Famous Sycamore Gap tree on Hadrian's Wall had been deliberately cut down

I had no idea that the sound of Bow bells travels that far.


I couldn't do a Cumbrian accent. When I holidayed in the Lake District, I noticed it was popular with lots of families from Lancashire, so how about, "Tree's nowt to me, chuck'.



.
 
Only if you take him at his word. In reality, he seems to be the more devious one.

I found this article with more background on him:

Interesting.

Seems he had a thing about Hadrian's Wall, wanting to live as close as possible to it, and being rejected by the council.
 
What’s the sentence for criminal damage. Are the outraged estimates of 1.2M for the tree and 1,100 for the fence in anyway a reality?
The tree's value on the standard scale is around 600k.
Do you think they actually go to prison? They do seem to be "highly culpable" and their actions did cause distress and harm. But I'm not sure it was "serious" distress and harm. It was rather unfortunate. A hefty fine and community order might suffice?
They're gong to prison
That seems disproportionate to what they did.
It's one tree, and part of ancient monument.

I don't see imprisonment as necessary except in the case of those who pose an extreme danger to others. Ironically, gaol might be the safest place for those two if reports of threats are accurate.

What ought to be the consequence for damaging/destroying something of historical importance?
I disagree completely. The crime was one of utter, purposeless, destruction and that should be an aggravating factor. A long jail sentence is appropriate.
 
Aggravated vandalism? Seems unnecessarily draconian. What's the tariff for a drunk driver who causes a collision without injuries? In the US, it would probably be probation plus damages, on a first offense. I think that's about right.
 
Aggravated vandalism? Seems unnecessarily draconian. What's the tariff for a drunk driver who causes a collision without injuries? In the US, it would probably be probation plus damages, on a first offense. I think that's about right.
It's not aggravated vandalism, it's criminal damage, two counts each, relating to the tree and the Roman wall.

But yeah, I think time served, and/or a fine, and community service is enough. I don't think Graham should have to serve any more time.
 
I couldn't do a Cumbrian accent. When I holidayed in the Lake District, I noticed it was popular with lots of families from Lancashire, so how about, "Tree's nowt to me, chuck'.
Nope, they're not from Lancashire either.
 
Good luck finding a crane (hirer) in the UK that would risk lifting it. Golden rule in the crane world, you don't lift mature trees.
I had many cranes on hire to the Celtic Manor for the redevelopment (mid 90's), the groundsman asked for a relatively small tree, 25-30 footer to be moved, for an off-the-books fee. Our 18 wheeler (160te) driver took the money and bent the boom. He lost his £65k job for 200 quid.
Is this because trees are heavier than they look or did they assume the crane could pull it out of the ground?
 
Aggravated vandalism? Seems unnecessarily draconian. What's the tariff for a drunk driver who causes a collision without injuries? In the US, it would probably be probation plus damages, on a first offense. I think that's about right.

Criminal Damage is damage caused deliberately, not a drunk driver crashing into something accidentally because of inebriation. In the UK the maximum sentence for Criminal Damage is ten years, and whilst the value of the damage might be a consideration in sentencing, what is salient is the criminal intent of the convicted. In Graham's case, I would class it as grade 10/10 in sheer malice. Carruthers being as daft as a brush and having been persuaded by the calculating Graham that a wedge from it'd be a great souvenir for his newborn as well as a 'great laugh' probably a lesser sentence, perhaps two to five years. If I was the judge!



.
 
Criminal Damage is damage caused deliberately, not a drunk driver crashing into something accidentally because of inebriation. In the UK the maximum sentence for Criminal Damage is ten years, and whilst the value of the damage might be a consideration in sentencing, what is salient is the criminal intent of the convicted. In Graham's case, I would class it as grade 10/10 in sheer malice. Carruthers being as daft as a brush and having been persuaded by the calculating Graham that a wedge from it'd be a great souvenir for his newborn as well as a 'great laugh' probably a lesser sentence, perhaps two to five years. If I was the judge!



.
A drunk driver is drunk driving deliberately. And putting lives at risk, which these vandals did not do.

I guess it depends what you think is the purpose of incarceration, and where exactly you draw the line between justice and revenge.
 
A drunk driver is drunk driving deliberately. And putting lives at risk, which these vandals did not do.

