Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
2012 ROK Cyclist death crash verdict
Options
Comments
-
I would say this is a very disapointing end to the case in some ways. I know a member of Pauds family, the nicest most honest obliging man you could meet, that family have gone through such a tough time that I cant even imagine and it is they who have the life sentence.
If the guilty party had just manned up and accepted responsibility then maybe he could be forgiven but the way he went about it is shocking, get rid of the evidence, skip the country and those who helped him should be ashamed.
Once again a shocking inconsistancy in our judicial system and a very lenient punishment all things considered. For a start he should never be able to possess a driving licence again. Theres so many things Id like to say about this but I dont fancy a red card.
At least its finally done for the victims family and they dont have court procedures etc to go through again
Also, the guards deserve huge praise for the way they handled this, it was obvious from the beginning that they had an idea who did it but they bided their time and caught him. Kudos to them0 -
michael999999 wrote: »
Let's hope the investigation hasn't ended here, someone had to dispose of the Jeep and get him to the ferry!
They won't have to look very far to find that alleged culprit. Alas the lack of evidence i.e. the grey landcruiser, means an arrest is unlikely.
It's very well known who disposed of it.0 -
He got six and a half years with the last year and a half suspended
Even with time off for good behaviour he'll spend four years in prison
He got a heavier sentence than the driver in Donegal who killed eight people
Did the driver in Donegal skip the country? Did he leave the people dead at the side of a road without even calling it in? This tool has shown no remorse. It's a joke of s sentence. I0 -
I think the sentence is as good as can be hoped for. I'm sure his lawyers tried to downgrade the charge
When you look into the sentence though, it doesn't seem so good. With good behavior, the suspended part of the sentence and it being backdated a month, he could be out in 3yrs 7mths. He is also entitled to apply for restoration of his licence once 2/3rds of the ban has elapsed, so could be back on the road in 6.5yrs. It's at the judges discretion though, so hopefully the facts of the case will make restoration unlikely.0 -
An absolute joke of a sentence. And a minimal driving ban! Completely ridiculous. I'm from the same village as Paud and the upset and grief that this caused to his family and to our community is unbelievable. The fact he tried to run just makes it a whole lot worse. The family or Gardai will not be giving up yet. As Pauds wife said, they have a life sentence. This lad will be free soon.0
-
Advertisement
-
What is the average sentence in this type of case and what are the ranges that judges can apply?
Max is ten years, average is between 3 - 6 depending on the circumstances. This is actually a reasonably long sentence, there have been few longer and where they were imposed there were multiple deaths and / or deliberate dangerous driving
http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/CF903DCA1FDEC76C802573B4005FC1A4
Fundamentally, leaving aside the absolutely appalling and despicable way he acted after the crash and in pleading not guilty, it should be recalled that he presumably didn't go out with the intention of hurting someone, these were consequences of his drunkenness. Hence there's no point in banning him driving for ever. At some point he will be released and will need to drive to work and its in society's interests that he do.
None of this gainsays the appalling loss experienced by his family and four kids, and the extra damage above that that must have been done by his conduct after the accident.0 -
I accept that the individual didn't intend to kill the victim. He is responsible for (1) driving while drunk, (2) killing while drunk, (3) leaving the crime scene, (4) planning to evade arrest, (5) evading arrest and (6) destruction of evidence.
This man has shown contempt for life and justice. In my opinion I would be less dissatisfied if he was handed the maximum sentence with a more significant driving ban. I am happy to pay my taxes to ensure that non accidental killers remain in prison for a full jail sentence. This was not planned but was not an accident either.0 -
Deserves more than what he got.
The attempt to get away with it, and cover-up presumably with assistance; the apparent lack of remorse. Has he even apologised?
A family is without their dad, because some little bollix ran him over while drunk, left him to die/dead on a road and then legged it to Australia. I'd like to think if it was my son, I'd march him down to the Gardai face the consequences.
Fair dues to the local Gardai in getting him.0 -
Max is ten years, average is between 3 - 6 depending on the circumstances. This is actually a reasonably long sentence, there have been few longer and where they were imposed there were multiple deaths and / or deliberate dangerous driving
http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/CF903DCA1FDEC76C802573B4005FC1A4
Fundamentally, leaving aside the absolutely appalling and despicable way he acted after the crash and in pleading not guilty, it should be recalled that he presumably didn't go out with the intention of hurting someone, these were consequences of his drunkenness. Hence there's no point in banning him driving for ever. At some point he will be released and will need to drive to work and its in society's interests that he do.
None of this gainsays the appalling loss experienced by his family and four kids, and the extra damage above that that must have been done by his conduct after the accident.
No, he should never again be allowed drive. He got into that jeep out of he's head on drink, and hit and killed an innocent father. Who he left in a ditch to die. Without even calling an ambulance.
Hes vermin.0 -
In my opinion I would be less dissatisfied if he was handed the maximum sentence with a more significant driving ban. I am happy to pay my taxes to ensure that non accidental killers remain in prison for a full jail sentence.
It seems odd reasoning but people rarely get the absolute maximum sentence because there could be a hypothetical worse case, multiple deaths, a previous conviction for similar stuff, deliberate boy racer type driving while sober. Also he was young and young people are fcking eejits as we all remember, its hard to hold them to the same standards as adults you have to have some leeway for a 20 year old to do something they realise later was really irresponsible. I know I have.
Re the taxes the reality is to build more prisons we have to close schools and hospitals. Have you been in an A&E recently?
Instead we are filling our prisons with hordes of drug couriers, most of whom are ordinary joe soaps with drug or financial problems, so politicians a few years ago could maintain they were being tough on drugs.
There's no right answer here. I can fully sympathize with anyone who might want to just liquidize this guy and take his organs. But once we agree we cannot proceed on this basis it has to be a rational process thereafter.Roger Hassenforder wrote: »Deserves more than what he got.
The attempt to get away with it, and cover-up presumably with assistance; the apparent lack of remorse. Has he even apologised?
A family is without their dad, because some little bollix ran him over while drunk, left him to die/dead on a road and then legged it to Australia. I'd like to think if it was my son, I'd march him down to the Gardai face the consequences.
Fair dues to the local Gardai in getting him.
I completely agree, I think its disgusting and there are obviously people out there who helped him0 -
Advertisement
-
He went out with the intention to drink and drive. That is premeditated, anyone who drinks and drive should be trialled as suchMax is ten years, average is between 3 - 6 depending on the circumstances. This is actually a reasonably long sentence, there have been few longer and where they were imposed there were multiple deaths and / or deliberate dangerous driving
http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/CF903DCA1FDEC76C802573B4005FC1A4
Fundamentally, leaving aside the absolutely appalling and despicable way he acted after the crash and in pleading not guilty, it should be recalled that he presumably didn't go out with the intention of hurting someone, these were consequences of his drunkenness. Hence there's no point in banning him driving for ever. At some point he will be released and will need to drive to work and its in society's interests that he do.
None of this gainsays the appalling loss experienced by his family and four kids, and the extra damage above that that must have been done by his conduct after the accident.0 -
There was an interview on the radio this evening with a Kerry journalist who was at the hearing today. It made me want to puke to hear how his defence council listed the various reasons why his sentence should be lessened. Apparently he never set out to kill someone and sure he was only young and what young person has never made a mistake?
Apparently after he was found guilty he finally accepted that he had done was wrong and was remorseful - whoopy fcukin do - once found guilty he became remorseful.
One thing that really got to me, lots of the reports I have read talked of him 'knocking' this man off his bike, according to the reporter from the court today he didn't knock him off his bike, he ploughed into him and drove him through a hedge into a field and then left him there to die the b@stard.
A clubmate of mine was killed by a driver whilst out training two years ago. He left four kids and a wife. I've seen the devastation this type of killing causes to a family and a community. I'm delighted this scumbag is locked away, but it'll never bring a father back to his kids.0 -
Max is ten years, average is between 3 - 6 depending on the circumstances. This is actually a reasonably long sentence, there have been few longer and where they were imposed there were multiple deaths and / or deliberate dangerous driving
http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/CF903DCA1FDEC76C802573B4005FC1A4
Fundamentally, leaving aside the absolutely appalling and despicable way he acted after the crash and in pleading not guilty, it should be recalled that he presumably didn't go out with the intention of hurting someone, these were consequences of his drunkenness. Hence there's no point in banning him driving for ever. At some point he will be released and will need to drive to work and its in society's interests that he do.
None of this gainsays the appalling loss experienced by his family and four kids, and the extra damage above that that must have been done by his conduct after the accident.
Since when is being drunk while killing somehow lessening ones guilt? If anything it's more incriminatory. Otherwise this becomes a perfectly legal excuse for assault and/or murder: "Sorry judge, didn't mean to stab the fella, was just blind drunk and didn't control myself..."0 -
Since when is being drunk while killing somehow lessening ones guilt? If anything it's more incriminatory. Otherwise this becomes a perfectly legal excuse for assault and/or murder: "Sorry judge, didn't mean to stab the fella, was just blind drunk and didn't control myself..."
I'm in 100% agreement with you but take a trip in a district court of your choice and count how many times drink is used as an excuse. Not sure if it is uniquely Irish thing but in many countries it would be unheard of to use as an excuse for driving causing death, assault, sexual assault or whatever.
As a student in the USA 20 yrs ago I worked security in a NY Irish bar. Every weekend night there would be at least one drunk asleep/unconscious in a cubicle. Among us the Irish staff it was just part of a night.
The abhorrence/disgust/dismay at which the Middle Eastern cleaners looked at the drunks finally opened my eyes to our diseased thinking when it comes alcohol. It is all pervasive, it is naive not to expect it in our court system.0 -
Since when is being drunk while killing somehow lessening ones guilt? If anything it's more incriminatory. Otherwise this becomes a perfectly legal excuse for assault and/or murder: "Sorry judge, didn't mean to stab the fella, was just blind drunk and didn't control myself..."
It's not and in dangerous driving cases it's considered an aggravating factor.
However such a person is necessarily less culpable than someone who goes out, sober, with the specific and direct intention of killing someone.0 -
However such a person is necessarily less culpable than someone who goes out, sober, with the specific and direct intention of killing someone.
But, and I could be wrong, that is a different crime with a different charge.
My issue is that he didn't get the maximum, hopefully it will be reviewed.
When someone runs from an accident, and then when caught, does not receive the maximum sentence for the crime, it sends a message that running is a reasonable response to an accident.0 -
But, and I could be wrong, that is a different crime with a different charge.
My issue is that he didn't get the maximum, hopefully it will be reviewed.
When someone runs from an accident, and then when caught, does not receive the maximum sentence for the crime, it sends a message that running is a reasonable response to an accident.
it's an increasingly common one. Possibly the single ugliest aspect of our car culture is that driving is regarded as a right by the majority.
That's why there are services advertising the best insurance prices for people with expired driving bans and people comfortably paying huge premiums out of their cut of questionable injury claims.
from listening to outraged parents ranting about how unfair it is that their precious innocent baby is paying higher premiums because of that pedestrian who maliciously threw themselves under baby's car we seem alarmingly close to the utter impunity for dangerous drivers reported in the US.0 -
rollingscone wrote: »it's an increasingly common one. Possibly the single ugliest aspect of our car culture is that driving is regarded as a right by the majority.
That's why there are services advertising the best insurance prices for people with expired driving bans and people comfortably paying huge premiums out of their cut of questionable injury claims.
from listening to outraged parents ranting about how unfair it is that their precious innocent baby is paying higher premiums because of that pedestrian who maliciously threw themselves under baby's car we seem alarmingly close to the utter impunity for dangerous drivers reported in the US.
Surely everyone has a right to drive, just as they do to cycle, as long as they have a license.0 -
Question: Does the driving ban start now or once he gets out of prison?
If he gets out in 5 years and can apply for his licence back in less than seven then might he only get a 2 year driving ban?0 -
BoardsMember wrote: »Surely everyone has a right to drive, just as they do to cycle, as long as they have a license.
They do. Much like everyone has the right to have children. But if you prove yourself to be an unfit parent they are fairly good at taking your children off you.
Everyone makes mistakes. But this was a mistake that is hammered home in advertising campaigns, everyone knows the dangers/risks and ultimate stupidity of even attempting to drive after drinking. And this guy wasn't even borderline, he was plastered. And yet still got behind the wheel of a car.
How that doesn't spell out: "Not fit to drive, ever!" is beyond me.0 -
Advertisement
-
Two members of my extended family have been victims of hit-and-runs, one quite serious, one caused no harm at all. The former case was my wife when she was a child, and she was hospitalised for quite some time.
