Hit-and-run driver ran red light "at speed" and hit 10-year-old cyclist, avoids jail

hawkinspeter wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

I don't think the punishment for leaving the scene of a collision should be high on the basis of assuming intoxication (sounds a lot like "guilty until proven innocent" to me) but rather because leaving the scene of a collision is such an abhorrent thing to do. Regardless of whether you cause a collision or not (and whether due to your own ignorance, danger or intoxication or not), fleeing the scene of an accident and not checking that a fellow human being is alive or dead should be treated as demonstration of refusal to be a citizen of a civilised society.

Yes - not so much assuming that they are intoxicated, but the punishment needs to be set higher than being intoxicated to avoid creating an incentive for them to scarper. Currently, if you're intoxicated and drive into someone, then you'll stand to have a smaller punishment if you run away as you can then claim that you had a few drinks to steady your nerves afterwards, but were sober at the time.

The question is: which one sounds worse, from a societal point of view?

A) I hit someone while driving and drove off.
B) I hit someone while driving while intoxicated.

I think that B is far worse than A, and unfortunately you can't prove that someone in scenario A was also intoxicated (love that "I thought I'd killed someone so had a few stiff drinks as soon as I'd got home to calm my nerves" excuse - yeah right).

For me, the biggest issue is that both offences carry laughable sentences.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

The question is: which one sounds worse, from a societal point of view? A) I hit someone while driving and drove off. B) I hit someone while driving while intoxicated. I think that B is far worse than A, and unfortunately you can't prove that someone in scenario A was also intoxicated (love that "I thought I'd killed someone so had a few stiff drinks as soon as I'd got home to calm my nerves" excuse - yeah right). For me, the biggest issue is that both offences carry laughable sentences.

With a great deal of effort - or at least taking a lot of time - some cultural change has been achieved around drink driving.  It's now generally seen as an unacceptable thing.

Notice all the caveats there though.  Also having a joint and driving doesn't seem to trouble people so much - albeit likely fewer people are getting stoned than drunk.

I'd agree that B) is less socially acceptable.  Indeed apparently one of a very few things generally considered "unacceptable" when driving.

In court A) also often requires you to show the driver knew they had hit a person.  Drinking is not necessarily simple to show but you can at least have definitive evidence.  Showing knowledge of hitting someone is apparently harder.  Witness "I don't know what happened" in a Fife case leading to "Not proven" (admittedly not the same as "not guilty"), or juries accepting it was reasonable for a driver to believe they might just have hit bags of potatoes falling from the sky. "Thought I hit a deer" comes up also - doesn't always get you off though.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

The question is: which one sounds worse, from a societal point of view? A) I hit someone while driving and drove off. B) I hit someone while driving while intoxicated. I think that B is far worse than A, and unfortunately you can't prove that someone in scenario A was also intoxicated (love that "I thought I'd killed someone so had a few stiff drinks as soon as I'd got home to calm my nerves" excuse - yeah right). For me, the biggest issue is that both offences carry laughable sentences.

I find option A worse than option B as intoxication covers a wide range of different conditions and associated loss of ability. There's also conditions that are very similar to intoxication such as sleep deprivation or general tiredness that can affect almost any driver unless they are particularly strict with themselves (or like napping a lot). Personally, I find that people's attitudes when driving are a good indicator of how "good" a driver they are. I would rather travel alongside relaxed, slightly intoxicated drivers than angry, sober drivers.

I wouldn't mind the laughable sentences so much if all the police forces treated traffic crime more seriously and the chances of detection/prosecution were enhanced. We currently have slack sentences and very little chance of catching the drivers too.

I'd suggest fleeing the scene should be automatic GBH, manslaughter or similar, according to the state of the victim.

Edit: More or less the second paragraph of Shut the Front Dawes' reply below.

2nd Edit: We could do with an offence of "Failing to render assistance" or similar, to be applicable whether it's hit and run or, say, if scaffolders ignore someone on whose head they've (accidentally) dropped a scaff clamp. In other words it's a criminal action which applies on the roads, not a "road traffic offence".

