Jailed for racing, 80 in a 50 is that the norm ?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
merc07 said:
Quote 'Mr Stanniland said it appeared some sort of racing had taken place between the two, but it was brief and had only taken place over about a fifth of a mile.'

So he gets a year in jail ?

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage/Car-racer-faces-year-prison/article-925647-detail/article.html


Adam
Click to expand...

And racing is far worse than just speeding because of the single minded and blinkered determination involved in catching the car infront or keeping in the lead.

The shocking thing is that more people don't get tough sentencing for dangerous driving so this actually seems a long sentence!!!!!

This race ended in someones death so you can't get more serious than that. However luckily it wasn't an inoccent member of the public.
 
Jail for DD is the norm. The other driver paid a higher cost.

One could question were they racing or simply both trying to make progress at the same time? Both stuck in the queue and could see an (albeit illegal) opportunity to pass.

My question would be what would the charge have been if the lotus hadn't been there, but Mr Pople was pulled by the police after performing exactly the same overtakes.
 
He had two speeding convictions and was driving a track car
The inquest was told Pople's Peugeot 306, which he used on track days had no rear seats, an interior roll cage, two racing seats and a racing harness.
Click to expand...
I suspect someone with a clean licence would have got a lighter sentence.
 
I know the road very well, just a couple of miles from me. It's a very open road, you can see the other side of the bend, there is plenty of room. The mentioned village, Banwell is notorious for congestion. You can easily spend 30 mins getting through the junction, then get stuck behind someone doing 30 in the 50 when you want to press on.

Mr Pople overtook the Lotus who then gave chase and crashed - who's fault is that ?:confused:

Adam
 
"The inquest was told Pople's Peugeot 306, which he used on track days had no rear seats, an interior roll cage, two racing seats and a racing harness."

Would an inquest be told that my SLK has no rear seats and a supercharger? The specification of the car, other than it being legal on a public highway, is surely not relevant. After all, the other driver's Lotus Elan was a car without rear seats and designed by a manufacturer who specialises in cars for track use.

After all, Pople's two speeding convictions were in the works van - hardly a "track day" vehicle. Then again, vans don't usually have rear seats either..........

I guess the sentence relates to the fact there was a fatality.
 
I know we're not party to the same information the court was, but this does sound like a worrying verdict.

Imagine the situation: You and I pull up next to eachother at a set of traffic signals (NSL limit applies). Independently, we both choose to floor the throttle when the lights turn green. For reasons know only to you, 10 seconds after pulling away you lose control of your vehicle and plough into the central reservation, killing yourself as a result. Then the driver travelling behind me tells the investigating officer that "they were obviously racing" and I'm suddenly on a charge of Racing on the Highway and/or DD??????
 
From the report this looks odd. Apparently he was convicted of DD, not causing death by DD, yet the judge appears to have sentenced him on the basis that the incident was serious because death was caused. If, as the convicted's lawyer said, the only indication that they were racing was the uncorroborated view of a single, presumably non-expert, witness then it seems to me that justice may not have been served. btw - does anyone know if 'racing' as a term is legally defined - i.e. what constitutes racing on the public road?

Why was the judge glad he had sold his car? He had apparently been more careful driving that than when driving his works van, in which he gained two speeding tickets?

There is no indicaiton in the report (perhaps there was in court, who knows?) that the convicted was responsible for the crash of the Lotus. Have to say it all seems a bit severe to me for a guy who apparently didn't even crash his car. I guess the question is, what would the penalty have been if the Lotus had either not been there at all, or had made the turn as well, without crashing? And without clear evidence that the convicted's driving was the instrument that caused the Lotus to crash, why should the penalty be any different?
 
PXW said:
From the report this looks odd. Apparently he was convicted of DD, not causing death by DD, yet the judge appears to have sentenced him on the basis that the incident was serious because death was caused.
Click to expand...
Sentance is not abnormal for DD: (see here)

Sentencing Range: Non custodial options may be considered, but usually a custodial penalty is appropriate, especially where a number of aggravating factors combine
Click to expand...

Actually I'm finding this one a difficult one to form an option on - on the face of it the DD charge sounds harsh as it's hard to imagine the chagre being dished out if the lotus hadn't been there and Mr Pople and simply been pulled by a police car after overtaking (easy to see that just a ban for doing 80 in 50 may have followed). However, whilst it is a very good road at this point, 80 is excessive speed, so a tougher charge does seem appropriate and a number of the aggravating factors to be taken in into account when sentancing for DD do exist (excessive speed and previous convictions in particular).
 
How do they also come to the conclusion he was doing 80 in the first place, unless that is he admitted to it ? Maybe the Lotus bent a tree to become 80mph of shape but that doesn't mean the other driver did the same.

I guess if DD can give you a year in the wrong conditions then fair enough but I still don't see that the other drivers death should even come into it.

Adam
 
PXW said:
........ (perhaps there was in court, who knows?).....
Click to expand...

Hit the nail on the head mate, good old 'MBClub armchair jury' never have all the facts but we like to give the verdict a good going over.


Imagine if 12 of us were called to jury service together. Heaven knows how long the desision would take!!!! ;)
 
Following Stevesy's link - whilst there is no doubt that up to two years imprisonment is possible on indictment, the sentencing guidelines are not given, although sentencing case law is. The following are there:

R v Elwood-Wade (1990) 12 Cr App R (S) 51 - D driving at excessive speed, and collided with a police vehicle. Court held that the only aggravating feature was the speed and concluded that in the particular case, a sentence of immediate imprisonment was not appropriate. See also R v Underwood below.

R v Howells [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 61 CA. "Road rage" cases involving furious driving with intent to cause fear or possible injury, but no accident, consumption of alcohol or injury - six to 12 months imprisonment.

I note that the maximum term on summary conviction (magistrates) is only 6 months - so to get to a year in prison this has to have been seen as at the more serious end.

Previous convictions are an aggravating factor, but apparently mainly where they involve 'bad driving or the consumption of excessive alcohol before driving'. So arguably a couple of SP30s shouldn't have made a difference, though we don't of course have the details of that. However, 'racing' is also an aggravating factor, so we come back to the witness statement, which seems to have been hugely important to this man's personal freedom. My reading of all this is that, given that the death of the other driver was due to his own actions, without a statement that they were 'racing', the DD charge might have been difficult, and certainly imprisonment would have looked harsh.

I still don't know what the law would regard as 'racing'. First away from the lights? This incident apparently only lasted for 10 seconds, after all....
 
Last edited:
5 mins

GUILTY

HANGING BY THE NECK UNTIL DEAD

that will teach anyone caught doing 31 in a 30
 
chriswt said:
Hit the nail on the head mate, good old 'MBClub armchair jury' never have all the facts but we like to give the verdict a good going over.


Imagine if 12 of us were called to jury service together. Heaven knows how long the desision would take!!!! ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know - but what would we do to build our post counts otherwise?!!!
 
What is frustrating is how quickly some people want to blame anyone or everyone else.

There is NO PLACE for any type of racing on the public highway and one day we will all learn that media reports will ALWAYS be biased to one degree or another.

Look at all these fly on the wall documentaries and listen to the outcome of the great majority. listen to what happens to the accused and see how rarely they get a custodial sentence. If this driver was given a custodila sentence then my guess would be that they were not Mother Theresea but hey ho lets blame everyone else and instead give this driver a medal
 
glojo said:
...one day we will all learn that media reports will ALWAYS be biased to one degree or another.
Click to expand...
I think we know that - trying to read between the lines is what keeps thread's like this going isn't it?:D
 
Meldrew2 said:
The specification of the car, other than it being legal on a public highway, is surely not relevant.
Click to expand...
The fact that it was modified by the owner may be relevant. That's why insurance companies typically increase the premium - it's an indication (statistically) of increased risk.
 
I friend of mine's kid was jailed for 5 years just because he was in the vicinity of a speeding driver when the driver lost control, crashed and died. The chap was also speeding, but not racing, his big mistake was to stop and help.....which most of us would do.
 
Peter DLM said:
I friend of mine's kid was jailed for 5 years just because he was in the vicinity of a speeding driver when the driver lost control, crashed and died. The chap was also speeding, but not racing, his big mistake was to stop and help.....which most of us would do.
Click to expand...


that's outrageous. what were the circumstances?

surely any lawyer would win this on appeal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom