Yet another derisory fine for killing a cyclist...



H

Howard

Guest
Aberdeen Evening Express

£300 fine for death crash teen

A Teenager whose careless driving cost the life of a cyclist
was fined £300 today. David Milne, 18, appeared at Aberdeen
Sheriff Court and admitted causing the accident which
severely injured mum of two Mrs Johannah Duffus, 52, who
later died.

He drove too fast at a corner on the unclassified Burnhervie
to Inverurie road on June 21 last year.

The accident happened near River Cottage, Coldwells,
Inverurie, when his car crossed on to the opposite side of
the road and hit Mrs Duffus's bicycle.

Today an agent for Milne, of 4 Barclay Road, Inverurie, said
the teenager had wished he could turn back time.

Solicitor Gregor Kelly said Milne, a promising young
musician, wanted to extend his deepest sympathies to the
Duffus family. Milne would have to live with the
consequences constantly, he said.

He said Milne, who is going to university to study music
technology, had since gone to motoring school and passed
the Pass Plus Scheme and was now clearly a responsible
young driver.

Mr Kelly said the youth's "momentary aberration" had
"changed a lot of lives".

Sheriff Alexander Jessop said he was restricting the fine
because Milne was going to university, but also banned him
for six months.

The sheriff acknowledged: "Clearly this is one case where
you always wish you could turn back the clock." The incident
itself had tragic consequences, but Milne was charged with
careless driving, not causing the death, and in the
circumstances the sheriff was obliged to take account merely
of the degree of carelessness involved.
 
"Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Aberdeen Evening Express
>
> £300 fine for death crash teen

and a derisory 6 month ban.
>
>
> A Teenager whose careless driving cost the life of a
> cyclist was fined £300 today. David Milne, 18, appeared at
> Aberdeen Sheriff Court and admitted causing the accident
> which severely injured mum of two Mrs Johannah Duffus, 52,
> who later died.
>
> He drove too fast at a corner on the unclassified
> Burnhervie to Inverurie road on June 21 last year.
>
> The accident happened near River Cottage, Coldwells,
> Inverurie, when his car crossed on to the opposite side of
> the road and hit Mrs Duffus's bicycle.
>
> Today an agent for Milne, of 4 Barclay Road, Inverurie,
> said the teenager had wished he could turn back time.
>
> Solicitor Gregor Kelly said Milne, a promising young
> musician, wanted to extend his deepest sympathies to the
> Duffus family. Milne would have to live with the
> consequences constantly, he said.
>
> He said Milne, who is going to university to study music
> technology, had since gone to motoring school and passed
> the Pass Plus Scheme and was now clearly a responsible
> young driver.
>
> Mr Kelly said the youth's "momentary aberration" had
> "changed a lot of lives".
>
> Sheriff Alexander Jessop said he was restricting the fine
> because Milne was going to university, but also banned him
> for six months.
>
> The sheriff acknowledged: "Clearly this is one case where
> you always wish you could turn back the clock." The
> incident itself had tragic consequences, but Milne was
> charged with careless driving, not causing the death, and
> in the circumstances the sheriff was obliged to take
> account merely of the degree of carelessness involved.
 
"burt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Aberdeen Evening Express
> >
> > £300 fine for death crash teen
>
> and a derisory 6 month ban.

and... ?

Whilst any loss of human life is, of course, regrettable,
what else should be done? He's got his whole life in front
of him, he's done the right thing in sorting out his
driving, he's apologised to the family question - is blood
the only thing that satisfies?

Tom.
 
On 2004-03-26 17:21:01 +0000, "Thomas" <tom [at] greysheep [dot] co
[dot] uk> said:

>
> and... ?
>
> Whilst any loss of human life is, of course, regrettable,
> what else should be done? He's got his whole life in front
> of him, he's done the right thing in sorting out his
> driving, he's apologised to the family question - is blood
> the only thing that satisfies?
>
> Tom.

Why should he be allowed to drive again? He's proven
himself capable of losing control and killing someone.
'Ah,' you're thinking, 'bit that could have been any of us.
We can all lapse our concentration for a moment.' To which
I'd say: exactly.
--
Remove the nice brown paste in my signature if you
want to reply!
 
"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> >> > £300 fine for death crash teen
> >>
> >> and a derisory 6 month ban.
> >
> >and... ?
>
> Prison. A low fine and a derisory ban sends out a signal
> that it's
acceptable
> to kill with your car. A prison sentence would, dependent
> upon length of sentence, send out a signal that killing
> wiht a car is not acceptable.
>
> Cheers, helen s

Hang on... you're saying that we should imprison people
purely for the purpose of scaring people into inaction? I
can understand that kind of argument as far as murderers and
rapists are concerned, but for this...

Tom.
 
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:44:29 +0000, Thomas wrote:

>> to kill with your car. A prison sentence would, dependent
>> upon length of sentence, send out a signal that killing
>> wiht a car is not acceptable.
>
> Hang on... you're saying that we should imprison people
> purely for the purpose of scaring people into inaction? I
> can understand that kind of argument as far as murderers
> and rapists are concerned, but for this...

Uh - how many people are murdered in this country
every year? And how many are killed by
careless/incompetent driving?
 
Thomas wrote:
>
> Hang on... you're saying that we should imprison people
> purely for the purpose of scaring people into inaction? I
> can understand that kind of argument as far as murderers
> and rapists are concerned, but for this...
>

Why else would you jail a mother for having her daughter
play truant?

Tony
 
"Thomas" <tom [at] greysheep [dot] co [dot] uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Hang on... you're saying that we should imprison people
> purely for the purpose of scaring people into inaction? I
> can understand that kind of argument as far as murderers
> and rapists are concerned, but for this...

Yes -it's called a *deterrent*. Kill someone with a
dangerous weapon and you get banged up. If it makes only a
few people take more care -then it's worthwhile.

Simon M.
 
"Ian W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2004-03-26 17:21:01 +0000, "Thomas" <tom [at] greysheep
> [dot] co [dot] uk> said:
>
> >
> > and... ?
> >
> > Whilst any loss of human life is, of course,
> > regrettable, what else
should
> > be done? He's got his whole life in front of him, he's
> > done the right
thing
> > in sorting out his driving, he's apologised to the
> > family question - is blood the only thing that
> > satisfies?
> >
> > Tom.
>
> Why should he be allowed to drive again? He's proven
> himself capable of losing control and killing someone.
> 'Ah,' you're thinking, 'bit that could have been any of
> us. We can all lapse our concentration for a moment.' To
> which I'd say: exactly.

Right... so people should be imprisoned for being human?
i.e. everybody makes mistakes.

Tom.
 
Thomas wrote:
>
> Right... so people should be imprisoned for being human?
> i.e. everybody makes mistakes.
>

Sentencing has three purposes - punishment, protection of
society and deterrence. Would you think twice before taking
a gun to a burglar after the Tony Martin case and would you
think twice about driving a bit fast on the roads after
this case?

Tony
 
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:21:01 -0000, "Thomas" <tom [at] greysheep [dot]
co [dot] uk> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Whilst any loss of human life is, of course, regrettable,
>what else should be done? He's got his whole life in
>front of him

Which will give him plenty of time to pay more substantial
damages in installments, after his three year ban and twelve
month community service order finishes.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
 
"Thomas" <tom [at] greysheep [dot] co [dot] uk> writed in
news:[email protected]:

> "Ian W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 2004-03-26 17:21:01 +0000, "Thomas" <tom [at]
>> greysheep [dot] co [dot] uk> said:
>>
>> >
>> > and... ?
>> >
>> > Whilst any loss of human life is, of course,
>> > regrettable, what else
> should
>> > be done? He's got his whole life in front of him, he's
>> > done the right
> thing
>> > in sorting out his driving, he's apologised to the
>> > family question
>> > - is blood the only thing that satisfies?
>> >
>> > Tom.
>>
>> Why should he be allowed to drive again? He's proven
>> himself capable of losing control and killing someone.
>> 'Ah,' you're thinking, 'bit that could have been any of
>> us. We can all lapse our concentration for a moment.' To
>> which I'd say: exactly.
>
> Right... so people should be imprisoned for being human?
> i.e. everybody makes mistakes.
>
Yes - some mistakes are so serious that they deserve
judicial punishent, sometimes severe punishment. The purpose
being to let society learn from others mistakes. In this
case (if the reported facts are accurate) making mistakes
with a lethal piece of machinery is not acceptable behaviour
as it costs the lives of others.

