Jaguar driver jailed for car park rage incident

[219]

A jaguar driver was jailed for six months after he knocked down a parking attendant who had just given him a ticket for using a parent and child space when not entitled .

This is Bristol | Jaguar driver jailed for car-park rage

I wonder if they also ticket people who park across two bays there !

 

[st13phil]

Using a motor vehicle as a weapon is a very, very silly thing to do - as this case illustrates. Whether a 6-month jail term is appropriate or not only those privvy to the details of the case can say (although it does have a whiff of exemplary about it), but I did notice that for once a newspaper article has correctly stated that

Tickets issued to other drivers for using them are civil claims which have to be pursued through a county court, rather than an official fine

(my bold).

 

[Sp!ke]

Does anyone know the age limit for these "Parent and Child" spaces?

Only, I still consider myself a child.... and I am a parent.

On top of which, my car is my baby.

 

[BTB 500]

Does anyone know the age limit for these "Parent and Child" spaces?

Only, I still consider myself a child.... and I am a parent.

It's usually defined on the signs.

 

[markjay]

I seem to remember reading a year ago or so about a pregnant lady who got fined for parking in "Parent and Child" space and the parking company insisted that the child must be born first....

 

[markjay]

..but on reflection, I still think that 6 months for dangerous driving when no one was injured, and as the judge said '...you completely and utterly lost reason, which I accept was out of character', is far too harsh a punishment, in fact utterly disproportional.

Especially when you consider that the vast majority of drivers seen on 'Police, Camera, Action' evading a convoy of police pursuit cars for miles and miles on motorways and in town centres and causing havoc and damage to property on the way, usually get away with a mere driving ban.

 

[NW_Merc]

..but on reflection, I still think that 6 months for dangerous driving when no one was injured, and as the judge said '...you completely and utterly lost reason, which I accept was out of character', is far too harsh a punishment, in fact utterly disproportional.

Especially when you consider that the vast majority of drivers seen on 'Police, Camera, Action' evading a convoy of police pursuit cars for miles and miles on motorways and in town centres and causing havoc and damage to property on the way, usually get away with a mere driving ban.

True but what is the sentence for assault, because thats what it can be shown as.... even if it didnt result in injury. For instance if you knock a policeman's helmet/hat off it is also counted as assault........

 

[markjay]

True but what is the sentence for assault, because thats what it can be shown as.... even if it didnt result in injury. For instance if you knock a policeman's helmet/hat off it is also counted as assault........

This would have been the case has he been charged with assault. But he wasn't, the charge was dangerous driving.

I suspect the assault charge was dropped because it would have been very difficult to prove that he intended to assault the Asda employee - rather than (as the driver probably claimed) just storming off without due care.

If, however, he was convicted for dangerous driving but sentenced for assault - which seems to be the case - then this is plain wrong in my opinion and should not happen. You should be sentenced for the offence you were convicted on, and not for the crime you could not be prosecuted for...

 

[Palfrem]

Caught on CCTV: Shopper Martin Takle knocks down parking warden who issued ticket | Mail Online

With photos

 

[Palfrem]

Prison & ban totally out of proportion in my opinion

 

[NW_Merc]

If, however, he was convicted for dangerous driving but sentenced for assault - which seems to be the case - then this is plain wrong in my opinion and should not happen. You should be sentenced for the offence you were convicted on, and not for the crime you could not be prosecuted for...

If you watch Law Abiding Citizen there is an exerpt from the film where Jamie Foxx says,"It's not what you think or know, it's what you can prove in court..."

 

[Palfrem]

Newcastle United footballer arrested after late-night assault on woman | Mail Online

Footballer cautioned for assault on student | Mail Online

Jack Tweed guilty of assault... but he avoids jail to spend final days with dying Jade Goody | Mail Online

****nal's Jack Wilshere cautioned by police for common assault | Mail Online

4 of many, many similar cases...seems our Jaguar driver was not sufficiently famous

 

[Mr E]

Prison & ban totally out of proportion in my opinion

I would disagree - I wish everyone who used their vehicle in this manner would be treated in the same manner.

