Student who killed her sister in car crash spared jail after judge rules she has been punished enough

The daughter of a driving instructor who killed her teenage sister in a horror crash has been spared jail after a judge accepted no sentence could punish her more than her "incalculable" loss.

Criminology student Meliha Kaya, 22, was "far in excess of the speed limit" as she drove her 16-year-old sister Elif and a friend back from the George pub in Wanstead, east London, on February 13, 2016, experts believe.

Her Mini swerved on to the wrong side of the road, collided with a BMW and went over a low wall, hitting a tree on the 30mph Chigwell Road in east London at around 1.10am.

The teenager was found seriously injured and died at the scene. Her sister, then 19, was left in a life-threatening condition and spent weeks in hospital, the Old Bailey heard on Friday.

Elif was the only one wearing a seat belt and had asked to sit in the front seat for the journey, despite normally sitting in the back, prosecutor Julian Evans said.

Passenger Ayla Osman, 24, was also left with life-changing injuries. On the day of her trial earlier this week, Meliha Kaya tearfully pleaded guilty to causing death and serious injury by her dangerous driving.

Sentencing her to a suspended jail term, the judge said: "Nothing she can ever do will repair that loss to herself and her family. No sentence I can impose can punish her as much as this."


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/22/student-killed-sister-car-crash-spared-jail-judge-rules-has/

WTF...!!!???


There should be a judicial review of this pathetic sentence given by this judge...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:WTF...!!!???


There should be a judicial review of this pathetic sentence given by this judge...!!!

Why?

Night, am tired and will catch up tomorrow

I kind of see where this judge was coming from.

eddie wrote:I kind of see where this judge was coming from.

So do I Eddie

Night

Because the sentence is pathetically lenient...!


Published 15 October 2017

Ministers today confirmed that drivers who cause death by speeding, racing, or using a mobile phone could face sentences equivalent to manslaughter, with maximum penalties raised from 14 years to life... and a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving will be created.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/life-sentences-for-killer-drivers



As far as the crime and sentencing guidelines are concerned... It is completely irrelevant whether one of the victims was her sister or not...!!!

No evidence of mens rea...no evidence of any motive whatsoever. It appears she intended no harm. It was an accident..an act of god.

What's to punish?

If it was an accident then she wouldn't have been found guilty of 'causing death by dangerous driving'...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Because the sentence is pathetically lenient...!


Published 15 October 2017

Ministers today confirmed that drivers who cause death by speeding, racing, or using a mobile phone could face sentences equivalent to manslaughter, with maximum penalties raised from 14 years to life... and a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving will be created.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/life-sentences-for-killer-drivers



As far as the crime and sentencing guidelines are concerned... It is completely irrelevant whether one of the victims was her sister or not...!!!

Well in this case it is relevant and how the family also asked the judge to be lenient

She had no recolection of the accident and also suffered due to this negligence

Like the judge said, she has suffered already enough, knowing that her actions have ended up killing her own sister.

So its very relevant and why I thank goodness people like you are not in a position of authority.

YOu would no doubt invoke back chain gangs

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/life-sentences-for-killer-drivers

Tommy Monk wrote:https://www.gov.uk/government/news/life-sentences-for-killer-drivers

And?

Tommy Monk wrote:If it was an accident then she wouldn't have been found guilty of 'causing death by dangerous driving'...!!!

But of course she would.  That's a negligence standard.  Despite the result, it's a minor violation, at best.

What you are looking for, isn't there.  There was no malice--perhaps carelessness, we'll never know (she has no memory)--but there was no evidence of malice.

I agree, though I dont agree with Quills reasoning.....

had she killed someone else, perhaps not a passenger in HER car.....she should have got a serious custodial sentence....IMO negligence is close to malice.....simple error is yet another matter...but she was speeding in a speed restricted area.

however I find the judges decision "reasonable" (as per the legal interpretation thereof) under the circumstances....

IF part of sentencing is "punishment" then simply becasue the punishment is a result of her negligence (i.e. the loss of her sister) and is self inflicted, does NOT lessen that punishment in this case....

one has to ask....to what purpose would one incarcerate a person in this position.....
and thinking wider still, why punish the family (who are the losers here) by the loss (effectively) of their surviving daughter?

Tommy is arguing from the "state revenge" POV, IMO.....which is invalid...the state has NO remit to take revenge
merely to see that reasonable justice is done.

punishment where needed
correction where possible
segregation for public safety


there is some merit you know in "blood price"

Lord Foul wrote:I agree, though I dont agree with Quills reasoning.....

had she killed someone else, perhaps not a passenger in HER car.....she should have got a serious custodial sentence....IMO negligence is close to malice.....simple error is yet another matter...but she was speeding in a speed restricted area.

however I find the judges decision "reasonable" (as per the legal interpretation thereof) under the circumstances....

IF part of sentencing is "punishment" then simply becasue the punishment is a result of her negligence (i.e. the loss of her sister) and is self inflicted, does NOT lessen that punishment in this case....

one has to ask....to what purpose would one incarcerate a person in this position.....
and thinking wider still, why punish the family (who are the losers here) by the loss (effectively) of their surviving daughter?

Tommy is arguing from the "state revenge" POV, IMO.....which is invalid...the state has NO remit to take revenge
merely to see that reasonable justice is done.

punishment where needed
correction where possible
segregation for public safety


there is some merit you know in "blood price"

+1

Great reply

100% agree

+1

What about the other seriously injured victim... is this justice for them too...?


And I'm sure that had the driver been a young white 'boy racer'... then the sentence would be totally different...!


So much for equality eh...!?

Victor wrote:IF part of sentencing is "punishment" then simply becasue the punishment is a result of her negligence (i.e. the loss of her sister) and is self inflicted, does NOT lessen that punishment in this case....

one has to ask....to what purpose would one incarcerate a person in this position.....
and thinking wider still, why punish the family (who are the losers here) by the loss (effectively) of their surviving daughter?

If we start punishing people for negligence, we will greatly widen the number of people we place in prisons. Everyone makes mistakes, and to criminally punish them would involve introduction of 'chance' into the whole process. What are the chances you will be negligent?

It would widen the criminal justice system immensely. Politics, where mistakes are made every minute of every hour, would be engulfed in trials.

Physicians, trying to save lives, can easily make mistakes. Should they be incarcerated for a slip of the scalpel? If we routinely incarcerated physicians, engineers and tax accountants for negligence, there would be fewer willing to go into the business.

An auto mechanic who forgets to cinch down a motor mount, causing an accident, killing someone...how much time should he spend in prison? A Traffic Cop who gets distracted and causes an accident. Ten - twelve years?

Examples are endless. But the point is that there is a chance-of-negligence in everything we do, including the chance that we might cause a death somewhere, sometime. Indeed, it is a certainty that somewhere, sometime, we will be negligent, and then everyone will be in prison. The cost of negligence (death, disability, etc.) is a simple matter of fate. Should we jail people on fate? Where do you draw the line. More importantly, Why?

Victor, I think you would be opening a can of worms if you started attaching penalties for mistakes. You would realign all of what we know of as civil society.

Original Quill wrote:

Victor wrote:IF part of sentencing is "punishment" then simply becasue the punishment is a result of her negligence (i.e. the loss of her sister) and is self inflicted, does NOT lessen that punishment in this case....

one has to ask....to what purpose would one incarcerate a person in this position.....
and thinking wider still, why punish the family (who are the losers here) by the loss (effectively) of their surviving daughter?

If we start punishing people for negligence, we will greatly widen the number of people we place in prisons.  Everyone makes mistakes, and to criminally punish them would involve introduction of 'chance' into the whole process.  What are the chances you will be negligent?

It would widen the criminal justice system immensely.  Politics, where mistakes are made every minute of every hour, would be engulfed in trials.

Physicians, trying to save lives, can easily make mistakes.  Should they be incarcerated for a slip of the scalpel?  If we routinely incarcerated physicians, engineers and tax accountants for negligence, there would be fewer willing to go into the business.

