Suspended sentence for killing cyclist

droidus · 27-04-2018 5:17pm

Time wrote: »

It wasn't an intentional act, its not going to serve as a deterrent to others...

This is true, its called negligence, resulting effectively in manslaughter.

There are many instances where negligence causes severe harm to others and tougher sentencing in cases like these could in fact result in people thinking twice before they commit similarly negligent acts.

TheBoyConor · 27-04-2018 5:19pm

I disagree. A lifetime driving ban is an excessivly punitive penalty for what was a tragic accident.
The woman has enough to deal with already having to come to terms with what her carelessness has caused. I would even say that given she has small children that probably often need to be brought places, a 5 year ban is quite harsh.

There is going to be consequences to the children from this ban.

Whether we like it or not, a car is absolutely essential for the running of daily life for many many families. Take away the car and the family will be thrown into chaos.

I would suggest the more imaginitive approach to sentencing that is not about punishment or fines or prison, but seeks to use the remoserful guilty party as a means of deterrent - ie my previous suggestion that a court could order her to do community service in the form of making her go around the county giving presentations to young adults about the importance of keeping alert on the road and the consequences of carelessness.
Surely that way some good can actually come out of all of this in that case.

droidus · 27-04-2018 5:23pm

Look at the tweet I posted above. There is an epidemic of vehicular manslaughter caused by 'carelessness', its getting worse, and the perpetrators face virtually no consequences for their actions. The justice system must clamp down or lives will continue to be needlessly lost.

eeeee · 27-04-2018 5:26pm

It was not a tragic accident, she killed a person through her own actions.
There is no logical justification for allowing her back behind the wheel again.

She forwent her right to drive a car when she killed someone with it completely through her own actions.

TheBoyConor · 27-04-2018 5:28pm

Prison and fines are not the answer. No-body goes out in the morning and thinks "oh i better do/not do x,y or z because I might end up in prison".

I think education is the key to road safety. And the more I think about it I feel that making those who commit vehicular manslaughter as you call it go around telling the story of how their carelessness destroyed lives and families should be encouraged.
Told in a classroom to 6th years by the actual person who killed a person with their car (as opposed to a Garda or a random RSA worker), it is hard hitting and will make people listen. The traditional fines & prison could then be imposed if the guilty person refused this sort of community service.

whiskeyman · 27-04-2018 5:29pm

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I think community service would be appropriate. At least in that way, something good can come of it all. Perhaps she should be made go around to TY and 5th, 6th year students in schools and explain what happened and how important it is to be attentive on the road. Especially since young people are glued to their phones, often while driving.

I think this is a fantastic idea.

You always hear from the grieving family in adverts etc... lets hear from the other side, those that cause the accident.
Why?
She was a mother just driving home... not drink driving... not speeding... someone so many can relate to. This is key for it to work.
Instead of a custodial sentence, the judge should encourage or force them to be involved in such a programme / safety campaigns.
Obviously we dont want them to become 'hate figures', but more to be 'I'm just like you... until that moment happened - it could happen to you to'.
If anything, it may help their own recovery (no denying this), knowing other lives maybe spared from their involvement.

Time · 27-04-2018 5:31pm

droidus wrote: »

This is true, its called negligence, resulting effectively in manslaughter.

There are many instances where negligence causes severe harm to others and tougher sentencing in cases like these could in fact result in people thinking twice before they commit similarly negligent acts.

Well from a legal perspective it's nothing like manslaughter, and courts ultimately are concerned with objective legal principles.

I don't believe that a custodial sentence would have any impact on the publics awareness or behaviour on the basis that accidents like these are so exceptional, people never think it will happen to them. Thats just human nature

Also by its very nature negligence is an unintentional act, so to say that people would think twice before commenting a negligent act doesn't really make sense.

TheBoyConor · 27-04-2018 5:36pm

Exactly true. A custodial sentence will not raise public awareness about road safety. By its very nature, nothing can come of a custodial sentence.

As I and whiskeyman said, in situations like this the courts should aim to turn such a sad occurence around and try at least get some positives out of it - for example, the guilty telling their story publicly . It could tie in with the RSA's crashed lives series or similar stuff.

eeeee · 27-04-2018 5:39pm

whiskeyman wrote: »

I think this is a fantastic idea.