I was discussing this with some members of the family in the light of the two-year-old that died, and I said that I thought hit-and-run should carry mandatory severe penalties, because the difference between leaving someone to their fate and summoning assistance can be so stark. (Turning yourself in voluntarily afterwards would be a mitigating factor.) The other members of the family, who drive a lot, instinctively felt, it seemed to me from their response, that fleeing the scene is something that anyone might do. I notice a lot of "there but for the grace of God" responses from habitual drivers to a lot of issues, including in judicial contexts.0 -
The Examiner in my mind had a pretty poorly headline on this this morning "Mad admits causing hit and run". WTF, he caused a hit and run ?0
-
I do believe that the vast majority of drivers are genuinely unaware of the damage that a car can do, and believe that getting clipped by a car is no worse than tripping and falling over onto the ground.I was discussing this with some members of the family in the light of the two-year-old that died, and I said that I thought hit-and-run should carry mandatory severe penalties, because the difference between leaving someone to their fate and summoning assistance can be so stark. (Turning yourself in voluntarily afterwards would be a mitigating factor.) The other members of the family, who drive a lot, instinctively felt, it seemed to me from their response, that fleeing the scene is something that anyone might do. I notice a lot of "there but for the grace of God" responses from habitual drivers to a lot of issues, including in judicial contexts.
As such if they clip a cyclist or a pedestrian, the first thing that goes through their mind is, "I only clipped him, how bad could it be? It'll be a lot worse for me if I stop, and sure they'll be grand". Panic does set it when you're involved in an incident and depending on the individual, the insitinct to run might override all else.
I suspect this is probably what happened in the recent Phoenix Park incident - he reckoned the child would be fine because he "only clipped her", and afterwards the guy probably heard the reports that the child was badly injured and so voluntarily handed himself in.
What we need is better driver education and drilling it into people from the very beginning of learning to drive, that it makes no difference if you're driving a Fiat 500 or an articulated truck; it's a piece of dangerous and heavy machinery and needs to be treated as such at all times.
A lifetime ban is really the only logical ban to employ when someone has proven themselves this reckless when handling dangerous machinery.0 -
Panic does set it when you're involved in an incident and depending on the individual, the insitinct to run might override all else.
I can sort of imagine this all right, but in a way, because I'm far more likely to be a victim than a perpetrator of a hit-and-run (just based on distances covered: a few hundred km per year as a driver, thousands on foot or bike), I find it hard to put myself in the driver's position. I'm thinking that the knowledge that you'll be in real trouble if you flee should counteract that instinct. I don't know in practice whether that's the case.
I do think lengthy and life-time bans should be handed out a lot more. If doctors can be struck off permanently, driving licences can be similarly revoked. The whole "livelihood" argument seems to be more convincing in the latter case, for some reason, even though if you're this lethal or untrustworthy at driving, you shouldn't be pursuing a career that requires you to drive.0 -
I do believe that the vast majority of drivers are genuinely unaware of the damage that a car can do, and believe that getting clipped by a car is no worse than tripping and falling over onto the ground.
As such if they clip a cyclist or a pedestrian, the first thing that goes through their mind is, "I only clipped him, how bad could it be? It'll be a lot worse for me if I stop, and sure they'll be grand". Panic does set it when you're involved in an incident and depending on the individual, the insitinct to run might override all else.
I suspect this is probably what happened in the recent Phoenix Park incident - he reckoned the child would be fine because he "only clipped her", and afterwards the guy probably heard the reports that the child was badly injured and so voluntarily handed himself in.
What we need is better driver education and drilling it into people from the very beginning of learning to drive, that it makes no difference if you're driving a Fiat 500 or an articulated truck; it's a piece of dangerous and heavy machinery and needs to be treated as such at all times.
A lifetime ban is really the only logical ban to employ when someone has proven themselves this reckless when handling dangerous machinery.
Totally agree with this. Although it seems like common sense, as both a driver and cyclist for 25+ years, it was never explained/drilled into me that the car is a weapon, and how careful you have to be towards cyclists. The care and attention was more to do with rules of the road, and not to damage the car. Maybe that is just who I learnt from though, or a bad reflection on me.0 -
ThisRegard wrote: »The Examiner in my mind had a pretty poorly headline on this this morning "Mad admits causing hit and run". WTF, he caused a hit and run ?
A lot less harsh than even "Man admits hit and run", isn't it?
This is quite a good look at emollient language in the UK press in the context of a bicycle-car collision:
https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/12/18/newspaper-clippings/0 -
I'll never understand sentencing for things like this, only today I also read that some guy convicted of dangerous driving killing an 8 year old girl got a suspended sentence. Yeah, he was young and pleaded guilty early and wasn't drinking, but still.0
-
Two members of my extended family have been victims of hit-and-runs, one quite serious, one caused no harm at all. The former case was my wife when she was a child, and she was hospitalised for quite some time.
