For causing death by dangerous driving.According to BBC news it's allegedly Luke McCormick of Plymouth Argyle.

Have I covered myself there to stop any legal proceedings. BBC named him and I said allegedly ?

Don't worry about it.

But bang go Plymouth's chances of Premiership football in 2009 if they charge him and send him down.

Could even be the end of his career.

If he is sent down it wont necassarily be the end of his career - im sure there'll be clubs like Oldham who would be glad to have him

he'll get sent down during the close season if he played in the premiership a la joey barton

Lets change the IF to WHEN, IF GUILTY, maximum of 14 years ,is permissible for the offence, give him that, minimum of 2 years ban from driving, give him that, maximum points on licence for offence is 11 put them on his licence. By way not just him everyone else guilty of death by dangerous driving.

Ahh, I thought this was about Jan Budtz being arrested for impersonating (very poorly too may I add) a goalkeeper

This bloke would go down well with him then MSN, especially after one Saturday in Rochdale.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/17052008/8/photo/darlington-goalkeeper-david-stockdale.html

Or Pools. We've been known to re employ piss head death drivers.

He'll get a 2 year suspended sentence, I'd put money on it.

I was thinking though, apparently it was two kids killed in the accident - even though Hughes killed a guy and ran away, yet got back into football, I think the circumstances around Luke McCormick (if it's him) wouldn't see him return to football - it's a bit too much.

IRONY ALERT:

Why like, what are the specifics of the charge?

The news report says that a 24 year old was arrested at the scene, suspected of drink driving and was arrested and was being questioned.

The rest is journo speak and soap opera style public hysteria.

I suspend any liberal principles I might have, in the case of over-the limit-drivers

when I last looked he had been charged with death by dangerous driving, driving over the drink driving limit and driving without insurance. In my opinion anyone who kills whilst driving over the drunk driving limit should be charged with manslaughter.

I agree, he should be sent down and the key should by thrown away. he's ripped a family apart and why??? Because he wanted a few beers; what a tvvat!!!!!!! Capital punishment please folks?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staf ... 442783.stm


String the bounder up by his bollox

No fcuking insurance, on top of the rest, FFS!!!!, how much is the arsehole on a week?, but just like Bob Netwton and Lee Hughes, he will have clubs waiting to sign him once he gets out of the jug

No insurance, over the limit and killing two kids as a result of the drink. Why like?

Sounds like no one would insure him because of previous offences.

5 years is the most he will get i think.

arsehole

If the reports are correct, and he only gets five years then that is a disgrace.

If they throw the book at him, like they should he could get a lot more

Death by dangerous driving' guidelines

Many bereaved families are outraged at what they consider pitifully low sentences imposed by judges when a jury has found the killer of their loved one guilty of death by dangerous driving.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 increased the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving from 10 to 14 years, but the courts hardly ever apply sentences at the top end of the range. This is because judges follow guidelines on the factors to consider when sentencing someone found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. If they don’t take note of these guidelines, it is possible that their ruling will be overturned in the Court of Appeal, which may adjust the sentence in line with the guidelines.

How is death by dangerous driving defined?
The Road Traffic Act 1991 states that ‘a person who causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence’. [1]

A person is regarded as ‘driving dangerously’ if:
· The way they are driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
· It would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous [2]

The maximum penalty was increased to 10 years by the Criminal Justice Act 1993, and further increased to 14 years in 2003. Disqualification for a minimum period of two years is obligatory and the offence carries 3 to 11 penalty points. [3]

What are the judges’ guidelines?
Following a limited public consultation, the Sentencing Advisory Panel published a series of guidelines in 2003, with the intention of helping sentencers to strike an appropriate balance between the level of culpability (deserving blame) of the offender and the magnitude of the harm resulting from the offence. [4]

The Panel recognised that this was a key problem for a person sentencing an offender.

However, it expressed the view that although the outcome of the offence should have some effect, the offender’s culpability should be the dominant component in the sentencing decision when the offence involves no intention to kill or injure.

Aggravating factors
The Panel highlighted a number of factors which they felt aggravated the seriousness of the offence and which the person sentencing should take into account. These are:

Highly culpable standard of driving at time of offence
(a) The consumption of drugs or alcohol
(b) Greatly excessive speed; racing; competitive driving against another vehicle; ‘showing off’
(c) Disregard of warnings from fellow passengers
(d) A prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving
(e) Aggressive driving
(f) Driving while the driver’s attention is avoidably distracted, e.g. by reading or by use of a mobile phone
(g) Driving when knowingly suffering from a medical condition which significantly impairs the offender’s driving skills
(h) Driving when knowingly deprived of adequate sleep or rest
(i) Driving a poorly maintained or dangerously loaded vehicle, especially where this has been motivated by commercial concerns

Driving habitually below acceptable standard
(j) Other offences committed at same time, such as driving without ever having held a licence; driving while disqualified; driving without insurance; driving while a learner without supervision; taking a vehicle without consent; driving a stolen vehicle
(k) Previous convictions for motoring offences, particularly offences which involve bad driving or the consumption of excessive alcohol before driving

Outcome of offence
(l) More than one person killed as a result of the offence
(m) Serious injury to one or more victims, in addition to the death(s)

Irresponsible behaviour at time of offence
(n) Behaviour at the time of the offence, such as failing to stop, falsely claiming that one of the victims was responsible from the crash, or trying to throw the victim off the bonnet of the car by swerving in order to escape
(o) Causing death in the course of dangerous driving in an attempt to avoid detection or apprehension
p) Offence committed while the offender was on bail

Mitigating factors
The Panel also identified a number of mitigating factors that should be taken into account by judges when deciding on a sentence. These are:
(a) A good driving record
(b) The absence of previous convictions
(c) A timely plea of guilty
(d) Genuine shock or remorse (which may be greater if the victim is either a close relation or a friend
(e) The offender’s age (but only in cases where lack of driving experience has contributed to the commission of the offence), and
(f) The fact that the offender has also been seriously injured as a result of the incident caused by the dangerous driving – the Panel stresses that only a very serious, or life changing injury, should have a significant effect on the sentence

Choice and length of sentence
The Panel proposed that the starting point for causing death by dangerous driving, whether or not there are aggravating features in the case, should normally be a custodial sentence. The main factor determining the length of sentence would be the degree of the offender’s culpability, as reflected in the actual standard of driving at the time of the offence. The Panel suggested the following starting points (note that when these guidelines were published, the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving was 10 years):

Moderate culpability
1. For an offence involving a momentary dangerous error of judgement or a short period of bad driving, where there are no aggravating features, the starting point should normally be a short custodial sentence.
2. In a case where an offender’s culpability was exceptionally low, or where there was strong mitigation, a community sentence may be appropriate, but a plea of guilty would not in itself be sufficient to justify a non-custodial sentence.
3. An offence involving a momentary dangerous error of judgement or a short period of bad driving may be aggravated by a habitually unacceptable standard of driving on the part of the offender, by the death of more than one victim or serious injury to other victims or by the offender’s irresponsible behaviour at the time of the offence. The presence of one or more of these features could indicate a sentence within the higher range, up to three years.

Higher culpability
4. When the standard of the offender’s driving is more highly dangerous, the appropriate starting point would be a sentence of two to five years. The exact length would be determined by the dangerousness of the driving and by the presence of other aggravating or mitigating factors.

The most serious offences
5. The Panel suggested that custodial sentences over five years should be reserved for cases involving an extremely high level of culpability on the offender’s part. This might be indicated by the presence of three of more aggravating factors although an exceptionally bad example of a single aggravating feature could be sufficient to place on offence into this category. A sentence close to the maximum would be appropriate in a case displaying a large number of these features, or where there were other aggravating factors.

Problems with the guidelines
Aggravating factors
Brake believes that some key points have been missed out of the list of aggravating factors which should be important issues to be considered by judges when sentencing someone who has been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. These include:

1. Causing death of a pedestrian or cyclist on a pedestrian/cyclist crossing or pavement, or of a pedestrian or cyclist who is walking or riding responsibly
There is no mention of pedestrian/cyclist rights of way (crossings and pavements) in the guidelines, yet these are designated places on our roads that are supposed to be safe places on which to walk. Equally, a pedestrian or cyclist who are using roads responsibly (eg. a pedestrian walking carefully at the edge of a rural road that doesn’t have a pavement) are not mentioned. Causing the death of a vulnerable road user who is using the highway according to well-established safety laws should be regarded as an aggravating factor as the driver was obviously driving dangerously if they were unable to stop in time / avoid the vulnerable road user.

Case study: 18 month sentence for hit and run crossing-death driver
A hit and run driver who sped off after knocking down a student on a Birmingham crossing was jailed for 18 months in April 2006. Jaswinder Lakhvinder Singh admitted causing the death of 20-year-old Abigail Craen by dangerous driving. Singh, 45, gave himself up to police after Miss Craen’s mother Susan allowed newspapers to publish pictures of her daughter lying dead in hospital. Amjad Nawaz, prosecuting, said Abigail was on the crossing outside her halls of residence in Edgbaston when she was hit by the Ford Mondeo and thrown into the air. Her body was found 30m away from the pelican crossing. The car that hit her did not stop and passers-by called the emergency services.