You always hear from the grieving family in adverts etc... let hear from the other side, those that cause the accident.
why?
She was a mother just driving home... not drink driving... not speeding... someone so many can relate to. This is key for it to work.
Instead of a custodial sentence, the judge should encourage or force them to be involved in such a programme to be involved in such safety campaigns.
Obviously we dont want them to become 'hate figures', but more to be 'I'm just like you... until that moment happened - it could happen to you to'.

Until that moment happened? It could happen to anyone?

It can only happen to people who are dangerously negligent so and incompetent behind the wheel. There's nothing, nothing relatable in all that. Her circumstances have nothing to do with the outcome of her lethal driving. There is no hierarchy of relatability for murderous drivers. Certainly I believe (I hope so anyway!) she never set out to kill someone, in fairness, but she did.

She killed a person through her own negligence. It's was not a'moment'. It was not an accident. She was grossly negligent and consequently lethal through her own actions. I have absolutely no sympathy for her. I'm sure it's traumatising for her to have killed him through her own fault, but she didn't have to kill him. If she had been aware and competent she wouldn't have done such a dangerous thing behind the wheel and taken a completely innocent life.

whiskeyman · 27-04-2018 5:43pm

nee wrote: »

Until that moment happened? It could happen to anyone? It can only happen to people who are dangerously negligent so and incompetent behind the wheel. There's nothing, nothing relatable in all that. Her circumstances have nothing to do with the outcome of her lethal driving. There is no hierarchy of relatability for murderous drivers. Certainly I believe (I hope so anyway!) she never set out to kill someone, in fairness, but she did.

She killed a person through her own negligence. It's was not a'moment'. It was not an accident. She was grossly negligent and consequently lethal through her own actions. I have absolutely no sympathy for her. I'm sure it's traumatising for her to have killed him through her own fault, but she didn't have to kill him. If she had been aware and competent she wouldn't have done such a dangerous thing behind the wheel and taken a completely innocent life.

What I mean is that she didn't realise the danger involved.
We've successfully attached a stigma with drink driving, mobile phones (slowly).
Other levels of distracted driving need to come to the fore of peoples minds so they understand how dangerous driving is and can be... with fatal and or life changing consequences.

I think you'll find that a huge number of drivers on the road today could relate to her situation by taking their mind off their driving.

This is the problem.

TheBoyConor · 27-04-2018 5:44pm

You're over the top nee. Murderous drivers? Do you know what murder means? The ISIS lads driving trucks into people are murderous drivers, this woman is not.

It was a lapse in concentration and a moment of carelessness that resulted in a terrible accident.

I think it is very very relatable. She was a normal mother, with small children and a husband going about her usual family daily business when her negligence resulted in this accident. Even her negligence is relatable - attending to her childin the car. Tbh, i'd say the 99.9% of parents have done something similar, taking their eyes off the road to look at their small child in the back for a second. No person is 100% attentive to the road 100% of the time - not her, not the man she killed, nor you nor I, nor the judge who sentenced her. We are all only human.

Corca Baiscinn · 27-04-2018 5:58pm

Whether we like it or not, a car is absolutely essential for the running of daily life for many many families. Take away the car and the family will be thrown into chaos

I admire your concern for this woman's children and your wish that punishment for her shouln't relult in collateral damage to them but above reasoning for saying 5 years may be too long is absurd. The family will just have to manage their lives in such a way that they can do without. the family may well have a second car/driver, relatives or neighbours and there's public transport.

I don't understand myself why the charge was ony carelesss driving. I know the burden of proof for dangerous driving is a lot higher but at the moment this woman turned around to remov the toy packaging and took her eyes off the road to this layperson she was driving dangerously.

She killed another person. Why are her children somehow more deserving of a parent than those of the man she killed?

I disagree with this post from Nee, it's not that her children are more deserving of a parent, but by jailing her the state would be intentionally depriving them of a parent whereas the state had no role in depriving the other family of theirs unless you count the earlier posts re the designation of the road or faiure to build a safe alternative.

I would be in favour of a longer ban and will be very disappoointed if it's reduced on appeal.

eeeee · 27-04-2018 6:14pm

Just to reiterate, I'm not and never was in favour of a custodial sentence.

