123mph speeding crash: "Insulting" prison sentence

[duncanp]

I had forgotten that humans were incapable of thinking about the consequences of their actions unless they were locked up...

Human beings are capable of thinking of the consequences of their actions wherever they are.

But it would appear that this individual did not do so whilst he was outside prison, otherwise you would assume that he would not have driven in the way that he did.

So I think a spell in prison is entirely appropriate in this case, and the cost of doing so is something that everyone has to bear in order to have a criminal justice system that places at least some emphasis on the word "justice".

 

[northwichcat]

In thinking about this sentence remember Amir Khan drove through a red light in the centre of Bolton at almost 50mph and ploughed down a pedestrian on a crossing. The pedestrian had life changing injuries, never made a full recovery and died around a year later. What did Khan get? A £1000 fine.

The year after he was caught doing 140mph on a Motorway. He failed to produce his driving licence and insurance when requested. He was fined a further £1000 and banned from driving for 42 days.

At least the person referred to in the original post is going to prison.

 

[duncanp]

In thinking about this sentence remember Amir Khan drove through a red light in the centre of Bolton at almost 50mph and ploughed down a pedestrian on a crossing. The pedestrian had life changing injuries, never made a full recovery and died around a year later. What did Khan get? A £1000 fine.

The year after he was caught doing 140mph on a Motorway. He failed to produce his driving licence and insurance when requested. He was fined a further £1000 and banned from driving for 42 days.

At least the person referred to in the original post is going to prison.

Perhaps in the case of Amir Khan a suspended sentence would be appropriate, with the clear warning that if the offence is repeated you will be sent to prison for the original offence, in addition to any punishment for the new offence.

 

[ainsworth74]

It strikes me that this is quite a complex issue will multiple facets to it in terms of the sentence side.

For my money a disqualification from driving for 14 years is rubbish. The individual in question was driving not a little bit over the limit but more than 50mph over it, that is extraordinarily reckless. If this was the only instance on record of such behaviour then perhaps a 14 year disqualification along with an enhanced re-test would be suitable. But we know that it isn't and that they had previously filmed themselves speeding in Dubai, previously had a conviction for driving without insurance and had been spoken to by police a few months prior to this incident about racing on public roads. Considering the seriousness of the accident, the level of recklessness along with the previous behaviour I'm far from convinced that they should be able to drive on the road legally.

I appreciate the comments about the enforceability of removing someone's driving licence and the potential impact on someone's employment and social life considering that this country is backward in many respects when it comes to public transport but I'm not sure that a) just because something is difficult to detect is a good enough reason to simply give it a pass and b) making it harder for someone to access work and social prospects should be a concern when an individual has shown themselves to be so unsuited to driving around large metal boxes capable of killing and maiming people. Plus there are places that is perfectly possible to exist without a car in the UK. Manchester, Birmingham and London are three obvious examples. But even plenty of larger towns still have reasonable bus networks. It might be awkward but we're not necessarily consigning someone to being unemployable and a social outcast forevermore.

On the prison sentence side I struggle a little more. 100% this individual should have received a custodial sentence. End of discussion. When you're reckless behaviour (and not for the first time) causes the death of another, the death of an unborn baby, brain injuries with uncertain long term outcomes for two other children and a third child who I'm sure will struggle with the mental health impacts of what they saw and went through during and afterwards you need to go to jail. A community order or suspended sentence is not sufficient. Perhaps if it had been a momentary lapse of attention whilst driving at the speed limit for a driver with an otherwise unblemished record there would be some wiggle room. But that is certainly not the case here.

But on the length of that sentence I do struggle a little bit. I get the intrinsic desire to give them a life sentence with a decent minimum tariff but this wasn't murder. The driver didn't set out to kill and injure and tear multiple families apart. They were reckless in the extreme but it was still an accident.

With the state of prison system we now have after a decade of neglect (and arguably longer even than that) about the only thing it is good at is the punishment aspect of depriving someone of their liberty. I don't think making them suffer whilst their in prison is anything other than retribution rather than punishment (I'm not arguing for holiday camps, but clearly the main part of the punishment is the deprivation of liberty). But with our prisons designed and built by the Victorians, staffed by underpaid and badly motivated staff, with limited facilities? That's all they're really capable of. So we punish someone and then release them back into the wild to do what? Struggle to find employment? Deal with the drug habit they've picked up (see previous understaffed, under-resourced and poorly designed prison issue)? Basically be a problem for society for evermore?

