Lord Ahmed has been sent to jail for 12 weeks after admitting to dangerous driving.
He'd been sending and receiving texts minutes before he crashed into a broken down car on the M1 and the driver was killed.
12 weeks? Doesn't seem very long to me. Not much of a deterrent, either.
Why so short a sentence, anyone?
Edited by Honestjohn on 25/02/2009 at 13:41
|
He was convicted of dangerous driving in the time leading up to the crash.
Offence carries a maximum two years, although most people who carry it out do get sent to prison, as he has found out.
A longer sentence might be passed if the driver had led police on a chase, or if the dangerous driving was over a long period.
Edited by Honestjohn on 25/02/2009 at 13:41
|
|
If the DD charge was for texting while driving, will there be another court case for causing death by dangerous driving?
Edited by Honestjohn on 25/02/2009 at 13:41
|
no because there was no dangerous driving at the time of the crash - therefore there was no death by dangerous driving,
|
|
|
No.
Excerpt from a news report: "The judge sentencing him stressed that the text messaging had finished before the accident took place and was not connected to the fatal incident."
|
|
Typical sensationalism then!
|
|
Apparently he will only serve half the sentence in prison,the other half on licence.Presumably,with remission,that will be three weeks in the jug.
|
|
|
|
So this case arises because the texting came to light as a result of the crash? If the two had happened on different days, would we have heard no more about it? The reporting has all focused on the crash and the death of the other driver - but perhaps that has more to do with sensation-seeking journalism than the legal facts of the case.
Anyway, can we infer from this that texting while driving - even where no accident results - is to be treated by the police and courts as dangerous driving and potentially punishable with a prison sentence?
Edited by WillDeBeest on 25/02/2009 at 11:33
|
can we infer from this that texting while driving - even where no accident results - is to be treated by the police and courts as dangerous driving
No.
Edited by Honestjohn on 25/02/2009 at 13:42
|
|
|
>>Anyway, can we infer from this that texting while driving - even where no accident results - is to be treated by the police and courts as dangerous driving and potentially punishable with a prison sentence?
Yes.
|
|
|
|
Surely if that was the case ...... He should of got 3 points for using his phone and the crash was an accident , BUT .......
As we know using the phone is not dangerous driving , so why did he plead guilty if he was not on the phone at the time !!
Therefore he was guilty of death by dangerous sentence upto 15 years imprisonment .
End Quote :
IF HE IS GUILTY OF DANGEROUS DRIVING .. IT SHOULD BE DEATH BY DANGEROUS
Edited by 8 Months on 26/02/2009 at 21:15
|
you dont get it do you
He pleaded guilty to dangerous driving before the accident
there was no proof of dangerous driving at the time of the accident
|
I don t get it !!!!!!!!!
HE PLEADED GUILTY TO DANGEROUS DRIVING .
A man died due to it .
And as you say there was no proof dangerous driving .... So please explain why you would admit to being GUILTY .
|
I will explain this to you
The man did not die because of dangerous driving. The court ruled there was no dangerous driving at the time of the accident, therefore no-one died because of dangerous driving.
|
So you are saying as the courts are ..... It was dangerous driving for being on the phone .
So please explain why it was dangerous driving as there are many people who still use the phone and are only given 3 points and NOT charged with dangerous driving.
SO WHY WAS IT DANGEROUS
Let me put this to you ;
Could it be dangerous because ...... He clearly was not paying attention to the road due to his phone .
I would love to know why it was DANGEROUS DRIVING .
END NOTE : THe other drivers who narrowly missed the car were clearly paying attention and HE WAS NOT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yet another costly example of our stupid national legal/justice service. Clearly no malice aforethought and I expect he is full of remorse. HOWEVER, a rolling fine of, say, 30% of his annual income for the next five years would serve as a better reminder to drive more carefully AND benefit the taxpayer......and possibly the deceased's family. It would also be more of a punishment. If he has been educated in a private boarding school a short spell in one of the more comfortable UK prisons would be no great hardship.
It's a pity some of the more unpleasant 'clients' can't be exported to, say, a South American or Middle Eastern penal institution.....might help our balance of payments.
Edited by Honestjohn on 25/02/2009 at 13:42
|
John F you totally miss the point. No blame has been attached to Lord Ahmed over the death.
In fact it seems likely that drivers actually causing death by careless driving while on the phone should not be sent to prison. On that premise Lord Ahmed has been harshly dealt with.
tinyurl.com/ab8ca9
|
John F you totally miss the point. No blame has been attached to Lord Ahmed over the death.>>>
Blameworthy or not, he will still be feeling bad about it. The point I was making was the utterly inappropriate use of custodial sentences for this sort of crime. All they do is hurt the taxpayer. There are better punishments which the operators of our costly, cosy, uncompetitive and unchallengable antediluvian justice service seem unable to get our legislators to provide.
|
...... the utterly inappropriate use of custodial sentences for this sort of crime. All
they do is hurt the taxpayer. >>
Exactly - for all texting drivers, there should be a lifetime driving ban. Easy.
|
|
|
|
|
Six weeks isn't much is it? No deterrant there really. I can appreciate that the car was stuck in the outside lane in the dark, but others had just about managed to avoid him.
Edited by Honestjohn on 25/02/2009 at 13:41
|
Any link to the full story.
If we take the texting out, the fact he's a Lord, a Blairite etc
the story " a man kills someone with WHATEVER " , I'd expect a much longer sentence, so why only 12 weeks, he might not have meant it but thats pretty immaterial to the victims family
|
Will this do? news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/790951...m
Pay special attention to this bit:
The judge, Mr Justice Wilkie, said that the text messaging had finished before the accident took place and was not connected to the fatal incident.
He has not been convicted of killing anyone with anything, merely of dangerous driving. Sounding off without understanding this fundamental point helps no-one.
|
|
|
because he's not been charged over the death. No blame was attached to him over the accident
quote "Mr Justice Wilkie made clear the texting incident had no bearing on the fatal collision.
He said: "After a full and thorough police investigation it's clear the dangerous driving had no causal link to the accident."
it should be noted that the car he hit had crashed into the central reservation and had already been clipped by one driver and narrowly missed by another.
The lord WAS however charged with using his mobile phone prior to the accident so has been jailed on a separate charge that came to light while investigating the accident.
So the title should read "Driver texting at wheel jailed for 12 weeks"
Given that slant it sounds quite severe.
|
|
|
Form the reports I've read:
The victim had crashed his car, possibly as a result of drink, he had retreated to the hard shoulder and to all intents and purposes was safe. He then returned to his car to retrieve a mobile. His car was straddling lanes 2 and 3, had no lights and was facing the wrong way, it was hit by Lord Ahmed. This section of motorway has no lighting. This was deemed an accident.
Lord Ahmed was jailed for the texting which ended 2 miles before the accident scene, but did not contribute ot the accident. If he hadn't crashed he'd have got away with it . I'm wondering if this will now be the norm for any accident? Check phone records and if it is shown you have been using the phone at any time prior to the accident you will be charged.
|
So the accident, which forced him to stop and so become noticed, was in a way a kind of random test to see whether anyone was texting.
Considering how rarely anyone runs into a car that just happens to be stationary facing the wrong way on a motorway, this looks like very bad luck on the lord's part.
On the other hand, another conclusion would be that he habitually texts while driving.
So 12 weeks in prison might well persuade him not to in future?
|
"Considering how rarely anyone runs into a car that just happens to be stationary facing the wrong way on a motorway, this looks like very bad luck on the lord's part."
On the evidence we have it is - Google "Swiss Cheese Theory".
I hope the 12 weeks will focus his mind somewhat.
|
|
|
>Considering how rarely anyone runs into a car that just happens to be stationary facing >the wrong way on a motorway, this looks like very bad luck on the lord's part.
I don't have any facts to back this up, but I would guess that out of all the accidents that occur on a motorway, hitting crashed or stationary cars figures quite highly.
|
I think he got off lightly.
Reports suggest he had been having a lengthy text exchange while travelling at 60. I find it difficult to text sitting at my desk so how you'd do it at 60 and faster on a motorway is beyond me.
Why you'd want to is beyond me too. Can't he afford a hands free?
If the texting did cease two miles before the accident that's only (at 60) two minutes before. Mmm.
Edited by Optimist on 25/02/2009 at 14:48
|
I wish I'd given my sons the Christian name 'Lord' - ...... and forged a great career in banking!
Removed a bit that could be deemed controversial. Rob
Edited by rtj70 on 25/02/2009 at 15:56
|
|
Lord Brockett, Lord Archer....
|
Some decades ago, after mistakenly borrowing some money from a 'tertiary bank' in a respectable part of town, I wrote a snivellingly embittered piece of verse that ended:
Lord Thief, Lord Crook, Lord Chiseller, Lord Devious, Lord Bent:
I see you in your Rollses
As I walk in Hong Kong sneakers
All the way through W1 to pay my 58%...
|
|
|
|
and forged a great career in banking! Removed a bit that could be deemed controversial. Rob
"forged" a career in banking? Why isn't that controversial too? It's certainly libelous - I don't think anyone has yet suggested that any of the big names in the banking crisis had achieved their positions fraudulently.
|
.. It's certainly libelous...
Libellous of whom?
Whose reputation has been damaged by the statement?
Who has it caused to be shunned and avoided?
Precisely, it isn't libellous of anybody.
There's a great deal of tosh written about libel and I'm afraid Cliff's post falls into that category.
|
|
|
"forged" a career in banking? Why isn't that controversial too? It's certainly libelous - I don't think anyone has yet suggested that any of the big names in the banking crisis had achieved their positions fraudulently.
It isn't controversial because he's using the word as indicated in point 2 below, while you're reading it as point 3:
forge
v.tr.
1.
a. To form (metal, for example) by heating in a forge and beating or hammering into shape.
b. To form (metal) by a mechanical or hydraulic press.
2. To give form or shape to, especially by means of careful effort: forge a treaty; forge a close relationship.
3. To fashion or reproduce for fraudulent purposes; counterfeit: forge a signature
EDIT: Re-reading my post, it sounds a bit heavy-handed, and perhaps even condescending. Lacking the skill to remove that feel from it, can I just assure you here that it is not meant to be either, and is just intended to inform you of something you might have missed?
Edited by BazzaBear {P} on 26/02/2009 at 08:48
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm wondering if this will now be the norm for any accident? Check phone records and if it is shown you have been using the phone at any time prior to the accident you will be charged.
I think that's a very good idea[1], after all drivers are checked for excessive alcohol after crashes. Same principle.
[1] However, from the "civil liberties" perspective, it could be a bad idea, for the reason that checking could be taken to extremes, e.g. routinely collecting and retaining information linking user/telephone number(s)/use/position.
|
Using a phone at all at the time of an accident could lead to a charge of dangerous driving. And so they do check I think.
Easier to check phone call times than texts I would think.
|
Apparently the judge said that he was 'not responsible for the death of the person'.
Now hang on a minute, Lord Ahmed was at the wheel of a car that drove into a broken down car killing its driver. So if Lord Ahmed wasn't responsible WHO WAS?
If lord Ahmed was merely you or I, who would have been held responsible then?
|
Apparently the judge said that he was 'not responsible for the death of the person'. Now hang on a minute Lord Ahmed was at the wheel of a car that drove into a broken down car killing its driver. So if Lord Ahmed wasn't responsible WHO WAS? If lord Ahmed was merely you or I who would have been held responsible then?
the drunk driver who crashed his car into the central barrier and left it there perhaps?
|
|
AE is right. What happened to Lord Ahmed, from the original account, could have happened to anyone. The court was a bit severe really. Mind you he was supposed to have been texting at the wheel before the accident. I couldn't begin to do that.
|
|
|
|
The difficulty there is that the person who crashed did not cause the collision, which happened later.
|
But Ahmed's car was not the only one to hit the other car. And the driver originally got away safely and was lucky. He was killed because he went back to the phone.
I have seen no mention of the hazard lights being on the car that initially crashed and spun. If they were would three cars have had either a near miss or impact?? We probably will not know. I would have put them on before trying to get across the road to safety so people knew something was up.
I wonder why they may not have been on? Or the reflective triangle not placed a distance in front.
There is still more to probably come out now the sentence has been announced.
|
the driver (..) was killed because he went back to the phone.
... and "hm". See below.
I wonder why they may not have been on?
Possibly not the first thing that one things of when crashed on a motorway. See below.
Or the reflective triangle not placed a distance in front.
The person might then have been killed "because he went to place a warning triangle" - if someone can't see a whole car stopped on the m-way, they're most unlikely to see a little red triangle, or even a person.
There is still more to probably come out now the sentence has been announced.
Possibly. Perhaps the person went back to switch on the hazard lights as well as get the 'phone? We won't know. One thing we *do* know is that he was killed by being smashed into by another vehicle. That was the cause of his death.
|
|
|
|
I'm wondering if this will now be the norm for any accident? Check phone records and if it is shown you have been using the phone at any time prior to the accident you will be charged.
I certainly hope so- they should be doing this already
|
I'm wondering if this will now be the norm for any accident? Check phone records and if it is shown you have been using the phone at any time prior to the accident you will be charged.
Fair enough, but the penalty is a fine and 3 points, not 12 weeks jail. The sentence on Lord Ahmed is perverse.
|
|
Has anyone else been sentenced for texting over such a time/distance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regardless of the pros and cons of making a (hands free) phone call, surely texting must be one of the most idiotic and dangerous things its possible to do when at the wheel, ( well, maybe knitting would beat it ! )
If someone is stupid enough to send a text whilst driving, aren't they also stupid enough to focus all their attention afterwards looking for the reply ?
.... "no i wasn't - prove it" ......... ?
|
We do not know all the facts of the accident but the other driver got out of the car and was safe. Then on an unlit road with no lights on his car (what about him leaving the hazards on?) he went back for his phone!
If he had not done the latter, he would not have been killed. What he did was dangerous. The other driver was not in the car was he - or not sat in it.
Edited by rtj70 on 25/02/2009 at 17:13
|
|
|
Presumably in the light of the sentence and previous comments from Jack Straw, Lord Ahmed will now become plain Mr Ahmed?
For a whole variety of reasons, Lord A is not my favourite person, so a few weeks in jug for him is making me feel warm inside.
|
He will remain a Lord as currently they do not have a way of stripping Lords of their title in these cases, think of Lord Archer.
They recently said they would look into ways of stripping titles following the recent problem with three Lords allegedly agreeing to accept bribes. However this government are likely to drop this idea once the news has died down about the three lords.
|
it does show the legal system in a very poor light though
|
It's a difficult route to go down.
The sentence of the court is a driving ban and 12 weeks in prison. Full stop.
It's not 12 weeks, a ban, and by the way we'll have that peerage off you.
|
|
IMHO, anyone found to have been texting while driving is too stupid to hold a driving licence and should be banned for life.
|
|
|
From the BBC
"The court had heard how Lord Ahmed sent and received a series of five text messages while driving in the dark at speeds of, and above, 60mph along a 17-mile stretch of the motorway."
The report I heard said they were loooong text messages.
"The dangerous driving ?involved driving at an earlier stage at speeds of around 60 mph along the M1 receiving, reading, composing and sending a series of text messages?, Mr Justice Wilkie said at Sheffield Crown Court.
It was now "well established that reading and composing text messages over a period of time constituted a gross, avoidable distraction and amounts to driving involving deliberate disregard for the safety of others".
He exchanged at least five messages with a journalist as he drove his Jaguar from Junction 40 to Junction 35, where the accident happened.
I do not think the jail visit was too short. I think there were a lot of lucky drivers sharing that road during that 17 /18 mile stretch.
|
|
|
|
|
He will remain a Lord as currently they do not have a way of stripping Lords of their title in these cases
I think that this is a good thing. The Lords should be a microcosm of the general state of human nature, not holier-than-thou mouthpieces who've never had a conviction of any sort.
They recently said they would look into ways of stripping titles following the recent problem with three Lords allegedly agreeing to accept bribes.
There is a way of removing someone, however it's not often(!) used. Being a Peer is no defence to court action, though - IMO this is all as it should be.
Back to motoring now, hopefully )or off to "IHAQ".
Edited by FotheringtonThomas on 25/02/2009 at 19:12
|
Back to motoring now, hopefully )or off to "IHAQ".
Eh ?
|
AFAIK phone records show when a call is made or received and when a text is sent or received. I guess the periodic status traffic that passes between a phone and its basestation can also be recorded.
But how can you tell if a text was being composed, or read? I don't understand how it can be said that texting had stopped - all you can say is that the last text was sent/received at time X.
|
"But how can you tell if a text was being composed, or read?"
You can't, you can only present the evidence you have and from this evidence texting had stopped. The content of the text messages will have been analysed. It's quite easy to read the string of texts and see if they came to a natural ending.
|
>I guess the periodic status traffic that passes between a phone and its basestation can also be recorded.
It can. There are people in prison today (and quite possibly others who aren't) because the switched-on mobile phone they were carrying tied them to a specific location at a significant time. You don't have to make a call - the phone checks in regularly with its cell station.
But let's be careful in this particular case. The court has accepted that the texting had ended long enough before the crash not to have been a factor in it. Whatever one thinks of the man, his politics or his taste in soft furnishings, those are the facts and it's not for us to speculate beyond them.
|
But let's be careful in this particular case.
Of course - I wasn't trying to imply any wrong-doing by the accused. I used to work in the mobile phone industry so was just interested in the technicalities.
|
|
|
|
|
This is motoring, and my comment diverges from that subject - hence, possibly better done in "IHAQ".
|
|
Sorry FT I was genuinely puzzled. I'm happy enough that your post was in the right place. Not that I have any special powers !
|
|
Given that both parties involved seemed to have some sort of mobile 'phone obsession, perhaps it is time to banish them to the boot, as with alcohol in many US states?
|
Until I think 1948 peers had the right of trial before their peers, ie the full house of lords. The last person to exercise this right did so I think to answer a charge of dangerous driving. After this the right was abolished.
(See Kind Hearts and Coronets)
|
I heard an interview with Mr Loophole, the well-known solicitor, specifically on this case yesterday.
He was also puzzled by the outcome.
He pointed out that the judge took pains to separate the texting from the death of the driver.
He also pointed out that texting carries a £60 / 3 point fine, UNLESS the police were following and could prove careless / dangerous driving.
Mr Loophole said that obviously the Lord was advised to plead guilty to dangerous driving by his brief, but couldn't explain why the brief advised this.
|
I heard that too (Jeremy vine show R2) and thought plea bargain? Or the evidence of a number of lengthy text messages over 16 miles was deemed dangerous?
I expect this to go further as now ANYONE involved in an accident will have phone records checked and if it can be shown you were texting and driving prior to the accident you will go to prison.
Edited by daveyjp on 27/02/2009 at 13:34
|
|
Daveyjp - how do you deduce that anyone involved in an accident will have their phone checked? Who says?
|
|
MLC or Fullchat will confirm the criteria but certainly in serious injury bumps - if the driver's phone is in the car they are checked.
Edited by Pugugly on 27/02/2009 at 18:31
|
Its standard serious accident investigation now and has been for a while.
|
Section 19 (3) a PACE 1984 fits the bill (pardon the pun!)
Section 19 General power of seizure etc:
(1) The powers conferred by subsections (2), (3) and (4) below are exercisable by a constable who is lawfully on any premises.
(2) The constable may seize anything which is on the premises if he has reasonable grounds for believing?
(a) that it has been obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence; and
(b) that it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent it being concealed, lost, damaged, altered or destroyed.
(3) The constable may seize anything which is on the premises if he has reasonable grounds for believing?
(a) that it is evidence in relation to an offence which he is investigating or any other offence; and
(b) that it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent the evidence being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And he's been let out after an appeal apparently...
Edited by rtj70 on 12/03/2009 at 14:51
|
|
Yes, after serving 15 days of a 12 week sentence. Details of appeal not known, but it does make you wonder if you or I would be dealt with the same way ...
|
|
Probably more to do with fancy legal team than who he is.
|
Judge said that although a prison sentence was justified the court had been persuaded that it could now take an "exceptional" course and suspend the sentence for 12 months.
So 15 days inside for what can only be seen as behaviour demonstrating no concern whatsoever for anyone else around him. There were passengers, weren't there?
|
|
|
|
Yes after serving 15 days of a 12 week sentence. Details of appeal not known but it does make you wonder if you or I would be dealt with the same way ...
Everyone in the UK is treated equally under the law.
It appears however, from time to time, that some are treated more equally than others!
We could not possibly say that in the above case there were undue influences on the case or the outcomes.
|
This case also highlights the barmy sentencing/remission "rules" in this country.
Guy gets 12 weeks - 84 days - entitled to be released after half which is 42 days.
He's done 15 days, yet we are told his release date in any event is next Friday, which means he would have served 23 days.
How is this worked out?
You tell me.
|
well it would appear that if you have lord at the beginning of your name you get of lightly.
I always thought the QC's always looked after their own !
ask yourself this, if it was joe blogs in lord 'what-ever' shoes would he have got few weeks behind bars ?
I doubt it, more like 6 months
Edited by diddy1234 on 12/03/2009 at 16:46
|
|
|
|
|
|