An auto mechanic who forgets to cinch down a motor mount, causing an accident, killing someone...how much time should he spend in prison?  A Traffic Cop who gets distracted and causes an accident.  Ten - twelve years?

Examples are endless.  But the point is that there is a chance-of-negligence in everything we do, including the chance that we might cause a death somewhere, sometime.  Indeed, it is a certainty that somewhere, sometime, we will be negligent, and then everyone will be in prison.  The cost of negligence (death, disability, etc.) is a simple matter of fate.  Should we jail people on fate?  Where do you draw the line.  More importantly, Why?

Victor, I think you would be opening a can of worms if you started attaching penalties for mistakes.  You would realign all of what we know of as civil society.

Wow, that truely deserves +1

Great post

I mean playing that line into context and then a society makes abortion legally murder.

Can you then imagine how then many mothers that miscarry could be liable for charges of negligence?

Its why the pro choice argument to me always fails. It would place into this category mothers who have suffered the horror of a misscarridge, being classed as potentially negligent

I know I have gotten off track, but, I watched a video by Ben Shapiro yesterday, who is anti abortion and thought he destroyed his own argument on the above and also on the potential sentient for life.

If he uses the potential sentient life argument with a fetus. So has the mother a legal righto to abort a potential possible threat to her very own body. She could have an ectopic pregnancy or other further complications. So based on the possibility and potential argument. The pro-lifers have no argument. As they always back the right to take life in defense of themselves

Sorry to go off track mate, but it had me thinking yesterday. That as much as the pro-lifers hold a good argument, its very flawed, as I have shown.

'...Criminology student Meliha Kaya, 22, was "far in excess of the speed limit" as she drove her 16-year-old sister Elif and a friend back from the George pub in Wanstead, east London, on February 13, 2016, experts believe.

Her Mini swerved on to the wrong side of the road, collided with a BMW and went over a low wall, hitting a tree on the 30mph Chigwell Road in east London at around 1.10am...'

Tommy Monk wrote:'...Criminology student Meliha Kaya, 22, was "far in excess of the speed limit" as she drove her 16-year-old sister Elif and a friend back from the George pub in Wanstead, east London, on February 13, 2016, experts believe.

Her Mini swerved on to the wrong side of the road, collided with a BMW and went over a low wall, hitting a tree on the 30mph Chigwell Road in east London at around 1.10am...'

And?

Tommy Monk wrote:'...Criminology student Meliha Kaya, 22, was "far in excess of the speed limit" as she drove her 16-year-old sister Elif and a friend back from the George pub in Wanstead, east London, on February 13, 2016, experts believe.

Her Mini swerved on to the wrong side of the road, collided with a BMW and went over a low wall, hitting a tree on the 30mph Chigwell Road in east London at around 1.10am...'

So, you feel there should be prison time for speeding? Keep in mind, the consequence of negligence (death, disability, or a bad headache) are up to fate.

Should we take fate into account at sentencing? Should a person get a lighter sentence because he only caused a severe migraine?

And she was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving...


Therefore a custodial sentence is applicable, as is stipulated in the sentencing guidelines...!

Tommy Monk wrote:

And she was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving...


Therefore a custodial sentence is applicable, as is stipulated in the sentencing guidelines...!

So you think we should do away with all kinds of mitigating circumstances and just simple place everyone in jail that commits a crime?

That surely must be what you think

Now explain to me, why the Dutch have low crime rates and are closing prisons, as there is not enough prisoners to fill them?

Original Quill wrote:

Victor wrote:IF part of sentencing is "punishment" then simply becasue the punishment is a result of her negligence (i.e. the loss of her sister) and is self inflicted, does NOT lessen that punishment in this case....

one has to ask....to what purpose would one incarcerate a person in this position.....
and thinking wider still, why punish the family (who are the losers here) by the loss (effectively) of their surviving daughter?

If we start punishing people for negligence, we will greatly widen the number of people we place in prisons.  Everyone makes mistakes, and to criminally punish them would involve introduction of 'chance' into the whole process.  What are the chances you will be negligent?

It would widen the criminal justice system immensely.  Politics, where mistakes are made every minute of every hour, would be engulfed in trials.