I don't know if 12 years is the right length of sentence, it does feel light to me considering the severity of the outcomes (two dead, two with likely life altering injuries, one with probably mental health issues, families torn apart), but I'm also not sure what would be achieved by locking them away for longer, other than adding additional punishment and sating the lust of the baying mob, considering the current state of our prison service means that it isn't capable of doing anything else but punishing (and sometimes destroying lives).

It's tricky. I'm not sure it's helpful to just say "HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN LOCKED AWAY FOR DECADES/LIFE!". We need to have a better discussion about the appalling state of our criminal justice system which is failing everyone at every level. From victims, to perpetrators, to the innocent, to the families of all three of the forgoing, to those who work within it, and on and on. It's a disaster area.

But I guess it's easier for a politician to come out with nice shiny new law (which often actually doesn't change anything as the offence was already criminal just under a non-specific statute) to show how they're "tough on crime" and get a nice headline in the Mail or other media outlet rather than actually engaging with the myriad problems with our justice system. From the issues with actually catching and prosecuting criminals, to the delay in getting cases listed and dealt with, to the issues with a lack of effective representation because of cuts to legal aid (and if you self-fund are found innocent you won't be able to reclaim all your legal fees, so you can be ruined financially even if you're not guilty), to the poor state of our prisons, to yes, just what is our justice system for and how do we balance the punishment:rehabilitation equation and on and on and on.

Edit: Put the wrong length of time for the prison sentence.

 

[WelshBluebird]

There's a lot of talk in general about sentencing and prison v other sentences etc here, and whilst a lot of that absolutely is valid (and I am nearly always of the opinion that we should be more like some other countries where the goal of prison and other sentences should be rehabilitation and not pure punishment), it is worth talking about the fact that driving offences are treated extremely leniently compared to non driving offences in this country. If the person had murdered the victim in any other way, there'd be talk of life sentences. So why not with driving offences? Whilst I don't think lengthy prison sentences are the simple solution a lot of people seem to think they are, I do think the sentencing for a driving offence like this should match the sentence for a similar non driving offence.

Seen it argued that a lifetime disqualification is unlikely to work - as people need to drive so much in this country it is severely limiting to one’s work and social prospects.

Nobody NEEDS to drive, and driving is a privilege not a right. If you prove you cannot handle the responsibility that comes with that, then it absolutely is right you face the consequences and have that privilege removed.

 

[ainsworth74]

Nobody NEEDS to drive, and driving is a privilege not a right. If you prove you cannot handle the responsibility that comes with that, then it absolutely is right you face the consequences and have that privilege removed.

Which is broadly where I'm coming down on this aspect. I don't think it should be especially easy to loose your licence permanently. But considering the level of recklessness, the actual harm done and the previous issues (two related to speed and the other still a driving offence) I'm not sure that there's any reason that the driver in question here should be eligible to hold a licence ever again. To me that feels like a sufficient level at which loss of driving privileges are warranted.

 

[AlterEgo]

Nobody NEEDS to drive, and driving is a privilege not a right. If you prove you cannot handle the responsibility that comes with that, then it absolutely is right you face the consequences and have that privilege removed.

Of course, and I am not disagreeing that a person like Iqbal *deserves* that but the point is - do lifetime bans actually work to keep people off the road, or not?

 

[66701GBRF]

I hope you enjoyed that, because it still doesn't make your position clear. And I will not engage with you further on the subject.

His position was clear from the start. It was you that was seemingly trying to twist things.

 

[DarloRich]

@ainsworth74 a very measured and nuanced post. Well done. I am in agreement with you

 

[Falcon1200]

But on the length of that sentence I do struggle a little bit. I get the intrinsic desire to give them a life sentence with a decent minimum tariff but this wasn't murder. The driver didn't set out to kill and injure and tear multiple families apart. They were reckless in the extreme but it was still an accident.

I agree with most of what you say, however any motorist, or indeed adult, knows that driving at 120mph plus on a public highway, amongst other vehicles whose drivers would not in any way expect to encounter them, plus whilst filming themselves on a mobile phone, is utter madness with an extremely high chance of a collision resulting.

Given that it seems to have been his father's high-powered vehicle involved, one wonders what the father did to prevent his son having access to such vehicles, given his previous history of road traffic offences.

 

[Purple Train]

I notice the vitriol directed at the judge in the original post. It seems to me that someone has forgotten that judges apply the existing law, not what they think the law should be. Mr Justice Pepperall made exactly the same point in a certain fairly recent case.

12 years seems on the light side but is roughly comparable to an equivalent manslaughter sentence, which requires a similar level of culpability.

 

[J-2739]

*yawn*

The guy had been done before, on several occasions, including "polite" and seemingly inappropriate warnings for getting behind the wheel of a several ton weapon and using it in a potentially disastrous way in public.

He then did it again (and on the balance of probability, no doubt on other occasions where he wasn't caught) and killed innocent people. Using a motor vehicle in the way he did is potentially lethal and it's obvious.

Forget him, delete him, who cares. My right to be protected from him is more important than any attempt to correct him for whatever remains of his 3 score years and 10.

I hate people who behave like this. It is a big subject in our local area at the moment because one of our local racers who like to screech around residential roads and dual carriageways with impunity has just killed an innocent cyclist, and on doing so cleared off from the scene and then torched the car.

Predictably having been caught with their pants down for not having acted previously, albeit kudos to them for catching the perpetrator quickly despite their attempts to destroy the evidence, the police are now to be seen en masse in all locations in the town where this is an issue and are seizing motors left right and centre.

I don't *want* him to see the light of day again and it is far from keyboard warriorism - it makes me absolutely seethe.

It is all well and good for people like Tazi Hupefi to sniffily advise people that their views on criminal justice do not pass muster and they're wrong, but tough.

Well said.

 

[Fragezeichnen]

This reminds of the Andrew Harper case, summarised by the TheSecretBarrister, in which a police officer died in horrific circumstances which were violent but not actually murder. In that case things eventually went so far that the then Attorney General ended up making a fool of herself in a failed attempt to personally argue in court for a stronger sentence. Much of what was written about the complexity of sentencing and the temptation to jump on the bandwagon of stronger sentencing then is relevant here too.

In Germany and some other countries there is the concept of a Psychological assessment for drivers, which is typically ordered for those caught driving drunk or high. Basically it's a ban for life, until you can convince a psychologist you have recognised what was wrong and have changed your behaviour. It's not a perfect system - it's criticised as creating a cottage industry of advisors which train people in how to show the appropriate amount of contrition, but I do find it a bit illogical that a slightly extended standard driving test is proof of anything, when there is little doubt the person being tested can, from a technical perspective, competently operate a motor vehicle and their issues with decision making are far more deep seated than knowing when to change lanes.

 

[ainsworth74]

I agree with most of what you say, however any motorist, or indeed adult, knows that driving at 120mph plus on a public highway, amongst other vehicles whose drivers would not in any way expect to encounter them, plus whilst filming themselves on a mobile phone, is utter madness with an extremely high chance of a collision resulting.

Absolutely, that's why my gut reaction is that 12 years is not sufficient. I haven't read the sentencing remarks (link gratefully received) but I presume that one of the reasons it feels low is that they probably got a discount for the guilty plea so it might well be that if weren't for that the sentence would have been somewhat higher (a third reduction is typical if you plead guilty on the first occasion you're asked in court). I suspect the remarks are probably well worth reading in this case.

This reminds of the Andrew Harper case, summarised by the TheSecretBarrister, in which a police officer died in horrific circumstances which were violent but not actually murder.

Yes I had The Secret Barrister in the back of my mind whilst writing my initial posting on this thread. Their books are well worth a read for those who are interested in the subject (and considering any one of us could get caught up in a criminal case tomorrow it should be of interest to everyone!).

 

[SteveP29]

I note he was given a 13 year driving ban too.
For me, a driving ban should begin when the convicted leaves incarceration, therefore in this instance he shouldn't drive again for 25 years

 

[Loppylugs]

I notice the vitriol directed at the judge in the original post. It seems to me that someone has forgotten that judges apply the existing law, not what they think the law should be. Mr Justice Pepperall made exactly the same point in a certain fairly recent case.

12 years seems on the light side but is roughly comparable to an equivalent manslaughter sentence, which requires a similar level of culpability.

I repeat, it was the families lawyer who described the sentence as "insulting to the families themselves" implying that a harsher sentence could have been meted out. New guidelines were introduced in June 2022 whereby judges could give up to life imprisonment for the worst offences. This was an appalling act of stupidity by a repeat offender and certainly deserved more than 12 years. The two families concerned must be devastated at the leniency bestowed on this idiot who has wrecked their lives.

Absolutely, that's why my gut reaction is that 12 years is not sufficient. I haven't read the sentencing remarks (link gratefully received) but I presume that one of the reasons it feels low is that they probably got a discount for the guilty plea so it might well be that if weren't for that the sentence would have been somewhat higher (a third reduction is typical if you plead guilty on the first occasion you're asked in court). I suspect the remarks are probably well worth reading in this case.

He could hardly do anything else but plead guilty. Dashcam footage, his own phone, eye witness accounts and the fact that his mangled BMW (albeit his father's vehicle) lay nearby tend to give him away.

 

[ainsworth74]

He could hardly do anything else but plead guilty. Dashcam footage, his own phone, eye witness accounts and the fact that his mangled BMW (albeit his father's vehicle) lay nearby tend to give him away.

Oh yeah he'd have been barmy to do anything otherwise I quite agree. But to my knowledge the rules around discounts for pleading guilty aren't based on whether or not the prosecution case is a slam dunk or not!

 

[crablab]

But to my knowledge the rules around discounts for pleading guilty aren't based on whether or not the prosecution case is a slam dunk or not!

...and if they didn't exist there would be absolutely no incentive to plead guilty, no matter the strength of the evidence, and so the majority of cases would proceed to trial which would be hugely expensive, clog up the criminal justice system delaying outcomes for victims & defendants alike, and cause avoidable misery to witnesses who have to give evidence.

 

[AlterEgo]

...and if they didn't exist there would be absolutely no incentive to plead guilty, no matter the strength of the evidence, and so the majority of cases would proceed to trial which would be hugely expensive, clog up the criminal justice system delaying outcomes for victims & defendants alike, and cause avoidable misery to witnesses who have to give evidence.

Agreed. The discount for guilty pleas is a good thing despite its drawbacks.

 

[spyinthesky]

Speaking as somebody who has been affected twice by similar crimes, I don’t think that the sentence is lenient at all.
Though my child was not killed, suffered life changing injuries on both occasions.
Our lives have been dealt with some poor cards but we have found dealing with our own situation far more important than that of the offender.
There was no requirement to attend any court proceedings which I think for my child would have been traumatic.
A request from one offender was made for some sort of remorse contact and was declined.
My child 10 years and thirteen operations on has finally finished a 3rd attempt of a University degree (The other 2 were curtailed by the offenders) and has secured their dream job.
I don’t think that our lives would be in such a position had we paid any interest to proceedings.
I know we still have our child, but only just.
As an aside she was also a close witness to the novichok incident and will be attending the inquiry when it happens.

 

[Bluejays]

Did think tazi made some interesting points, although I tend to disagree. I think the prison sentence is about right.
Could be argued that is very much serving a public protection as well as punishment function. With this individuals track record the chances of him disregarding a driving ban and continuing to drive dangerously would probably be quite high. Being in prison means he can't be behind a wheel putting people at risk.

The judge appears to have given the maximum sentence available to him which seems about right.

 

[C J Snarzell]

This reminds of the Andrew Harper case, summarised by the TheSecretBarrister, in which a police officer died in horrific circumstances which were violent but not actually murder. In that case things eventually went so far that the then Attorney General ended up making a fool of herself in a failed attempt to personally argue in court for a stronger sentence. Much of what was written about the complexity of sentencing and the temptation to jump on the bandwagon of stronger sentencing then is relevant here too.

As a former police officer, I was actually sickened by PC Harper’s death that was probably one of the worst circumstances a serving police officer has died in this country. However, I still believe the actions of the three offenders (who were blatant thieves) was not premeditated murder and this is something we need to just remember when reflecting on this case and the tragedy on the M66 in May.

CJ

 

[tigerroar]

Haven't read the whole thread but a very thought provoking contribution from Tazi. I'd judge the entire sentence on the offenders reaction and latter behaviour both publicly and privately. I understand what you're saying about the futility of locking people up but, I don't know if it's been mentioned at all, it's worth remembering that they handed down similar sentences recently to people streaming Premier League football.

