A van driver who jailed for nine years in September after being found guilty of killing a cyclist in Hampshire through dangerous driving is appealing against his sentence.
Christopher Gard, aged 30 and from Alton, had been sending a friend a text to plan a dog walk when he crashed into 48-year-old cyclist Lee Martin, who had been riding in a time trial on the A31 at Bentley.
> Nine years in jail for texting driver who killed cyclist
At his trial, Winchester Crown Court heard that Gard had eight previous convictions for using a handheld mobile phone illegally at the wheel, and that after the fatal collision he had immediately tried to delete three text messages. He pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving, which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.
Just six weeks before the crash that caused Mr Martin fatal injuries on the evening of 12 August 2015, Gard had convinced a magistrate to let him keep his driving licence.
BBC News reports that the Court of Appeal has passed Gard’s application for leave to challenge the sentence imposed on him to a “full hearing” to be held on a date to be confirmed.
After Gard was convicted in September and banned from driving for fourteen and a half years, Darrell Martin, the brother of the victim, said that the legal system had failed to prevent the tragedy happening.
“There were opportunities to stop the man from driving around,” he said. “Just six weeks before he had persuaded a magistrate not to take his licence away and promised to lock his phone in the boot.
He added: “The text message – think about how inane this is – it was about meeting his mate later and taking his dog for a walk. That’s what killed my brother.”
Rob Heard, road safety sergeant for Hampshire, said: “The majority of people know they should not be using their phone while driving, but appear not to understand what a huge distraction it is and what a risk they are taking. This terrible collision just shows the consequences of using your phone while driving and how it can ruin lives.
“It is a totally unacceptable risk to take. Gard had been given many opportunities to change his ways and still took the risk, causing a totally innocent person to lose their life.
This week, police forces across England and Wales have launched a nationwide clampdown on drivers using handheld mobile phones. A similar operation in May found 2,323 people breaking the law.
-1024x683.jpg "Pinnacle Energy")
59 thoughts on “Texting driver jailed for 9 years for killing cyclist appeals sentence”
What can he appeal against?
What can he appeal against? He pleaded guilty. Surely he can’t think the sentence is too harsh, he’s already had 8 warnings!
Here’s hoping it gets thrown out anyway.
Tommytrucker wrote:
Perhaps he didn’t understand what the word ‘guilty’ means? I mean, he clearly didn’t understand what “I’m really really sorry and I promise not to do it again, m’lud” means, did he??
I’m hoping he is appealing to
I’m hoping he is appealing to make his sentence longer. Anything less than 9 years would be a joke.
Scum of the earth. Rot, you
Scum of the earth. Rot, you piece of shit, Christopher Gard.
When I hear that some drivers have 12 points or more but are still driving, it makes my blood boil.
This is a perfect example of why they should be banned BEFORE they kill someone.
They are proven law-breakers. Fuck them.
If he had promised to keep
If he had promised to keep his phone in the boot, and blatently lied, then surely that is contempt of court.
lolol wrote:
No, only if he’s ordered by the court to do so. Conceivably perjury if he gave evidence that he would always put it in the boot but only if it can be proved that at the time he said that he didn’t intend to do so.
Dan S wrote:
If he had promised to keep his phone in the boot, and blatently lied, then surely that is contempt of court.
— Dan S No, only if he’s ordered by the court to do so. Conceivably perjury if he gave evidence that he would always put it in the boot but only if it can be proved that at the time he said that he didn’t intend to do so.— lolol
So he can tell whatever lies he’s instructed to offer up, and then say ‘oh but I meant to’?
Review it and give him extra
Review it and give him extra time for the additional distress to the family.
To be fair, I’m sure he’s
To be fair, I’m sure he’s just done some research and seen the average sentence for killing a cyclist is a £200 fine and he’s wondering why he was so hardly done by.
Housecathst wrote:
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there. He’s received a proper sentence because he was caught using his mobile phone while driving. Had he not been using his phone he may well have got the usual pathetic fine and community service?