This woman killed a person through her own wilful carelessness. There is no excuse for it. It's not a terrible accident. There was a cause. Her negligence killed a man. A father, brother, son and friend. If she had the care, competence and consideration to not to do what she did he would be alive today.

That anyone can relate to it is deeply, deeply troubling and indicative of the terrible driving standards out there today. Every single day I see people driving with their phones on, wobbling between lanes, drifting between curb and middle of the road with their faces directed at the little rectangle glowing within. That's just one example of it. This is not acceptable, or relatable any more than having a feed of drink and driving home is. That it even might be brings up a disturbing culture of dangerous driving acceptance which needs to be tackled with harsher sentences.

She killed someone due to her wilful negligence. She should never, ever be let in a position to do that again. She has proven that she is incapable of killing people when driving. The victim doesn't get a second chance to head home to his family on his bike, why does she deserve the chance to kill again? All the remorse in the world doesn't bring him back, or change what she did. There are consequences to these actions.

The leniency of the ban sends a message of acceptance towards what she did that day. This is completely and utterly unacceptable.

Carlos Orange · 27-04-2018 6:21pm

whiskeyman wrote: »

I think you'll find that a huge number of drivers on the road today could relate to her situation by taking their mind off their driving.

This is the problem.

Turning around is hardly the same as taking your mind off driving. It isn't a lapse in concentration (despite testimony in court saying it was).

Lemming · 27-04-2018 6:35pm

I disagree with everyone saying there is no merit in sending her to prison. I think it would serve as a benefit to society at large to see that there are consequences besides the inconvenience of having ones driving license revoked. I'm not for one moment suggesting that she have the key thrown away or any such retribution nonsense like that, but she didn't just have a momentary lapse in concentration. She didn't just look down to adjust the radio or some such. She turned her attention 180 degrees at somewhere north of 50mph/80kph for several seconds, not one or two, to deal with removing a tag on a toy. Conor would have us all believe that she is no danger to her children; I would point out that she is an exceptional danger to her children given what she did; that cyclist could easily have been a large brick wall ... but her children got lucky. And so did she. At the cost of someone else's life.

All for the tag on a toy that couldn't wait to be removed.

Edit: just to add, at 50mph her car was travelling at 73ft per second whilst she was not looking. At 60mph (94kph, so 100kph is above 60 again), her car was travelling at 88 ft per second.

Time · 27-04-2018 6:58pm

nee wrote: »

Just to reiterate, I'm not and never was in favour of a custodial sentence.

This woman killed a person through her own wilful carelessness. There is no excuse for it. It's not a terrible accident. There was a cause. Her negligence killed a man. A father, brother, son and friend. If she had the care, competence and consideration to not to do what she did he would be alive today.

That anyone can relate to it is deeply, deeply troubling and indicative of the terrible driving standards out there today. Every single day I see people driving with their phones on, wobbling between lanes, drifting between curb and middle of the road with their faces directed at the little rectangle glowing within. That's just one example of it. This is not acceptable, or relatable any more than having a feed of drink and driving home is. That it even might be brings up a disturbing culture of dangerous driving acceptance which needs to be tackled with harsher sentences.

She killed someone due to her wilful negligence. She should never, ever be let in a position to do that again. She has proven that she is incapable of killing people when driving. The victim doesn't get a second chance to head home to his family on his bike, why does she deserve the chance to kill again? All the remorse in the world doesn't bring him back, or change what she did. There are consequences to these actions.

The leniency of the ban sends a message of acceptance towards what she did that day. This is completely and utterly unacceptable.

Sentences have to be proportionate the the crime committed, and whether you agree with it or not the ban was the appropriate one.

Heres a recent Court of Appeal case that reduced a lifetime ban to 40 years. If you look at that (it's very short) you'll see that if 40 years is the appropriate sentence for the litany of offences listed, then 5 years is proportionate in this instance.

In the case we're discussing, the judge was obliged to take into consideration the mitigating facts such as no history of offending, the low chances of reoffending, guilty plea, abscene of intent, obvious remorse etc... what sentence would you suggest in light of the Court of Appeal ruling and the mitigating factors present here?

boombang · 27-04-2018 7:06pm

I really think we should not call this an accident, but rather an incident. This was not something that occurred at random. It was caused by the driver's failure to pay attention. It was her fault.

tomasrojo · 27-04-2018 7:07pm

I get by without a car (*) in a suburban context. It's not purgatorial.

A lifetime ban would be fair(**). She's made it abundantly clear she has atrocious judgement, and I really doubt that will change.

(**) The sentence handed out is in line with usual sentencing, but usual sentencing is far too chary of driving bans. Not being able to drive is appropriate for people who are really, really bad at driving.

EDIT: (*)I have two children.

Kaisr Sose · 27-04-2018 7:12pm

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I disagree. A lifetime driving ban is an excessivly punitive penalty for what was a tragic accident.
The woman has enough to deal with already having to come to terms with what her carelessness has caused. I would even say that given she has small children that probably often need to be brought places, a 5 year ban is quite harsh.

There is going to be consequences to the children from this ban.

Whether we like it or not, a car is absolutely essential for the running of daily life for many many families. Take away the car and the family will be thrown into chaos.

I would suggest the more imaginitive approach to sentencing that is not about punishment or fines or prison, but seeks to use the remoserful guilty party as a means of deterrent - ie my previous suggestion that a court could order her to do community service in the form of making her go around the county giving presentations to young adults about the importance of keeping alert on the road and the consequences of carelessness.
Surely that way some good can actually come out of all of this in that case.

Or perhaps a large chunk of community service in lieu of jail?
A driver re-education programme?

While you are saying the judge should be concerned about the impact of a custodial sentence on her kids development, she did not think to care about how her poor driving may impact on her kids? What if she pulled out in front of a truck? Kid paralyzed? Killed over a tag from a toy – what then?

She had to show remorse to have any chance of avoiding jail. She would be advised that and is just playing the system for as light a sentence as possible.

It worked, but the DPP should appeal this. It does not establish a base line/effective deterrent for dangerous driving. Being female and having kids should not mean no jail. Look at the guy that went to jail for the incident in Kilbarrack. He fell asleep at the wheel. Someone is dead. If it was a mother, should they get non-custodial?

Time · 27-04-2018 7:35pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

I get by without a car (*) in a suburban context. It's not purgatorial.

A lifetime ban would be fair(**). She's made it abundantly clear she has atrocious judgement, and I really doubt that will change.

(**) The sentence handed out is in line with usual sentencing, but usual sentencing is far too chary of driving bans. Not being able to drive is appropriate for people who are really, really bad at driving.

EDIT: (*)I have two children.

It seems that you're basing your assessment on the outcome, and not looking at the wider context. How else could you justify a lifetime punishment?

I don't believe that a single instance of poor judgement, no matter the outcome means that a person has poor judgement generally. We all make unintentional mistakes, and some of them unfortunately can have tragic outcomes, but we learn from them.

For all you know she could have always been an excellent driver up until that one lapse, so you can't really say she's really really bad at driving in general.

Have you ever had a lapse of concentration on the bike? I know i have, and hit the ground because of it. Does that mean i'm really really bad at cycling? No. Should i be banned from cycling incase i hurt myself or someone else? of course not.

tomasrojo · 27-04-2018 7:38pm

Time wrote: »

It seems that you're basing your assessment on the outcome, and not looking at the wider context. How else could you justify a lifetime punishment?

I don't believe that a single instance of poor judgement, no matter the outcome means that a person has poor judgement generally. We all make unintentional mistakes, and some of them unfortunately can have tragic outcomes, but we learn from them.

It's not "poor judgement". It's utterly braindead, consequence-ignoring ****wittery. A doctor who killed a patient by doing something so completely deranged would be struck off.

buffalo · 27-04-2018 7:44pm

Time wrote: »

Have you ever had a lapse of concentration on the bike? I know i have, and hit the ground because of it. Does that mean i'm really really bad at cycling? No. Should i be banned from cycling incase i hurt myself or someone else? of course not.

I think yes, if your cycling killed someone you should be banned from it.

fritzelly · 27-04-2018 7:49pm

Cannot believe people saying she needs the car, think of the children, driving ban is bad - lots of people manage without a car
Take 2 seconds to think about if there had been a very large truck barrelling down the motorway while she was more interested in removing a tag from a toy - very likely killed all of them

No excuse for her behaviour, being a mother is a piss poor defence to escape jail
Unfortunately in this country killing someone does not equate to any kind of equatable punishment. In the papers today, man got 3 months or so for burglary (ridiculous in itself at such a lenient sentence with 127 other convictions), DPP appealed it and the sentence increased to some 3 years - he didn't even kill anyone!

