9 years and 7 years

[brionon]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/dev on/8022132.stm

Nine years for killing a woman. Seven years licence withdrawn ! Why not 'You must never drive again'' ?

[Gromit]

A disturbing case.

He texted that "You will never see me again", and "It would be easy to drive into something" before smashing into this woman's car and killing her. Why did they accept dangerous driving, when murder or manslaughter should have been the charge.

Back to your question, In 2000, Labour planned to introduce a lifetime ban for drivers that kill. We are still waiting, they have bottled out.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/min isters-plan-lifetime-ban-for-drivers-who-kill- 706697.html

[jno]

agree with Gromit, he got off extremely lightly. 'You will not drive for 20 years because you will be in jail' would have been more like it.

[Julnar]

This case has all the hallmarks of some kind of plea bargaining scenario, but I didn't think we had introduced that Americanism into our justice system yet. I think a jury might well have found him guilty of manslaughter after the incriminating text messages. It's very sad for her mother and children.

[Ankou]

no, woudn't they have to be certain beyond all reasonable doubt in the first place, then the defence would have argued that he wasn't of sound mind (mens rea??) with his break up etc etc.

of course reckless manslaughter should have been sought, "where death was caused by a criminal act intended to cause injury, or where the offender was aware that the criminal act involved a serious risk of causing injury; or where there was gross negligence as to causing death."

sad as it is, it was probably easier to get a conviction that way rather than spend more time pursuiing a charge that might have failed. i think he got away with murder.

[paraffin]

Believe it or not, this guy has probably been given a longer custodial sentence than had he been convicted of what's called "motor manslaughter", whereby on conviction he may only have been banged up for a few years. It seems as though they've compromised (yet again in a Court) with that well worn term of "plea bargaining", designed to "get off" with a lesser offence.

The real problem with the disqualification period is the perception which most folks have of it with a case such as this which involves a fatality.

Unfortunately, the law is very weak, for example, if a person was to be disqualified for a third time, they may receive as little as a two year ban.

His total sentence therefore, strictly within the law of the land, is not lenient, although many human beings would regard it as just that.

Gromit:

An interesting observation and, far be it from me to be cynical, but less than a year later we had a General Election. Does that tell you anything?