RN Sailor involved in fatal RTC sentenced

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by the_matelot, Feb 24, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. the_matelot

    the_matelot War Hero Moderator


    The twat kills someone by causing death by dangerous driving and gets only 3 years?

    Good to see British justice at its best :roll:

    What I can't understand is that in the hard copy of the paper, it states that he's based 140 miles away yet is based in Swansea (which is 190 miles from Pompey) and the accident occurred on the A465 near Merthyr Tydfil which isn't a route anyone going weekenders from Pompey would use especially if they were in such a rush to get home to see their girlfriend as he stated in court.
  2. He would drive the Head o the Valleys road (A465) if he wanted to avoid the Toll on the Severn bridge
  3. the_matelot

    the_matelot War Hero Moderator

    He may do Slim but he would add on a significant amount of mileage if he did that-I should know as my ex used to live not far from Merthyr and the difference in mileage especially in an Impreza would wipe out any toll bridge savings in fuel costs (current cost of toll bridge is only £5.40). I've done both routes for over 8 years now so I know what I'm talking about.

    I just can't get my head around the fact that this guy stated (or I should say his defence stated) he was in a rush to get home to see his girlfriend yet proceeded to add on extra mileage by going on a route that is

    a) Significantly longer in mileage terms
    b) Dangerous in anything but benign weather (anyone who lives around that area will know what I mean especially between Merthyr and Hirwaun-my ex was involved in an RTC there and according to South Wales Police, she should've been killed instantly and if I had been in her car, I definitely wouldn't be here now)
    c) Has more mobile police units/safety cameras patrolling so any perceived chance of being able to rag it between Hirwaun and Neath are slim to none

    And because of this ********, a woman died for nothing. He'll be out in probably 18 to 24 months.
  4. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    T_M: You really appear to have the bit between the teeth about this story - are you personally affected by this incident? Are you fully in possession of all the facts of the case relating to sentencing? Regardless of the route/mileage the driver took when the collision occurred, a woman lost her life and her family are bereft of a loved one. And - without necessarily extending any particular sympathy to the accused - he will have to live with the consequences of his actions for the rest of his life; something that no prison sentence will compare to.

    From your last post above you obviously have an emotive point of view about RTCs/RTIs, but using your own anger to justify a rant against the driver in this case is neither helpful or prudent. And before you ask, I have been personally affected by reckless drivers, and despite this I try to remain professional and diplomatic about such incidents.
  5. I know the area well as Ihae a place in Llangenech and a daughter living in Worcester. The head of the valleys road is my preferred route after visiting my daughter. It's not a bad road but one to be avoided in inclement weather.
    The roadworks over the last few years has improved the route a lot and as you say there are plenty of mobile speed traps (as I know to my cost)
  6. So your bile is poured upon the head of a fellow matelot who got it wrong when driving. I failed to hear you pour the same scorn and bile upon the Captains and various members of crews who have smashed their ship/submarine into various bits of land and in the case of the USS San Francisco cause the death of one crew member.

    Let me guess you never speed above the set limit in any circumstance, you never ever get it wrong or make an incorrect judgment when you drive. He was not pissed, he was not having a race with another vehicle it would appear from the report which you seem to accept at face value that "HE GOT IT WRONG".

    Save your bile and venom for wife beaters, muggers, rapists, pimps, alcoholics who put work mates at risk, matlots who are over the side and wreck one or two families in one hit when they get caught, religious folk of all persuasions who spread hate and intolerance.

    It pains me to say this but I am with SPB
  7. I think death by dangerous driving is something that needs to be looked at in general by the law lords. The different sentences handed out seem to be wide and varied.

    This Labour peer for example killed someone because he was sending a text message on a motorway, he got 12 weeks in jail.