This woman deliberately took her eyes off the road and obviously for quite some time travelling at a very fast speed - she was a danger to all road users, unfortunately in this case a cyclist was killed

Time · 27-04-2018 7:51pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's not "poor judgement". It's utterly braindead, consequence-ignoring ****wittery. A doctor who killed a patient for doing something so completely deranged would be struck off.

Deranged? Calm the hyperbole. Facts are facts, and it's a fact people inadvertantly do things that have bad outcomes all the time, we don't let it impact the remainder of their lives though, because they aren't intentionally doing something wrong.

You're comparing apples and oranges, Doctors have a higher duty of care to their patients than road users have to each other, not only that but Doctors make mistakes resulting in patient deaths and receive censures all rather than being struck off all the time.

If we struck off every Doctor that made a mistake that led to a patients death, we'd have a lot less doctors than we do now. So really your point doesn't stand up to scrutiny

tomasrojo · 27-04-2018 8:04pm

Time wrote: »

Deranged? Calm the hyperbole. Facts are facts, and it's a fact people inadvertantly do things that have bad outcomes all the time, we don't let it impact the remainder of their lives though, because they aren't intentionally doing something wrong.

We're talking about the revocation of the right to drive, not her going to prison for life. I don't have a car. A lot of my family don't have cars. It's not some dire punishment.

Time wrote: »

You're comparing apples and oranges, Doctors have a higher duty of care to their patients than road users have to each other, not only that but Doctors make mistakes resulting in patient deaths and receive censures all rather than being struck off all the time.

I'm not saying that drivers who make mistakes should be struck off all the time. Just the ones who make it really clear that they are really bad at driving, either by narcissistically excessive reactions to minor provocations, or by showing atrocious judgement.

Time · 27-04-2018 8:07pm

fritzelly wrote: »

Cannot believe people saying she needs the car, think of the children, driving ban is bad - lots of people manage without a car
Take 2 seconds to think about if there had been a very large truck barrelling down the motorway while she was more interested in removing a tag from a toy - very likely killed all of them

No excuse for her behaviour, being a mother is a piss poor defence to escape jail
Unfortunately in this country killing someone does not equate to any kind of equatable punishment. In the papers today, man got 3 months or so for burglary (ridiculous in itself at such a lenient sentence with 127 other convictions), DPP appealed it and the sentence increased to some 3 years - he didn't even kill anyone!

This woman deliberately took her eyes off the road and obviously for quite some time travelling at a very fast speed - she was a danger to all road users, unfortunately in this case a cyclist was killed

I'm not saying she shouldn't be banned, i'm saying that a lifetime ban, and custodial sentence are disproportionate given that it was unintentional, which is the key differentiator.

Intentional acts like burglary are far more heinous and are rightly punished far more severely than unintentional acts. Society is well served by a person who commits an intentional act, such as murder, rape, burglary etc.. being deprived of their liberty. Both as a punishment for the violent and intrusive nature of the act, and a deterrent to others who would consider such acts.

Society is not well served by imprisoning non-violent offenders who unintentionally cause harm, are at no risk of re-offending and are probably deeply traumatised by what they have done. Theres a vast vast difference between the two categories.

tomasrojo · 27-04-2018 8:18pm

Time wrote: »

Society is not well served by imprisoning non-violent offenders who unintentionally cause harm, are at no risk of re-offending and are probably deeply traumatised by what they have done.

On the first point, given that she did this by having either no awareness of or no interest in the consequences of driving at speed in a 1500kg vehicle while looking in the other direction for a protracted period, you have no way of knowing she isn't a risk going forward.

On the second point, I'm sure she is deeply affected. It's not all that relevant as to whether she's got the right temperament to drive.

splinter65 · 27-04-2018 8:20pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The child of the man killed will be grand without their dad for the rest of their life won't they.

So your saying that because the mother of children caused suffering to some other children, that it’s only fair if her kids have to suffer too?

