Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Texting driver jailed for 9 years for killing cyclist appeals sentence

Christopher Gard, who had 8 previous convictions for mobile phone use, killed Lee Martin in August 2015

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.

> Police crack down on mobile phone driving

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

59 comments

Avatar
davel | 7 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
Dan S replied to davel | 7 years ago
1 like
davel wrote:

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.

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"...

Avatar
Dan S | 7 years ago
4 likes

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.sente...

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.

Avatar
bendertherobot replied to Dan S | 7 years ago
0 likes

Dan S wrote:

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.sente... 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.

See, I wonder whether his appeal is based on the fact that he claims it's level 2.

Avatar
Dan S replied to bendertherobot | 7 years ago
0 likes
bendertherobot wrote:

Dan S wrote:

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.sente... 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.

See, I wonder whether his appeal is based on the fact that he claims it's level 2.

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.

Avatar
kil0ran | 7 years ago
0 likes

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...

 

Avatar
Dan S replied to kil0ran | 7 years ago
1 like
kil0ran wrote:

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...

 

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.

Avatar
Batchy | 7 years ago
0 likes

FFS ! Give me the fucking key Now ! ! !

Avatar
bendertherobot | 7 years ago
1 like

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

Avatar
Awavey replied to bendertherobot | 7 years ago
0 likes
bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

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

Avatar
Dan S replied to Awavey | 7 years ago
0 likes
Awavey wrote:
bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

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

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?

Avatar
oldstrath replied to bendertherobot | 7 years ago
1 like

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

 

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.

Avatar
Dan S replied to oldstrath | 7 years ago
0 likes
oldstrath wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

I think the point bendertherobot is making is that people should be sentenced according to the law and that if the sentence is in fact higher than the law suggests then appealing is not unreasonable. Whether the law should allow a higher sentence is a different matter (and for the record, I think it should).

 

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.

Avatar
Dr_Lex replied to bendertherobot | 7 years ago
0 likes

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

 

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...

 

DanS wrote:

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.

I can confirm this, having marshalled for a Red Judge. This was the evening's workload.

Avatar
tritecommentbot replied to Dr_Lex | 7 years ago
4 likes

Dr_Lex wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

 

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...

 

Should people not be outraged at perceived injustice, weak sentencing, even the very laws themselves.

 

Logically, that is?

 

 

Avatar
Dan S replied to tritecommentbot | 7 years ago
0 likes
unconstituted wrote:

Dr_Lex wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

 

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...

 

Should people not be outraged at perceived injustice, weak sentencing, even the very laws themselves.

 

Logically, that is?

 

 

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.

Avatar
tritecommentbot replied to Dan S | 7 years ago
4 likes

Dan S wrote:
unconstituted wrote:

Dr_Lex wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

 

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...

 

Should people not be outraged at perceived injustice, weak sentencing, even the very laws themselves.

 

Logically, that is?

 

 

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.

 

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.

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to tritecommentbot | 7 years ago
1 like

unconstituted wrote:

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.

 

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.

Avatar
tritecommentbot replied to fukawitribe | 7 years ago
4 likes

fukawitribe wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to tritecommentbot | 7 years ago
1 like

unconstituted]</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[quote=unconstituted

wrote:

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.

 

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.

unconstituted wrote:

He has suggested himself that he doesn't understand them with his snide remark about logic.

I bow to your omnipotence about his manner of speaking and thought processes at the time.

unconstituted wrote:

I don't see him saying their anger could be usefully directed,

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.

unconstituted wrote:

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.

 

Come again ?

 

unconstituted wrote:

Who is qualified here to give lectures on how they should communicate or direct their outrage in any case.

 

Ummm - you apparently..

Avatar
tritecommentbot replied to fukawitribe | 7 years ago
3 likes

fukawitribe]</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[quote=fukawitribe

wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

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.

 

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.

unconstituted wrote:

He has suggested himself that he doesn't understand them with his snide remark about logic.

I bow to your omnipotence about his manner of speaking and thought processes at the time.

unconstituted wrote:

I don't see him saying their anger could be usefully directed,

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.

unconstituted wrote:

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.

 

Come again ?

 

unconstituted wrote:

Who is qualified here to give lectures on how they should communicate or direct their outrage in any case.

 

Ummm - you apparently..

 

So to recap, he didn't say anything about directing outrage and you've descended into weird oneup internet guy again. 

 

 

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to tritecommentbot | 7 years ago
0 likes

unconstituted wrote:

So to recap, he didn't say anything about directing outrage and you've descended into weird oneup internet guy again. 

Nope - and sounds like we're talking about different people anyway judging from the other comment.

Avatar
Dan S replied to fukawitribe | 7 years ago
1 like

fukawitribe wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

So to recap, he didn't say anything about directing outrage and you've descended into weird oneup internet guy again. 

Nope - and sounds like we're talking about different people anyway judging from the other comment.

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...

Avatar
Dan S replied to tritecommentbot | 7 years ago
0 likes
unconstituted wrote:

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.

Oh, OK, you're not actually talking to me then? Because the "snide comment" about logic wasn't me...

Avatar
Dan S replied to tritecommentbot | 7 years ago
0 likes
unconstituted wrote:

Dan S wrote:
unconstituted wrote:

Dr_Lex wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

 

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...

 

Should people not be outraged at perceived injustice, weak sentencing, even the very laws themselves.

 

Logically, that is?

 

 

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.

 

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.

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).

Avatar
tritecommentbot replied to Dan S | 7 years ago
1 like

Dan S wrote:
unconstituted wrote:

Dan S wrote:
unconstituted wrote:

Dr_Lex wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

 

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...

 

Should people not be outraged at perceived injustice, weak sentencing, even the very laws themselves.

 

Logically, that is?

 

 

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.

 

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.

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).

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?

 

Avatar
Dan S replied to tritecommentbot | 7 years ago
0 likes

unconstituted wrote:

Dan S wrote:
unconstituted wrote:

Dan S wrote:
unconstituted wrote:

Dr_Lex wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

 

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...

 

Should people not be outraged at perceived injustice, weak sentencing, even the very laws themselves.

 

Logically, that is?

 

 

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.

 

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.

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).

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?

 

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.

Avatar
tritecommentbot replied to Dan S | 7 years ago
1 like

Dan S wrote:
unconstituted wrote:

Dan S wrote:
unconstituted wrote:

Dan S wrote:
unconstituted wrote:

Dr_Lex wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Anyone outraged checked, I dunno, any sentencing guidelines to see, in law, whether he might have a point?

 

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...

 

Should people not be outraged at perceived injustice, weak sentencing, even the very laws themselves.

 

Logically, that is?

 

 

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.

 

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.

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).

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Avatar
Dan S replied to tritecommentbot | 7 years ago
0 likes

unconstituted wrote:

 

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

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...

Avatar
brooksby replied to Dan S | 7 years ago
2 likes

Dan S wrote:

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...

You used the correct spelling of mediaeval!  You've made my day. yes

Pages

Latest Comments