CPS explains Carl Baxter sentence.

From the letters page of our local paper.

I Have read with interest the article and comment (Mail, April 22) about the road rage case of Carl
Baxter. I think I should point out a number of inaccuracies in the two articles.

Carl Baxter was convicted of a total of four offences arising from his driving on Sunday, June 23.

These were dangerous driving, two offences of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm to Emily and
Stephen Kirwin, and failing to stop at the scene of the accident.

The maximum sentences for these offences are five years' imprisonment for the assaults, two years
for dangerous driving and six months for failing to stop at the scene.

The decision to pursue the assault charges was taken by the Crown Prosecution Service in order to
allow the court additional sentencing options over and above the two years for dangerous driving.

This robust approach was taken in light of the fact that the defence was likely to argue that the
assault charges duplicated the driving offence.

This is what happened when, on February 4, the defence argued that the assault charges were an abuse
of process.

This argument was rejected by the judge who accepted the Crown's view that they were separate and
aggravating features of dangerous driving.

At this point, the defendant pleaded guilty to the assault charges, having previously admitted the
offence of dangerous driving.

The sentence that he received was in fact 15 months' imprisonment for dangerous driving and two
years for the two assaults, each running concurrently, making a total of two years.

Clive Jones, Crown Prosecution Service, Market Place, Hull.

--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

 

Simon Mason wrote:

>The maximum sentences for these offences are five years' imprisonment for the assaults, two years
>for dangerous driving and six months for failing to stop at the scene.

12 years 6 months would have seemed a somewhat more appropriate sentence.

Failing that, cut his goolies off.
--
remove remove to reply

 

"Gonzalez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Simon Mason wrote:
>
> >The maximum sentences for these offences are five years' imprisonment for the assaults, two years
> >for dangerous driving and six months for failing
to
> >stop at the scene.
>
> 12 years 6 months would have seemed a somewhat more appropriate sentence.
>
> Failing that, cut his goolies off.
> --
Strongly suspect you wouldn't be able to find 'em under all that fat!!! (well, he's virtually got
away with it, so personal derision is the only option left to the man in the street !) Dave.

 

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:30:17 +0100, "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The maximum sentences for these offences are five years' imprisonment for the assaults...

Incredible. Maximum sentence for GBH on a child is five years? I'm appalled. For this cutting the
goolies off is the *minimum* acceptable sentence.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 22:47:53 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>The maximum sentences for these offences are five years' imprisonment for the assaults...

And on further investigation the maximum sentence for assault causing grievous bodily harm is not
so much five years as life imprisonment, so I'm not quite sure what the CPS actually charged
Baxter with.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

>And on further investigation the maximum sentence for assault causing grievous bodily harm is not
>so much five years as life imprisonment, so I'm not quite sure what the CPS actually charged
>Baxter with.

He states the charge was "unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm", not "assault causing grievous
bodily harm". Perhaps there's a distinction.
--
remove remove to reply

 

Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> >And on further investigation the maximum sentence for assault causing grievous bodily harm is not
> >so much five years as life imprisonment, so I'm not quite sure what the CPS actually charged
> >Baxter with.
>
> He states the charge was "unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm", not "assault causing grievous
> bodily harm". Perhaps there's a distinction.

Maybe you're right. In which case the law is an ass, since the assault was premeditated and of a
magnitude which (particularly taken with his prior convictions for similar offences) indicates
that the man is a danger to society. Perhaps this is a case where the CPS preferred a lesser
charge in the knowledge that a jury of twelve motorists is often reluctant to consider a car as a
deadly weapon.

Aside: SARS has killed substantially fewer people in any of the affected countries than have been
killed on the roads in those countries in the same period. SARS gets global headlines.

Guy

 

[email protected] (Guy Chapman) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> Aside: SARS has killed substantially fewer people in any of the affected countries than have been
> killed on the roads in those countries in the same period. SARS gets global headlines.

The significance of SARS is not the number of people it has killed so far, but the number it will
kill if it becomes a pandemic.

--
Dave...

 

Guy Chapman wrote:

>Maybe you're right. In which case the law is an ass, since the assault was premeditated and of a
>magnitude which (particularly taken with his prior convictions for similar offences) indicates
>that the man is a danger to society. Perhaps this is a case where the CPS preferred a lesser
>charge in the knowledge that a jury of twelve motorists is often reluctant to consider a car as a
>deadly weapon.

frustration, caused by his family breakdown, decided that he'd teach the cyclist a lesson by
reversing over his bicycle. As he reversed at speed, he expected the cyclist to dive for cover, not
knowing that Mr Kirwin would not move in a hopeless attempt to protect young Emily.

I find it hard to believe that any rational human being could deliberately set out to maim or kill a
father and daughter on a cycle ride.

Of course this in no way lessons his crime, but it is the only way I can deal with such horrific
behaviour and retain my confidence in humanity.
--
remove remove to reply

 

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:30:17 +0100, "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote:

>These were dangerous driving, two offences of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm to Emily and
>Stephen Kirwin, and failing to stop at the scene of the accident.
>

Simon

He did worse than not stop. He purposely reversed back into the "accident" and then drive away,
assuming I'm thinking of the same bloke.

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

 

Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> If this were true the cure might be to put the small minority in quarantine for longer periods
> than the law currently seems to see fit. But locking people away doesn't seem to be the right way.

We don't need to lock people up simply for bad driving. Just take away their driving licences.
Driving while banned OTOH should be treated much more seriously than it appears to be currently.

--
Dave...

 

[email protected] (Nick Kew) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Cut off his goolies and you have a maximum of five years, which a lawyer could doubtless get
> reduced to five months suspended ...

I think five minutes "suspended" should be sufficient ;-)

 

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:30:17 +0100 someone who may be "Simon Mason" <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>From the letters page of our local paper.

>The sentence that he received was in fact 15 months' imprisonment for dangerous driving and two
>years for the two assaults, each running concurrently, making a total of two years.

Which should have meant a sentence of 5 and a quarter years. All "concurrent" sentencing does is
encourage people to do as much as possible because they know it will not add to their sentence.

At least the CPS wrote to the paper. In doing so they demonstrated their smugness most eloquently.

Two years is a disgrace, but doesn't surprise me.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

In article <[email protected]>, Simon Mason <[email protected]> writes
>From the letters page of our local paper. The sentence that he received was in fact 15 months'
>imprisonment for dangerous driving and two years for the two assaults, each running concurrently,
>making a total of two years.
>
There was some discussion on a previous thread about writing to one's MP to complain about the
leniency of the sentence in this case. I wrote to mine, Michael Trend, MP for Windsor. He's not
contesting the next election, probably explains the total lack of response.
--
Peter Grange

Remove crude spam trap to reply

 

On Thu, 1 May 2003 00:16:00 +0100, Peter Grange <[email protected]_THISplgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>MP for Windsor

Ah yes, the qualifying criteria for election to the Windsor seat are
(a) wearing a blue rosette, (b) not actually being dead or in prison at the time and (c) er,
nothing else.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

In news:[email protected], Just zis Guy, you know?
<[email protected]> typed:
> On Thu, 1 May 2003 00:16:00 +0100, Peter Grange <[email protected]_THISplgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> MP for Windsor
>
> Ah yes, the qualifying criteria for election to the Windsor seat are
> (a) wearing a blue rosette, (b) not actually being dead or in prison at the time and (c) er,
> nothing else.
>

Are you sure about (b) ?

Tony ;-)

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer