My information, for what it is worth, is that HART is awaiting a slot at the Court of Criminal Appeal against the harsh sentence.
Ten to one it will be reduced.
DVD
|
>>My information, for what it is worth, is that HART is awaiting >>a slot at the Court of Criminal Appeal against the harsh >>sentence.
DVD - I know that I defended Hart to certain degree in my first post but that was before another BackRoomer said that he had been without sleep for 40 hours and then drove.
Surely you, in your line of work, must agree that no sentence can be harsh enough for that kind of stupidity? To my mind, that is equivalent of drink-driving. He must have known when he got behind the wheel that he was not fit to drive, surely? If he carried on with his journey being unfit to drive and then helped to cause ten fatalities, then he should have been given a sentence a damn sight longer than the one he received. That only equates to six months per life. I know that, in law, judges and juries are only allowed to consider that the law has been broken, not the consequences of that. But even so, I find it difficult to conceive how his sentence can be called harsh.
|
Rob the PSV
Personally I agreed with the sentence.
I used the word 'harsh' to indicate the main grounds for the Appeal which I think will be reduced for thats the way of the Court IMHO.
DVD
|
Apologies for misreading your post, DVD. And I agree with you about Courts reducing perfectly reasonable sentences. It must be so frustrating for the police when they've worked hard to secure a conviction and then the Court of Appeal makes a mockery of it.
I don't wish to sound patronising but I really enjoy reading your posts. To the point, relevant, and most importantly, correct!
Cheers ;-)
BTW, it's PCV now that Brussels have had their meddling way!
|
|
|
|
|
Quite right too if reduced. Just looking for someone to blame. We never have accidents anymore in this country only negligence/blame/victims. Knee jerk reaction to the consequences of his actions not his actual actions. Want to improve our roads? Get some drugs tester to go with the alcohol breathalyser. Makes you think when we have people drive around high as a kite. Give me the tired guy every day against High Harry and Weed Willy.
|
Rob The Bus.
If someone drives dangerously risking killing people surely they should be punished for that action. Whether they kill someone is largely a matter of luck. As such should luck determine how long someone is in prison? Should luck decide if that action is wrong? Should luck decide how wrong that action is?
Obviously the driver shouldn't have been on the road. Punish him for that. Not for the fact extreme chance meant he happened to sleep at that point, happened to end up on a train track, happened to be hit by a train coming along.
If he had ended in a field, not a train track and the police came would they have arrested him for admitting how tired he was? I don't know the answer to that. But I think that should be just a punished because he still endangered life to the same degree by his selfish behaviour.
|
Gen, I posted my next comments before I read this.
By the logic mentioned above, a drunk driver should not be prosecuted unless he causes an accident.
I agree that it is a matter of luck (perhaps chance would be a better word?) but think of it this way. A terrible thing happened at Selby and I would be very surprised to be told that that was the first occasion that Hart had driven whilst so tired. So now that he is in prison and off our roads, then those roads are that tiny bit safer. As far as I am concerned that can only be a good thing.
|
|
|
|
>>Just looking for someone to blame. We never have accidents >>anymore in this country only negligence/blame/victims.
Gen, the weather's far too nice to get into an argument, but I really have to disagree with you.
To my mind, the real problem with this country at the moment is the total lack of responsibility that abounds. People have to be made accountable for their actions. And if Hart is a scapegoat, then who is to blame? The train driver? Hart mistress for keeping him awake? Like I said in my first post, some responsibility has to be borne by the Highways Agency for not providing an adequate crash barrier.
If you do a search, then you will find that the word "accident" has been debated on these august pages before. My driving instructor told me that there is no such thing as accidents.
It has been mentioned that an accident is something that nobody who is involved could have forseen. I think that, as Hart got behind the wheel after going without sleep for 40 hours, he could have easily aniticipated the consequences.
I definitely agree with you about the drugs testing, though. I thought that it was ludicrous on Traffic Cops that the police officer could not test that chap in the white Escort on the spot. Madness.
|
Rob The Bus
Of course too nice a day to argue! We misunderstand each other.
Drunk drivers should go to jail. Whether or not they cause an accident. Ditto drugs (including prescription ones, where the label warns not to drive).
But having laws where the consequences have a great influence on the sentence is madness. Are we punishing for the action or just getting 'revenge' on behalf of the families? Punish him for driving while unfit, and punish others who are unfit to drive whether or not they cause an accident. His conscience will punish him for the consequences of his actions.
I saw in the paper a couple of days ago a 23 year lad who killed an old woman driving 40 through a 30 zone. Just didn't see her. I was satisfied to see the judge was punishing him for the action not the killing. So many people drive at 40 in a 30. It could have been them as easily as him. It should make us all think about our actions.
Carry a gun, 5 years in jail. Now there is a nice clear law.
Why not drink driving 6months to 4 years in prison (depending on how much over)?
I guess the real problem is proving how tired someone is. I suspect the only reason the police knew he was awake for 40 hours was because he was unwise enough to tell them that. Because he was genuinely a decent guy he convicted himself. The taxi drivers driving insane shifts (a couple have told me of similar lacks of sleep) would not be so silly to tell the police so no punishment. Doesn't seem right to me somehow.
|
|
Also, as a general point I would agree there is too much talk of people's rights and not their responsibilities. But I think some things are just accidents and noone to blame (at least not that much).
|
|
|
We misunderstand each other.
After that excellent post, Gen, I think you're right!
>>So many people drive at 40 in a 30. It could have been them as >>easily as him. It should make us all think about our actions.
Hell, yeah! Put like that, I find it hard to argue. But imagine this scenario. Young lad driving at 45 in a 30. Hits a family on a zebra crossing. Kills the father and the two children and seriously injures the mother. Should his sentence take into account the lives destroyed? I'm not being argumentative here, Gen, just attempting to make sense of our archane traffic laws. I find it amazing that the consequences of breaking the law are rarely considered in a court.
Another angle has just occurred to me. Surely if you drive at 40 in a 30, then you know that you stand a very good chance of killing or maiming someone. Of course, driving at any speed you run that risk, but at 40 I would suggest that that risk is multiplied ten fold (at least). So, surely if you broke the law knowing full well what the consequences of your actions could be, then you should be punished as such if you cause a tragedy?
>>The taxi drivers driving insane shifts (a couple have told me >>of similar lacks of sleep)
Tell me about it! In my dim and distant past I've been both a private hire driver and a hackney driver. On a Saturday, I would leave the house at 8 am and not finish until 4 or 5 the following morning. I'm ashamed to admit it now, but I regularly did shifts like that and it has to be marvelled how I didn't even have a minor bump. Mind you, I was probably asleep at the time ;-)
Anyway, Gen, we could debate the moral points of law for ever but as it's such a nice day, I'm going to go and wash the car. Providing some scrote hasn't nicked it while I've been in the BR!
|
I know you've gone but you'll probably come back and pick up on this.
Juries aren't allowed to take the consequences of someone's actions into consideration, except to the extent that it defines the offence, e.g., making it murder not GBH or the death by part of dangerous driving. If a little old lady dies two weeks after a burglary of a broken heart, that doesn't affect the guilt or innocence of someone charged with burglary, however. Either (s)he did it or (s)he didn't and feeling sorry for the victim doesn't justify punishing someone when the evidence doesn't indicate guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Judges can, and do, take into account the consequences in sentencing however. Hart would never have had a five year sentence had he simply fallen asleep and crashed into the barrier that started 20 metres further up the road, destroying nothing but his front wing. (I personally don't have a problem with that sentence, and even though I do feel a little sorry for him as the collision was a consequence of amazing bad luck and his overwhelming stupidity and nobody else's.)
As for the Court of Appeal - sometimes they get it wrong, of course, but overwhelmingly, an appeal is successful only where the judge at first instance departed significantly from sentencing guidelines that take into account both mitigating and aggravating factors, of which the consequences will be the most important. Of course, someone you've never heard of having their perfectly reasonable sentence confirmed is a 'dog bites man' story. Someone who is obviously not of good character, but who gets a reduced sentence because they've been lucky enough not to be caught until then, is 'man bites dog.'
|
Thanks for explaining, Dave. It's a good thing that this forum has so many people 'in the know'. It helps the legally ignorant like me no end!
|
|
|
"Juries aren't allowed to take the consequences of someone's actions into consideration, except to the extent that it defines the offence"
David HM- What, in the real world, prevents them from so doing? Judge's summing up surely has little real effect on a lifetime of making snap judgements on people "who look a bit shifty" for example.
As for Mr Hart, don't forget the cops recreated his journey with similar vehicles under similar conditions and couldn't do it in the time he says he did it, so no only did he act recklessly in setting off having had no sleep for 40 hours, he drove like a maniac. Let's hope the Court of Appeal treats him in the appropriate way - the 10 pepole on the train who died won't be getting any sort of release, early or otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