I guess it depends what you think is the purpose of incarceration, and where exactly you draw the line between justice and revenge.

But Criminal Damage refers to non-sentient things, not people, so there is no criterion that 'a person has to be injured' to achieve the ten-year maximum standard in sentencing, There WAS £700K worth of damage, far more than the average drunk driver causes.


.
 
Last edited:
But Criminal Damage refers to non-sentient things, not people, so there is no criterion that 'a person has to be injured' to achieve the ten-year maximum standard in sentencing, There WAS £700K worth of damage, far more than the average drunk driver causes.

.

How do you value the life of someone killed by a drunk driver?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is this because trees are heavier than they look or did they assume the crane could pull it out of the ground?
Not out of the ground, in the instance I mentioned the roots were balled up. The weight of the tree is indeterminate and the load indicator is rendered moot as the centre of gravity changes as the tree is moved. My guy hadn't fully lifted the tree and as the tree shifted on the root ball, additional weight was put on the [extended] boom and bingo.
Trust me, they're bastards to lift.
 
(eta: replying to Andy Ross here) You can't, but I agree with Vixen's point (eh? wtaf?) that 'criminal damage', in law, relates to property.
 
Last edited:
Aggravated vandalism? Seems unnecessarily draconian. What's the tariff for a drunk driver who causes a collision without injuries? In the US, it would probably be probation plus damages, on a first offense. I think that's about right.

Depends on if there was someone in the car or not. My first DUI, I got 30 days in jail and absolutely no one was injured and I didn't run into anyone. Just had a few too many drinks before going home and the judge wanted to make an example of me, his words, because I was 18.

The rest is spot on. I also got a $1050 fine and some victims classes.

I think the ringleader should get a year and the other should get probation. The pointlessness and the malice behind deserves some level of punishment. There was absolutely no reason to cut the tree down, it was just a dick move.
 
But Criminal Damage refers to non-sentient things, not people, so there is no criterion that 'a person has to be injured' to achieve the ten-year maximum standard in sentencing, There WAS £700K worth of damage, far more than the average drunk driver causes.
Yes. I'm disagreeing with the statute.
 
How do you value the life of someone killed by a drunk driver?


Good point. The fact is, the 'establishment' that makes the laws do make crimes against property as serious and even more serious than crimes against the person. We've all seen cases of some guy through reckless driving, kill three of his mates, together with an entre young family wiped out in the other car...and their getting a lenient eight-year sentence and an order to retake the driving test.

But the crime of Criminal Damage has a ten-year maximum sentence. <shrug>


Here is Uk.gov.uk headers re Criminal Damage, for those who want to understand it more:

  1. 1. Destroying or damaging property.
  2. 2. Threats to destroy or damage property.
  3. 3. Possessing anything with intent to destroy or damage property.
  4. 4. Punishment of offences.
  5. 5.“Without lawful excuse.”

.
 
Good point. The fact is, the 'establishment' that makes the laws do make crimes against property as serious and even more serious than crimes against the person. We've all seen cases of some guy through reckless driving, kill three of his mates, together with an entre young family wiped out in the other car...and their getting a lenient eight-year sentence and an order to retake the driving test.

But the crime of Criminal Damage has a ten-year maximum sentence. <shrug>

.
And the crime of causing death by dangerous driving has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Why do you shrug?
 


See here:


A driver who was filmed inhaling laughing gas behind the wheel before a high-speed crash has been jailed for killing three teenage friends.

Thomas Johnson was travelling at speeds of up to 100mph before his car hit a tree in the village of Marcham, Oxfordshire, killing passengers Ethan Goddard, Daniel Hancock, both 18, and Elliot Pullen, 17.

Johnson, 19, was jailed for nine years and four months at Oxford Crown Court after pleading guilty to three counts of causing death by dangerous driving.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c99xmzey88vo

and here:



19-year-old Edward Alwyn Spencer has today (28 April) been jailed for two years.

He was sentenced to three counts of 24 months following the death of three fellow pupils in a collision in Shipston on Stour on Friday 21 April 2023.

He was also sentenced to three counts of 21 months for seriously injuring three others including two primary aged children. The sentences will run concurrently.