Seleena Mahmood, defending Singh, said he was fully aware of the suffering he caused Abigail’s family. She said he did not stop because he had no insurance but when he heard Miss Craen had died he handed himself in. Singh was told by Judge Daniel Pearce-Higgins that he would serve half his sentence. He banned Singh from driving for four years.

After the hearing at Birmingham Crown Court, Abigail’s mother said: “The sentence is an insult to her. She is dead and the man who killed her has a small interruption in his life. This is no deterrent or punishment.” [5]

Case study: Bus driver jailed for 15 months after killing girl on crossing
A bus driver who ran over and killed a schoolgirl on a pelican crossing in north London was jailed for just 15 months. Iffat Chaudhry, 37, was working an extra shift when he lost concentration and ran through a red light, hitting Zohal Qayoom, 14. Chaudhry admitted causing death by dangerous driving. Sentencing him, Judge Jeremy Roberts told him: “I take the view that driving a double decker bus through a red light on a pedestrian crossing and mowing down a member of the public crossing in her favour is an aggravating feature” but still only jailed him for 15 months. Chaudhry was banned from driving for five years. [6]

2. Causing death while speeding
The guidelines issued by the Sentencing Advisory Panel suggest that speed should be considered an aggravating feature if the driver was travelling at a ‘greatly excessive’ speed; racing; competitively driving against another driver or showing off. However, there is no mention of drivers travelling at speeds which may not be considered excessive in court but are highly dangerous on particular roads and breaking the law.

For example, a driver may cause death by dangerous driving when travelling at 40mph in a 30mph zone. If you hit an adult pedestrian while driving at 30mph, the survival chance is 80%. But if you hit a pedestrian while driving at 40mph, the pedestrian's chances of dying rises to 90% (this lowers to 80% for a child).[7] Driving at 40mph in a 30mph limit is also clearly against the law, yet it may not be considered as an aggravating factor, compared with, for example, driving at 50mph in a 30mph. Yet science dictates that a pedestrian is likely to be just as dead if hit at 40 as at 30.

3. Causing death while driving inappropriately for the conditions
The Sentencing Advisory Panel guidelines make no mention of dangerous driving in bad weather conditions. The dangers of driving too fast and driving too closely to a vehicle in front are intensified in bad weather conditions and at night, when visibility is lower and drivers should be aware that when driving in these conditions requires extra care, which may mean driving well below speed limits, particularly the many derestricted limits we have on our rural roads. In fact, illogical excuses such as ‘He was driving fast because it was night time and no-one was about’ are frequently heard in court. At night, it is harder to see other road users, particularly pedestrians and cyclists. In urban areas, it is more likely that pedestrians will make mistakes at night (for example, if drunk). To allow drivers to break speed limits at night is to curfew other road users.

4. Very bad driving
The Sentencing Advisory Panel guidelines say that very bad driving must be ‘prolonged and persistent’ to be an aggravating factor. In fact, many examples of very bad driving that kill are short in terms of their duration – one example being a decision to overtake at speed in a dangerous place, such as on a blind bend or blind brow, that frequently results in a head on collision with another vehicle coming in the other direction and death. In this case, a wonton decision to accelerate and overtaken when it is not clear what is coming in the opposite direction is clearly, in Brake’s view, an example of very bad driving that is highly likely to result in carnage and should be an aggravating factor. It should not be necessary to prove, which is often impossible due to lack of other witnesses, that the offending driver had been speeding or dangerously overtaking incessantly in the run-up to the death or deaths.

Mitigating circumstances
Brake believes that some of the mitigating circumstances listed by the SAP should not automatically result in a reduction in sentence. For example, the guidelines suggest that a timely plea of guilty should be considered by judges as a mitigating factor. However, killer drivers are highly likely to admit to an offence when it is blatantly clear from the evidence that they did it. Such admissions are also unlikely to be of comfort to the bereaved relatives and are no indication of whether the offender is truly sorry or whether they intent to drive safely in the future.

Choice and length of sentence
Brake agrees with the recommendation by the Sentencing Advisory Panel that the starting point for causing death by dangerous driving, whether or not there are aggravating features in the case, should be a custodial sentence. However, in contrast to the Panel, Brake feels that many more sentences should be at the higher end of the scale, rather than mainly at the bottom.