Time · 27-04-2018 8:24pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

On the first point, given that she did this by having either no awareness of or no interest in the consequences of driving at speed in a 1500kg vehicle while looking in the other direction for a protracted period, you have no way of knowing she isn't a risk going forward.

On the second point, I'm sure she is deeply affected. It's not all that relevant as to whether she's got the right temperament to drive.

Very true, i cant state that she wouldn't ever be a risk on the road again, just as you couldn't state with any surety that she would be. I was speaking more from a sentencing point of view. She is unlikely to come before the courts again which is a factor the court has to consider.

Again her being deeply traumatised is evidence of remorse, which is relevant when it comes to sentencing, rather than her driving.

BikeRacer · 27-04-2018 8:28pm

A first time offence for drunk driving could carry a 3 year disqualification, even if nobody was injured, because you're deemed potentially not in full control of your vehicle. That is deemed a worthy punishment for that crime.

This woman chose not to be in full control of her vehicle, and as a result it ended another persons life. So the difference from potentially not in control, to not in control at all and ending someones life as a result is an extra 2 year disqualification.

Does that seem a worthy punishment? Not even close in my opinion.

fritzelly · 27-04-2018 8:30pm

Time wrote: »

Very true, i cant state that she wouldn't ever be a risk on the road again, just as you couldn't state with any surety that she would be. I was speaking more from a sentencing point of view. She is unlikely to come before the courts again which is a factor the court has to consider.

Again her being deeply traumatised is evidence of remorse, which is relevant when it comes to sentencing, rather than her driving.

We shouldn't be looking at the future saying well she probably won't kill someone again, but she proved her lack of consideration for other road users in the first place.
Give it a few years and this incident will be a distant memory

Time · 27-04-2018 8:36pm

BikeRacer wrote: »

A first time offence for drunk driving could carry a 3 year disqualification, even if nobody was injured, because you're deemed potentially not in full control of your vehicle. That is deemed a worthy punishment for that crime.

This woman chose not to be in full control of her vehicle, and as a result it ended another persons life. So the difference from potentially not in control, to not in control at all and ending someones life as a result is an extra 2 year disqualification.

Does that seem a worthy punishment? Not even close in my opinion.

Again a huge difference as drunk driving contains the element of intent not present here.

Time · 27-04-2018 8:41pm

fritzelly wrote: »

We shouldn't be looking at the future saying well she probably won't kill someone again, but she proved her lack of consideration for other road users in the first place.
Give it a few years and this incident will be a distant memory

Why shouldn't we? It's an accepted aspect of sentencing that previous crimes of a similar nature are an aggravating factor, and that a lower likelihood of reoffending is a mitigating one. I see lack of consideration from fellow cyclists every single day when they run red lights, but we don't ban people from using the roads for that. Lack of consideration in itself is not sufficient to lock people up.

Stephen15 · 27-04-2018 8:41pm

Jailing the women, would only fùck two families lives up rather than one. Obivously it's very sad what happened to the cyclist for his family but taking a mother away from her children is not right and would be very cruel on them. She should however be given a lengthy driving ban.

I find that there is large proportion of people out there who don't take driving very seriously and have general lax casual approach to it. It's only really professional drivers that take driving seriously.

ford2600 · 27-04-2018 8:53pm

Two career burglars had their sentences increased this year on appeal by the DPP; their crime resulted in the death of a homeowner.

Part of the DPP argument was the message the punishment should send out.

Similarly here, drive and play with your phone, look behind while doing 120km, drive while sleep deprived and someone dies; you go to jail.

If she killed two kids on the side of the road would being out of jail still be OK?

A free pass here might is the easy choice when the hard choice is the better one for society. But let's think of the children eh?

fritzelly · 27-04-2018 9:05pm

Stephen15 wrote: »

Jailing the women, would only fùck two families lives up rather than one. Obivously it's very sad what happened to the cyclist for his family but taking a mother away from her children is not right and would be very cruel on them. She should however be given a lengthy driving ban.

Many children grow very happy without the mother being present, and better off in some cases
Stop this "think of the children without a mother" rubbish - end of the day their mother killed someone through a very negligent and selfish act.
She's lucky she wasn't the cause of a major pile up with multiple people killed or horrific injuries! Total deliberate unwanton ignorance of being in charge of car and ignoring the golden rule of driving. What if it was outside a school that this happened and she killed a few children - would you be so forgiving?
Judges need to harden up and give appropriate sentences

Time · 27-04-2018 9:06pm

ford2600 wrote: »

Two career burglars had their sentences increased this year on appeal by the DPP; their crime resulted in the death of a homeowner.

