Weak sentencing…

[Gladys]

It is a harrowing tale, that's for sure.  

[Steady Eddie]

33 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It is a harrowing tale, that's for sure.  

The report is harrowing. At the very least the guy panicked and made a hopeless, crass, disgusting decision. But you’re left with the impression that he knew what he had done and then doubled-down hoping someone else would get the blame. 

[Gladys]

2 minutes ago, Steady Eddie said:

The report is harrowing. At the very least the guy panicked and made a hopeless, crass, disgusting decision. But you’re left with the impression that he knew what he had done and then doubled-down hoping someone else would get the blame. 

Yes, devoid of all basic human decency.  His actions straight after and the few days following make you wonder.  Offering to meet with the family is likely to be more about himself than offering any kind of remorse or explanation to comfort them. Complete shitbag. 

[Omobono]

after the time he has spent remanded in custody he could be out again in just over 12 months , I think public opinion should push the AG  to press for a stiffer sentence ,  the Keys should look again  at the sentencing regime  years ago he would have been charged with manslaughter ,  there are people in prison found guilty of much less serious crimes who are serving longer sentences , to coin a phrase the law is an ass  !

[John Wright]

8 hours ago, Omobono said:

after the time he has spent remanded in custody he could be out again in just over 12 months , I think public opinion should push the AG  to press for a stiffer sentence ,  the Keys should look again  at the sentencing regime  years ago he would have been charged with manslaughter ,  there are people in prison found guilty of much less serious crimes who are serving longer sentences , to coin a phrase the law is an ass  !

The reason for the change from manslaughter prosecutions was the near impossibility of obtaining a conviction. The test was extreme and/or gross negligence.

[Hoops]

10 hours ago, Gladys said:

Yes, devoid of all basic human decency.  His actions straight after and the few days following make you wonder.  Offering to meet with the family is likely to be more about himself than offering any kind of remorse or explanation to comfort them. Complete shitbag. 

Yeah,and the effect on the 3 women who were accused of this and publicly vilified, while he seemingly sat there thinking "Got lucky there..."

FFS

[Gladys]

8 minutes ago, Hoops said:

Yeah,and the effect on the 3 women who were accused of this and publicly vilified, while he seemingly sat there thinking "Got lucky there..."

FFS

According to Gef, it was more than he got lucky. 

[Annoymouse]

49 minutes ago, John Wright said:

The reason for the change from manslaughter prosecutions was the near impossibility of obtaining a conviction. The test was extreme and/or gross negligence.

I do wonder if he was offered a lesser charge on the premise he just told the truth? All the lies told originally were not only a waste of Police time/resources, it would have been a horrendous time for the family involved who just would’ve wanted to know the truth and see someone brought to justice.

It looks like he admitted (at some point) that he knew he had run over her which was the turning point in the case,  DNA on the car proves he was guilty, but it didn’t prove he knew he hit her. 

[John Wright]

36 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

I do wonder if he was offered a lesser charge on the premise he just told the truth? All the lies told originally were not only a waste of Police time/resources, it would have been a horrendous time for the family involved who just would’ve wanted to know the truth and see someone brought to justice.

It looks like he admitted (at some point) that he knew he had run over her which was the turning point in the case,  DNA on the car proves he was guilty, but it didn’t prove he knew he hit her. 

The manslaughter charge is really no longer available as it’s been replaced by the statutory charge of causing death by careless/reckless/dangerous driving.

I think he was charged correctly. There wasn’t a higher charge to reduce from.

Its against the rules for interviewing officers, or anyone else, to offer an inducement to admit. Any statement obtained on that basis would be liable to be excluded. 

 

[Harry Lamb]

If this individual was correctly charged, and his sentence was in line with what Tynwald has decreed, many people will think that he has got off very lightly. Public opinion seems to be that drug users are punished harshly and sex offenders leniently. If these sentences are subject to political control, it seems strange that no politician is suggesting changes. Jane PW surely has a view, but I have not heard it expressed.

[John Wright]

24 minutes ago, Harry Lamb said:

If this individual was correctly charged, and his sentence was in line with what Tynwald has decreed, many people will think that he has got off very lightly. Public opinion seems to be that drug users are punished harshly and sex offenders leniently. If these sentences are subject to political control, it seems strange that no politician is suggesting changes. Jane PW surely has a view, but I have not heard it expressed.

Perhaps it doesn’t work like that.

If politicians had listened to public opinion at the time we’d still have capital and corporal punishment and gay sex would still be illegal.

They've got to lead. Hard cases make bad law. We shouldn’t have our criminal law and penalties too much out of line with England ( we do for drugs, especially for production (importation) and drink & drugs driving ).

The guidelines are publicly available. They’re the result of analysis of cases, sentences, appeals, over many years, plus social input.

 

[Kopek]

Politicians are not Judges, nor should they be! The trained judiciary act impassionately or should do. Politicians have different motives for their public pronouncements. As do the public!

[Harry Lamb]

24 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Perhaps it doesn’t work like that.

If politicians had listened to public opinion at the time we’d still have capital and corporal punishment and gay sex would still be illegal.

They've got to lead. Hard cases make bad law. We shouldn’t have our criminal law and penalties too much out of line with England ( we do for drugs, especially for production (importation) and drink & drugs driving ).

The guidelines are publicly available. They’re the result of analysis of cases, sentences, appeals, over many years, plus social input.

 

Meanwhile respect for the justice system declines, partly because the guidelines appear to many to produce unfair results, and partly because poor reporting omits key facts and gives the impression that judges are solely responsible for the length and severity of sentences. Public opinion in this case has nothing to do with public opinion in the past: in some areas there is a call for stiffer sentences, but in others for greater leniency, and indeed the doing away with some laws altogether. Incidentally, Tynwald hardly took a lead in the abolition of corporal and capital punishment - they were scrapped because of outside influence and the threat of Westminster legislating over their heads. The de-criminalisation of homosexual practices similarly took place very belatedly, and with reluctance in some quarters. Therefore, the opinion of local politicians differs little in practice from the popular prejudice in many matters, and is seldom better informed or more enlightened.

[John Wright]

17 minutes ago, Harry Lamb said:

Meanwhile respect for the justice system declines, partly because the guidelines appear to many to produce unfair results, and partly because poor reporting omits key facts and gives the impression that judges are solely responsible for the length and severity of sentences. Public opinion in this case has nothing to do with public opinion in the past: in some areas there is a call for stiffer sentences, but in others for greater leniency, and indeed the doing away with some laws altogether. Incidentally, Tynwald hardly took a lead in the abolition of corporal and capital punishment - they were scrapped because of outside influence and the threat of Westminster legislating over their heads. The de-criminalisation of homosexual practices similarly took place very belatedly, and with reluctance in some quarters. Therefore, the opinion of local politicians differs little in practice from the popular prejudice in many matters, and is seldom better informed or more enlightened.

Which is exactly why it’s better, generally, to stay aligned to English sentencing guidelines. I didn’t mention the Manx political response to capital or corporal punishment or homosexuality. 

The public, generally, seem to hold more conservative views about harsh punishment and some social changes, now as well as then. It’s difficult. I agree poor reporting means opinion forming is impacted.

Drugs sentencing is difficult. It seems generational whether there should be decriminalisation, or not.

[Harry Lamb]

England has the Sentencing Council, I suppose, but there are problems with guidelines per se, since they prioritise the crime and previous offences rather than the precise details of a particular case, and this can lead to unfairness. The Law Commission is supposed to be working on a sentencing code, but progress is slow. In the meantime, accurate reporting to the public would be a positive move.