The Panel states (moderate culpability, No. 3) that the presence of one or more aggravating features could indicate a sentence within the ‘higher range, up to three years.’ However, Brake points out that three years is only 21% of the possible maximum sentence, and a woefully low sentence for a case involving one or more aggravating factors.

Similarly, the Panel states that ‘custodial sentences over five years should be reserved for cases involving an extremely high level of culpability on the offender’s part. This might be indicated by the presence of three of more aggravating factors although an exceptionally bad example of a single aggravating feature could be sufficient to place on offence into this category.’ Brake would argue that five years, which is only just over a third of the maximum sentence, is again too low.

Additional case studies
The following case studies have been chosen as examples which demonstrate either particularly low punishments; relatively high sentences; how court decisions can be overruled by the court of appeal; or the presence of particular aggravating features which Brake feels should have resulted in higher sentences for the offender.

Driver jailed for seven years
A drink-driver who killed a pedestrian was jailed for seven years. Matthew Brown, 22, from Stoke-on-Trent, admitted causing the death of Stuart Boulton, 53, by dangerous driving. The court heard that Brown’s VW had hit a taxi prior to the fatal collision. Brown also admitted driving with excess alcohol, failing to stop at the scene of an accident and failing to report the collision. [8]

Jail term cut for driver who caused the death of a toddler
A driver who caused the death of a three-year-old boy in a head-on road smash in North Yorkshire had his jail term reduced on appeal. Justin Martin, 32, was jailed for three years and nine months after he admitted causing the death of Blake Spencer. Blake’s mother, Kirstie Buckle, 22, was also badly injured in the crash.

Court of Appeal judges said Martin’s sentence was “manifestly excessive” and reduced it to two-and-a-half years. Mr Justice David Clarke said many of the aggravating factors such as the use of drink, drugs or a mobile phone, were absent. As a result he said Martin’s original sentence “was just too long”. He said Martin’s offence fell within the “intermediate category” of seriousness.

Kirstie said: “A sentence should act as a deterrent to other drivers and this is not doing that.” [9]

Ban for epileptic driver who caused death by dangerous driving
A man who killed another driver after he had an epileptic fit at the wheel of his van walked free from court. Stephen Amor, 42, from East Sussex, crashed into a BMW, killing Margaret Gosling, 60 on the A22 at Lower Dicker. Amor had pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving after the crash. He admitted the charge on the basis that he got behind the wheel despite suffering warning symptoms that a seizure might be coming on. He was given a five-year driving ban and a two-year suspended jail sentence at Hove Crown Court. He was originally warned by the judge that he was likely to receive a lengthy prison sentence. [10]

Driver who killed pensioner jailed for 30 months
A banned driver who killed a pensioner while driving with his windscreen misted up has been jailed for 30 months. James McGuire, 23, was turning right at a T-junction when his car struck Alexander Donegan, 77, who was crossing the road to get a prescription. An earlier court hearing heard how McGuire had paid £50 for a Ford Fiesta and drove off just minutes before the fatal incident in Rowan Street, Paisley. He was convicted of driving dangerously with the windscreen obscured and admitted a further charge of failing to stop after the crash.

Defence solicitor advocate Dennis Coffield said McGuire was currently serving two prison terms for drugs and for driving while disqualified. He said McGuire had never denied causing the death of his victim but contested the level of fault attributed to him. Lord Kinclaven noted that McGuire was not under the influence of drink or drugs and had not been speeding at the time of the incident. He imposed a further 10-year driving ban on McGuire. [11]

‘Racing’ drivers jailed
Two men who took part in a car race that resulted in the deaths of four teenage girls were each jailed for eight years at Hull Crown Court in April 2006. David Rogerson, 22, and Robert McCartney, 24, raced at over 70mph on a busy Hull street before crashing. In Rogerson’s car were Kimberley Brown, 17, Rachel Thomas, 17, Laura Hill, 16, and his fiancée Karen Bunting, 18, who were all killed. Both men admitted four counts of causing death by dangerous driving. They were each banned from driving for 10 years. Rogerson lost a leg in the crash. McCartney was the only person to escape unscathed after the cars hit a tree, but his passenger was seriously injured. Rogerson and McCartney were both over the drink-drive limit at the time of the crash, the court heard. The pair had never met before but came across each other on the 30mph Beverley Road as they drove out of the city in the early hours of the morning. After the hearing, Rachel Thomas’s mother, Alison Lloyd, said: “Eight years for four lives – it’s ridiculous, it’s disgraceful.” [12]

Toddler death driver jailed
A learner driver who killed a boy of two when he crashed unsupervised onto a beach was jailed for eight years. Paul Cambray, 46, from the Isle of Wight, was found guilty of causing the death of Maximillian Young, of London, by dangerous driving. He was also found guilty of dangerous driving and the unlawful wounding of the boy’s father. The incident happened at Yaverland on the Isle of Wight. The trial heard that Cambray told police his foot slipped from the brake to the accelerator, causing the car to fly off an 11-foot-high sea wall before landing on the beach below. The car fell on the toddler and his father Charles, who were visiting the island with Maximillian’s mother Antje. Judge Richard Price sentenced Cambray to eight years’ imprisonment for the offence of death by dangerous driving, 12 months for dangerous driving and three years for the wounding charge, all to run concurrently. He said evidence heard in the trial, which showed Cambray had driven his car unsupervised on several occasions prior to the fatal incident, aggravated, the offences. He was also banned from driving for 10 years. [13]

Conclusion
The guidelines set out by the Sentencing Advisory Panel in 2003 were adopted by the Court of Appeal (see R v Cooksley and others (2004). Although the Court said the Panel’s series of aggravating and mitigating factors were ‘not exhaustive’, judges appear to be following the list of aggravating factors pretty much to the letter, and not appropriate sentencing offenders who commit gross acts, such as killing pedestrians on pelican crossings while speeding.

Brake believes that the guidelines are in need of revision, as there are clearly some things that are completely missing (such as the death of a person on a pedestrian crossing) and others issues that should be reconsidered. The maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving is now 14 years, so the recommended sentence structures suggested by the SAP, which were originally too low in Brake’s opinion, are now extremely low, and in desperate need of revision.

Sources of further information:
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Road Traffic Act 1991


Driving/Attempting to Drive with excess alcohol (DR10)
Penalty - Fine - up to Level 5 (£5,000) and/or up to 6 months imprisonment
Mandatory disqualification for at least 12 months for first offence
Mandatory disqualification for at least 3 years for second offence within 10 years.

Driving without Insurance

The Road Traffic Act 1988, S143 defines driving without insurance as follows: "It is an offence to use (or permit to be used) a motor vehicle on a road or public place when there is not in force in relation to the use of the vehicle such a policy of insurance is respect of third party risks as complies with the Road Traffic Act". This definition was drafted to be wide and therefore encompass both the owner of the car and the driver/temporary driver. It also encompases people who do not drive the vehicle, because the word "use" can include parked or stationary vehicles or those left for repair on a road or public place.

Having no motor vehicle insurance is an absolute offence, which means that you cannot defend the offence on the basis that you had no knowledge as to the lack of insurance. To prove the offence, the prosecution have to show "use", which would include parked cars on a road/public place. It is not limited to actual driving.

When an employee drives a company car the employer may be prosecuted if the vehicle being driven by the employee does not have a valid certificate of insurance. In that situation, either the employee and/or the employer is regarded as using it within the definition of no insurance. This includes having control, management or operation of the vehicle. If you lend your car to another person who does not have insurance, you may also find yourself prosecuted under S143, driving without insurance. However there may be arguments that the vehicle owner is not guilty, of having no insurance because he/she no longer had control and was not "using" within the definition. It is always best to ensure that the other person has insurance to avoid being caught under this section. The absolute nature of the offence does not apply to employees driving employers' cars, and there may be a defence for the employee who thought he was insured by the employer.

Once the prosecution have established the basic elements of "no insurance" it is then up to the defendant to establish that he was driving with insurance.

Special reasons can be put forward after conviction, to try to persuade a court not to impose penalty points or a driving ban if the circumstances amount to such special reasons. This has been clarified by case law.

SkySports are saying ALLEDGED still...... im confused by Sky sometimes!

It is alleged until proven in a court of law.

He aint been tried yet so it is wrong to assume that he will be convicted.

As he said hang him! Guilty as sin IMO!

Nice to see the Bunker hasn't lost its taste for a good ol' fashioned lynching.

If its good enough for Saddam Hussain its good enough for him!

Three years in the jug seems fair, perhaps he could of killed another kid, gone for a trio and got four years.......

Luke can go and fook himself (after the inmates have finished obviously)

I just thought I'd quote this to accentuate the unnecessary length of rules and regulations, and to make this page really really long

They are a bit aren't they

I hope people dont start quoting that post otherwise it could get to be a right pain to read!

Yeah, but Mr Disorder, that quote can go and fook itself.