Physicians, trying to save lives, can easily make mistakes.  Should they be incarcerated for a slip of the scalpel?  If we routinely incarcerated physicians, engineers and tax accountants for negligence, there would be fewer willing to go into the business.

An auto mechanic who forgets to cinch down a motor mount, causing an accident, killing someone...how much time should he spend in prison?  A Traffic Cop who gets distracted and causes an accident.  Ten - twelve years?

Examples are endless.  But the point is that there is a chance-of-negligence in everything we do, including the chance that we might cause a death somewhere, sometime.  Indeed, it is a certainty that somewhere, sometime, we will be negligent, and then everyone will be in prison.  The cost of negligence (death, disability, etc.) is a simple matter of fate.  Should we jail people on fate?  Where do you draw the line.  More importantly, Why?

Victor, I think you would be opening a can of worms if you started attaching penalties for mistakes.  You would realign all of what we know of as civil society.

but we already do that quill, in differentiating different degrees of negligence, ranging from "the simple error" to what amounts to "malicious negligence" (negligent manslaughter???)

now I would argue that this girls actions do indeed fall into the malicious negligence (i'm going to drive like a twat and bugger the consequences to anyone else, which is contemporary with for instance drink driving)

my agreement with the judge is inasmuch as the penalty the girl has recieved, knowing HER actions killed her sister, is the equal or possibly even more severe than a custodial sentence.
serving both to punish AND correct her future behaviour (which is the heart of the penal system).

to me there simply is no point in taking any further action.....

the other injured girl has remedy in fiscal form via an insurance claim...so justice as such is served there......

and NO Tommy, had it been a "boy racer" who had killed his brother...my thoughts would be the same.......

Lord Foul wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If we start punishing people for negligence, we will greatly widen the number of people we place in prisons.  Everyone makes mistakes, and to criminally punish them would involve introduction of 'chance' into the whole process.  What are the chances you will be negligent?

It would widen the criminal justice system immensely.  Politics, where mistakes are made every minute of every hour, would be engulfed in trials.

Physicians, trying to save lives, can easily make mistakes.  Should they be incarcerated for a slip of the scalpel?  If we routinely incarcerated physicians, engineers and tax accountants for negligence, there would be fewer willing to go into the business.

An auto mechanic who forgets to cinch down a motor mount, causing an accident, killing someone...how much time should he spend in prison?  A Traffic Cop who gets distracted and causes an accident.  Ten - twelve years?

Examples are endless.  But the point is that there is a chance-of-negligence in everything we do, including the chance that we might cause a death somewhere, sometime.  Indeed, it is a certainty that somewhere, sometime, we will be negligent, and then everyone will be in prison.  The cost of negligence (death, disability, etc.) is a simple matter of fate.  Should we jail people on fate?  Where do you draw the line.  More importantly, Why?

Victor, I think you would be opening a can of worms if you started attaching penalties for mistakes.  You would realign all of what we know of as civil society.

but we already do that quill, in differentiating different degrees of negligence, ranging from "the simple error" to what amounts to "malicious negligence" (negligent manslaughter???)

now I would argue that this girls actions do indeed fall into the malicious negligence (i'm going to drive like a twat and bugger the consequences to anyone else, which is contemporary with for instance drink driving)

my agreement with the judge is inasmuch as the penalty the girl has recieved, knowing HER actions killed her sister, is the equal or possibly even more severe than a custodial sentence.
serving both to punish AND correct her future behaviour (which is the heart of the penal system).

to me there simply is no point in taking any further action.....

the other injured girl has remedy in fiscal form via an insurance claim...so justice as such is served there......

and NO Tommy, had it been a "boy racer" who had killed his brother...my thoughts would be the same.......

Okay, you just trumped Quill

I stand in the sidelines in awe at this debate now and will shut up

+1

Tommy Monk wrote:

And she was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving...


Therefore a custodial sentence is applicable, as is stipulated in the sentencing guidelines...!

bull shit....

the sentencing guidelines stipulate the MAXIMIM penalty......they DO NOT enforce upon a judge any particular sentence

quote "Sentencing remains a matter for independent judges, with decisions based on the full facts of each case."

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/life-sentences-for-killer-drivers

clearly the judge, having access to the full facts was of the opinion that any sentence he could offer would not be as effective as the penalty she imposed on herself, albeit unwittingly.

oh and Didge...point of law

mitigating circumstance only applies to the crime and the plea thereto.....NOT to the sentence....

the severity of sentence is (judges) discretion

Lord Foul wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

And she was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving...


Therefore a custodial sentence is applicable, as is stipulated in the sentencing guidelines...!

bull shit....

the sentencing guidelines stipulate the MAXIMIM penalty......they DO NOT enforce upon a judge any particular sentence

quote "Sentencing remains a matter for independent judges, with decisions based on the full facts of each case."

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/life-sentences-for-killer-drivers

clearly the judge, having access to the full facts was of the opinion that any sentence he could offer would not be as effective as the penalty she imposed on herself, albeit unwittingly.

oh and Didge...point of law

mitigating circumstance only applies to the crime and the plea thereto.....NOT to the sentence....

the severity of sentence is (judges) discretion

Point of order

I was wrong

Happy to admit and be corrected  

Smart arse  

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-40446530

https://www.derrynow.com/news/21-year-old-man-killed-brother-cousin-due-dangerous-driving-jailed-six-months-derry-crown-court/232784

http://www.itv.com/news/granada/2016-07-15/boy-racer-who-killed-three-pals-in-horror-smash-jailed/

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/525801/Paul-Reddan-jailed-for-killing-girlfriend-in-crash


I'm sure all these dangerous drivers were a bit teary too... but were all rightly jailed!!!


Were all these judges wrong...?

do you know ALL the facts of all those cases tommy.....

"Sentencing remains a matter for independent judges, with decisions based on the full facts of each case."

A person convicted of causing death by dangerous driving is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.[2] Disqualification for a minimum of two years is obligatory on conviction.[3] Endorsement is obligatory on conviction.[4] The offence carries three to eleven penalty points (when the defendant is exceptionally not disqualified).[5]

The Court of Appeal in R v Cooksley and others[6] gave guidelines for cases where death is caused by dangerous driving. In R v Richardson[7] the Court of Appeal reassessed the starting point set out in R v Cooksley taking into consideration the increase in the maximum penalty. The relevant starting points identified in Cooksley should be reassessed as follows:

i) No aggravating circumstances – twelve months to two years' imprisonment (previously 18 months);
ii) Intermediate culpability - two to four and a half years' imprisonment (previously 3 years);
iii) Higher culpability – four and a half to seven years' imprisonment (previously 5 years);

Tommy Monk wrote:
A person convicted of causing death by dangerous driving is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.[2] Disqualification for a minimum of two years is obligatory on conviction.[3] Endorsement is obligatory on conviction.[4] The offence carries three to eleven penalty points (when the defendant is exceptionally not disqualified).[5]

The Court of Appeal in R v Cooksley and others[6] gave guidelines for cases where death is caused by dangerous driving. In R v Richardson[7] the Court of Appeal reassessed the starting point set out in R v Cooksley taking into consideration the increase in the maximum penalty. The relevant starting points identified in Cooksley should be reassessed as follows:

i) No aggravating circumstances – twelve months to two years' imprisonment (previously 18 months);
ii) Intermediate culpability - two to four and a half years' imprisonment (previously 3 years);
iii) Higher culpability – four and a half to seven years' imprisonment (previously 5 years);

I think you just debunked your own argument

As her sentence was suspended on that very point, as the judge took into consideration how much pain and suffering the guilt party went through here. It did not hurt anyone else but here, losing her own sister

If you think she should be jailed Tommy, over that, then what is wrong is you. As what good would it do by jailing her?

Seriously?

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:'...Criminology student Meliha Kaya, 22, was "far in excess of the speed limit" as she drove her 16-year-old sister Elif and a friend back from the George pub in Wanstead, east London, on February 13, 2016, experts believe.

Her Mini swerved on to the wrong side of the road, collided with a BMW and went over a low wall, hitting a tree on the 30mph Chigwell Road in east London at around 1.10am...'

So, you feel there should be prison time for speeding?  Keep in mind, the consequence of negligence (death, disability, or a bad headache) are up to fate.

Should we take fate into account at sentencing?  Should a person get a lighter sentence because he only caused a severe migraine?

This man was speeding and jailed... even though there was no crash and no deaths or injuries...


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/record-breaking-motorcyclist-jailed-after-9770766

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So, you feel there should be prison time for speeding?  Keep in mind, the consequence of negligence (death, disability, or a bad headache) are up to fate.

Should we take fate into account at sentencing?  Should a person get a lighter sentence because he only caused a severe migraine?

This man was speeding and jailed... even though there was no crash and no deaths or injuries...


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/record-breaking-motorcyclist-jailed-after-9770766

Sooooooo, what has that got to do with this situation?

Are you now basing every accident on the crime above?

Didge...


THERE WERE AGGRAVATED CIRCUMSTANCES!!!


SHE WAS SPEEDING!!!


AND WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER VICTIM...?


Passenger Ayla Osman, 24, was also left with life-changing injuries. On the day of her trial earlier this week, Meliha Kaya tearfully pleaded guilty to causing death and serious injury by her dangerous driving.

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge...


THERE WERE AGGRAVATED CIRCUMSTANCES!!!


SHE WAS SPEEDING!!!


AND WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER VICTIM...?


Passenger Ayla Osman, 24, was also left with life-changing injuries. On the day of her trial earlier this week, Meliha Kaya tearfully pleaded guilty to causing death and serious injury by her dangerous driving.

That is not answering my question, is it?

She was speeding and now her sister is dead

Are you saying the rest of her family, not have a say in this?

She has to live with this for the rest of her life, being guilty for the loss of her own sister?

Is that not sentence enough for you?

Are you saying she should be punished more for this?

Seriously?

there are also extennuating circumstances....

and the other victim???

gets an insurance payout commensurate with her injuries.......

It should also be noted that she WAS sentenced to a custodila sentence ...which was suspended....

as was the male aquaintence who was also suspended for dangerous driving (8 weeks)

I think I know why Tommy is sooo upset about this.....look at their pictures and names

Lord Foul wrote:there are also extennuating circumstances....

and the other victim???

gets an insurance payout commensurate with her injuries.......

The point I want to ask Tommy is this.

As he seems to believe that someone has to be seen as a criminal for life

Is this how our justice system really is?

That sentences are irrelevent?

That no matter the crime, they are all condemned for life?

Lord Foul wrote:It should also be noted that she WAS sentenced to a custodila sentence ...which was suspended....

as was the male aquaintence who was also suspended for dangerous driving (8 weeks)

I think I know why Tommy is sooo upset about this.....look at their pictures and names

Bang on the money mate

what Tommy cant see is that there is a vast gulf between a "penal code" and "justice"

I dont know Tommys ancestry (i think he may have been hatched in a pod somewhere)

but if hes anglo saxon heritage he's defying his heritage and otherwise he's a true Norman....

and the best system....the old welsh celtic law.....

Lord Foul wrote:what Tommy cant see is that there is a vast gulf between a "penal code" and "justice"

I dont know Tommys ancestry (i think he may have been hatched in a pod somewhere)

but if hes anglo saxon heritage he's defying his heritage and otherwise he's a true Norman....

and the best system....the old welsh celtic law.....

So true mate, he must be Norman ancestry

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t24503-why-we-should-be-celebrating-the-treatment-of-women-in-anglo-saxon-england

Let druids rule

Victor wrote:now I would argue that this girls actions do indeed fall into the malicious negligence (i'm going to drive like a twat and bugger the consequences to anyone else, which is contemporary with for instance drink driving)

Hmmm…pretty subjective.  There’s nothing like that in the record.  Under Anglo-American law, we only punish where there is a degree of mens rea…where someone did something wrong consciously, or with full knowledge of the consequences.