Part of the DPP argument was the message the punishment should send out.

Similarly here, drive and play with your phone, look behind while doing 120km, drive while sleep deprived and someone dies; you go to jail.

If she killed two kids on the side of the road would being out of jail still be OK?

A free pass here might is the easy choice when the hard choice is the better one for society. But let's think of the children eh?

It’s very clear from people’s comments on this thread that they have absolutely no understanding of how sentencing works. As I’ve pointed out several times now an intentional act is several times more serious than an unintentional one, and will attract a custodial sentence far more easily. That’s how our system (in general) works. If she had mowed down two kids intentionally I’d say she’d have gotten a heavy sentence, if she’d had a blowout and lost control, she probably wouldn’t even be in court. The material facts are relevant

Also if you read the CoA judgment regarding that burglary case you’ll see that as I have being saying, the history of offending, the premeditation, likelihood of reoffending and the fact it was a spree were factors to increase the sentence. Those are the grounds the appeal was taken on, not the death of the homeowner

Carlos Orange · 27-04-2018 9:07pm

Time wrote: »

I see lack of consideration from fellow cyclists every single day when they run red lights, but we don't ban people from using the roads for that. Lack of consideration in itself is not sufficient to lock people up.

There is also the small matter of somebody dying.

tomasrojo · 27-04-2018 9:11pm

... and extreme carelessness.

Time · 27-04-2018 9:12pm

psinno wrote: »

There is also the small matter of somebody dying.

Not every act that results in the death of another is deserving of a custodial sentence, this being one of them

tomasrojo · 27-04-2018 9:20pm

Time wrote: »

It’s very clear from people’s comments on this thread that they have absolutely no understanding of how sentencing works.

I don't find your Rumpole of the Bailey stylings all that convincing either.

Alkers · 27-04-2018 9:27pm

Try this one:
[url]Https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/disqualified-truck-driver-who-caused-death-of-fatheroftwo-jailed-for-10-months-36579677.html[/url]
Causing the death of a Polish biker by driving a heavy goods vehicle on the wrong side of the road towards a group of motorcyclists while serving BOTH a 6 year driving ban for drunk driving AND another 10 year ban for other driving-related offences. Then lying to the Gardai to try and cover himself by claiming the biker was speeding which was proved not to be the case by CCTV of the incident. Punishment of a 10 month sentence and a 6 year driving ban to add to the two concurrent bans he already has, what a joke, how many chances do we need to give people like this. Banning people for driving while already banned can hardly be considered an effective deterrent

Stephen15 · 27-04-2018 9:30pm

fritzelly wrote: »

Many children grow very happy without the mother being present, and better off in some cases
Stop this "think of the children without a mother" rubbish - end of the day their mother killed someone through a very negligent and selfish act.
She's lucky she wasn't the cause of a major pile up with multiple people killed or horrific injuries! Total deliberate unwanton ignorance of being in charge of car and ignoring the golden rule of driving. What if it was outside a school that this happened and she killed a few children - would you be so forgiving?
Judges need to harden up and give appropriate sentences

And an appropriate sentence would be that she never steps foot in the drivers seat of car ever again.

tomasrojo · 27-04-2018 9:30pm

There's a pretty good blogpost about (UK) disqualifiation sentences by Martin Porter:

In a pre-guidelines case, R v Cully (2005) which is still referred to and followed by the Court of Appeal, the Court said this when reducing the Defendant's disqualification from 5 years to 2:
“We consider that the purpose of a disqualification from driving is so far as possible to protect the public. Often it may be that drivers come before the sentencing court with an appalling driving record. In such cases an extended period of disqualification may be appropriate since the offence indicates the risk to the public in the individual continuing to drive. Where circumstances do not suggest that there is any such risk, a period of disqualification, though inevitable as it is in a case of dangerous driving, can, and should in our view, be kept to the minimum.”
There seems, to me, to be a rather unfortunate assumption that, appalling driving records aside, there is no real risk to the public and Judges should keep disqualifications to the statutory minimum.