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Give that this happened in Hampshire I’m surprised he didn’t just use “the Hampshire defence” the cast iron get out of jail free card.
the sun was in the sky your honour! Why didn’t you say so in the first place, have your keys back and be on your way.
Here’s hoping for 14 years.
Here’s hoping for 14 years.
Well that’s pretty shabby. I
Well that’s pretty shabby. I’m guessing any semblance of shame or conscience went out of the window with his brain.
My condolences and best wishes for Mr Martin’s family. What this is doing to them must be horrible, and at the worst of times.
The legal system is nothing
The legal system is nothing to do with fairness or justice, it is a game played by lawyers and judges for personal gain and ego. Not that I would care one jot should Mr Gard spend the rest of his miserable life in prison, but he is as much a plaything of the legal system and as irrelevant to the players as are poor Mr Martin’s family.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Yes, that’s quite right. Every lawyer in the criminal justice system is in it purely for the ego and the money. That’s why they chose the least lucrative branch of law to practise in. Every one of the thousands of them is just in it for the game. Just like all drivers set out every day to kill as many cyclists as they can, all cyclists are perfect saints, traffic wardens only care about pissing people off and airline stewardesses always screw the pilot.
Thank God you’re here to point these things out.
Dan S wrote:
I like traffic wardens. I ring my bell and say hello.
Their job, and it cannot be an easy one, is to attempt to persude drivers to obey parking regulations.
Dan S wrote:
No, we don’t think “all drivers set out every day to kill as many cyclists as they can”, just that not enough of them set off thinking about how not to kill cyclists.
“all cyclists are perfect saints”
Not this, either, but we wish the law would recognise and act on the difference between the risks posed by a crap cyclist in charge of 100kg moving slowly and a crap driver in charge of 2000kg moving quickly.
oldstrath wrote:
No, we don’t think “all drivers set out every day to kill as many cyclists as they can”, just that not enough of them set off thinking about how not to kill cyclists.
“all cyclists are perfect saints”
Not this, either, but we wish the law would recognise and act on the difference between the risks posed by a crap cyclist in charge of 100kg moving slowly and a crap driver in charge of 2000kg moving quickly.— Mungecrundle
Yes, all of that is obvious. Nobody thinks that all cyclists are saints and nobody thinks that all drivers are murderers. Which is why it gets irritating when it seems perfectly OK to think that all lawyers are greedy egotists, all CPS don’t care about cyclists’ lives etc…
Dan S wrote:
So Dan, are lawyers so poorly paid that they entertain delusional persons like Mr Gard into thinking that they has been poorly treated in sentencing just to earn a stale crust?
Will that lawyer still get some sort of income whether the appeal succeeds or not?
So Dan, are lawyers so poorly
Not usually, no. For a few reasons:
1. The whole point of my rant is that criminal lawyers are just like everybody else: some may be angels doing the job because they like to help people, but they are vanishingly rare. Most do the job because, well, it’s their job. Such people generally like to do their job well and to feel that they have helped make the world a little better. Very few do the job for ego (you’d be amazed how little “I’m a lawyer” gets you praise and admiration…) and while of course we do it for the money (how many doctors work for free?), and are not generally living in poverty, crime is not the way to earn good money as a lawyer. My income dropped when I started to specialise in crime, just as several of my contemporaries see their incomes double (or better) when they moved to family law or probate etc.
A lawyer giving advice on appeal (which you have to do, in writing, but don’t get paid for, unless things have changed recently) is going to try to give correct advice because that’s the job and most people don’t set out to do their job badly.
2. If the whole “lawyers are actually human as well” malarkey doesn’t do it for you then consider that barristers are generally self-employed, reliant on referrals from solicitors. If you go about giving bad advice on appeal, just to get yourself an extra appearance fee in the court of appeal, that word gets around rapidly and you will find yourself not getting any more work. It will also get noticed by the Court of Appeal, who may well report you to the Bar Standards Board for disciplinary action (including a fine, for those who still think that money is all-important to lawyers).
3. The fee for an appeal against sentence isn’t that great, as far as I recall. From memory, it’s a few hundred pounds (<£400, I think). Now, let's look at that in context. I'm not saying "oh poor lawyers, we only get a pittance". That's not the point here. However, to get that few hundred, you first have to do your grounds of appeal, which takes a couple of hours, iirc. Then you need to keep the day clear in your diary to go to the Court of Appeal. This is an absolute pig because the thing that criminal barristers like doing, and that earns the best money, is trials. You can't be doing a trial if you've got to go to the Court of Appeal half way through, so that few hundred pounds is probably stopping you from earning more. It's also, for those living and working outside London, a hassle to have to go in. I hate going to the Court of Appeal. I always took the view that it was more bother than it was worth. Literally. That said, I still advised my clients to the best of my ability and went to the Court of Appeal if it was the right option because that was my bloody job. I don't know many people (some, but not many) who actually enjoy the prospect, fee or no fee.
That depends. When you first appeal, your grounds of appeal (the document you spent hours drafting for free) gets sent to a single judge of the Court of Appeal and they decide whether they think there may be some merit in it. If they agree then the case goes to a full hearing of the Court. If the Single Judge thinks your appeal is without merit then they refuse leave to appeal and the case stops there.
However, you can appeal against the Single Judge’s decision by going to a full Court of Appeal hearing (3 senior judges, possibly including an openly gay ex-Olympic fencer; thank you Daily Mail). The catch is that you don’t get paid for appealing against the decision of the Single Judge, unless you win.
The net result of all this is that of an appeal has merit then the lawyer gets paid. Which is fair enough. Note that “has merit” is not the same as “wins”. There is a goodly amount of judgment involved in sentencing and the Court can turn down an appeal while still agreeing that it had merit. It is not uncommon, however, for them to say that it had no merit and for the lawyer to go home unpaid. This is also as it should be: if the Single Judge says your point is a bad one then you argue it at your own risk.
Of course, the slight disconnect is that it is the client’s decision to appeal, not the lawyer’s. I’ve advised appealing and been told that the client couldn’t face another trial and would just live with the conviction. Equally, I’ve advised that there is no merit in an appeal and had the client insist on lodging one. If the Single Judge agrees with the client then OK, you’re getting paid. More often, the Single Judge says no. At that point you can technically say that you’re not going to act for him any further because you’re not being paid. If he insists on going to the full Court (thereby risking losing his time served) then you can just wish him luck and be on your merry way. And good luck getting work from that solicitor again. In practice, unless things have changed since I used to defend, you go anyway. And you end up paying fit the privilege of going to court. Not that this is the only time that happens (I’ve often lost money on going to court; every criminal barrister has), but it certainly gets tiresome.
The short version of all that is that criminal lawyers are generally just regular people doing their job and trying to do it properly and well. Sometimes that involves good payday and sometimes it involves making a loss. In either case, you do the job properly because it’s your job.
Just to prevent too much
Just to prevent too much waste of our taxes I hope such a bizarre appeal can and does result in a longer sentence with an award of costs
Given how few people are
Given how few people are prosecuted and how many offend by using mobiles it is beyond belief that one person can get 8 prosecutions. He must live on the phone continuously and it was bound to end this way.
There ought to be a way for judges to be prosecuted when they make judgements like the one to let him keep his licence.
Please somebody conversant in
Please somebody conversant in criminal law tell me that if he loses his appeal he could get time added onto his original sentence.
Absolute scumbag. I hope that
Absolute scumbag. I hope that his sentence is increased
They need to send an advisory
They need to send an advisory to all magistrates that this is the outcome of letting dangerous drivers keep their licence be a use it affects ‘their livelyhood’
wycombewheeler wrote:
This. Exactly. So what if it affects their livelihood. They’ll have to make alternative transport arrangements. End of the discussion.
Couple of people have asked
Couple of people have asked whether the sentence can go up. Technically the answer is no. What can happen is that you can “lose time served”.
If a person is in custody pending trial and/or sentence then that time essentially counts towards any prison sentence that they get. This is “time served”. The Court of Appeal have the power (or had: I’ve not looked at this point in years but I doubt it’s changed) to say that if a person makes a spurious appeal then a certain portion of their time served should not count towards their sentence. This has the same effect as adding time to the sentence.
It’s relatively rare and I think it only happens if you appeal against the advice of your lawyer. Without knowing the full facts (I.e. rather more than we’ll get from newspaper and internet reports), I can’t say whether his lawyer is likely to have advised an appeal.
I’m a little concerned given
I’m a little concerned given that this killer only got 2.5 years per person.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/31/mobile-phone-truck-driver-who-killed-family-of-4-is-jailed-for-1/
My mate is a solicitor and
My mate is a solicitor and believe me, even the duty stuff still earns you a good crust. You won’t worrying about the bank account unless you have expensive tastes.
He is quite good at it though, seeing as he got a woman off an assault charge by saying the defendant thought the victim was zombie!(should have said cyclist and got a community action trust reward)
Anyone outraged checked, I
Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?
bendertherobot wrote:
The reduce by 1/3rd for pleading guilty still applies ? So must have been given the maximum as a starting point which is possibly a first,it’s probably going to reduce to around only 4-6yrs then
Awavey wrote:
You’ve lost me. The discount for guilty plea gets given by the initial judge. Why would it mean the sentence is going to reduce to 4-6 years?
bendertherobot wrote:
Because why should we be outraged that this bit of pond life carried on being a dangerous fuckwit, despite having been caught 8 times previously, until eventually he managed to kill someone? God forbid we should expect him to be punished halfway properly when there might be a weaselling way to reduce his sentence.
Maybe we could give him some compensation for his mental distress? After all, killing someone must be a bit traumatic, even for someone with this little brain.
oldstrath wrote:
bendertherobot wrote:
You come into a comments thread full of outrage with your logic? Go and get your pitchfork or flaming torch and line up with the others…
I can confirm this, having marshalled for a Red Judge. This was the evening’s workload.
Dr_Lex wrote:
Should people not be outraged at perceived injustice, weak sentencing, even the very laws themselves.
Logically, that is?
unconstituted wrote:
Certainly they should, but it needs to be expressed as such. Some of the comments basically say “how dare he appeal?”. Bendertherobot’s point is that if he’s been sentenced wrongly according to the guidelines then it’s no good being outraged about the fact he’s appealing, just against the laws.
Dan S wrote:
Should people not be outraged at perceived injustice, weak sentencing, even the very laws themselves.
Logically, that is?
— Dr_Lex Certainly they should, but it needs to be expressed as such. Some of the comments basically say “how dare he appeal?”. Bendertherobot’s point is that if he’s been sentenced wrongly according to the guidelines then it’s no good being outraged about the fact he’s appealing, just against the laws.— bendertherobot
I don’t agree that it must be expressed in some specfic form.
Any response that draws outrage is saying the same thing, that they believe that the current sentence is deserved, or even too lenient, regardless of legislation.
I bet you can’t find one single poster who you took a sideshot at who wouldn’t know that an appeal needs a reason in law to be granted.
People are more than free to express their moral standing and to chastise them for that position being at odds with the legal one is actually a break down in logic on your part in my eyes. Worse, it shows an inability to understand people.
unconstituted wrote:
I think he understands people just fine – but is pointing out where their anger could be usefully directed and where it might may fall flat.
fukawitribe wrote:
He has suggested himself that he doesn’t understand them with his snide remark about logic. I don’t see him saying their anger could be usefully directed, and I’m not even certain what that would mean or why it would matter as there is a process which doesn’t not care for their input at this stage.
Who is qualified here to give lectures on how they should communicate or direct their outrage in any case.
unconstituted]
I think he understands people just fine – but is pointing out where their anger could be usefully directed and where it might may fall flat.
I bow to your omnipotence about his manner of speaking and thought processes at the time.
That would be my wording about the suggestion that people check the legislation (entitlement to appeal) rather than, e.g. get justifiably pissed off about inadaquate sentencing in the first place which is something people can get involved in changing.
Come again ?
