'Street Racer' Jailed for 12 years

[bab-91]

Not necessarily slate the sentence but at least to acknowledge that it is very harsh considering the things talked about above.



If members are law abiding or not has nothing to do with it. Actually those that have had their collar felt for breaking the odd law are more likely, in my experience, to be in favour of harsh rulings.

[blazed]

+1 for that sentencing very rarely reflects the crime, it all depends on the judge and council and your previous record.
having said that 12 years for having MGZR seems fair.

[DanThe]

The argument could simply be the tariff is correct for this coont, but it is far too light in the case of some murders and kiddy fiddlers.

Indeed, whats it got to do with any other crime?

[Jesus325iTouring]

Far too many law abiding members, .

No, just 12

[Nobby_N]

My fat fingers voted yes on my iPhone and I wanted no!

[snakebrain]

previous record

Elephant in the room. What were his previous convictions? Jury won't have known but judge will when sentencing.

I think the sentence is unduly harsh, will likely be substantially reduced on appeal and was unwise in that it compromises the authority of the courts when they are seen to be 'making an example' of particular individuals.

No doubt he's an epic scumbag but sadly that's not actually an offence meriting a custodial sentence. Throwing the book at him, in light of the tangential nature of his responsibility in the incident, serves to portray the judiciary as capricious and wilful, which can have far reaching consequences.

I understand the judge's frustration with the defendant in this case, but that doesn't mean he can abuse his authority. The result of doing so is to call into question the consistency of sentencing and ultimately the ability of the judiciary to fairly implement the law.

And, by the by, his solicitor must have been spectacularly shit...

[Gert_8]

The judge will have the facts to hand, ie this scumbags list of previous misdemeanours. He will also have a defined tariff to select from. He sentenced based on this, surely?

[suchy]

Elephant in the room. What were his previous convictions? Jury won't have known but judge will when sentencing.

I think the sentence is unduly harsh, will likely be substantially reduced on appeal and was unwise in that it compromises the authority of the courts when they are seen to be 'making an example' of particular individuals.

No doubt he's an epic scumbag but sadly that's not actually an offence meriting a custodial sentence. Throwing the book at him, in light of the tangential nature of his responsibility in the incident, serves to portray the judiciary as capricious and wilful, which can have far reaching consequences.

I understand the judge's frustration with the defendant in this case, but that doesn't mean he can abuse his authority. The result of doing so is to call into question the consistency of sentencing and ultimately the ability of the judiciary to fairly implement the law.

And, by the by, his solicitor must have been spectacularly shit...

Very valid and fair points!

And yes his brief must have been fantastic!

[snakebrain]

The judge will have the facts to hand, ie this scumbags list of previous misdemeanours. He will also have a defined tariff to select from. He sentenced based on this, surely?

Yeah, the tariffs will be there as a range, but the actual sentences imposed in similar cases have to be taken into consideration. I suspect the judge just really didn't like this guy, got a bit emotional (s/he may have daughters in or around that age?) and went for maximum tariff knowing that it would be reduced on appeal but wanting to make a point.

But that leaves an easy argument for the appeal: 'M'lud, I have here a list of 70 comparable offences in which the average sentence was a 3 year custodial. How does the court justify the sentence handed out in this case?'

[bab-91]

So Gert, to add to the well made points made by Mr Snakebrain...


You were fucking wrong you tart!

[Gert_8]

Fuc k off Bab, I'd have lynched the coont, within 12 hrs so there would be no time for an appeal.

[bab-91]

**** off Bab, I'd have lynched the coont, within 12 hrs so there would be no time for an appeal.

YEEEEEEHAAAAAA!

[Gert_8]

**** off Bab, I'd have lynched the coont, within 12 hrs so there would be no time for an appeal.

YEEEEEEHAAAAAA!

Was he black?!

[bab-91]

It's hard to tell?

[Gert_8]

It's hard to tell?

The girls that were "encouraged" to end their lives looked like they might have been.

[HairyScreech]

I'm going with a no. (if anyone want to check my reasoning http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road ... iving/#a16)

He drove badly, agreed.

