Spectator N0 2682 - Exchanges By Doc
Crosswords14 mins ago
How Is It
20 Answers
these jumped up children get away with Driving convictions, Darron Gibson, Everton's So Called Footballer escapes jail for Drink Driving and ploughing into cyclists? If this was any Tom Dick / Mary, I think they would have gone down, Daily Mirror This Morning.
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by TWR. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
An interesting point, ummmm - should we be punishing the act of drink driving and 'leaving the scene' differently because he did or didn't kill someone?
His actions were the same, it was purely a matter of chance whether someone was killed.
If I throw a TV from a tower block knowing that it may hit someone should my punishment be the same whether or not it does actually hit an innocent bystander?
His actions were the same, it was purely a matter of chance whether someone was killed.
If I throw a TV from a tower block knowing that it may hit someone should my punishment be the same whether or not it does actually hit an innocent bystander?
I have contemplated your point often SD but the fact is, as Ummmm says, one is punished for the result mainly. The real offence was drinking and driving, but only part of the punishment is covered by that. But it is the result that dictates a lot of the sentence. Inadvertently cause many deaths and the maximum sentence is imposed. Get back home without incident and you are probably not even noticed. But in both cases you do the same wrong thing. Pure luck/fate dictates the outcome.
You can't point at him and laugh at his stupidity and the usual excuses trotted out if he's in jail.
His over inflated footballer's ego will suffer as a result of non-football taunts and may drive him to seek a more righteous path leaving behind his wanton, reckless ways.
Or just the usual them and us.
His over inflated footballer's ego will suffer as a result of non-football taunts and may drive him to seek a more righteous path leaving behind his wanton, reckless ways.
Or just the usual them and us.
Once again we are being asked to comment on a sentence with only scant details of the offences, but I’ll give it a go.
As I understand it he faced three charges: (1) Excess Alcohol, (2) Failing to Stop and (3) Careless Driving. Offences 1 and 2 can carry a custodial sentence. Careless Driving carries only a fine so need not concern us if we're considering the possibility of custody.
Almost certainly the court would view Excess Alcohol as the most serious offence. Mr Gibson provided a reading of 57 micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of breath - the legal limit is 35. Magistrates’ sentencing guidelines for the offence suggest it should be dealt with by way of a fine and a ban of 12-16 months. A community order should not normally be considered until a reading of 90 is achieved and custody not until a reading of 120.
The most serious examples of failing to stop involve serious damage or injury. It is probable that the Magistrates saw this offence as veering towards that top category (though it is not clear if any injuries were caused to the cyclists). The guidelines provide a range between a fine and 26 weeks custody for that most serious category. The Magistrates obviously put this offence somewhere in that range but not serious enough to consider custody. From the brief description we have that does not seem unreasonable.
So, taking the incident as a whole Mr Gibson has clearly received a greater punishment than he would have had he just been charged with drink driving (he almost certainly would have escaped with a fine). His 20 month ban obviously incorporates an element of punishment for the other two offences (normally it would have been the minimum of 12 months). The fact that the court saw fit to impose a reasonably hefty community order (far in excess of anything they would have imposed for the drink driving alone) suggests they have taken all the circumstances into account. Also bear in mind that all the sentences (but not the disqualification periods) I quoted above are for a first time offender pleading not guilty. It seems Mr Gibson had pleaded guilty and so would be entitled to a discount of one third off a sentence following a not guilty plea (making his Unpaid Work element the maximum of 300 hours).
So, TWR, to address your question and your contention “If this was any Tom Dick / Mary, I think they would have gone down…” I think you are mistaken. Remember, it is not what might have happened but what did happen that counts. The Excess Alcohol offence came nowhere near the level where custody might be considered. Only the most serious of “Failing to Stop” offences are considered for custody and these are usually restricted to incidents where police chases involving seriously dangerous driving are concerned. Taking the incident in the round I think it is virtually certain that nobody in similar circumstances would have been on the end of a custodial sentence and Mr Gibson was treated about the same as anybody else.
As I understand it he faced three charges: (1) Excess Alcohol, (2) Failing to Stop and (3) Careless Driving. Offences 1 and 2 can carry a custodial sentence. Careless Driving carries only a fine so need not concern us if we're considering the possibility of custody.
Almost certainly the court would view Excess Alcohol as the most serious offence. Mr Gibson provided a reading of 57 micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of breath - the legal limit is 35. Magistrates’ sentencing guidelines for the offence suggest it should be dealt with by way of a fine and a ban of 12-16 months. A community order should not normally be considered until a reading of 90 is achieved and custody not until a reading of 120.
The most serious examples of failing to stop involve serious damage or injury. It is probable that the Magistrates saw this offence as veering towards that top category (though it is not clear if any injuries were caused to the cyclists). The guidelines provide a range between a fine and 26 weeks custody for that most serious category. The Magistrates obviously put this offence somewhere in that range but not serious enough to consider custody. From the brief description we have that does not seem unreasonable.
