British justice - Where is consistency and common sense? : Sat Feb 15, 2014 5:16 pm  

Majid bashir has been jailed for 4 years 9 months, after driving uninsured, hitting and killing a father of 4, and driving off.

Meanwhile......

Colton Bridgeman, who steels £16 combined from 2 old age pensioners, is jailed for 5 years.

God damn this country.

Re: British justice - Where is consistency and common sense? : Sat Feb 15, 2014 5:30 pm  

FlexWheeler wrote:

Majid bashir has been jailed for 4 years 9 months, after driving uninsured, hitting and killing a father of 4, and driving off.

Meanwhile......

Colton Bridgeman, who steels £16 combined from 2 old age pensioners, is jailed for 5 years.

God damn this country.

Was one an accident and one malicious and deliberate?

Re: British justice - Where is consistency and common sense? : Sat Feb 15, 2014 5:44 pm  

Are you saying one is too much, or one too little? You don't make it clear.

From the brief reports, Bridgeman is a thoroughly evil and particularly nasty piece of work, who committed burglaries, thefts and in particular preyed on the very old and weak - eg some poor old 89 year old bloke walking in the street with a zimmer. He deserves every minute he serves and I hope he gets a tough time too, as he seems one of those who will never change so all the courts can do is give the elderley and helpless a brief respite from this evil basstard.

If you think the AMOUNT he stole was in any way relevant, you must be twisted yourself. If I rob an 89 year old helpless in the street, does it make it somehow less evil or serious if he didn't have much money? Is that what you think? It's NOT ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY, for fooks sake.

Can't see anything remarkable enough to comment about the sentence on the scrote Bashir, who mowed down and killed a father of 4 lorry driver, thus ruining his family's lives as well, when driving uninsured (so should not have been on the road) - and drove off callously only bothered about evading responsibility, never mind a man lying in the street left for dead. Bashir was so bothered that he even then tried to make an insurance claim for the damage to the motor, which was his wife's. And by the way he'll have cost people who do pay car insurance probably a couple of million quid.

I just don't get the point you are making.

Re: British justice - Where is consistency and common sense? : Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:21 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Are you saying one is too much, or one too little? You don't make it clear.



I just don't get the point you are making.

Bashir's sentence should have been longer, alot longer. He's acted recklessly and killed someone......he's then left the man for dead. He's only shown remorse when he's facing jail. He should be serving at the very least a decade. Longer IMO. Someone like that needs to be rotting in jail for a long long time to think about what they've done. 5 years is nothing.

Aaron adler who was 18 when he drove drunk and killed a grandfather and grandson, got a sentence of 42 years to think about what he'd done. That was in america. Just digest that for a second, 42 YEARS.

Re: British justice - Where is consistency and common sense? : Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:33 pm  

FlexWheeler wrote:

Bashir's sentence should have been longer, alot longer. He's acted recklessly and killed someone......he's then left the man for dead. He's only shown remorse when he's facing jail. He should be serving at the very least a decade. Longer IMO. Someone like that needs to be rotting in jail for a long long time to think about what they've done. 5 years is nothing.

But it beggers belief that a mugger, who caused no serious injury to his victims, is serving LONGER than someone who has killed, and tryed to cover his tracks. That's the point, there doesn't seem to be consistency or common sense in the sentencing.

I open the newspaper and literally see this day in, day out.

Do a Google search for "The Bench Book", its publicly available on several different sites and is a Magistrates Guide to Sentencing - its not quite the same level of court that these two cases may have been tried in but have a read through even some of it and you will get a much better idea of where the sentences come from.

The bottom line is that any sentence is not just dreamed up out of thin air and most offences have a range of punishments that can be given and more importantly usually have several points to take into consideration when deciding the severity of the sentence.

Its not bedtime reading but its interesting never the less.

Re: British justice - Where is consistency and common sense? : Sat Feb 15, 2014 9:48 pm  

Sheldon wrote:

Was one an accident and one malicious and deliberate?

Just so we are clear, driving uninsured and killing(or even seriously injuring someone) using a motorvehicle IS NEVER EVER AN ACCIDENT. He deliberately drove the vehicle knowing he had no insurance, he clearly had ZERO care about other people around him otherwise he wouldn't have killed someone knowing he had a killing machine under his control (1730 people killed on UK roads in the last stats)
He then callously AND DELIBERATELY drove off, HE MADE A CHOICE IN EVERY ACT he did.