Him - Speeding, Driving without reasonable consideration, Dangerous driving.
Seems to me a max of 2 years. Something to note: "The following factors are not relevant when deciding whether an act of driving is dangerous or careless: point 4 - the fact that the defendant has previous convictions for road traffic offences;"

Her - Speeding, Death by dangerous driving, wanton and furious driving, operating a vehicle in an unroadworthy condition. Max 14 years, 2 years disqualification.


It is worth noting that he "may" be considered responsible for death by dangerous driving due to:
The defendants driving need not be the sole, principal or even a substantial cause of the death. It need only be beyond a negligible cause of the death. The leading authorities are R v Hennigan [1971] 55 Cr App R 262, R v Skelton [1995] Crim LR 635 and R v Barnes [2008] EWCA Crim 2726. These cases were cited in R v L [2011] RTR 19 where the following principles were set out:

The defendants driving must have played a part not simply in creating the occasion for the fatal accident, i.e. causation in the "but for" sense, but in bringing it about;
No particular degree of contribution is required beyond a negligible one;
There may be cases in which the judge should rule that the driving is too remote from the later event to have been the cause of it, and should accordingly withdraw the case from the jury.
The Court of Appeal in R v Kimsey [1996] Crim LR 35 approved the expression more than a slight or trifling link as a useful way of explaining de minimis to the jury.

In R v L [2011] Toulson LJ said

"..it is ultimately for the jury to decide whether, considering all the evidence, they are sure that the defendant should fairly be regarded as having brought about the death of the victim by his careless driving. That is a question of fact for them. As in so many areas, this part of the criminal law depends on the collective good sense and fairness of the jury."

However I would say had he caused an innocent party to crash then yes responsible for the crash.
Personally my feeling is regardless of his actions she CHOSE to participate, she was not forced into a race nor was she forced to crash by his actions.

If I told you to go rape the old lady next door and you of your own free will did it, should I be charged with rape? or simply incitement to rape?

The fact a speeding drive passes you does not constitute a direct action inciting you to race.
If that was the case then nearly every overtake would be an incitement to race.

When someone overtakes me I am not forced in anyway to speed up to race them. It would be my sole choice and responsibility to do so if I chose to....



End of the day, we live in daily mails bleeding hart fuckwitt Britain.
Won't somebody think of the children!

[blazed]

i agree/understand most of the opinions expressed here, but he admitted the charges and the sentence was for a number of offences.


Parker was jailed for 10 years after he admitted three counts of causing death by dangerous driving, and a further two-and-a-half years for causing serious injury by dangerous driving.

Parker admitted a separate charge of causing serious injury by dangerous driving on 8 June last year.

He was driving the same car and racing a van which struck a pedestrian on a zebra crossing in Wheatley Hill.

Van driver Roy Morrison, 20, from Chester-le-Street, was jailed for three-and-a-half years after he was convicted of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.

[HairyScreech]

Ok, well if he admitted to 3 counts then the sentence is correct.

As I noted above his "participation" could been seen as a less than negligible contribution to the accident.

I do still think it is highly arguable as to the level of contribution a 3rd parts "participating" in a race has in the other driver crashing.

I say "participation" because it is possible he could have said that he had no idea she had decided to follow him and as far as he was concerned was simply speeding.

Sounds like there is some other connection between him, the tranny driver and this girl though, I bet they all knew each other.

One thing that is clear is he's not too smart.

[Gert_8]

One thing that is clear is he's not too smart.

They usually never are, which is unfortunate for the people that they kill directly or indirectly.

[andyp]

so if I go down the road now and a car decides to race me and crashes its my fault is it ?

[Gert_8]

Takes two to tango, as they say.

[bab-91]

Takes two to tango, as they say.

Stop quoting Rolf!

[bmw9818]

Rebecca crashed because here fake tan started to melt and ran into here eye and gave he vision problems

She didn't have to be embalmed...

i wonder how many different spunk samples they found in her after the autopsy

[Gert_8]

Wow! Thread resurrection

Scum still has 10 years to serve (or 4....)

[magpie]

"The court heard how Parker was driving his MG ZR car at more than 70mph"

Guilty !

[Kos]