21yr old driver on provisional licence no insurance.
Does 58mph In a 20 zone.
Knocks down and kills a 13yr old
And gets 4 years. Probably out in 2.
What a joke should been a lot more .
Makes you wonder what you have to do to get the maximum 10 years
Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
stuwozere1:
Makes you wonder what you have to do to get the maximum 10 yearsSent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
Default on your TV tax direct debit.
stuwozere1:
Makes you wonder what you have to do to get the maximum 10 years
14 years
Roymondo:
stuwozere1:
Makes you wonder what you have to do to get the maximum 10 years14 years
Sorry, is it 14 now? Thought it was 10. I stand corrected [emoji106]
Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
Long ago reached the conclusion there are a lot of unlicenced drivers out there.It’s the only thing that can explain the often unbelievable lack of knowledge of basic rules of the road and positioning and erratic speeds like doing 30 mph in a 50 and then speeding up to 40-50 in a 30.
In addition to often terrifying ignoring of the centre line and cutting corners.
Diabolical!
Wouldn’t be surprised if it gets sent for review by Lord Chief Justice as a few of these daftly low sentences have been.
10 years and a permanent ban would more appropriate as this wasn’t an accident, but a deliberate multiple attempt to break the law. Surprised they didn’t read out all the previous convictions (he’ll have them for sure).
Wouldn’t be surprised if this one is caught driving while banned in the future and then slapped on wrist again.
i’d string the ■■■■ up 
stuwozere1:
Makes you wonder what you have to do to get the maximum 10 years
Guy got 10 years not long ago for illegally streaming live sports.
Gives you an idea of the priorities of our wonderful justice system
They are far too soft on drivers in the UK. Very little deterrent for any offences and only mainly stupid cameras which do not show up all the moronic driving and drivers that are just an accident waiting to happen.
My nephew has just paid £3k to insure a £500 car and its third party, it may be cheaper to take the risk.
Plus, are there many of these £250 Jaguars about?
The-Snowman:
stuwozere1:
Makes you wonder what you have to do to get the maximum 10 yearsGuy got 10 years not long ago for illegally streaming live sports.
Gives you an idea of the priorities of our wonderful justice system
7, and a bit more than just watching it at home 
(Sentence in original post is a disgrace )
The-Snowman:
stuwozere1:
Makes you wonder what you have to do to get the maximum 10 yearsGuy got 10 years not long ago for illegally streaming live sports.
Gives you an idea of the priorities of our wonderful justice system
Just over seven years actually - and not simply for illegally streaming. His conviction was for fraud, operating several companies for over a decade illegally broadcasting “stolen” material to pubs and clubs, generating revenue for him and his co-defendants of over £5 million.
Roymondo:
The-Snowman:
stuwozere1:
Makes you wonder what you have to do to get the maximum 10 yearsGuy got 10 years not long ago for illegally streaming live sports.
Gives you an idea of the priorities of our wonderful justice system
Just over seven years actually - and not simply for illegally streaming. His conviction was for fraud, operating several companies for over a decade illegally broadcasting “stolen” material to pubs and clubs, generating revenue for him and his co-defendants of over £5 million.
Well my original post might not have been 100% accurate about what he actually got or was convicted for but if that’s your only issue with it and not the fact he got nearly double the sentence of killing somebody thats your business
Jeez…being a Dad myself, if that had been my lad I’d want to beat that little ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ to a pulp.
A young idiot in a Jag it’s self is bad enough, an accident waiting to happen, but then no licence, no insurance, and nearly 3x the speed limit? 
… This ■■■■■■ knew exactly what he was doing.
He’s 21, a legal adult, not some young kid, why isn’t he up on a manslaughter charge instead of a motoring offence ffs ■■?.
The legal system today has no relavance with real justice, and sentences are too light…unless of course you dare to succeed or even tyy to defraud the establishment in some way, then the full power of the law and hell is brought down on your lugs.
robroy:
why isn’t he up on a manslaughter charge instead of a motoring offence ffs ■■?.
Good point.
From wikipedia:
“Death by dangerous driving
Because of a reluctance by juries to convict when the charge was manslaughter, a statutory offence of “causing death by dangerous driving” was introduced. Following the Road Traffic Law Review Committee (1988), the Road Traffic Act 1991 abandoned recklessness in favour of the pre-statutory objective test of “dangerousness”, i.e. did the driving fall far below the standard of the competent and careful driver. The Committee also recommended that manslaughter should be an optional charge for the more serious driving cases. There is the possibility of charging an aggravated taking without consent for less seriously dangerous driving where death results.”
Looks like he was charged with “causing death by dangerous driving”.
And here are the Sentencing Council guidelines
sentencingcouncil.org.uk/of … s-driving/
I would have thought that no licence plus 3 times the speed limit would put it in the level 1 band? Starting point 8 years.
Franglais:
robroy:
why isn’t he up on a manslaughter charge instead of a motoring offence ffs ■■?.Good point.
From wikipedia:
“Death by dangerous driving
Because of a reluctance by juries to convict when the charge was manslaughter, a statutory offence of “causing death by dangerous driving” was introduced. Following the Road Traffic Law Review Committee (1988), the Road Traffic Act 1991 abandoned recklessness in favour of the pre-statutory objective test of “dangerousness”, i.e. did the driving fall far below the standard of the competent and careful driver. The Committee also recommended that manslaughter should be an optional charge for the more serious driving cases. There is the possibility of charging an aggravated taking without consent for less seriously dangerous driving where death results.”
Looks like he was charged with “causing death by dangerous driving”.
And here are the Sentencing Council guidelines
sentencingcouncil.org.uk/of … s-driving/
I would have thought that no licence plus 3 times the speed limit would put it in the level 1 band? Starting point 8 years.
‘Because of a reluctance by juries’
Ffs,.whatever mitigating circumstance could there ever be to virtually let this individual off like this■■? , because essentially that is what they have done, let him off, by being the reason for this ridiculous sentence.
If ever there was a good reason,.and case for a re.trial, it’s this…and that out of touch ■■■■ judge in his ivory tower should be sacked!.
robroy:
Franglais:
robroy:
why isn’t he up on a manslaughter charge instead of a motoring offence ffs ■■?.Good point.
From wikipedia:
“Death by dangerous driving
Because of a reluctance by juries to convict when the charge was manslaughter, a statutory offence of “causing death by dangerous driving” was introduced. Following the Road Traffic Law Review Committee (1988), the Road Traffic Act 1991 abandoned recklessness in favour of the pre-statutory objective test of “dangerousness”, i.e. did the driving fall far below the standard of the competent and careful driver. The Committee also recommended that manslaughter should be an optional charge for the more serious driving cases. There is the possibility of charging an aggravated taking without consent for less seriously dangerous driving where death results.”
Looks like he was charged with “causing death by dangerous driving”.
And here are the Sentencing Council guidelines
sentencingcouncil.org.uk/of … s-driving/
I would have thought that no licence plus 3 times the speed limit would put it in the level 1 band? Starting point 8 years.‘Because of a reluctance by juries’
Ffs,.whatever mitigating circumstance could there ever be to virtually let this individual off like this■■? , because essentially that is what they have done, let him off, by being the reason for this ridiculous sentence.
If ever there was a good reason,.and case for a re.trial, it’s this…and that out of touch [zb] judge in his ivory tower should be sacked!.
He put in a guilty plea, so no need for a retrial.
And the “death by dangerous driving” charge could/should have equaled the sentence for “gross negligence manslaughter”.
Looks like a case where the Crown Prosecution Service could appeal against the sentence?
Bloody well hope so.