Ummm – you apparently..
fukawitribe]
So to recap, he didn’t say anything about directing outrage and you’ve descended into weird oneup internet guy again.
unconstituted wrote:
Nope – and sounds like we’re talking about different people anyway judging from the other comment.
fukawitribe wrote:
Yes, I think that his attack, while it did read as being directed at me, was actually attacking somebody else. The attack on me seems to be for taking us off onto some wild tangent about sentencing law when people are discussing the sentence passed on somebody and asking about the law…
He has suggested himself that
Oh, OK, you’re not actually talking to me then? Because the “snide comment” about logic wasn’t me…
unconstituted wrote:
It’s possible you’re confusing me with bendertherobot. I’ve not chastised anybody for their moral position being at odds with the legal one. I’ve made it pretty clear that my moral position is also at odds with the legal position. I simply said that if you’re outraged at the law then you shouldd be angry with the law. If you’re angry with the defendant (and you should be), then that should be anger about what he did when driving, not for appealing against a sentence if the sentence is wrong (which I don’t think it is).
Dan S wrote:
Should people not be outraged at perceived injustice, weak sentencing, even the very laws themselves.
Logically, that is?
— Dan S Certainly they should, but it needs to be expressed as such. Some of the comments basically say “how dare he appeal?”. Bendertherobot’s point is that if he’s been sentenced wrongly according to the guidelines then it’s no good being outraged about the fact he’s appealing, just against the laws.— unconstituted
I don’t agree that it must be expressed in some specfic form.
Any response that draws outrage is saying the same thing, that they believe that the current sentence is deserved, or even too lenient, regardless of legislation.
I bet you can’t find one single poster who you took a sideshot at who wouldn’t know that an appeal needs a reason in law to be granted.
People are more than free to express their moral standing and to chastise them for that position being at odds with the legal one is actually a break down in logic on your part in my eyes. Worse, it shows an inability to understand people.
— Dr_Lex It’s possible you’re confusing me with bendertherobot. I’ve not chastised anybody for their moral position being at odds with the legal one. I’ve made it pretty clear that my moral position is also at odds with the legal position. I simply said that if you’re outraged at the law then you shouldd be angry with the law. If you’re angry with the defendant (and you should be), then that should be anger about what he did when driving, not for appealing against a sentence if the sentence is wrong (which I don’t think it is).— bendertherobot
When I said you, I meant ‘he’. Was referring to Dr_Lex who made some snide remark about logic. Sorry about that.
It’s fine for you though Dan to have the opinion that people are entitled to be angry about the defendant’s actions, but not the sentencing if it’s erred in law.
Personally I think people are entitled to be angry at both. They’re more than free to think he should put up and shut up. They don’t even need a reason, other that some notion of wrongness. And I’d appreciate their input as much as a wall of text analysis of some copypasta from lexisnexis or wherever.
Knowing a bit of law isn’t a stick to beat people voicing their distate with. If people make a legal point and it’s wrong, then that’s the time to chime in. I think we had a conversation recently where I made a bad interpretation of a case and it took a while but you brought me round. That was appropriate.
But banging on about sentening guidelines when people are annoyed at the state of affairs for cyclists generally. Really?
unconstituted wrote:
It’s possible you’re confusing me with bendertherobot. I’ve not chastised anybody for their moral position being at odds with the legal one. I’ve made it pretty clear that my moral position is also at odds with the legal position. I simply said that if you’re outraged at the law then you shouldd be angry with the law. If you’re angry with the defendant (and you should be), then that should be anger about what he did when driving, not for appealing against a sentence if the sentence is wrong (which I don’t think it is).— Dr_Lex
When I said you, I meant ‘he’. Was referring to Dr_Lex who made some snide remark about logic.
It’s fine for you though Dan to have the opinion that people are entitled to be angry about the defendant’s actions, but not the sentencing if it’s erred in law.
Personally I think people are entitled to be angry at both. They’re more than free to think he should put up and shut up. They don’t even need a reason, other that some notion of wrongness. And I’d appreciate their input as much as a wall of text analysis of some copypasta from lexisnexis or wherever.
Knowing a bit of law isn’t a stick to beat people voicing their distate with. If people make a legal point and it’s wrong, then that’s the time to chime in. I think we had a conversation recently where I made a bad interpretation of a case and it took a while but you brought me round. That was appropriate.
But banging on about sentening guidelines when people are annoyed at the state of affairs for cyclists generally. Really?
— bendertherobot Not sure what you mean by copy and paste from LexisNexis: pretty sure everything I’ve posted is my own work.
More to the point, I posted the legal bit about possible consequences of an appeal because someone asked in terms for somebody with legal knowledge to do so. I posted about the Sentencing Guidelines because more than one person had posted on that topic: bendertherobot asked whether anybody had looked at them and somebody else had suggested that the sentence was likely to come down to 4-6 years. Others had already posted about whether he was lucky to only get 9 years and so on. You yourself commented that the sentence should be reviewed and increased.
Sentencing Guidelines being relevant to whether or not a sentence is going to come down to 4-6 years, whether he was lucky to get 9 etc, quite apart from being relevant to the post where somebody actually asked whether anyone had looked at the Guidelines, I figured that maybe a discussion of the Guidelines might be relevant.
Dan S wrote:
Should people not be outraged at perceived injustice, weak sentencing, even the very laws themselves.
Logically, that is?
— Dan S Certainly they should, but it needs to be expressed as such. Some of the comments basically say “how dare he appeal?”. Bendertherobot’s point is that if he’s been sentenced wrongly according to the guidelines then it’s no good being outraged about the fact he’s appealing, just against the laws.— unconstituted
I don’t agree that it must be expressed in some specfic form.
Any response that draws outrage is saying the same thing, that they believe that the current sentence is deserved, or even too lenient, regardless of legislation.
I bet you can’t find one single poster who you took a sideshot at who wouldn’t know that an appeal needs a reason in law to be granted.
People are more than free to express their moral standing and to chastise them for that position being at odds with the legal one is actually a break down in logic on your part in my eyes. Worse, it shows an inability to understand people.
— Dan S It’s possible you’re confusing me with bendertherobot. I’ve not chastised anybody for their moral position being at odds with the legal one. I’ve made it pretty clear that my moral position is also at odds with the legal position. I simply said that if you’re outraged at the law then you shouldd be angry with the law. If you’re angry with the defendant (and you should be), then that should be anger about what he did when driving, not for appealing against a sentence if the sentence is wrong (which I don’t think it is).— unconstituted
When I said you, I meant ‘he’. Was referring to Dr_Lex who made some snide remark about logic.
It’s fine for you though Dan to have the opinion that people are entitled to be angry about the defendant’s actions, but not the sentencing if it’s erred in law.
Personally I think people are entitled to be angry at both. They’re more than free to think he should put up and shut up. They don’t even need a reason, other that some notion of wrongness. And I’d appreciate their input as much as a wall of text analysis of some copypasta from lexisnexis or wherever.
Knowing a bit of law isn’t a stick to beat people voicing their distate with. If people make a legal point and it’s wrong, then that’s the time to chime in. I think we had a conversation recently where I made a bad interpretation of a case and it took a while but you brought me round. That was appropriate.
But banging on about sentening guidelines when people are annoyed at the state of affairs for cyclists generally. Really?
— Dr_Lex Not sure what you mean by copy and paste from LexisNexis: everything pretty sure everything I’ve posted is my own work. More to the point, I posted the legal bit about possible consequences of an appeal because someone asked in terms for somebody with legal knowledge to do so. I posted about the Sentencing Guidelines because more than one person had posted on that topic: bendertherobot asked whether anybody had looked at them and somebody else had suggested that the sentence was likely to come down to 4-6 years. Others had already posted about whether he was lucky to only get 9 years and so on. You yourself commented that the sentence should be reviewed and increased. Sentencing Guidelines being relevant to whether or not a sentence is going to come down to 4-6 years, whether he was lucky to get 9 etc, quite apart from being relevant to the post where somebody actually asked whether anyone had looked at the Guidelines, I figured that maybe a discussion of the Guidelines might be relevant.— bendertherobot
That wasn’t meant as a personal dig. Really. Actually that would be more bender who likes to beat commenters about sentencing guidelines in almost every article. Been watching that for maybe half a year now and always thought it was done distastefully, but I don’t get the feeling he’s a bad guy. He’s doing what he thinks is helpful and that’s okay. I actually think it’s not, but not going to go on here about why, well not today.
