UK and Europe · Public discussion

CPS explains Carl Baxter sentence.

Started by Simon Mason · · Last activity · 16 posts · 1,543 views

← Back to UK and Europe

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

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

01 / Original postCPS explains Carl Baxter sentence.Simon Mason · 28 Apr 2003 02 / This pagePosts 1–16Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #16Tony Raven · 2 May 2003

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
28 April 2003
Last activity
2 May 2003
Original author
Simon Mason
Posts
16
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,543
Views / 30 days
0

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

Showing posts 1–16 of 16
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Original post
    Simon Mason
    Archived post
    #1

    From the letters page of our local paper.

    I Have read with interest the article and comment (Mail, April 22) about the road rage case of Carl
    Baxter. I think I should point out a number of inaccuracies in the two articles.

    Carl Baxter was convicted of a total of four offences arising from his driving on Sunday, June 23.

    These were dangerous driving, two offences of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm to Emily and
    Stephen Kirwin, and failing to stop at the scene of the accident.

    The maximum sentences for these offences are five years' imprisonment for the assaults, two years
    for dangerous driving and six months for failing to stop at the scene.

    The decision to pursue the assault charges was taken by the Crown Prosecution Service in order to
    allow the court additional sentencing options over and above the two years for dangerous driving.

    This robust approach was taken in light of the fact that the defence was likely to argue that the
    assault charges duplicated the driving offence.

    This is what happened when, on February 4, the defence argued that the assault charges were an abuse
    of process.

    This argument was rejected by the judge who accepted the Crown's view that they were separate and
    aggravating features of dangerous driving.

    At this point, the defendant pleaded guilty to the assault charges, having previously admitted the
    offence of dangerous driving.

    The sentence that he received was in fact 15 months' imprisonment for dangerous driving and two
    years for the two assaults, each running concurrently, making a total of two years.

    Clive Jones, Crown Prosecution Service, Market Place, Hull.

    --
    Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W simonmason.karoo.netsimonmason.karoo.net

    Report
  2. Gonzalez
    Archived post
    #2
    Simon Mason said:

    The maximum sentences for these offences are five years' imprisonment for the assaults, two years
    for dangerous driving and six months for failing to stop at the scene.

    12 years 6 months would have seemed a somewhat more appropriate sentence.

    Failing that, cut his goolies off.
    --
    remove remove to reply

    Report
  3. Dave
    Archived post
    #3

    "Gonzalez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Simon Mason said:

    The maximum sentences for these offences are five years' imprisonment for the assaults, two years
    for dangerous driving and six months for failing


    to

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    stop at the scene.

    12 years 6 months would have seemed a somewhat more appropriate sentence.

    Failing that, cut his goolies off.
    --


    Strongly suspect you wouldn't be able to find 'em under all that fat!!! (well, he's virtually got
    away with it, so personal derision is the only option left to the man in the street !) Dave.

    Report
  4. Just Zis Guy
    Archived post
    #4
    Simon Mason said:

    The maximum sentences for these offences are five years' imprisonment for the assaults...

    Incredible. Maximum sentence for GBH on a child is five years? I'm appalled. For this cutting the
    goolies off is the *minimum* acceptable sentence.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.

    Report
  5. Just Zis Guy
    Archived post
    #5
    you know? said:
    Quoted message said:

    The maximum sentences for these offences are five years' imprisonment for the assaults...

    And on further investigation the maximum sentence for assault causing grievous bodily harm is not
    so much five years as life imprisonment, so I'm not quite sure what the CPS actually charged
    Baxter with.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.

    Report
  6. Gonzalez
    Archived post
    #6
    Just zis Guy said:

    And on further investigation the maximum sentence for assault causing grievous bodily harm is not
    so much five years as life imprisonment, so I'm not quite sure what the CPS actually charged
    Baxter with.

    He states the charge was "unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm", not "assault causing grievous
    bodily harm". Perhaps there's a distinction.
    --
    remove remove to reply

    Report
  7. Guy Chapman
    Archived post
    #7

    Gonzalez <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Just zis Guy said:

    And on further investigation the maximum sentence for assault causing grievous bodily harm is not
    so much five years as life imprisonment, so I'm not quite sure what the CPS actually charged
    Baxter with.

    He states the charge was "unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm", not "assault causing grievous
    bodily harm". Perhaps there's a distinction.

    Maybe you're right. In which case the law is an ass, since the assault was premeditated and of a
    magnitude which (particularly taken with his prior convictions for similar offences) indicates
    that the man is a danger to society. Perhaps this is a case where the CPS preferred a lesser
    charge in the knowledge that a jury of twelve motorists is often reluctant to consider a car as a
    deadly weapon.

    Aside: SARS has killed substantially fewer people in any of the affected countries than have been
    killed on the roads in those countries in the same period. SARS gets global headlines.

    Guy

    Report
  8. Dave Kahn
    Archived post
    #8

    [email hidden] (Guy Chapman) wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Aside: SARS has killed substantially fewer people in any of the affected countries than have been
    killed on the roads in those countries in the same period. SARS gets global headlines.

    The significance of SARS is not the number of people it has killed so far, but the number it will
    kill if it becomes a pandemic.

    --
    Dave...

    Report
  9. Gonzalez
    Archived post
    #9
    Guy Chapman said:

    Maybe you're right. In which case the law is an ass, since the assault was premeditated and of a
    magnitude which (particularly taken with his prior convictions for similar offences) indicates
    that the man is a danger to society. Perhaps this is a case where the CPS preferred a lesser
    charge in the knowledge that a jury of twelve motorists is often reluctant to consider a car as a
    deadly weapon.

    frustration, caused by his family breakdown, decided that he'd teach the cyclist a lesson by
    reversing over his bicycle. As he reversed at speed, he expected the cyclist to dive for cover, not
    knowing that Mr Kirwin would not move in a hopeless attempt to protect young Emily.

    I find it hard to believe that any rational human being could deliberately set out to maim or kill a
    father and daughter on a cycle ride.

    Of course this in no way lessons his crime, but it is the only way I can deal with such horrific
    behaviour and retain my confidence in humanity.
    --
    remove remove to reply

    Report
  10. James Hodson
    Archived post
    #10
    Simon Mason said:

    These were dangerous driving, two offences of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm to Emily and
    Stephen Kirwin, and failing to stop at the scene of the accident.

    Simon

    He did worse than not stop. He purposely reversed back into the "accident" and then drive away,
    assuming I'm thinking of the same bloke.

    James

    --
    homepage.ntlworld.comLarrau.jpg

    Report
  11. Dave Kahn
    Archived post
    #11

    Michael MacClancy <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    If this were true the cure might be to put the small minority in quarantine for longer periods
    than the law currently seems to see fit. But locking people away doesn't seem to be the right way.

    We don't need to lock people up simply for bad driving. Just take away their driving licences.
    Driving while banned OTOH should be treated much more seriously than it appears to be currently.

    --
    Dave...

    Report
  12. Guy Chapman
    Archived post
    #12

    [email hidden] (Nick Kew) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Cut off his goolies and you have a maximum of five years, which a lawyer could doubtless get
    reduced to five months suspended ...

    I think five minutes "suspended" should be sufficient ;-)

    Report
  13. David Hansen
    Archived post
    #13

    On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:30:17 +0100 someone who may be "Simon Mason" <[email hidden]>
    wrote this:-

    Quoted message said:

    From the letters page of our local paper.

    Quoted message said:

    The sentence that he received was in fact 15 months' imprisonment for dangerous driving and two
    years for the two assaults, each running concurrently, making a total of two years.

    Which should have meant a sentence of 5 and a quarter years. All "concurrent" sentencing does is
    encourage people to do as much as possible because they know it will not add to their sentence.

    At least the CPS wrote to the paper. In doing so they demonstrated their smugness most eloquently.

    Two years is a disgrace, but doesn't surprise me.

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

    Report
  14. Peter Grange
    Archived post
    #14

    In article <[email hidden]>, Simon Mason <[email hidden]> writes

    Quoted message said:

    From the letters page of our local paper. The sentence that he received was in fact 15 months'
    imprisonment for dangerous driving and two years for the two assaults, each running concurrently,
    making a total of two years.


    There was some discussion on a previous thread about writing to one's MP to complain about the
    leniency of the sentence in this case. I wrote to mine, Michael Trend, MP for Windsor. He's not
    contesting the next election, probably explains the total lack of response.
    --
    Peter Grange

    Remove crude spam trap to reply

    Report
  15. Just Zis Guy
    Archived post
    #15
    Peter Grange peter@REMOVE_THISplgrange.demon.co.uk said:

    MP for Windsor

    Ah yes, the qualifying criteria for election to the Windsor seat are
    (a) wearing a blue rosette, (b) not actually being dead or in prison at the time and (c) er,
    nothing else.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.

    Report
  16. Tony Raven
    Archived post
    #16

    In "]news:[email hidden], Just zis Guy, you know?
    <[email hidden]> typed:

    Quoted message said:
    Peter Grange peter@REMOVE_THISplgrange.demon.co.uk said:

    MP for Windsor

    Ah yes, the qualifying criteria for election to the Windsor seat are
    (a) wearing a blue rosette, (b) not actually being dead or in prison at the time and (c) er,
    nothing else.

    Are you sure about (b) ?

    Tony ;-)

    --
    raven-family.comraven-family.com

    "All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
    Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer

    Report

Keep exploring

Browse the sectionUK and Europe Return to CyclingForumsStart at the home page Search discussionsFind another thread

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.