UK and Europe · Public discussion

Another derisory sentence.

Started by Tony Raven · · Last activity · 28 posts · 2,183 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
5 March 2005
Last activity
6 March 2005
Original author
Tony Raven
Posts
28
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,183
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 28
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. A motorcyclist rather than a cyclist but still the same problem of a
    derisory sentence despite a catalogue of crimes.

    Tony

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/4319295.stm

    A driver who knocked down a motorcyclist and drove off with the victim's
    foot embedded in his car bumper has been jailed for two months.

    Peter Dearing, 23, sped off from the crash in Blackburn, Lancashire,
    leaving Richard Sholl screaming in agony.

    Dearing, of Read, Burnley, rang police after finding the foot in the
    bumper of his car, Blackburn magistrates heard.

    He admitted driving without due care and attention, failing to stop
    after an accident and driving without insurance.

    Dearing, a law student, also admitted driving with faulty brakes and
    steering, and to driving illegally with a provisional licence, which he
    obtained following a previous disqualification.

    The court heard Dearing had eight points on his provisional licence when
    he crashed into Mr Sholl, 37, last October.

    On Friday he was jailed for two months, banned from driving for two
    years and ordered to pay £300 compensation.

    The court heard that Mr Sholl was riding his Honda along Yew Tree Drive
    in Blackburn when Dearing's grey Volvo estate veered into the outside
    lane and hit him.

    When Dearing drove off, a motorist came to help Mr Sholl, who had to
    have his leg amputated.

    In a statement to the court, Mr Sholl said: "My left foot is gone forever.

    'Heard screaming'

    "I am going to be stuck like this through no fault of my own. I feel so
    frustrated.

    "All this has happened because of a selfish, stupid, illegal driver who
    left me alone injured in the road."

    Sophie Lorimer, prosecuting, said: "Dearing must have known that this
    was a serious injury because he told a policeman he could hear the
    screaming."

    Paul Schofield, defending, admitted that Dearing had "a poor attitude to
    licences and insurance".

  2. On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 07:56:55 +0000 someone who may be Tony Raven
    <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

    Quoted message said:

    A motorcyclist rather than a cyclist but still the same problem of a
    derisory sentence despite a catalogue of crimes.

    Meanwhile http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4311609.stm outlines a
    more adequate sentence, though possibly not adequate enough.

    "A drunk driver whose high-powered car struck and killed a top law
    academic has been jailed for five years.

    "The High Court in Glasgow heard that Mark O'Malley had been at an
    all-night party and hit Douglas Vick as he tried to drive home the
    following afternoon.

    "Mr Vick, director of law at Stirling University, was thrown from
    his bicycle in a crash near his home in Dunblane. [snip]

    "The trial heard that minutes after leaving the party O'Malley was
    seen driving erratically with his arm dangling from the car window
    and holding a cigarette.

    "He overtook a car on the inside, hit the central reservation,
    swerved and careered into a stone wall, as Mr Vick cycled past."

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
    I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
    prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

  3. Tony Raven said:

    A motorcyclist rather than a cyclist but still the same problem of a
    derisory sentence despite a catalogue of crimes.

    [censored]. What on earth are we as a society supposed to do with
    animals like Peter Dearing?

    Oh, and who decides he gets two months BTW? How does that work?

    Jesus....

    Tony B

  4. Tony Raven said:


    On Friday he was jailed for two months, banned from driving for two
    years and ordered to pay £300 compensation.

    That really, really is adding insult to injury.
    What could be more insulting than receiving this derisory sum
    from some scumbag who tore your leg off?

  5. Tony Raven said:

    A motorcyclist rather than a cyclist but still the same problem of a
    derisory sentence despite a catalogue of crimes.

    Tony

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/4319295.stm

    A driver who knocked down a motorcyclist and drove off with the victim's
    foot embedded in his car bumper has been jailed for two months.

    <much snipped>

    Quoted message said:


    Paul Schofield, defending, admitted that Dearing had "a poor attitude to
    licences and insurance".

    It's all too easy on reading something like this to jump into
    "flogging's too good for 'im" mode. In this case, though, given the
    information available, the sentence does seem insulting in the extreme.
    Is there any appeal process in English law which could result in
    another court taking a less bizarre view of this man's crime and dealing
    with him appropriately?
    --
    Brian G

  6. David Hansen said:

    "A drunk driver whose high-powered car struck and killed a top law
    academic has been jailed for five years.

    I'd like to think that this was a rare example of fair trial, but the
    fact that he killed a member of the legal profession may be more
    relevant than any of aspect of the case. I've heard (alleged) rumours
    that they protect their own! ;-)

    Jon

  7. Tony B said:

    Oh, and who decides he gets two months BTW? How does that work?

    Jesus....

    No. He gets no involvement until after death. DKUATB!

    Jon

  8. John Hearns composed the following;:

    Quoted message said:
    Tony Raven said:


    On Friday he was jailed for two months, banned from driving for two
    years and ordered to pay £300 compensation.

    That really, really is adding insult to injury.
    What could be more insulting than receiving this derisory sum
    from some scumbag who tore your leg off?

    Agreed.

    My bro-in-law lost a leg in an industrial accident and got £300K. Why
    should a 'motorist' get off with paying such a small sum as 'compensation'.

    Personally I'd rather they bought £300's worth of electricity and zapped the
    [censored] balls with it ..

    --
    Paul ...
    www.4x4prejudice.org
    (8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

  9. Brian G said:

    It's all too easy on reading something like this to jump into
    "flogging's too good for 'im" mode. In this case, though, given the
    information available, the sentence does seem insulting in the extreme.
    Is there any appeal process in English law which could result in
    another court taking a less bizarre view of this man's crime and dealing
    with him appropriately?

    Possibly, but first you'd have to get his legal team to appeal. Given
    how lightly he got off, I doubt they'd be convinced.

    Jon

  10. On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 08:33:04 +0000, Tony B
    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    [censored]. What on earth are we as a society supposed to do with
    animals like Peter Dearing?

    There are three sentencing options available in the court of URC:

    - slabbing
    - cut off his goolies
    - shoot him and burn the body

    In this case: gun, petrol, matches, Lighthouse Family...

    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

  11. On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:03:35 -0000, "Paul - [censored]"
    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    My bro-in-law lost a leg in an industrial accident and got £300K. Why
    should a 'motorist' get off with paying such a small sum as 'compensation'.

    That was the fine - there should also be an insurance payout which
    will be much bigger. If the driver was uninsured (as he almost
    certainly was) the tab should be picked up by the MIB[1].

    However...

    I fail to see why this case should not be treated as a case of assault
    causing grievous bodily harm, for which the maximum sentence is life
    imprisonment and an unlimited fine. And the driver should never, ever
    be allowed behind the wheel of a car again.

    [1] No, not the Men In Black - do KUATB!

    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

  12. Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    That really, really is adding insult to injury.
    What could be more insulting than receiving this derisory sum
    from some scumbag who tore your leg off?

    Quoted message said:

    My bro-in-law lost a leg in an industrial accident and got £300K. Why
    should a 'motorist' get off with paying such a small sum as
    'compensation'.

    I /think/ the fine is related to the ability to pay. As the git probably
    claims he's flat broke/on benefits the fine is tiny.

  13. Just zis Guy, you know? composed the following;:

    Quoted message said:

    On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:03:35 -0000, "Paul - [censored]"
    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    My bro-in-law lost a leg in an industrial accident and got £300K. Why
    should a 'motorist' get off with paying such a small sum as
    'compensation'.

    That was the fine - there should also be an insurance payout which
    will be much bigger. If the driver was uninsured (as he almost
    certainly was) the tab should be picked up by the MIB[1].

    It was described as compensation. There was no mention of insurance, though
    I guess there will be in due course, which can take years

    My BIL's payments were also described exactly as the article, 'compensation'
    ordered by the judge against his employers. Actually I don't know how the
    system _really_ works, so I'm only going by this very specific time in our
    family life.

    Quoted message said:

    I fail to see why this case should not be treated as a case of assault
    causing grievous bodily harm, for which the maximum sentence is life
    imprisonment and an unlimited fine. And the driver should never, ever
    be allowed behind the wheel of a car again.

    I'd agree with that. Certainly the victims loss of a foot is for life ...

    Quoted message said:

    [1] No, not the Men In Black - do KUATB!

    But those ATB don't like to KU ... that's why they're ATB ... 😉

    --
    Paul ...
    www.4x4prejudice.org
    (8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

  14. Paul - censored said:


    John Hearns composed the following;:

    Quoted message said:
    Tony Raven said:


    On Friday he was jailed for two months, banned from driving for two
    years and ordered to pay £300 compensation.

    That really, really is adding insult to injury.
    What could be more insulting than receiving this derisory sum
    from some scumbag who tore your leg off?

    Agreed.

    My bro-in-law lost a leg in an industrial accident and got £300K. Why
    should a 'motorist' get off with paying such a small sum as 'compensation'.

    I'm sure he'd at least be entitled to a claim through the Criminal
    Injuries Compensation Authority which for loss of leg below knee is in
    the region of 30K.

    Just a minute, - it was a 'motorist' so he can't be a 'criminal'.

    John B

  15. On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 10:20:48 -0000, "Paul - [censored]"
    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    It was described as compensation. There was no mention of insurance, though
    I guess there will be in due course, which can take years
    My BIL's payments were also described exactly as the article, 'compensation'
    ordered by the judge against his employers. Actually I don't know how the
    system _really_ works, so I'm only going by this very specific time in our
    family life.

    This was in the criminal court, the civil case (which is what your BIL
    probably went through) will follow, and may never come to court - most
    don't.

    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

  16. Just zis Guy said:

    On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 10:20:48 -0000, "Paul - [censored]"
    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    It was described as compensation. There was no mention of insurance,

    Yes there was: "He admitted driving without due care and attention,
    failing to stop after an accident and driving without insurance."

    though

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I guess there will be in due course, which can take years
    My BIL's payments were also described exactly as the article, 'compensation'
    ordered by the judge against his employers. Actually I don't know how the
    system _really_ works, so I'm only going by this very specific time in our
    family life.

    This was in the criminal court, the civil case (which is what your BIL
    probably went through) will follow, and may never come to court - most
    don't.

    Since he had no insurance, he can only compensate the motorcyclist
    within his personal means. If he is skint, he cannot be made to pay
    anything. There isn't even any point in sueing him.

    The motorcyclist will have to see what he can get from the criminal
    injuries compensation board.

    --
    Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

  17. Brian G said:
    Tony Raven said:

    A motorcyclist rather than a cyclist but still the same problem of a
    derisory sentence despite a catalogue of crimes.

    Tony

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/4319295.stm

    A driver who knocked down a motorcyclist and drove off with the
    victim's foot embedded in his car bumper has been jailed for two months.

    <much snipped>

    Quoted message said:


    Paul Schofield, defending, admitted that Dearing had "a poor attitude
    to licences and insurance".

    It's all too easy on reading something like this to jump into
    "flogging's too good for 'im" mode. In this case, though, given the
    information available, the sentence does seem insulting in the extreme.
    Is there any appeal process in English law which could result in
    another court taking a less bizarre view of this man's crime and dealing
    with him appropriately?

    The CPS and Police can lodge an appeal against the sentence if it is to
    lenient, this is pathetic, I hope the officers and CPS have done so.
    Whether it will do any good is another question. Another *bloody
    magistrates* decision, they make me want to spit. I really think
    magistrates should be replaced by a system similar to jury service.
    You, as I would have to be excluded, would be far more practical and
    robust, then perhaps we could get some justice back into the system.
    Magistrates are in general upper middle class morons with a tenuous
    grasp of reality and morality. I've said before they couldn't make the
    correct decision if you handed it to them this just proves the point.
    Frustrated to the point of dusting of my combats and purchasing a good
    rifle.
    God I am so bloody angry reading this, Rant rant rant!!!!!!!

    Sniper8052 *Very P......d off*

  18. Mark Thompson said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    That really, really is adding insult to injury.
    What could be more insulting than receiving this derisory sum
    from some scumbag who tore your leg off?

    Quoted message said:

    My bro-in-law lost a leg in an industrial accident and got £300K. Why
    should a 'motorist' get off with paying such a small sum as
    'compensation'.

    I /think/ the fine is related to the ability to pay. As the git probably
    claims he's flat broke/on benefits the fine is tiny.

    This whole thread is getting confused. If the court ordered the
    defendant to pay compensation, that is what it is. The confusion here
    appears to start with the fact a criminal court, not civil one, ordered
    the compensation.

    Compensation is what it says it is and goes to the injured party.

    Fines are a form of punishment imposed on law-breakers by the state on
    behalf of society in general; the money goes to the Treasury.

    Civil courts settle disputes between two parties, and can order one to
    compensate the other.

    In practice it is more complicated, but that's the basics.

    --
    Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

  19. Jon Senior said:
    Brian G said:

    It's all too easy on reading something like this to jump into
    "flogging's too good for 'im" mode. In this case, though, given the
    information available, the sentence does seem insulting in the
    extreme. Is there any appeal process in English law which could
    result in another court taking a less bizarre view of this man's crime
    and dealing with him appropriately?

    Possibly, but first you'd have to get his legal team to appeal. Given
    how lightly he got off, I doubt they'd be convinced.

    Whose legal team? He was prosecuted in a criminal court. Under the
    present rules, the prosecutor can appeal against an excessively lenient
    sentence.

    See (Scotland)
    http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/97048--g.htm

    (England)
    http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section19/chapter_i.html

    etc.

    --
    Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

  20. Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk>typed

    Quoted message said:
    David Hansen said:

    "A drunk driver whose high-powered car struck and killed a top law
    academic has been jailed for five years.

    Quoted message said:

    I'd like to think that this was a rare example of fair trial, but the
    fact that he killed a member of the legal profession may be more
    relevant than any of aspect of the case. I've heard (alleged) rumours
    that they protect their own! ;-)

    I note, with interest, that Mr Dearing in the other case was a law
    student. I speculate that he might have been able to influence the
    outcome of the case more than Joe Public and worry about the kind of
    lawyer he will become...

    --
    Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
    Edgware.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.