I would go further, leaving the scene with no knowledge of the injuries (are they alive or dead) caused or attempts to get suitable help should be sentenced as a "death by ..." charge as they could just as easily been dead for all the driver cares

EK Spinner wrote:

I would go further, leaving the scene with no knowledge of the injuries (are they alive or dead) caused or attempts to get suitable help should be sentenced as a "death by ..." charge as they could just as easily been dead for all the driver cares

Indeed.  There have been cases where it was suggested that the victim of a fatal driving incident would have survived if the driver had called emergency services.

The presence of a bicycle of any kind is totally irelevent to the situation. In all intents and purposes, the child was a pedestrian using a recognised crossing point. 

There was a big red light which he didn't heed. Why would twinkly lights on the bike have made any difference?

Couldn't agree more with your comments. The education of the judge, life experience and ability to fulfil their pretty obvious role should be called into question - the legal system that favours motorists is not fit for purpose in a society where all members of the public need protection.

+Auction the vehicle to give extra compensation to the victims

I'm struggling to see the justification now (if there ever was one) for having separate categories of offence for injuries/deaths caused using a car. If you kill someone with a knife or a gun or an anvil perched on a clifftop, it's murder or manslaughter depending on (to simplify) intent: I don't see the logic of differentiating the offences because the killer happened to be driving. 

Differences in circumstance can be picked up through sentencing guidelines, giving judges more leeway (and a greater chance of appealing unduly lenient sentences when Mr Justice Toad was presiding). If the criminal here had been practising his golf swing when he failed to see a child and then legged it, he'd have been done for GBH and would be in prison now. 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

To be fair, the punishment does feel fairly appropriate for the initial crime... running a red light at speed and hitting a child. 

What surprises me, is that there seems to be no attempt to hold the defendant accountable for the 'hit and run' element of the incident, not the attempts to 'pervert the course of justice' by abandoning the car after removing its identification plates. 

These actions paint a different picture to that of the hard working honest man the judge sided with. You have to be grateful to the defendants father for talking sense into the boy so at least a degree of justice could be served. 

I agree although I think the punishment would still be generous if he had stopped as speeding through a red light should count as dangerous driving (not that juries may agree though).  For not stopping and attempting to pervert justice, he's demonstrated what kind of person he is and I don't want people like that to be driving - revoke his license permanently would be far more appropriate before he ends up killing someone.

Car Delenda Est wrote:

"Absolutely disgraceful" That's right Judge Elliott Knopf, the only thing more disgraceful is the slap on the wrist you gave this dangerous driver and the £900 you spat in the face of the injured child.

That judge should be held jointly responsible for any subsequent injuries caused by that coward.

A one year ban is not long enough for this kind of behaviour.

Someone who thinks that hitting a 10 year old child (or anyone) and driving off then removing his car reg plate is going to stop him being identified is not the brightest spark. I hope he isn't given too much responsibility in his career as his judgement is particularly ropey.

Quote:

He is a pharmacy technician, meaning he assists the lead pharmacist to gather medication and discusses medication with customers.

Not only responsibility, but he could be handing medication to his victim, that she requires to help her work through the pain he caused her.

For determining criminal guilt the legal system judges each case in isolation.  I think that's a fair principle.  However once we come to sentencing we should be looking at any previous.  This chap has previous for a drugs offense.  I don't know if any testing was done following the collision?  It's also possible that there were things in the car which he didn't want the police to find.

The law shouldn't speculate but let's be honest - "otherwise law abiding" and "first time this has happened" just mean "first time they were caught".  With egregious behaviour like this there have almost certainly been previous incidents which by chance just didn't have catastrophic outcomes or did not come to court.

As regards his job: person has a responsible position providing health care to the public.  Person also displays no regard for the wellbeing of members of the public outside his job.  You might see a contradiction here.

I'd prescribe a bike and more than a year off driving.

There seem to be massive probity issues here which I'm sure his professional regulator will have Views on.