Sentencing options - you decide.

[P.J. Denyer]

Potentially damaging? What can this mean?

Well, damaged points can cause a derailment. If somoeone is performing an illegal activity, especially if they've done it twice it seems reasonable that potential consequences of that action be considered even if they would have be unintentional. As a motorcyclist I'd like to see 'worst case' scenarios applied to the scum bags who steal manhole and drain covers for their scrap metal values.....

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, damaged points can cause a derailment. If somoeone is performing an illegal activity, especially if they've done it twice it seems reasonable that potential consequences of that action be considered even if they would have be unintentional. As a motorcyclist I'd like to see 'worst case' scenarios applied to the scum bags who steal manhole and drain covers for their scrap metal values.....

OK PJ but to a onetime criminal lawyer, if you say 'damage' in the context of a case like this I hear 'criminal damage' which is a specific criminal offence with which he was not charged (if he was there is no mention of it). He cannot be sentenced for things he was not convicted of, unless he asks for other offences to be 'taken into consideration' but this also seems not to have happened here. Anyway, I am happy to agree that if did damage the points then this is another aggravating circumstance which will have resulted in financial and amenity loss to the community. I am now settled on nine months (on that assumption although I am not entirely happy to make it).

 

[Bob001]

..... I am upping his sentence to six months. Maybe nine.

Just an observation here. I agree that 22 months is way too much for the transgressions described. One thing to remember is that sending someone to prison costs us, the taxpayers, a lot of money. In California, it's almost $50,000 per year. A short jail sentence would have been sufficient as punishment and deterrent, and the defendant should have been required to pay for any damage he caused. Maybe he should even be required to work with the repair crews if he's capable of it.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I quite understand, I am (quite obviously) not a lawyer, but I'm an IT guy and ex-accountant and I know how annoying and misleading it can be when lay people misuse a term with a clear definition in context. But my point was less about the damage itself but rather the potential consequences of the crime. In this case it was dangerous driving and his driving on the train tracks caused additional danger to others as it may have made the tracks unsafe. I don't see why this wouldn't be taken into account in the same way that the additional danger would be taken into account between speeding (65mph straight National Speed Limit of town road 2am on a Monday morning) and speeding (50mph on a 30mph road past a school at 3:30pm on a schoolday) even if there was no actual accident or injury in either case.

 

[lobosrul]

Well sure, no problem. In my neck of the woods we get a lot of sentencing decisions that just seem out of line with each other. Hopefully people can collect a few more.

ETA Hey! when can we go public with lobosrul's case of the four female attackers? That's a good one!

Well, I already posted a link to it yesterday for anyone to read. So I'd say its OK now.

Here is a new one, and somewhat local to me:

A police officer "joking around" with a 10 year old child pulls his taser and "accidentally" tazes (is that a word?) him. Also, he did not immediately seek medical treatment for the unconscious boy. To be clear, the child was not being threatening to anyone, and it was not part of an authorized demonstration of his taser.

http://www.examiner.com/article/cop-tasers-child-on-career-day-accidentally-for-not-washing-cruiser

Sentence?

 

[anglolawyer]

I quite understand, I am (quite obviously) not a lawyer, but I'm an IT guy and ex-accountant and I know how annoying and misleading it can be when lay people misuse a term with a clear definition in context. But my point was less about the damage itself but rather the potential consequences of the crime. In this case it was dangerous driving and his driving on the train tracks caused additional danger to others as it may have made the tracks unsafe. I don't see why this wouldn't be taken into account in the same way that the additional danger would be taken into account between speeding (65mph straight National Speed Limit of town road 2am on a Monday morning) and speeding (50mph on a 30mph road past a school at 3:30pm on a schoolday) even if there was no actual accident or injury in either case.

If you have time, check out the CPS's sentencing guidelines for dangerous driving with its aggravating and mitigating factors here:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/dangerous_driving/

Then check out this case:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-20068691

This featured an instance of causing death by dangerous driving. The sentence? 18 months. This was increased on a prosecution appeal to three and a half years. The deceased was a 13 year old girl. 18 months!