So, taking the incident as a whole Mr Gibson has clearly received a greater punishment than he would have had he just been charged with drink driving (he almost certainly would have escaped with a fine). His 20 month ban obviously incorporates an element of punishment for the other two offences (normally it would have been the minimum of 12 months). The fact that the court saw fit to impose a reasonably hefty community order (far in excess of anything they would have imposed for the drink driving alone) suggests they have taken all the circumstances into account. Also bear in mind that all the sentences (but not the disqualification periods) I quoted above are for a first time offender pleading not guilty. It seems Mr Gibson had pleaded guilty and so would be entitled to a discount of one third off a sentence following a not guilty plea (making his Unpaid Work element the maximum of 300 hours).
So, TWR, to address your question and your contention “If this was any Tom Dick / Mary, I think they would have gone down…” I think you are mistaken. Remember, it is not what might have happened but what did happen that counts. The Excess Alcohol offence came nowhere near the level where custody might be considered. Only the most serious of “Failing to Stop” offences are considered for custody and these are usually restricted to incidents where police chases involving seriously dangerous driving are concerned. Taking the incident in the round I think it is virtually certain that nobody in similar circumstances would have been on the end of a custodial sentence and Mr Gibson was treated about the same as anybody else.
A hit-and-run involving three cyclists, two of whom at least were injured, in MO justifies a custodial sentence.
I note that a letter from Everton Club Secretary was passed to the Magistrates - a distinct whiff of Old-School-Tie and/or Freemasonry here.
I think TWR's comment re tom/dick/mary is therefore justified.
I note that a letter from Everton Club Secretary was passed to the Magistrates - a distinct whiff of Old-School-Tie and/or Freemasonry here.
I think TWR's comment re tom/dick/mary is therefore justified.
As I said, we only have scant details, but going on what we have, show me how the Magistrates' sentencing guidelines support your contention, canary:
http://
Only one of the three offences (the Failing to Stop) could possibly attract a custodial sentence. To fall into the top category of seriousness there has to be evidence of “Serious Damage/Injury and/or evidence of bad driving”. The “starting point” when considering such offences (for a defendant who was found guilty at trial) is a Community order. There has to be considerable aggravating features (over and above the “Serious Damage/Injury and/or evidence of bad driving”) to move this up to consideration of custody for a defendant who pleaded guilty. There is quite clearly evidence of bad driving although the level of injuries sustained by the cyclists are not clear. The only injuries detailed were cuts and grazes which do not amount to “serious” in legal terms. As I said in my earlier post, the offence of failing to stop is rarely dealt with by a custodial sentence and this case does not seem, on the face of it, to be serious enough. Even if it had been, there is every likelihood that any custodial sentence would have been suspended so Mr Gibson would still not have been “banged up”.
Incidentally the maximum time he would have spent inside is one month. If he had been sentenced to the maximum of four months – and it is absolutely certain that he would not as his offence does not amount to the most serious example of Failing to Stop - he would have served only half of that before being automatically eligible for release. But he would also be entitled to be released under “Home Detention Curfew” after just one month. As it is he has 200hrs of work to perform (which will take him about 25 to 30 days).
Moving on, what leads you to believe that the Everton Club Secretary and any or all of the Magistrates were Freemasons? Whether or not any of the magistrates (one of whom at least – the chairman - was female) were Freemasons or attended the same school as the club secretary does not really need consideration. I note you say that “in your opinion” the offences deserved custody. Magistrates and judges cannot pass sentence based on the opinion of anybody (even their own). They are bound by the sentencing guidelines. I have not considered the sentence based on my opinion but on those guidelines. I believe I have done enough to demonstrate that the sentence in this case was in accordance with those guidelines and that Mr Gibson was treated no more leniently than anybody else. There is often a wide disparity between what the public believes ought to be an appropriate sentence and what is appropriate under the guidelines. And that is a matter for the Sentencing Council.
http://
Only one of the three offences (the Failing to Stop) could possibly attract a custodial sentence. To fall into the top category of seriousness there has to be evidence of “Serious Damage/Injury and/or evidence of bad driving”. The “starting point” when considering such offences (for a defendant who was found guilty at trial) is a Community order. There has to be considerable aggravating features (over and above the “Serious Damage/Injury and/or evidence of bad driving”) to move this up to consideration of custody for a defendant who pleaded guilty. There is quite clearly evidence of bad driving although the level of injuries sustained by the cyclists are not clear. The only injuries detailed were cuts and grazes which do not amount to “serious” in legal terms. As I said in my earlier post, the offence of failing to stop is rarely dealt with by a custodial sentence and this case does not seem, on the face of it, to be serious enough. Even if it had been, there is every likelihood that any custodial sentence would have been suspended so Mr Gibson would still not have been “banged up”.