The approaches in R v Cully and in R v Crew have been followed many times since. Essentially if you have not been caught driving badly on other occasions there is an assumption that whatever bad driving brought you before the Court was a one-off and that you do not pose a risk to the public. There is a touching, but wholly misguided, faith that motorists are caught and convicted whenever they endanger anyone and not simply once they have killed or, at best, injured. It does not take much time cycling around our cities to appreciate this assumption is completely unwarranted. The lorry driver who never faced substantive justice after killing Eilidh Cairns went on to kill again and I find it hard to accept that those who have killed once (or have driven in such a way that it is is only a matter of good chance they did not kill) are not more likely to do so again.

https://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.ie/2014/06/disqualifications-for-bad-driving.html

EDIT:

In relation to disqualification, driving needs to be seen as a privilege not a right. Those who cannot or will not drive carefully will have to get to work on the bus, train or bicycle like the thousands of other people who through an uninvited medical condition or through choice do not drive.

fritzelly · 27-04-2018 9:56pm

In relation to disqualification, driving needs to be seen as a privilege not a right. Those who cannot or will not drive carefully will have to get to work on the bus, train or bicycle like the thousands of other people who through an uninvited medical condition or through choice do not drive.

And that right there is the crux, seen as too much of a right here - ahh sure a few pints while driving never hurt anyone and how are they supposed to get home from the bar...

AndrewJRenko · 27-04-2018 10:01pm

TheBoyConor wrote: »

i'd say the 99.9% of parents have done something similar, taking their eyes off the road to look at their small child in the back for a second.

99.9% of parents most definitely have NOT attempted to remove a tag from a child's toy in the rear seat while driving at 80 kmph or 100 kmph. Stop trying to spin this as something that it wasn't.

TheBoyConor wrote: »

We must remember that she has small children that need to go to school, extracurricular activties etc.

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Whether we like it or not, a car is absolutely essential for the running of daily life for many many families. Take away the car and the family will be thrown into chaos.

Lots of people manage small kids without having a car. They go to local schools, they walk, they cycle, they get the bus, maybe the occasional taxi. Stop playing the 'won't someone please think of the children' card.

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Or perhaps a large chunk of community service in lieu of jail?
A driver re-education programme?

Maybe she should work with Rothar, or with Cycling Without Age, or some other community work involving two wheels.

Time wrote: »

For all you know she could have always been an excellent driver up until that one lapse, so you can't really say she's really really bad at driving in general.

Given that she killed a cyclist, you CAN really say that she's really, really bad at driving.

Time wrote: »

Again a huge difference as drunk driving contains the element of intent not present here.

Did she accidentally reach for the child's toy in the back seat, or was it an intentional action?

TBH, it wouldn't surprise me if the 'child's toy' is a cover story for something. I wonder if the Gardai checked for phone traffic at that time.

Idioteque · 27-04-2018 10:47pm

I wonder if in cases like this the punishment should be something like a combination of regular compulsory blood donation and providing help to care centers for people with various disabilities...but the severity determines the amount of years.
At least that way the person is “punished” but there’s a benefit given to others as a result.
In an awful circumstance like this I would expected something like 10 years of the above.

At the end of the day an adult was irresponsible and that irresponsibility led to the death of another. That should have a punishment I believe. Maybe that should be prison but it should definitely not be prison or nothing.

dubrov · 27-04-2018 10:49pm

Have to agree. This was a lot more than forgetting to check a mirror.
There were plenty of options and she took the lazy one.
She took a huge risk (a lot more than most reasonable people) at the cyclist's expense.

I don't really see it any different than a someone chancing the drive home after a few drinks and running someone over because they didn't see them.

hesker · 27-04-2018 11:24pm

Does anyone know if an examination of her phone records formed part of the investigation. Or was the detail about attending to her child just her testimony which was accepted without question

fritzelly · 27-04-2018 11:37pm

hesker wrote: »

Does anyone know if an examination of her phone records formed part of the investigation. Or was the detail about attending to her child just her testimony which was accepted without question

Probably the easiest excuse her lawyers could come up with at the time
She admitted that is what she did so probably no reason to investigate it beyond that as she admitted liability

Suspended sentence for killing cyclist

Comments