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, I already posted a link to it yesterday for anyone to read. So I'd say its OK now.

Oh, sorry. Unbelievable. No jail time? No racially aggravated element? And the fact they weren't used to being drunk due to being muslim went in their favour? Gotta be kidding.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Contempt of court isn't a crime and you only commit perjury if you lie on oath (e.g. in the witness box) apart from some special types of perjury. These guys never got into the witness box because the case was shown to be bogus before it came on for trial.

The contempt jurisdiction arises from the court's powers to protect its own proceedings from abuse. If you show up in court shouting and swearing at the judge and making a scene then the judge can lawfully throw you in the slammer there and then without going through the rigmarole of a prosecution and trial. In this case, the contempt involved signing documents (the claim form and supporting witness statements) without an honest belief in the truth of the statements. It's akin to perjury but not quite the same thing. Many, but not all, acts of contempt would also be crimes.

Thanks for the interesting additional information on this. I'd assumed they'd lied in the court proceedings themselves, hence my surprise it wasn't perjury (see, I didn't cheat and look up the case! ).

Out of interest, do contempt of court rulings (wrong word?) part of a person's criminal record?

 

[anglolawyer]

Just an observation here. I agree that 22 months is way too much for the transgressions described. One thing to remember is that sending someone to prison costs us, the taxpayers, a lot of money. In California, it's almost $50,000 per year. A short jail sentence would have been sufficient as punishment and deterrent, and the defendant should have been required to pay for any damage he caused. Maybe he should even be required to work with the repair crews if he's capable of it.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3

I like those ideas.

 

[anglolawyer]

Thanks for the interesting additional information on this. I'd assumed they'd lied in the court proceedings themselves, hence my surprise it wasn't perjury (see, I didn't cheat and look up the case! ).

Out of interest, do contempt of court rulings (wrong word?) part of a person's criminal record?

There are civil contempts and criminal contempts so the answer might differ depending on which is involved. More than that, I know not.

ETA meaning I was probably wrong to say contempt is not a crime. Civil contempt is not [Cobra Golf Ltd -v- Rata 1998 Ch. 109] but action undertaken with intent to impede or prejudice the administration of justice seemingly is (interfering with witnesses, or publication of prejudicial material relating to pending proceedings).

 

[Metullus]

Metullus-: Your answer to 'C' suggests no punishment. Would you mind explaining why? I'd see this as a serious attempt to defraud.

I would not endorse such a sentence just as I would not endorse a light sentence for A or two years for B. These were my predictions of what the likely sentences would be.

Were I the sentencing authority I would sentence culprits A to twenty years, B to zip, and C to 2 years.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

If you have time, check out the CPS's sentencing guidelines for dangerous driving with its aggravating and mitigating factors here:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/dangerous_driving/

Then check out this case:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-20068691

This featured an instance of causing death by dangerous driving. The sentence? 18 months. This was increased on a prosecution appeal to three and a half years. The deceased was a 13 year old girl. 18 months!

That is shocking, truely. Their behaviour was undoubtedly worse but I think it is a case of undue leniency in that case rather than harshness in this one.

With the sentencing guidelines I think the aggravating factors are difficult to fit to this case as it is so unusual, but driving in an area where driving is prohibited and driving up rail tracks would certainly be 'a prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving' and 'showing off'.

 

[anglolawyer]

That is shocking, truely. Their behaviour was undoubtedly worse but I think it is a case of undue leniency in that case rather than harshness in this one.

With the sentencing guidelines I think the aggravating factors are difficult to fit to this case as it is so unusual, but driving in an area where driving is prohibited and driving up rail tracks would certainly be 'a prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving' and 'showing off'.

I broadly agree. I was actually looking for one of those very common cases involving a late night, high speed car chase resulting in no injuries when I found the fatality case. I'll bet you won't find many of these joyriding cases where the sentence was 22 months and yet I think that is vastly more dangerous (the offence is 'dangerous' driving after all) than what our guy did.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I broadly agree. I was actually looking for one of those very common cases involving a late night, high speed car chase resulting in no injuries when I found the fatality case. I'll bet you won't find many of these joyriding cases where the sentence was 22 months and yet I think that is vastly more dangerous (the offence is 'dangerous' driving after all) than what our guy did.

