Yep. But of course got the big discount for pleading guilty early.


He drove dangerously, not recklessly. It's a level higher than reckless.

The fact that someone died is pure chance. It is misleading in this context to say "he killed someone" as you are in danger of implying that he had an intention to kill or maim, when in fact he probably never gave the risk a moment's thought.


Indeed, but failing to stop isn't at all the most serious offence he was charged with. And cowards in the agony of the moment deciding to cut and run is sadly all too common.


But opinions as to how long sentences should be are like s- everyone's got one. It has been pointed out that there are pretty comprehensive sentencing guidelines and it is just totally pointless picking out one single offence and railing against the guidelines. That is the law of the land and if you were the judge you would have to sentence on that basis too. You don't have to like it. Plus, he won't serve anything like 5 years. 2 years would be much nearer the actual mark.

I could also point out that hundreds - possibly thousands - drive far more dangerously than this man ever did every day of the week, but most don't hit anything, so are not punished. And you can watch infinitely worse driving in any police-chase-stylee program - which of those dangerous lunatics ever gets a sentence in years for it? There is a case for saying that this man was just very unlucky that circumstances arose whereby he hit and killed someone. His driving would have been just as bad, whether he did or didn't. The law makes additional sentencing provision to mark a death, but the fact is this moves into being sentenced for a consequence - not for what you did, but the result of it.


It beggars YOUR belief, but you are comparing two cases that can't sensibly be compared. You are again using the word "killed" as if it was some sort of deliberate killing, whereas it was a pure unintended consequence.


Common sense? You mean that if you disagree with a sentence personally, that makes it not common sense, don't you. But you can't sensibly talk about inconsistency - the guidelines are there for all to see and any out-of-kilter sentences are subject to being increased/decreased on appeal. So in the greater scheme of things, it doesn't actually matter that much what that individual got from that judge, what is far more important is that there is a settled appeals process so that in the majority of cases the law of the land on sentencing is in the end fairly imposed.


Try something other than the Mail, then.

I assume there is a Government Quango, which after a suitable period of debate and reflection sets these guidelines? Are they written in stone, or has an individual Judge some leeway to say, , this particular case deserves a much higher tariff, and applying it? All without The Court of Appeal sending him a snotty letter.

I personally think, that generally both the length of sentences are too short, and the reduction for an early Guilty Plea is simply a not very subtle way of reducing costs. If we want a more cost effective system, then lets have Mi' Learned Friend et al being available 7 days a week, with a night Court if needed.

Again, have a look through The Bench Book, although it covers more minor indiscretions you'll see just what leeway there is but also what must be taken into account. its certainly not random.

When was the last time you drove off by accident after killing someone. The accident is fair enough, but the rest deserves 20 years. In fact the pair of them deserve much longer sentences.

If you want to pay more taxes, yep

How is spending a load more money "more cost effective"? If a court opens al night then it doesn't just need lawyers, it needs clerks, magistrates, ushers, security, people to deal with the cells area, transport of people in custody; double your lighting and heating bill etc etc.

And what would be the point? The government's long term policies have seen a steady fall in the work of the criminal courts. It's not as if there is a backlog. I don't understand your point at all.

If you look I asked a question, turns out he got done for dd.

Its terrible when all those machines get turned off on Saturday and Sunday isnt it? I'm surprised the mortuaries can cope.

Lazy consultants! I've heard it all now.

Yeah we should work the doctors as much as possible. Tiredness isn't an issue here.

Just because one sector of the economy gets away with sh|tting on employees doesn't mean this should be extended everywhere.

A little off topic I know, but I'd advocate us going back to the weekend actually being a time when people can spend time with their families, not a workday.

I blame the pesky meddling EU and their 48 hour working week directive.
Doctors used to be able to clock up double them hours on full whack compared to the layabouts coming through in the medical profession nowadays.
You just can't get the staff!

Which HM Government opted out of for several sectors of public employee - NHS doctors being one such example.

I'd like to add the small aside that having attended a couple of court cases from the public gallery (no serious crimes), my respect for the way judges appeared to use common sense in applying benchmarks to sentencing was greatly increased.

The press will report the sensational aspects of a crime and the sentence, but I've seen a judge make every possible effort to get someone a non-custodial sentence in one case, where it did seem clear that there was genuine remorse and intent to turn things around on behalf of the defendant, and another where the same judge saw a serial offender with attitude and pushed his sentence towards the maximum.

Not saying they get it right in every case, but I think a lot of judges are far more connected to the "real world" than most people give them credit for - especially the nasty side of life, which they undoubtedly see a lot more of than most.

Far from me to doubt your earnest opinion but have you managed to run this theory through with Sal for official confirmation?