drunk driver - pompey evening news

[brazenhussy]

What a joke -----

* ublished Date: 02 February 2007
* Location: Portsmouth

Driver who killed three gets cut in sentence

A DRINK-DRIVER who killed three people has had his sentence reduced.
Luke Quinell, 25, of Grafton Street, Portsmouth, was twice the legal alcohol limit when he drove home from a works Christmas party in Worthing, Sussex, on December 22, 2005.
His van ploughed into the side of a car that had just been involved in another crash on the A27, instantly killing Clive Hancock, 37, from Billinghurst; Sharon Hewer, 38, from Durrington, near Worthing; and Ivor Bingham, 39, from Sherborne.
He was jailed for six years at Chichester Crown Court last year after he pleaded guilty to three counts of causing death by careless driving when over the prescribed alcohol limit. He was also banned for 10 years.
But yesterday, Mr Justice Henriques, at London's Criminal Appeal Court, cut the sentence by a year to five years and the driving ban in half, to five years.
Matthew Farmer, for Quinell, argued the sentence had been too harsh, saying: 'He showed extreme remorse, whereby his guilt was overwhelming, and he said ''I can't believe I was driving – it should have been me that was killed, not them''.'
Mr Justice Henriques said mitigating factors included that Quinell had struck a vehicle that had already been in a crash, had pleaded guilty at the earliest
opportunity and had shown remorse.

The original sentance should have stuck - IMHO.

 

[Standard_Bearer]

His surname says it all 'Quinell' :grin: :grin: :grin:

 

[finknottle]

So you are pissed in charge of a lethal weapon kill three people and that's all you get, it's my opinion that some of these idiot judges need locked up.

 

[sgtpepperband]

Every legal case is tried on the facts, evidence, the Accused's 'actus reus' and 'mens rea', previous convictions and other factors. The Judge in the original case may not have considered all points brought before him in the trial, and may also have exceeded his powers of sentencing. And every person convicted has the right to appeal, regardless of their crime; it is one of the wonderful things about the English legal system.

In this case, it seems the Court of Appeal has upheld the Mr. Quinnell's appeal, and will have looked into the matter with the necessary dilligence based on facts and evidence, rahter than the emotions of the case.

The terms 'actus reus' and 'mens rea' are derived from the principle stated by Edward Coke, namely, "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" which means: "an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind is also guilty", i.e., the general test is one that requires proof of fault, culpability or blameworthiness both in behaviour and mind. In this respect, the role of automatism is highly relevant in providing a positive explanation of the need to demonstrate the voluntariness of the behaviour for it to found liability. Once the actus reus has been established in a conventional offence, there must be a concurrence of both actus reus and mens rea to justify a conviction.

I am not making a judgment based on my own feelings on this tragic case, but imagine if you were in the same position as Mr. Quinnell; wouldn't you also want to have the same rights and privileges as other UK citizens, regardless of your crime?

 

[Shakey]

Bloody hell! A reasoned, dispassionate and factual reply on Rum Ration!

Whatever next?

 

[sgtpepperband]

Bloody hell! A reasoned, dispassionate and factual reply on Rum Ration!

Whatever next?

Sorry - it won't happen again!! :shock:

 

[mikh]

Wonder what the driver of this car will fet - if anything:

http://www.timesandstar.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=461803

And apparently at one point there was a another guy in car car who got out about a mile down the road, although this has not been confirmed.

 

[andym]

The trouble is hell be back behind a car despite the Ban.Bans just dont work!

 

[Levers_Aligned]

Bloody hell! A reasoned, dispassionate and factual reply on Rum Ration!

Whatever next?

Sorry - it won't happen again!! :shock:

Good.

On with business.

It was them immigrants fault. Hang them. Send 'em 'ome.

Levers

 

[finknottle]

sgtpepperband, I doubt if your appraisal of what has taken place is any comfort to the NOK of the three people unlawfully killed.

 

[come_the_day]

sgtpepperband, I doubt if your appraisal of what has taken place is any comfort to the NOK of the three people unlawfully killed.

Agreed. When will our great legal system accept that causing death by dangerous, drunk or even inconsiderate driving should be seen as murder until proven otherwise?