What is out of proportion is the leniency shown in your other posted examples.

 

[Dieselman]

Maybe Mr Takle isn't such a nice cuddly man after all..

The court heard that Takle, of Hartcliffe, Bristol, had a number of previous convictions but they were not for similar offences.

 

[dulayj]

Way too much anger and aggression already-appropriate jail term-so he can reflect on his actions!

 

[st13phil]

Maybe Mr Takle isn't such a nice cuddly man after all..

Maybe not, but prior to passing sentence the Judge did consider it important to say that:

There is nothing in your history that reflects or aggravates the offence which you appear before this court in respect of, for which I have to sentence you.

which indicates that any "previous" was not a consideration in determining the scale of punishment. Like I said before, using a motor vehicle as a weapon is a very, very silly thing to do, something which Mr Takle now has a good deal of time to reflect upon.

 

[John]

I'm happy with this sentence - a longer stint would be fine.

This country is far too soft, and the examples on Police Camera Action where people are let off for the most horrendous examples of driving are a disgrace.

It is only luck that nothing worse happened.

 

[markjay]

OK, so it seems we are all in agreement that Mr. Takle's sentence was far harsher than in other dangerous driving or assault (with no serious injury) cases.

Were opinions seem to differ, is on whether Mt Tackle should have received a much lighter sentence in the light of all these other cases, or perhaps his sentence is right all the others should have had harsher ones...

 

[tali]

Dunno why he needed to go to Asda and there is a Morrisons a stone's throw from his house
ASDA - Anti Social Driver Arrrested ?

 

[jepho]

OK, so it seems we are all in agreement that Mr. Takle's sentence was far harsher than in other dangerous driving or assault (with no serious injury) cases.

Were opinions seem to differ, is on whether Mt Tackle should have received a much lighter sentence in the light of all these other cases, or perhaps his sentence is right all the others should have had harsher ones...

Surely, he should have been sentenced on the harm done (for that is where the law can assess the harm) and make the appropriate restitution. I am less happy that the law is being applied on the basis concerning what might have ensued following Takle's poor driving.

He was irritated and drove off without thinking. The judge states that Takle's previous record has no relevance so the 6 months seems harsh. A fine would have been more in line with a momentary loss of temper. Sentences are supposed to be proportional to the offence and on part of that spectrum, the defendant was at the end of his rope... somewhere we have all been.

I don't want to excuse his driving but in another time and place he would have been hung if we follow the logic. Contrition, some form of compensation payment (£100 for hurt feelings?) and a fine of some hundred or so quid. He would have been chastened and disinclined to drive in temper again.

His family (wife and children) are also being punished for his misconduct and that is unjust. Daddy's in jail and mum has to cope. He won't be allowed to drive for 15 months so possibly loses his job and if he was the principal breadwinner, it is going to be very harsh for his family. They may lose their home and the marriage may suffer. The kids were certainly not responsible for the father's guilt on this occasion yet they must now suffer for his thoughtless actions.

Pre-meditated crime deserves a punitive measure in line with the plotting of some deliberately evil offence and all right-minded souls would agree. Accidentally breaking the law (as seems to be the case in this example) does not appear to support the apportioning of criminal liability. All crimes require a guilty mind (mens rea) and a criminal act (actus reus) so that the offence is complete; thus appropriately underpinning the defendant's criminal liability. It is doubtful (on the facts of the case as it was presented) that Takle thought that he should commit a criminal offence at any point during the interaction with the parking attendant... accordingly, I believe he was jailed wrongly. I do believe he behaved egregiously but he was probably not minded to commit a crime, albeit he may have been incandescent with anger.

No doubt, a legal eagle will be along shortly to correct my viewpoint.