Here’s one of my favourite moments during the whole Brexit thing and to me it sums up the endless arguments over right wing comments on sovereignty v actual legal position and why that’s not the debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USTypBKEd8Y
unconstituted wrote:
Just started watching it. Agree so far!
I freely admit to having bugbears I bang on about. Mine are the lazy assumptions that all collisions are caused by drivers, that all such collisions should be punished in some mediaeval fashion and that the police, CPS, judges, lawyers etc don’t care about cyclists…
Dan S wrote:
You used the correct spelling of mediaeval! You’ve made my day.
FFS ! Give me the fucking key
FFS ! Give me the fucking key Now ! ! !
The problem is sentencing
The problem is sentencing inconsistency. Here’s another Hampshire case where the convicted driver subsequently appealed – I think he got 4 months cut off his sentence in the end.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-34222934
I suppose if you’re banged up for 8 years and an appeal might reduce your sentence by 5 or 10% its still worth the risk of appealing. Always the option down the line to be a model scrote and earn time off for good behavior…
kil0ran wrote:
There are a number of differences: the offence charged was different; no evidence of texting; previous convictions etc. There are almost certainly more. Much (not all, but much) of the perceived inconsistency comes from the inability of a couple of paragraphs to report the full facts of a case. Even if the reporter is trying to be fair and balanced, which isn’t always the case, you just can’t sum up all that information that quickly.
Since a few people have
Since a few people have mentioned it, shall we look at the Sentencing Guidelines? For those interested, they can be found here: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/web_causing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiAyZfuwKrQAhVpJ8AKHeAQBcsQFggiMAI&usg=AFQjCNEgIpVL1CqTPVMLM7L_xunV1gDCdg&sig2=hC6JbuV27BxsALiFu4-Xng
It’s death by dangerous driving: p11.
Plainly Level 1: flagrant disregard for the rules of the road and the great danger to others. Starting point 8 years, range 7-14 (after trial, not allowing for guilty plea).
Various of the other aggravating factors listed apply: previous driving convictions (very much so); other offence committed at the same time (texting); and you could argue that deleting the texts (I think I read that in the story) is equivalent to driving off to hide guilt. These factors mean that we are well above 8 years now. As far as I can see, none of the mitigating factors apply.
Now you give the 1/3 discount for early guilty plea. (Here did plead early, I think I read?) This is where we could have saved ourselves some work: a sentence of 9 years with full credit means that she started at 13.5 years. Even taking the maximum sentence, you only get to 9 years 4 months. So basically Judge Evans threw the book at him. Unfortunately, the book isn’t big enough, but that’s Parliament’s fault, not the lawyers’ or judge’s.
So is it likely to come down? From what I can see (and you can’t reliably judge from newspaper and internet reports, as I frequently say), no. Given that he basically got the maximum, he probably figured that he may as well appeal, but I think it’ll probably stand.
Dan S wrote:
See, I wonder whether his appeal is based on the fact that he claims it’s level 2.
bendertherobot wrote:
See, I wonder whether his appeal is based on the fact that he claims it’s level 2.— Dan S
That may well be his point, I suppose. I think it’s a bad point that would be doomed to fail, but it may well be what he’s arguing.
Via ‘amortisation’ ^ you’ve
Via ‘amortisation’ ^ you’ve wandered into my area of expertise – but I don’t think you meant to refer to an asset decreasing in value, Dan.
Yours, a similarly misunderstood and skint banker.
davel wrote:
I have no idea what amortisation means, so if I’ve used the word then it’ll be my phone’s autocorrect! I can’t find where i used it to correct…
EDIT: found it! Should have read “admiration”…