 

[brazenhussy]

To lie upon the Table.
Manslaughter (Sentencing)

10.3 pm

Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton): I have the petition of Mrs. Pat Cager and some 4,451 others. It states:


The Petition of Mrs. Pat Cager and others declares that her husband Tony Cager was kicked to death at their thirtieth wedding anniversary party; that Tony Cager's killer also kicked the son in the face and rendered their daughter unconscious as they went to his assistance; that the killer had thirty-two previous convictions and was out of custody on bail at the time of the killing; that the killer was convicted of manslaughter but, despite the circumstances, only received a prison sentence of four years four months; and that the Petitioners believe that this is a travesty of justice.


The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to review the criminal law of manslaughter and the principles relating to sentencing to ensure that manslaughter sentences adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence.


And your Petitioners remain, etc.

taken form house of commons website - so yeah maybe a bit biased this is my mother petioning on my father.

 

[brazenhussy]

bugger all to do with driving, but goes to show our system is screwed- again a bit biased on this one!

 

[slim]

Perhaps one of these days victims of cirme will enoy the same protection of the law as the criminal
Don'thold you breath!

 

[brazenhussy]

i hope so slim - so does my mum!!


















1

 

[Always_a_Civvy]

Every legal case is tried on the facts, evidence, the Accused's 'actus reus' and 'mens rea', previous convictions and other factors. The Judge in the original case may not have considered all points brought before him in the trial, and may also have exceeded his powers of sentencing. And every person convicted has the right to appeal, regardless of their crime; it is one of the wonderful things about the English legal system.

In this case, it seems the Court of Appeal has upheld the Mr. Quinnell's appeal, and will have looked into the matter with the necessary dilligence based on facts and evidence, rahter than the emotions of the case.

The terms 'actus reus' and 'mens rea' are derived from the principle stated by Edward Coke, namely, "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" which means: "an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind is also guilty", i.e., the general test is one that requires proof of fault, culpability or blameworthiness both in behaviour and mind. In this respect, the role of automatism is highly relevant in providing a positive explanation of the need to demonstrate the voluntariness of the behaviour for it to found liability. Once the actus reus has been established in a conventional offence, there must be a concurrence of both actus reus and mens rea to justify a conviction.

I am not making a judgment based on my own feelings on this tragic case, but imagine if you were in the same position as Mr. Quinnell; wouldn't you also want to have the same rights and privileges as other UK citizens, regardless of your crime?

I couldn't have put it better myself!

 

[Always_a_Civvy]

Perhaps one of these days victims of cirme will enoy the same protection of the law as the criminal
Don'thold you breath!

Cirme - is that like circumcision Slim? :wink: :lol: As for being Enoyed, well that's understandable if you've just had your 4-skin mutilated.

 

[slim]

Sorry Sreve I am stuck in a Northern wilderness full of chavs and having to use my sisters laptop. Please excuse my Typo's

 

[brazenhussy]

Every legal case is tried on the facts, evidence, the Accused's 'actus reus' and 'mens rea', previous convictions and other factors. The Judge in the original case may not have considered all points brought before him in the trial, and may also have exceeded his powers of sentencing. And every person convicted has the right to appeal, regardless of their crime; it is one of the wonderful things about the English legal system.

In this case, it seems the Court of Appeal has upheld the Mr. Quinnell's appeal, and will have looked into the matter with the necessary dilligence based on facts and evidence, rahter than the emotions of the case.

The terms 'actus reus' and 'mens rea' are derived from the principle stated by Edward Coke, namely, "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" which means: "an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind is also guilty", i.e., the general test is one that requires proof of fault, culpability or blameworthiness both in behaviour and mind. In this respect, the role of automatism is highly relevant in providing a positive explanation of the need to demonstrate the voluntariness of the behaviour for it to found liability. Once the actus reus has been established in a conventional offence, there must be a concurrence of both actus reus and mens rea to justify a conviction.

I am not making a judgment based on my own feelings on this tragic case, but imagine if you were in the same position as Mr. Quinnell; wouldn't you also want to have the same rights and privileges as other UK citizens, regardless of your crime?

I couldn't have put it better myself!

no - people who commit a crime have no rights - they lost that right when they took a life. The victims should be protected in the knowledge that the offending person will be severley dealt with, and not just given a minimum sentence, - sorry but it was`crap sentence

 

[dondon]

Commit the crime , serve the time , in my humble opinion once you cross that line then you forfeit your human rights as such times that you have attoned for your crime , I'm waiting for the "Incoming" , hard hat on , :roll: