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.
While I thought that it looked as though Takle deliberately drove at the parking attendant , and therefore merited the punitive sentence , it does seem at odds with the sentence handed down to the 'gentleman' below , who was also in the news very recently .
apologies for the source
YouTube justice: Driver John Nicholls caught after road-rage attack posted online | Mail Online