 

[skyhigh]

it's worth remembering that they handed down similar sentences recently to people streaming Premier League football.

The ringleader was sentenced to 11 years for conspiracy to defraud, money laundering and contempt of court. He was responsible for helping himself to £7 million pounds for something he wasn't entitled to sell.

The others in the gang received sentences of 3 to 6 years and were also involved in possession of indecent images.

A custodial sentence seems reasonable to me. It's not like they were jailed for just watching a match!

 

[yorksrob]

Seen it argued that a lifetime disqualification is unlikely to work - as people need to drive so much in this country it is severely limiting to one’s work and social prospects. I’m not entirely sold on lifetime bans myself but I would absolutely support speed limiting cars at NSL +10.

Point of order - I haven't got behind the wheel since John Major was PM, and I haven't thus far found it limiting to work or social prospects.

Personally, I think that the sentence is about right for wreckless and stupid behaviour resulting in death, but not intentional murder.

 

[Senex]

The ringleader was sentenced to 11 years for conspiracy to defraud, money laundering and contempt of court. He was responsible for helping himself to £7 million pounds for something he wasn't entitled to sell.

The others in the gang received sentences of 3 to 6 years and were also involved in possession of indecent images.

A custodial sentence seems reasonable to me. It's not like they were jailed for just watching a match!

The puzzle there is why in terms of sentencing cromes involving wealth seem to be treated so severely in comparison with crimes involving violence against the person, right up to killing by motor car (or otherwise).

 

[Busaholic]

I do know there has been other cases in the past where judges have banned people from ever getting behind a wheel.

CJ

Could you provide details? I did some research into this a few years ago and could find no such instances, although I believe it's theoretically possible within the laws to ban for a number of years that would preclude the person ever driving again legally e.g. 80 years.

 

[C J Snarzell]

Could you provide details? I did some research into this a few years ago and could find no such instances, although I believe it's theoretically possible within the laws to ban for a number of years that would preclude the person ever driving again legally e.g. 80 years.

Life driving ban for woman who crashed while FOUR times the limit

Karen Tilley was driving a Skoda Octavia when she veered onto the wrong side of the road

www.cambridge-news.co.uk

Student who led police on horror car chase is banned from driving for 80 years

Mohammed Ahsan, 20, was hit with the massive ban after the vehicle sped around a corner and ploughed into a marble bench in Salford, Greater Manchester

www.mirror.co.uk

Busaholic

I have added a couple of links above that relate to life time bans. The Salford driver who was 20 at the time, was banned for 80 years.
I think it's fair to say if he does live to be 100, he will be too old and frail to drive a vehicle, so in my view this could be classed as a life
time ban for him.

CJ

 

[Busaholic]

Life driving ban for woman who crashed while FOUR times the limit

Karen Tilley was driving a Skoda Octavia when she veered onto the wrong side of the road

www.cambridge-news.co.uk

Student who led police on horror car chase is banned from driving for 80 years

Mohammed Ahsan, 20, was hit with the massive ban after the vehicle sped around a corner and ploughed into a marble bench in Salford, Greater Manchester

www.mirror.co.uk

Busaholic

I have added a couple of links above that relate to life time bans. The Salford driver who was 20 at the time, was banned for 80 years.
I think it's fair to say if he does live to be 100, he will be too old and frail to drive a vehicle, so in my view this could be classed as a life
time ban for him.

CJ

Very interesting, I admit my 'research' was a while ago. I agree 80 years is a life time ban: the term has to be finite. Do you know whether an appeal was lodged and, if so, were any changes made?

The main problem with bans, of course, is that they are in a sense voluntary. If the driver has the keys, there's nothing to stop anyone taking off and causing mayhem, regardless of the legality of being behind the wheel.

 

[birchesgreen]

Very interesting, I admit my 'research' was a while ago. I agree 80 years is a life time ban: the term has to be finite. Do you know whether an appeal was lodged and, if so, were any changes made?

The main problem with bans, of course, is that they are in a sense voluntary. If the driver has the keys, there's nothing to stop anyone taking off and causing mayhem, regardless of the legality of being behind the wheel.

Any rules are voluntary, just that there are consequences if you are caught breaking them.