Hit-and-run driver jailed for killing cyclist gets driving ban shortened after Court of Appeal decision

As others have pointed out, the issue is that the criminal law is not allowed to be retrospective. If you take it to extremes, you can imagine a totalitarian state criminalising something that was legal and fine to do at the time. Or slightly less extreme but possibly as sinister in practice, would be to massively increase the penalty for a previously minor crime and apply that change retrospectively to crimes already committed.

Obviously the issues here are clearer and most people would I think see it as fair to apply the change - after all, it's applying the same punishment, but just making it have actual effect. But the general rule, to avoid wider abuse by the state against individuals, is that criminal changes can't be retrospective. 

Not that this will ever happen, but for a long time I've thought that issues like this could disappear (or at least be less of a problem), if the privilege of driving was treated as a privilege to be dealt with by civil law, rather than as a right to be taken away by the criminal law. 

It's obviously not an absolute right - you have to pass a test and show competence to be able to get a license. I would change the system so that if it can be shown to the civil standard of proof (balance of probailities) that you have broken rules relating to that license, then you have conditions on it or lose it. Criminal penalties such as prison time could still be governed by the criminal law, and would still need to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 

However, we all know that driving is both seen and treated as a right. Not just by most of the public, but by the judicial system and government as well. Even when someone has been convicted to the criminal standard, far too many keep their license. So I'm not holding my breath that any of this will change.

Roll on mandatory autonomous vehicles. 

Surely an appeal is just that, and can be turned down on the judges decision, so this is the judges deciding that the original decision was unfair, regardless of some technicality.

You have to ask. Why was it previously that the ban started on the day of sentencing? There is no point in a driving ban applying while you are in jail, totally futile. Not being allowed to drive while in prison isn't much of a punitive measure.

I'm not sure I understand. Was the previous version of the law that the driving ban started on release? If so, WHY has it changed to when the sentence starts? You could serve your ban whilst banged up, when you can't drive anyway?! What the fuck?

Never let someone who has killed on the roads ever drive again.

All we can hope is he gets arse-stretched enough that he's in no state to sit a driving seat in a hurry. 

Classy of the judge taking the initiative on this. 

Forget any notion you may have that the practice of law has anything to do with justice, fairness or concern for the victim.

This is a technical stupidity of sentencing guidelines that has since been rectified, but cannot be applied to crimes commited before the date of the change. If you think about it this is fair in principal even if it makes one want wretch in this particular case.

I have a quesion which won't be relavent to this case since the appeal has been upheld but I am interested for later cases.

Assuming a driver gets X years jail and Y years ban to start when they are released, It is normal that they will get early release, and I understand that is when the ban starts bt what about the period prior to release when non dangerous prisoners have day release and weekend release etc.

Are they still licenced in this period or are they banned, and if banned do the indivdual day come off the total ban because if not that is open to another crappy appeal

Make the driving ban 15 years...or won't someone think of the children!!!!! Life ban?!?!?

A driving ban WHILE he's in priso seems a waste in any situation I can think of, as from what I recall, you are not allowed to take your car with you into the prison.

Absolute farce. Killing somebody, trying to hide the fact he was the driver, claiming his car had been stolen. 9 months. 9 months?

Edit. 7 years in prison, thanks pjm

http://road.cc/content/news/188645-man-sentenced-seven-years-over-fatal-...

Isn't it seven years in jail, not nine months?

Well if you can review the driving ban, then review the woefully inadequate prison sentence, keep him locked up for another 5 years.