Incidentally the maximum time he would have spent inside is one month. If he had been sentenced to the maximum of four months – and it is absolutely certain that he would not as his offence does not amount to the most serious example of Failing to Stop - he would have served only half of that before being automatically eligible for release. But he would also be entitled to be released under “Home Detention Curfew” after just one month. As it is he has 200hrs of work to perform (which will take him about 25 to 30 days).
Moving on, what leads you to believe that the Everton Club Secretary and any or all of the Magistrates were Freemasons? Whether or not any of the magistrates (one of whom at least – the chairman - was female) were Freemasons or attended the same school as the club secretary does not really need consideration. I note you say that “in your opinion” the offences deserved custody. Magistrates and judges cannot pass sentence based on the opinion of anybody (even their own). They are bound by the sentencing guidelines. I have not considered the sentence based on my opinion but on those guidelines. I believe I have done enough to demonstrate that the sentence in this case was in accordance with those guidelines and that Mr Gibson was treated no more leniently than anybody else. There is often a wide disparity between what the public believes ought to be an appropriate sentence and what is appropriate under the guidelines. And that is a matter for the Sentencing Council.
Thank you NJ for taking so much trouble over this thread.
I seem to remember from my youth (in the Fifties) that hit-and-run was regarded as a most heinous crime. It appears from your Sentencing Guidelines material that this is no longer the case.
And perhaps my nose is a bit too sensitive to possible sleaze.
I seem to remember from my youth (in the Fifties) that hit-and-run was regarded as a most heinous crime. It appears from your Sentencing Guidelines material that this is no longer the case.
And perhaps my nose is a bit too sensitive to possible sleaze.
Most certainly, Canary.
Many offences have had their guideline sentences depressed in recent years. Much of this is to do with keeping the prison population down but some of it is not as it involves offences which are not imprisonable.
A prime example is driving whilst disqualified. Prior to 2003 sentencing guidelines suggested that immediate custody should be considered for this offence. (This seems reasonable It involves a wilful refusal to comply with a clearly stated court order. You cannot "accidentally" or negligently drive whilst disqualified). In the guidelines issued in 2003 the "starting point" was reduced to a community order. So it is with assault on a PC. This time the 2003 guidelines suggested immediate custody. Again, quite reasonable. Whilst Police officers are expected to be more robust than most of us, they are not there to be assaulted whilst carrying out their duties. If you glance at page 209 of the 2008 guidelines (these are still current) which I provided in my previous post you will see that the starting point for consideration now involves custody for only the most serious examples. Neither of these offences have reduced in the relative seriousness but the punishment deemed appropriate has been downgraded. The Sentencing Council will say that the later guidelines “sub-divide” the offences into categories of seriousness which earlier guidelines did not do. This is quite true. But driving whilst disqualified is a fairly absolute offence and I would suggest that such sub-divisions are not necessary.
This is a major cause of the public’s disenchantment with the criminal justice system. For what it’s worth I am with you in the case of the footballer. I believe that driving whilst drunk, injuring three cyclists and then failing to stop certainly deserves custody to be considered. But the guidelines do not really support that and he was almost certainly sentenced within the guidelines without any special treatment.
Many offences have had their guideline sentences depressed in recent years. Much of this is to do with keeping the prison population down but some of it is not as it involves offences which are not imprisonable.
A prime example is driving whilst disqualified. Prior to 2003 sentencing guidelines suggested that immediate custody should be considered for this offence. (This seems reasonable It involves a wilful refusal to comply with a clearly stated court order. You cannot "accidentally" or negligently drive whilst disqualified). In the guidelines issued in 2003 the "starting point" was reduced to a community order. So it is with assault on a PC. This time the 2003 guidelines suggested immediate custody. Again, quite reasonable. Whilst Police officers are expected to be more robust than most of us, they are not there to be assaulted whilst carrying out their duties. If you glance at page 209 of the 2008 guidelines (these are still current) which I provided in my previous post you will see that the starting point for consideration now involves custody for only the most serious examples. Neither of these offences have reduced in the relative seriousness but the punishment deemed appropriate has been downgraded. The Sentencing Council will say that the later guidelines “sub-divide” the offences into categories of seriousness which earlier guidelines did not do. This is quite true. But driving whilst disqualified is a fairly absolute offence and I would suggest that such sub-divisions are not necessary.
This is a major cause of the public’s disenchantment with the criminal justice system. For what it’s worth I am with you in the case of the footballer. I believe that driving whilst drunk, injuring three cyclists and then failing to stop certainly deserves custody to be considered. But the guidelines do not really support that and he was almost certainly sentenced within the guidelines without any special treatment.
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
News15 mins ago
Film, Media & TV17 mins ago
News19 mins ago
Should Children Under 16 Be Barred From...
News22 mins ago