I was discussing this with some members of the family in the light of the two-year-old that died, and I said that I thought hit-and-run should carry mandatory severe penalties, because the difference between leaving someone to their fate and summoning assistance can be so stark. (Turning yourself in voluntarily afterwards would be a mitigating factor.) The other members of the family, who drive a lot, instinctively felt, it seemed to me from their response, that fleeing the scene is something that anyone might do. I notice a lot of "there but for the grace of God" responses from habitual drivers to a lot of issues, including in judicial contexts.
I was in the car when my mother was driven into by another driver, straight into the driver door, so was my younger brother in a baby seat and my father in the passenger seat.
The driver ran through a T junction, my mam hit the brakes and stopped, the driver then stopped, then slammed on the accelerator and ploughed into the driverside door. My mother was trapped in the car. Then the driver attempted to flee. My father jumped out and ran after him, I got out of the car in time to see my father hanging out of the driver window as the driver attempted to skim off a wall. Luckily my father managed to grab the keys while the car was moving and stall turn them, just before the driver hit a lamppost.
The driver was so drunk he could not speak, as well as being on copious amounts of drugs.
The gardai were watching this while it happened and did not move to intervene as they were "waiting for someone else" and they would have picked him up out the road (turned out they had not even called it in yet).
The car was stolen, no insurance etc. etc.
In the 15 years since, my mother still gets nervous when a car is approaching her, driving with her is tortuous as you are quite aware of her diggin her nails into the passenger seat as you drive, no matter how careful.
What punishment did this driver get?
None, he was released by the courts because he had a young family (that it was noted he has not paid any support towards the children for their entire life to that point), because he had a problem with drink and drugs (well that somehow makes it OK) and because his father was well respected in the community (he is actually a lovely man, not sure how this excuses his son).
RANT OVER
As for the running from the scene. I can see the mentality, I can even understand it, putting yourself before others is a common trait and one that is not easily overcome.
I have seen one car try and run, but pulled over down the street and came back. I have been in a few accidents in my college days, some were my fault. There was temptation there, I wish I could say better, but nonetheless I stayed around.
None of these apply here as not only was the driver beyond drunk, i.e. there was intention to break the law (although I hope not as severely as he had done), he then ran from the scene (which I am sure his lawyers argued was due to the drink), but then when he sobered up, he did not come forward, he ran again. He had more than enough opportunities to consider the consequences of his actions, more than enough time to seek forgiveness but at no point did he try.
Before he drank he could have thought, I am driving later, better not. When he drank he could have thought, better not drive. When he came off the road and hit another person, he could have notified the emergency services and waited. When he sobered up the next day, he could have went to the Gardai and admit his fault and say that he panicked/freaked out. Once he got on the boat to the UK though, he gave up the right to have mitigating factors counted in his favour, in my opinion he gave up the right to have leniency on his sentence.
Another poster said that the maximum sentence was for those of a bigger scale. I would disagree. If there had been a more major accident (in terms of fatalities or it had not been intentional). While I can only hope it was not intentional, the other factors in this case, imply to me, that the maximum sentence should be imposed (apparently it is rare that a sentence gets fully served nowadays anyway) and a driving ban for life, although a better man would struggle to get behind the wheel again without guilt ripping him apart.0 -
Before he drank he could have thought, I am driving later, better not. When he drank he could have thought, better not drive. When he came off the road and hit another person, he could have notified the emergency services and waited. When he sobered up the next day, he could have went to the Gardai and admit his fault and say that he panicked/freaked out. Once he got on the boat to the UK though, he gave up the right to have mitigating factors counted in his favour, in my opinion he gave up the right to have leniency on his sentence.
Don't forget getting someone to dispose of the 4x4, hiding in Australia, and pleading not guilty. Despicable, utterly despicable.
What could he have done that would have been worse, that would have aggravated the crime? Bribe the Guards, or the judge? Try to assassinate the witness? I'm struggling to think of anything more horrible than what he actually did do.
What's depressing is that there seems to be no consequences for doing everything in their power to duck the responsibility. The message being that you may as well try to run for it, as they may never catch you, and if they do it won't be any worse than if you had hung around.
No logic in letting this guy have control of a motorised vehicle ever again, also.0 -
Advertisement
-
BoardsMember wrote: »Surely everyone has a right to drive, just as they do to cycle, as long as they have a license.
People should have the freedom to drive between the pillars of qualifying and not disqualifying themselves by their poor behaviour.
You do not need a car to live. People who are proven dangers behind the wheel should get lifetime bans. end of.
I'd happily apply the same to cyclists.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement