CPS explains Carl Baxter sentence.

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Simon Mason, Apr 28, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Simon Mason

    Simon Mason Guest

    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
     
    Tags:


  2. Gonzalez

    Gonzalez Guest

    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
     
  3. Dave

    Dave Guest

    "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.
     
  4. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    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.
     
  5. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    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.
     
  6. Gonzalez

    Gonzalez Guest

    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
     
  7. Guy Chapman

    Guy Chapman Guest

    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
     
  8. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

    [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...
     
  9. Gonzalez

    Gonzalez Guest

    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
     
  10. James Hodson

    James Hodson Guest

    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
     
  11. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

    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...
     
  12. Guy Chapman

    Guy Chapman Guest

    [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 ;-)
     
  13. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    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.
     
  14. Peter Grange

    Peter Grange Guest

    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
     
  15. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    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.
     
  16. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    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
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...