Spencer was the driver of a car containing three other teenagers travelling home from school together, when he lost control and crashed into a car travelling in the opposite direction.
https://www.warwickshire.police.uk/...usly-injuring-three-others-in-shipston-crash/


A life sentence would be where there is criminal intent to harm.


.
 
And the crime of causing death by dangerous driving has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Why do you shrug?
Does this refer to cases where someone deliberately drives into a crowd of people using a vehicle as a weapon, or your run-of-the-mill drunk driver?
 
If I may depart from the nonsensical claims regarding mere property damage against destruction of the commons, it seems the tree killing pair were responsible for a string of previous crimes, homophobic threats and assaults, the the police and CPS failed to act.

 
How do you value the life of someone killed by a drunk driver?
The maximum sentence for causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of alcohol is life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for criminal damage is apparently 10 years.

I'm really not sure what people here are trying to prove by pointing out that there is an overlap in the ranges of sentences for the two offences. Yes there is, but so what?

Edit: Severely ninja'd by Zooterkin
 
Last edited:
The maximum sentence for causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of alcohol is life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for criminal damage is apparently 10 years.

I'm really not sure what people here are trying to prove by pointing out that there is an overlap in the ranges of sentences for the two offences. Yes there is, but so what?

I think it's run on from theprestige helpfully telling us that the sentence is draconian because a different crime in a different country under different circumstances would get a lesser sentence.
 
Not out of the ground, in the instance I mentioned the roots were balled up. The weight of the tree is indeterminate and the load indicator is rendered moot as the centre of gravity changes as the tree is moved. My guy hadn't fully lifted the tree and as the tree shifted on the root ball, additional weight was put on the [extended] boom and bingo.
Trust me, they're bastards to lift.
I wasn't doubting you, I was just interested to know. I know almost nothing abut craning trees or any other object. In fact...

I bough to your superior knowledge.


I'll get me coat.
 
See here:



and here:





A life sentence would be where there is criminal intent to harm.


.
The mistake you are making is in comparing the maximum sentence for one offence (criminal damage) to a specific sentence given to an individual for committing a different offence.

In the UK pretty much every crime has a range of sentences that can be applied and the exact one is determined by a judge applying government sentencing guidelines. It's not unusual for people to get quite a lot less than the maximum possible sentence.

As for why sentences where people died are often not life, well, intent plays a big part in the British justice system. If there is intent, it is murder and a mandatory life sentence applies. If there is no intent, the judge can recognise that and can give a much shorter sentence.
 
I think it's run on from theprestige helpfully telling us that the sentence is draconian because a different crime in a different country under different circumstances would get a lesser sentence.
And that because that other country is the USA, the sentence in that country is right, and the UK is wrong because the US criminal justice system is the best in the world.
 
Good luck finding a crane (hirer) in the UK that would risk lifting it. Golden rule in the crane world, you don't lift mature trees.
I had many cranes on hire to the Celtic Manor for the redevelopment (mid 90's), the groundsman asked for a relatively small tree, 25-30 footer to be moved, for an off-the-books fee. Our 18 wheeler (160te) driver took the money and bent the boom. He lost his £65k job for 200 quid.

It's terrain as well as weight, and the shape of the load, specifically how close the vehicle can get to the load, I used to work for one of the biggest specialist crane hire companies. I was office not site so I'm no expert, but one of the things I picked up was how quickly the nominal lifting weight of the crane had to increase as the distance increased, we had a contract for clearing up train derailments because we were one of only a handful of companies that had high enough capacity to lift in situations where there might be several sets of tracks between where you set up the crane and where the derailed engine or carriages were. With a tree you're not going to want the crane too close to the hole, and the shape of a tree is going to mean it's going to need a fair bit of boom to give clearance for branches and roots. To be fair 160t is a small crane (cranes of this size were an important part of our fleet), for perspective we had mobile Leibherrs in excess of 1000t so I'm sure they could do it with no problem, but it could get very expensive.
 
If "criminal intent to harm" could be established the appropriate charge would be murder.

No we were talking about dangerous driving. Do keep up! The Aggravated part in sentencing leading to a life term in prison would need to show criminal intent to harm, such as persistent profligacy in dangerous driving convictions, or some other egregious indicator.

.
 

Back
Top Bottom