UKC

Looks like at least one judge gets the issue

Driver jailed for three years for ramming cyclist in north London

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/10/driver-jailed-for-three-yea...

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Better.

Anyone happen to know what she would have got had she stopped her car, got out and clubbed a passing pedestrian (who had told her to stop using her phone while driving) with a baseball bat instead?

Her lawyer really gets my goat: apparently the wretched woman cares for her mother:
"Imprisonment is going to be a real deal for her mother, she needs her daughter for her daily basic care needs and is now going to have to make other arrangements.

"By her own foolish actions she has now put her mother in hardship."

What about Damian Doughty who is still unable to work as a result of the injuries she inflicted on him?
Still, as a driving incident, he I suppose he might be covered by her insurance - one can only hope so, unless malice is an exclusion.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

3 Years seems like a very light sentence for attempted manslaughter

In reply to Trangia:

To be fair, he did kick her wing mirror. After she'd nearly run him over due to being on the phone, but still 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that

In reply to nniff:

That made me curious so I had a look. Third party covered but not driver.

Many practioners may be surprised to hear that insurers cannot, as a matter of course, refuse to indemnify third party victims of the deliberate criminal acts of their insured.

https://www.digbybrown.co.uk/solicitors/clients/can-motor-insurers-be-liabl...

It must be a condition of doing motor insurance that you don't have loopholes for third parties. It is probably relatively small compared to drink driving or levy to MIB scheme for uninsured or untraced drivers.

In reply to Trangia:

Sorry for being pedantic, but how can you have attempted manslaughter?

In reply to elsewhere:

Worth knowing, I suppose. Filed away, just in case. Everyone's insurance will go up by about £50 this year to pay for an increase in life-time care costs (more specifically a change in the formula used to calculate those costs).

In reply to Rampikino:

On the basis that hd she killed him I suspect the charge is more likely to have been manslaughter than murder?

In reply to Andy Hardy:

I would hardly use the word fair! Reading the article I must admit i did wonder about the boy friend though.

In reply to nniff:


Well yes but isn't that what a defence lawyer is supposed to do and the prosecution lawyer to tear the arguments to bits and for the judge and jury to weigh up the evidence ?

In reply to Rampikino:

Quite, it would be attempted GBH.

In reply to Rampikino:


Doesn't seem to be a thing in English law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_in_English_law#Attempt

In reply to nniff:

It's strange try and run someone over and you get three years but unbolt the car bumper and wack someone with it and you get a lot longer.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

It's also odd that someone who has tried to use a car as a lethal weapon should ever be allowed to drive again

In reply to Trangia:
Yes - but how can you "attempt manslaughter"?

Do you see the contradiction?

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Good point, they're clearly nutty if they do that once.

In reply to Mike Highbury:
Nothing attempted about it. The man was clearly severely injured

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

From what I've read on this....

For a first offence of Assault occasioning GBH, for Injuries of this nature (which would meet the terms for the highest grade of inuries in the sentencing guidelines) the starting point before taking into account mitigating or aggravating factors would be 3 years imprisonment.

Which was a bit of a surprise to me that GBH guidelines are that low.

If the rider had been killed, I think in this case the chance of a 2nd degree (i.e. non premeditated) murder charge sticking would have been quite high, as the judge was quite clear in his ruling that the action was clearly deliberate and clearly likely to cause serious harm or death. Whether a Jury would have convicted though is another thing.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Agreed. I'd imagine a gun offence would see you banned from ever owning a fire arm again.

Driving a car has that really dangerous combination of being potentially lethal but also routine. It's like soloing on familiar ground, you can be lulled into a false sense of security but one mistake is still going to kill you. Only driving is ten times worse as you could harm a bystander.

I think a worrying number of people forget that.

(Rant over)

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I'm surprised the guidelines are that low. You sound well informed though.

Tbh driving a car into a cyclist on purpose sounds more like attempted murder to me but I suppose not in the the eyes of the law.

In reply to Rampikino:
No I've already explained my thinking. Do you think it should be Attempted Murder? Aren't we splitting hairs here? If you drive a car at someone the way she did you are attempting to kill them.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Yes, I should have used parentheses.

In reply to Trangia:

Short answer, no.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

But it should have been zero years in prison and a lifetime ban on driving. Why should she go to prison? She is clearly not in need of rehabilitation of any sort - and probably not a physchopath or other species of wierdo. She simply demonstrated that she is not responsible enough to be in charge of a tonne of steel moving at speed and that she is incapable of following clear rules such as "Don't phone and drive." The logical conclusion is that she should not be driving. Ever.

Prison time makes no sense.

And lifetime bans from the road will get EVERYONE's attention - even the super-rich who have no qualms about paying fines of any amount.

In reply to Xharlie:

Because the judge's hands are tied?

Also, given she was already breaking the law by driving and phoning, she'd be likely to drive whilst banned (lots of scrotes do)

In reply to Trangia:

Go on then - explain to me how you can attempt to manslaughter someone.

Attempted murder I can understand. Actual GBH using a car I can understand.