With negligence, there are only three possibilities: one might (1) omit any thought, or (2) know his actions are wrong abstractly, but not in the instance, or (3) know it's recklessly wrong, in a degree where injurious consequences might be probable.

The ‘wrong’ about recklessness, must be in knowledge that there is increased probability of injury or death…the reckless standard.

In the case at hand, the judge only has circumstantial, or inferential evidence of recklessness.  The driver has no memory.  The victim is dead.  The other passenger is silent.

The charging document says the defendant was driving "far in excess of the speed limit", that’s all. She has agreed to plead guilty, the effect of which is to admit the facts of the charging document...but those are the only facts in the record.  So, we know only that she was speeding and no more; the term “far in excess” is uncalibrated and subjective, and hence meaningless.  Moreover, we don’t know if speeding actually contributed to the accident; so there is no causal element.

Effectively, she’s on trial for speeding.  The causal connection of speed to the accident is not established.  Actual recklessness was never factually established, and no one testified that she was driving “like a twat and bugger the consequences”.

What is the judge to do?  Interject his own subjective imagining of the accident?  Guess at what speed “far in excess” means?  Assume, without proof, she was drunk?  All he has in the record is (i) speed, (ii) the accident and (iii) a death.  Pleading guilty to those facts, the judge has little to go on.

Sentencing is supposed to be remedial.  If the record contained facts that were grave and heinous, perhaps a harsher penalty would be warranted.  But that’s not in the record.  The most we can say about the defendant is, she was smart to plead guilty before the prosecutor put any facts in the record.  She probably had a good lawyer.  Lol.

I would agree in the main Quill, with most of your points, however it should be noted that she was in fact subjected to a 2 year custodial sentence for the death and 1 year for the injury......SO the judge clearly considered there to be some fair degree of recklessness involved....

the fact he then suspended those sentences for 12 months is his recognition that DESPITE the recklessness involved and the criminal responsibility thereto attached, he consideres that she has already been "punished enough", and that "actuating" that sentence would be "excessive" to the ends of justice.

that is my take on it....

Tommy Monk wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-40446530

https://www.derrynow.com/news/21-year-old-man-killed-brother-cousin-due-dangerous-driving-jailed-six-months-derry-crown-court/232784

http://www.itv.com/news/granada/2016-07-15/boy-racer-who-killed-three-pals-in-horror-smash-jailed/

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/525801/Paul-Reddan-jailed-for-killing-girlfriend-in-crash


I'm sure all these dangerous drivers were a bit teary too... but were all rightly jailed!!!


Were all these judges wrong...?

I'm sure all these feel very guilty about causing the deaths of their family/friends too... but were still jailed!!!


A suspended sentence for any of these would have been ridiculously lenient... and the same applies to the twat in the OP case...!!!


I don't care what gender/race/religion she is... the same level of sentencing should apply here as is applied in all other similar cases!!!

I don’t understand. Why punish someone when it was an accident?

It wasn't an accident... it was causing death by dangerous driving...!!!


That is a serious criminal offence!!!


And punishable by a custodial sentence of up to life imprisonment!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:It wasn't an accident... it was causing death by dangerous driving...!!!


That is a serious criminal offence!!!


And punishable by a custodial sentence of up to life imprisonment!!!

Actually it was an accident

There was no intent to crash the car and kill her sister

Lord Foul wrote:I would agree in the main Quill, with most of your points, however it should be noted that she was in fact subjected to a 2 year custodial sentence for the death and 1 year for the injury......SO the judge clearly considered there to be some fair degree of recklessness involved....

the fact he then suspended those sentences for 12 months is his recognition that DESPITE the recklessness involved and the criminal responsibility thereto attached, he consideres that she has already been "punished enough", and that "actuating" that sentence would be "excessive" to the ends of justice.

that is my take on it....

Well, the judge had no choice. Despite the fact that the defendant pleaded guilty, she didn't admit to any aggravating circumstances, or any circumstances whatsoever, and the court has no evidence of causation.

She admitted only to speeding, which we all do now and then. The speeding did not fit into the cause of the sister's death. So, it's a speeding ticket, nothing more.