    I have no idea what the solution is, if there is one at all, but the whole process doesn't seem very fair right now, to either side.
  8. Penalties for those who kill while driving are far too lenient.
    Before anyone starts, yes I have had speeding fines and I do travel faster than the speed limit when it is safe to do so.
    The guy was 25, driving a performance car that he obviously didn't know how to handle. His driving ability was far below that of what he thought it was, this is often the case with the young, however as they grow older they either learn from their mistakes (I did) else end up killing either themselves or others.
    this is an area of the law that is past it's sell by date and needs reforming.
  9. Slim

    Just who decides when it is safe, when that has already been decided by the imposition of a speed limit between the speeds of 20 mph and 70 mph the National Speed Limit for you. You have no right to make that decision.

    No, you say its when you decide it is safe, well on this day the driver decided it was safe and "HE GOT IT WRONG". Yes he is the only one in the world to have made one wrong decision in his life yet he is treated worse than many I mentioned in my previous post or a Labour Peer.

    There is something seriously wrong with the system.

  10. Agreed, the system does need looking at and it is apparently changing at the moment and not for the better! I was just informed by my law student better half yesterday that it is now illegal to eat and drive, which is frankly ludicrous as the whole point of having prepacked sandwiches in service stations is so you can pick one up and eat it on the go. Before long you won't be able to drink a non-alcoholic drink and drive, which means people will have to pull into the hard shoulder to have a sip of water. And having passengers is distracting as well as having music on in the car so why not.....etc.

    Rather than bring in stupid and brainless legislation that will only servie to p1ss people off and probably just bring in extra cash and bring the stats up for the police, they should introduce much heavier penalties for people that break the current rules, regardless of weather they're labour peer or a serviceman.

    This was sparked off by the discovery that our local Sainsbury, which is also a petrol station, is being closed for a week and a half for refurbing, part of which is removing the petrol pumps so they can continue to sell alcohol, as it is now also illegal to sell petrol and alcohol at the same establishment for fear of people drink driving. This seems pointless to me as people were drink driving for years before you could buy alcohol in petrol stations anyway...
  11. Nutty
    I fully agree with you, the Labour peer got 12 weeks for killing people with his vehicle.
    The laws need a thorough overhaul so that everyone in every court is treated equally.
    In his defense the sailor did admit his mistake, the Labour peer denied doing anything wrong.............familier.
    As for speed limits, we all know that in many places speed limits are set for many reasons other than safety.
  12. BZ Sarge & Nutty :thumbup:

    What I personally find as the real affront is that a Labour Peer has just been sent down for killing a man whilst texting on his mobile phone during darkness and only got a sentence of 3 months, which means he'll be released after 4-6 weeks.


    The matelot whilst driving recklessly was, IMHO, given a disproportionate sentence when you contrast his conduct and its consequences with mobile phone users who get significantly lesser sentences for manslaughter. :pissedoff:
  13. I believe that the matelots sentence was fair and just. he will pay for his mistake.
    The sentences given to the Portuguese lorry driver and Labour Peer however make a mockery of our justice system.
    We need a fair and unbiased legal system where all are treated equally and those who face up to the consequences of their mistakes have this fact taken into consideration.
  14. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    In the interests of accuracy, he wasn't shown to be texting at the time of the accident.
  15. the_matelot

    the_matelot War Hero Moderator

    I'm not personally affected by this incident however I've lost far too many close mates over the past few years to RTC's and a fair proportion of them were down to dangerous driving by other parties. One of my oppos was killed on Valentines day 2001 and the person responsible (another matelot, still serving) walked away without punishment. His family are still grieving now-8 years on. The other guy? Not a care in the world...

    My anger is at the system that seems to think that a 3 year sentence (which in reality is prob going to be 24 months max) is a sufficient punishment for taking someone else's life (of course, if you're an MP 12 weeks is probably seen as sufficient punishment...)

    Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you think that even with the inclusion of mitigating factors, such a short amount of time as punishment is pathetic?

    The individual concerned was slated by witnesses as 'driving like a pratt' (not my words) prior to the incident.

    And what has that got to do with this case exactly? :roll:

    Are you implying that because he's a matelot, I should back him to the hilt? I don't think so because I fundamentally disagree with his actions-they are inexcusable. Touch wood it never happens, but I don't think you fully realise someone's anger on a subject like this until it happens to you.

