sensible comment might have been that if the lorry driver had 9 seconds to see and react to sean ruff and failed to either slow down or change lane when it appears that he could have done so then he was arguably guilty of dangerous driving. In this case the CPS is to blame for the lenient sentence. If he was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving (and I think he would have been convicted for a level 3 on the information I have).

Level 3 - This is driving that created a significant risk of danger and is likely to be characterised by:

Driving above the speed limit/at a speed that is inappropriate for the prevailing conditions OR
Driving when knowingly deprived of adequate sleep or rest or knowing that the vehicle has a dangerous defect or is poorly maintained or is dangerously leaded OR
A brief but obvious danger arising from a seriously dangerous manoeuvre OR
Driving whilst avoidably distracted OR
Failing to have proper regard to vulnerable road users

I'd say that nine seconds to react and neither slowing down or changing lane and then hitting a cyclist would be a cinch for a conviction.

Starting point: 3 years custody
Sentencing range: 2-5 years custody

He did have mitigation according to the guidelines ie
Otherwise good driving record
Genuine remorse.

therefore the sentence would likely have been the minimum for CDbDD ie 2 years

The judge in this case had where the charge was CDbCID had a Starting Point of 15 months custody
Sentencing range: 36 weeks - 3 years custody

The same mitigation applies. The best we could have hoped for on this charge with these circumstances would have been a 36 week sentence. + ancillaries. He actually got that less his 25% for pleading guilty straight away.

I say again it is not the judges fault in this case but the CPS bringing a lower charge than could be justified. The judge can only sentence for the conviction he can't sentence a person for what they should have been charged with.

What's actually at fault is the ludicrous law. A more sensible approach would simply say that if you kill someone with a vehicle, that's it, no more driving, no more vehicle.

Given the current prodriving mindset you may be right, although the mitigation pleas are ludicrous. How do you square 'genuine remorse' with lying to the police? He's simply a lying scummer. Hopefully he'll never be able to afford a car ever again.

oldstrath]

[quote=Chris James

wrote:

BBB wrote:

What's actually at fault is the ludicrous law. A more sensible approach would simply say that if you kill someone with a vehicle, that's it, no more driving, no more vehicle.

Given the current prodriving mindset you may be right, although the mitigation pleas are ludicrous. How do you square 'genuine remorse' with lying to the police? He's simply a lying scummer. Hopefully he'll never be able to afford a car ever again.

No that would be a ludicrous law. And whether the person has genuine remorese or is a lying scummer is a metter for the court to decide. You know when they see him. speak to him see the whites of his eyes and the cut of his jib, the tone of his voice his body language. You know that stuff. Maybe he's a great actor, maybe the judge (that sees a lot of lying scummers) is a poor judge of all that. But he has to do more than just lie.

oozaveared]

[quote=oozaveared

wrote:

Chris James wrote:

BBB wrote:

What's actually at fault is the ludicrous law. A more sensible approach would simply say that if you kill someone with a vehicle, that's it, no more driving, no more vehicle.

Given the current prodriving mindset you may be right, although the mitigation pleas are ludicrous. How do you square 'genuine remorse' with lying to the police? He's simply a lying scummer. Hopefully he'll never be able to afford a car ever again.

No that would be a ludicrous law. And whether the person has genuine remorese or is a lying scummer is a metter for the court to decide. You know when they see him. speak to him see the whites of his eyes and the cut of his jib, the tone of his voice his body language. You know that stuff. Maybe he's a great actor, maybe the judge (that sees a lot of laying scummers) is a poor judge of all that. But he has to do more than just lie.

Sorry, can't see why you think it would be ludicrous. At worst, unfair to a small number of unlucky drivers, tiny price for removing murderous clowns like this from the roads.

As for remorse - if he never drives again and devotes the rest of his life to road safety I'll believe it, otherwise I'd regard it as a con. Another successful one.

oozaveared wrote:

What a load of ignorant tosh.etc

I wonder which specific bits you found to be most ignorant? I answered your points about charging and sentencing in my third paragraph, so it can't be that.

My first two paragraphs were in answer to BBB's question as to whether judges were 'soft bleeding heart lefties like many of their colleagues in a public sector?'.

I didn't 'moan' about sentencing in the riots, I merely pointed out that jailing people for stealing a bottle of water wasn't great evidence of judges being 'soft bleeding heart lefties'.

Is that the bit you disagree with?

oozaveared wrote:

What a load of ignorant tosh.

1 Judges don't make the law, don't do the investigation, don't decide on which charges to bring and don't decide the verdict.

I don't disagree but I think you've gotten confused as to whose comments you are replying to! I can't tell who you are arguing with!

The first poster's suggestion that judges are 'leftists' is of course utterly bonkers.

Its silly to assume that there's a simple relationship between left and right and attitudes to crime and punishment. The most left-wing regimes on this planet have mostly been _extremely_ keen on the death penalty and long sentences, after all (that's kind-of been the major problem with them)!

And right-wingers (at least of a certain type) have, equally well, long been quite keen on lenient treatment for those who commit crimes against certain groups that they don't like (e.g. who most opposed making rape in marriage a crime? Who in the US let off those who lynched black people? Who thought 'gay panic' should be a reasonable defence for murdering gay people? It wasn't "lefties").

Law-and-order is not in any way a simple left-right issue.

davkt wrote:

And isn't that murder?

Does sound rather pre meditated. Driver you have 9 seconds a) use the brake b)run down the cyclist and keep on driving.

Sorry but this was no accident, it was avoidable, we all need to move away from Road Traffic Accident to Road Traffic Incident. As long as we keep using the word accident we give bad drivers a get out.

seven wrote:

If any good at all is to come from this poor man's death it will almost certainly be as a case in point when society finally gets round to reviewing sentencing for driving offences.

I am generally against custodial sentences though. Lifetime driving ban is the only real answer. In this case however I personally think he should have gone to jail. No doubt he sincerely regrets his actions (or lack thereof) however he was culpable in his negligence, and somebody died as a result of it.

My thoughts are with Mr Ruff's family.

Agreed with all your points. Lifetime driving ban should be without question in such a case.