True, but when you break it down to 6 months for committing the original crime, 10 months for repeating the original offence (showing a distinct lack of regret for the original) and 6 months for failure to appear in court the individual sentences do appear more reasonable. Had he committed the offence once, gone to court, pleaded guilty and expressed contrition I think the punishment should (and would) have been a lot less (small fine and license suspension).

 

[Nessie]

Well, I already posted a link to it yesterday for anyone to read. So I'd say its OK now.

Here is a new one, and somewhat local to me:

A police officer "joking around" with a 10 year old child pulls his taser and "accidentally" tazes (is that a word?) him. Also, he did not immediately seek medical treatment for the unconscious boy. To be clear, the child was not being threatening to anyone, and it was not part of an authorized demonstration of his taser.

http://www.examiner.com/article/cop-tasers-child-on-career-day-accidentally-for-not-washing-cruiser

Sentence?

I would not want that to go to court. The cop should be disciplined by reprimand and fine/loss of pay and the force pays out damages to the child of a good few thousand dollars.

 

[Nessie]

If you have time, check out the CPS's sentencing guidelines for dangerous driving with its aggravating and mitigating factors here:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/dangerous_driving/

Then check out this case:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-20068691

This featured an instance of causing death by dangerous driving. The sentence? 18 months. This was increased on a prosecution appeal to three and a half years. The deceased was a 13 year old girl. 18 months!

Based on the danger to the public of any high speed car, especially in a chase and the fact that death resulted, I regard this as a homicide.

I would send the driver to prison for 15 years, they would have a life licence (which means on release they can be recalled to prison at any time after release for even a minor indiscretion) and a life time driving ban.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Based on the danger to the public of any high speed car, especially in a chase and the fact that death resulted, I regard this as a homicide.

I would send the driver to prison for 15 years, they would have a life licence (which means on release they can be recalled to prison at any time after release for even a minor indiscretion) and a life time driving ban.

My only reservation is that other than the words 'high speed chase' there is very little detail in the article. I'd like to know the specifics of what they actually did, particularly, but not exclusively in respect of the accident. When it comes to dangerous behaviour on the road I have a real chip on my shoulder but I'd like to know I'm not falling for my own prejudices.

 

[The Don]

My only reservation is that other than the words 'high speed chase' there is very little detail in the article. I'd like to know the specifics of what they actually did, particularly, but not exclusively in respect of the accident. When it comes to dangerous behaviour on the road I have a real chip on my shoulder but I'd like to know I'm not falling for my own prejudices.

I the linked case, the driver of the car that hit and killed the girl got 7 years. I think (but could very well be wrong) that pleading guilty results in a 50% reduction in sentence.

The person who got the 18 months (increased to 3 1/2 years) was driving another car that was involved but did not hit and kill the victim.

 

[anglolawyer]

True, but when you break it down to 6 months for committing the original crime, 10 months for repeating the original offence (showing a distinct lack of regret for the original) and 6 months for failure to appear in court the individual sentences do appear more reasonable. Had he committed the offence once, gone to court, pleaded guilty and expressed contrition I think the punishment should (and would) have been a lot less (small fine and license suspension).

OK, but something you may not know is that it pretty unusual for sentences to be ordered to run consecutively. It's much more common for them to run concurrently. Which may seem pointless but it is so. In that case, the more usual one, he would have served just 10 months (or about half that with good behaviour). I think the imposition of consecutive sentences was harsh.

 

[anglolawyer]

I would not want that to go to court. The cop should be disciplined by reprimand and fine/loss of pay and the force pays out damages to the child of a good few thousand dollars.

If it was an accident then I'm not sure it's even a crime (don't tell Truethat I said that). I would dismiss him from the force. If the child sustained harm as a result of not receiving medical attention ... even that would not be a crime in our law. I had better check the link to see what he got