    The skipper of the USS San Fran was my boss whilst I was at Northwood-again, I fail to see the logic of comparing that case with this one.

    Of course I speed-however, I also know like most people who live in the region that the Heads of the Valley roads are fcuking lethal and unforgiving-I've been first on the scene of 3 accidents on that stretch of road before-it is notoriously dangerous and only a fool would drive at 80mph in heavy rain on that road. He lives in Swansea-he would know how dangerous that road is. I know my limits and stick to them-hence, no points and no crashes.

    I know he's got it wrong, he knows that too and his career in the mob is over. However, he will be able to pick up the pieces in a couple of years time-the woman's family won't.

    And don't forget matelots who get caught with child porn yet only get a 2 year suspended sentence....

    The justice system needs a complete overhaul as it stinks.
  16. The_Matelot

    "nutty said:

    So your bile is poured upon the head of a fellow matelot who got it wrong when driving. I failed to hear you pour the same scorn and bile upon the Captains and various members of crews who have smashed their ship/submarine into various bits of land"

    So somebody who gets it wrong in a car and takes a life gets three years a Senior Officer who gets it wrong and takes a life is OK by your standards. Double IMHO. We all get it wrong at some time when driving when it happens to you or one of yours tell them to plead guilty and demand they get more than 3 years.


    PS No I have never injured, by the Grace of God, another road users or seafarer before you ask.
  17. Religious folk are entitled to express intolerant opinions the real problem is hate and manifesting discrimination against others whilst being protected against discrimination themsleves. They should continue to be allowed to be intolerant however.

    The real injustice in sentences awarded for child abuse is that those who sexually abuse a child on multiple occassions get shorter sentences than someone convicted of "merely" possessing child pornography. Whilst the latter where it involves the making or making and distribution of images is one matter, deserving a more severe penalty to abuse performed in private, which itself should attract a severe penalty, the sentences for possession send out the message to paedophiles that actual abuse is regarded as less serious by Parliament and the courts.

    PS: I don't drive but I did almost knock someone down whilst cantering on the Kent country roads (well Cudham actually) when I could still ride. As I was 12 at the time, I think that excuses me on grounds of yoof. :twisted:
  18. IMHO it seems that there does not seem to be any set tarif of punishment for said crime - SPB would probably be able to state the case there, however it seems that the Honerable Gentleman from the Upper House managed to kill someone and gets away with 12 weeks in the clink (probabaly some nice open prison with sat TV on tap and weekenders) while Jack gets 3 years. Both took a life so why do they not both get similar sentences? At the end of the day they both have it on their conscience's although perhaps it may well hang heavier on Jack than a Labour Peer who's actual ownership of a conscience is a debatable point!

    Surely its about time the statute books were notated with a set punishment for the crime and not left to the discretion of the "beak" who may or may not like the colour of your tie or particular handshake.
  19. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    As I am not in possession of any of the case papers in any of the trials mentioned above, so I am not able to discuss what was said in defence or mitigation on behalf of the Accused. And even if I was, I would not do so here... :oops:

    However, for those who have the time to read it - rather than dictate according to their emotions - the Sentencing Guidelines Council (whose role it is to issue sentencing guidelines to assist all courts in England and Wales, to help encourage consistent sentencing) have published their Definitive Guidelines on Causing Death by Dangerous Driving can be found here.
  20. the_matelot

    the_matelot War Hero Moderator

    Cheers for that SPB-I've had a read of that before to try and get my head around it. There's certainly no consistency between the matelot's (soon to be ex no doubt) sentence and Lord Ahmed's sentence of 12 weeks though-did the Judge not bother to adhere to the guidelines?

    Again, I fail to see the comparison between an RTC and an incident involving an USN boat that wasn't bombing along at excess speeds and doesn't come under British justice. I think you'll find as well that Cdr Mooney wasn't charged with any criminal charges and unlike the individual concerned wasn't seen by several witnesses driving like a prat. I know of most of the details involving the USN boat and here isn't the place to go into them but I can assure you that comparing both incidents is like comparing chalk and cheese.

Share This Page