He deserved longer, I'm not in any way condoning the acts of the thief (the sentence is prob at the very high end of the scale maybe aggrevated theft) but any reference to acts like the one shown here are never an 'accident'

Re: British justice - Where is consistency and common sense? : Sat Feb 15, 2014 9:55 pm  

So did he get charged with dangerous driving?

Re: British justice - Where is consistency and common sense? : Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:09 am  

Sheldon wrote:

So did he get charged with dangerous driving?

Yep. But of course got the big discount for pleading guilty early.

Flexwheeler wrote:

He's acted recklessly and killed someone.....

He drove dangerously, not recklessly. It's a level higher than reckless.

The fact that someone died is pure chance. It is misleading in this context to say "he killed someone" as you are in danger of implying that he had an intention to kill or maim, when in fact he probably never gave the risk a moment's thought.

Flexwheeler wrote:

.....he's then left the man for dead.

Indeed, but failing to stop isn't at all the most serious offence he was charged with. And cowards in the agony of the moment deciding to cut and run is sadly all too common.

Flexwheeler wrote:

He should be serving at the very least a decade. Longer IMO. Someone like that needs to be rotting in jail for a long long time to think about what they've done. 5 years is nothing.

But opinions as to how long sentences should be are like arseholes- everyone's got one. It has been pointed out that there are pretty comprehensive sentencing guidelines and it is just totally pointless picking out one single offence and railing against the guidelines. That is the law of the land and if you were the judge you would have to sentence on that basis too. You don't have to like it. Plus, he won't serve anything like 5 years. 2 years would be much nearer the actual mark.

I could also point out that hundreds - possibly thousands - drive far more dangerously than this man ever did every day of the week, but most don't hit anything, so are not punished. And you can watch infinitely worse driving in any police-chase-stylee program - which of those dangerous lunatics ever gets a sentence in years for it? There is a case for saying that this man was just very unlucky that circumstances arose whereby he hit and killed someone. His driving would have been just as bad, whether he did or didn't. The law makes additional sentencing provision to mark a death, but the fact is this moves into being sentenced for a consequence - not for what you did, but the result of it.

Flexwheeler wrote:

But it beggers belief that a mugger, who caused no serious injury to his victims, is serving LONGER than someone who has killed, and tryed to cover his tracks.

It beggars YOUR belief, but you are comparing two cases that can't sensibly be compared. You are again using the word "killed" as if it was some sort of deliberate killing, whereas it was a pure unintended consequence.

Flexwheeler wrote:

That's the point, there doesn't seem to be consistency or common sense in the sentencing.

Common sense? You mean that if you disagree with a sentence personally, that makes it not common sense, don't you. But you can't sensibly talk about inconsistency - the guidelines are there for all to see and any out-of-kilter sentences are subject to being increased/decreased on appeal. So in the greater scheme of things, it doesn't actually matter that much what that individual got from that judge, what is far more important is that there is a settled appeals process so that in the majority of cases the law of the land on sentencing is in the end fairly imposed.

Flexwheeler wrote:

open the newspaper and literally see this day in, day out.

Try something other than the Mail, then.

Re: British justice - Where is consistency and common sense? : Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:37 am  

I assume there is a Government Quango, which after a suitable period of debate and reflection sets these guidelines? Are they written in stone, or has an individual Judge some leeway to say, rubbish, this particular case deserves a much higher tariff, and applying it? All without The Court of Appeal sending him a snotty letter.

I personally think, that generally both the length of sentences are too short, and the reduction for an early Guilty Plea is simply a not very subtle way of reducing costs. If we want a more cost effective system, then lets have Mi' Learned Friend et al being available 7 days a week, with a night Court if needed.

Re: British justice - Where is consistency and common sense? : Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:00 am  

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

I assume there is a Government Quango, which after a suitable period of debate and reflection sets these guidelines? Are they written in stone, or has an individual Judge some leeway to say, rubbish, this particular case deserves a much higher tariff, and applying it? All without The Court of Appeal sending him a snotty letter.

Again, have a look through The Bench Book, although it covers more minor indiscretions you'll see just what leeway there is but also what must be taken into account. its certainly not random.