ade Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 It probably was a combined speed of 70 or more as if he crashed at 46mph then it only took the other driver to be driving at the same speed to make it 92mph. No, I believe from the Independant last Friday, the reported impact speed was actually 46mph, taking into condsideration the braking - this is what I was referring to with regards to the 40mph Renault impact. If I have recalled the figures incorrectly, I apologise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 hmm, notice how I said 'it is usual'. I could easily have been more specific and wrote an essay but I think you get my point.I am well aware of Henry Callow being High Bailiff prior to becoming second deemster. 17 years as High Bailiff is not a bad induction though is it? I think "your point" as you put it was intended to debunk the capabilities of the second deemster. For the avoidance of doubt here follows a list of Attorney Generals and a list of Second Deemsters. You will note, merely by counting the numbers of both lists, that while some Attorney Generals have been elevated to second Deemster it is by no means usual for second Deemsters to have been Attorney General. Furthermore, many of the Deemsters who have been drawn straight from the ranks of Manx Advocates have served the Island with distinction. Its a hard task passing sentence on offenders and we dont always get to here the reasons for severity of sentence or otherwise. Fortunately for aggrieved parties there is always recourse to appeal. The Attorney General can appeal the leniency of a sentence. I seem to remember Mike Kerruish doing just that in his days as Attorney General. List of Attorney Generals John Quillin, 1765-1768 Charles Searle, 1768-1774 Wadsworth Busk, 1774-1797 William Frankland, 1797-1816 John Clarke,1816-1844 Charles Richard Ogden, 1844-1866 James Gell, 1866-1898 George Alfred Ring, 1898-1921 Ramsey Bignall Moore, 1921-1945 Sydney James Moore, 1945-1957 George Moore, 1957-1963 David Leighton Lay, 1963-1972 Arthur Christian Luft, 1972-1974 John William Corrin, 1974-1980 Thomas William Cain QC, 1980-1993 Michael Kerruish QC, 1993-1998 John Corlett QC MLC, 1998 - Present Second Deemsters Peter John Heywood, 1765-1768 Daniel Mylrea, 1768-1773 Thomas Moore, 1773-1794 John Crellin, 1794-1816 Thomas Gawne, 1816-1819 John Christian, 1819-1820 John M'Hutchin, 1820-1821 John Joseph Heywood, 1821-1847 William Drinkwater, 1847-1855 John Clucas Stephen, 1855-1880 Aluard Dumbell, 1880-1883 Richard Sherwood, 1883-1884 John Frederick Gill, 1884-1899 Thomas Kneen, 1899-1900 Stevenson Stewart Moore, 1900-1905 Charles Callow, 1905-1921 Frederick Malcolm Lamothe, 1921-1925 Reginald Douglas Farrant, 1925-1934 William Percy Cowley, 1934-1947 Ramsey Gelling Johnson, 1947-1954 James Arthur Cain, 1954-1957 Sydney Jame Kneale, 1957-1958 Bruce Whyte M'Pherson, 1958-1969 Robert Kinley Eason, 1969-1974 Arthur Christian Luft, 1974-1980 John William Corrin, 1980-1988 Henry William Callow, 1988-1993 Thomas William Cain, 1993-1998 Michael Kerruish QC, 1998-2003 David Doyle QC, 2003 - Present Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisner Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 I think to go back as far as the 1700s is pushing your point a bit. Your list does not tell us an awful lot though. Here's a couple of 'recent' ones for you. J A Cain became 2nd Deemster in 1954 straight from being an advocate - never made 1st Deemster B W Macpherson became 2nd Deemster from being advocate in 1958. Never made 1st Deemster OK you're a dyed in the wool establishment man. But even you have to agree that it is not always wise to throw such a responsible position straight onto an advocate. Oh, and I realise it is an extremely difficult task. If you wish to draw insinuation that is up to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 I don't see the big difference that being AG would make. You're just a government mouthpiece instead of a mouthpiece for hire by anyone, no? Clearly a stint at High Bailiff is going to be useful for getting experience in sentencing matters, but AG? I don't really think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 By the way, in what sense was the defendant in this case from "the right side of the tracks"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisner Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 I don't see the big difference that being AG would make. You're just a government mouthpiece instead of a mouthpiece for hire by anyone, no? Clearly a stint at High Bailiff is going to be useful for getting experience in sentencing matters, but AG? I don't really think so. With being the Attonery General a former advocate would certainly get to know cases such as this one. Certainly. And as if on cue . . . . there is a question for the AG on this very topic in Tynwald today 10. The Hon Member for Douglas North (Mr Houghton) to ask HM Attorney General -Will you take action to remedy the lenient sentence handed down in a recent conviction for causing death by dangerous driving? Not necessarily specific to this case but in general: I really do believe that plucking an advocate straight from 'the ranks' to second Deemster is a big mistake. A relatively young advocate at that. Inexperience coupled with out of depth responsibility = incompetence. To mention nothing of vulnerability to corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Ahh, great. That's just what we want - politicians making waves over specific sentencing. And an election year to boot. The AG in the UK has had to slap down a politician or two recently, perhaps ours should do the same. And especially Houghton, who has nothing else to do but to meddle with the police and now the courst apparently. Was Mr Houghton privy to every piece of evidence during the trial? Well how can he possible know the sentence was lenient? The man is a muppet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 By the way, in what sense was the defendant in this case from "the right side of the tracks"? I'm guessing that having a valid licence, insurance and not driving at 100 mph might put him on the "right side" compared to other recent cases where there would appear to have been a blatant disregard for the law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven ! Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Having no valid driving licence - there is an established punishment for that Having no valid insurance - ditto Speeding - ditto Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving - ditto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coroner Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 I, like most if not all forum members did not attend the trial and listen to and see all the evidence, I have however talked to my colleague who was the duty coroner. His view having been there, is that the sentence was a fair one, whilst it might not satisfy everyone, the sentence was based upon all the evidence not just what has appeared in the press. The defendant has not got away with anything, he will always have the memory of what happened as will the deceased’s parents. I doubt anyone on this forum can imagine what it must feel like to have been in an accident which results in a fatality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 I, like most if not all forum members did not attend the trial and listen to and see all the evidence, I have however talked to my colleague who was the duty coroner. His view having been there, is that the sentence was a fair one, whilst it might not satisfy everyone, the sentence was based upon all the evidence not just what has appeared in the press. The defendant has not got away with anything, he will always have the memory of what happened as will the deceased’s parents. I doubt anyone on this forum can imagine what it must feel like to have been in an accident which results in a fatality. Galka received a suspended sentance - correct? What was he convicted of, was it death by dangerous driving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Galka received a suspended sentance - correct? What was he convicted of, was it death by dangerous driving? Yes, as per the posted press cutting. Off thread... Not wishing to detract from the case, but I noticed 2 aspects of the report which concern my pedantic side. Firstly, the headline was a quote from Mr Beattie, not a statement by the newspaper, so the headline should been wrapped in quotation marks. As per Manxman's comment refering to Mr Houghton's question in Tynwald, it isn't for the local newspaper to appear to be dictating the law of the land. That 'simple' syntax presentation is implying that they do dictate the law. Secondly, the report didn't say that Galka was "spared" or "escaped" a custodial sentence, it states that "he walked" from the court. This comment, especially so early in the article and directly following the paragraph relationg to emotions of Mr Beattie 'infers' that the paper isn't happy with the sentence without directly saying so. The writing is trying to dictate our perception within a direct report (see similar 'Government Mind Control' Threads). Sorry, carry on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lard Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Perhaps Manx Newspapers should learn to spell proper before they control our minds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 In court all the witness tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (honestly, they do), and judgements are made on facts. In the case of this accident, if the death was deemed to be avoidable by the wearing of a seatbelt then although Galka caused the accident through bad driving technique, he didn't cause the death. Rightly or wrongly, the cause of the accident and the cause of death have to be judged seperately. There have been cases (not so many on these shores, thankfully) where elderly person have been assaulted and then died after the event from heart conditions. Prosecution may well try and obtain a charge of murder, but unless there is a watertight link that is provable, the assailant will face a charge of Assault. There was no intent to harm other road users in the manouvre that resulted in the crash, as oppsed to assualt cases. There has to be a clear difference between those who cause death by accident and those who act with intent, a difference which has definition. So he was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving but I'm not sure what you are saying in the rest of the above post. Are you saying this was an innocent act, an accident and that the fact he 'walked' was just? I could walk down the street waving around a running chainsaw and say that if anyone got cut by it that it was an accident, I did not mean to harm anyone honest! If you drive a vehicle in a dangerous manner then surely you must take responisbility for those dangerous actions. It must surely follow that if those actions cause the death of another then you can expect some pretty serious consequences, especially if as in this case a court finds you guilty of the charge. To say no there was no intent to harm other road users does not wash, a vehicle is a dangerous object at the best of times yet when it is being driven dangerously or wrecklessly it becomes a potential murder weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 So he was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving but I'm not sure what you are saying in the rest of the above post. Are you saying this was an innocent act, an accident and that the fact he 'walked' was just? What if Galka had collided with another car on the mountain road instead of the one he did? A car in which everyone was correctly wearing seatbelts, as obliged by law, and although people were injured no-one was killed? He's still made the same mistake, the same error of judgement. Should he be punished less, the same or more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.