Mike - Leicester
 
On 2004-03-26 17:42:14 +0000, "Thomas" <tom [at] greysheep [dot] co
[dot] uk> said:
>>
>> Why should he be allowed to drive again? He's proven
>> himself capable of losing control and killing someone.
>> 'Ah,' you're thinking, 'bit that could have been any of
>> us. We can all lapse our concentration for a moment.' To
>> which I'd say: exactly.
>
> Right... so people should be imprisoned for being human?
> i.e. everybody makes mistakes.
>
> Tom.

Yes, and that's precisely why all sorts of things are
illegal. It's illegal to walk down the street with a loaded
shotgun, even if you are a farmer or someone who has a right
to own one. Why? Because we realize that humans are fallible
and that even though the owner didn't mean for it to, the
gun might go off. We frequently acknowledge that humans are
fallible and legislate accordingly. Except for cars.

Ian

--
Remove the nice brown paste in my signature if you
want to reply!
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thomas wrote:
> >
> > Right... so people should be imprisoned for being human?
> > i.e. everybody makes mistakes.
> >
>
> Sentencing has three purposes - punishment, protection of
> society and deterrence. Would you think twice before
> taking a gun to a burglar after
the
> Tony Martin case and would you think twice about driving a
> bit fast on the roads after this case?

Also I would add the feelings of the victims - what would
the family feel if they see that the judge or whoever
values their loved one's life so cheaply? Seeing justice
done at least helps the grieving process.

Simon M.
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thomas wrote:
> >
> > Right... so people should be imprisoned for being human?
> > i.e. everybody makes mistakes.

But you use your sense to make sure you do not. If you are
new to driving it should be hammered home to you to err on
the side of caution.
( aridiculous concept for a teenager maybe, but there you
go ).

If its "there for the grace of god", then you've been
risking things too much, but been lucky. I had a slight
tendancy to drive like that when I was younger, but not that
often, and not that badly.

> Sentencing has three purposes - punishment, protection of
> society and deterrence. Would you think twice before
> taking a gun to a burglar after
the
> Tony Martin case

Ha! The more you think about doing it, the more guilty you'd
be!
 
"Simon Mason" <[email protected]> writed in
news:[email protected]:

> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> berlin.de...
>> Thomas wrote:
>> >
>> > Right... so people should be imprisoned for being
>> > human? i.e. everybody makes mistakes.
>> >
>>
>> Sentencing has three purposes - punishment, protection of
>> society and deterrence. Would you think twice before
>> taking a gun to a burglar after
> the
>> Tony Martin case and would you think twice about driving
>> a bit fast on the roads after this case?
>
> Also I would add the feelings of the victims - what would
> the family feel if they see that the judge or whoever
> values their loved one's life so cheaply? Seeing justice
> done at least helps the grieving process.
>
Agreed - I was taught that the justice system is the legal
way of extracting retribution for a crime - in other words
to stop the victim (or victim's family) punishing the
perpetrator themselves;thus through the justice system the
state (or to be precise, the crown) hands out the
punishment. Or in this case, doesn't.

Mike - Leicester
 
On 2004-03-26 18:02:33 +0000, "Simon Mason"
<[email protected]> said:
>>
>> Sentencing has three purposes - punishment, protection of
>> society and deterrence. Would you think twice before
>> taking a gun to a burglar after
> the
>> Tony Martin case and would you think twice about driving
>> a bit fast on the roads after this case?
>
> Also I would add the feelings of the victims - what would
> the family feel if they see that the judge or whoever
> values their loved one's life so cheaply? Seeing justice
> done at least helps the grieving process.
>
> Simon M.

Yes, if I remember my A-level in law correctly then legal
theorists tend to list retribution as another function of
punishment.

--
Remove the nice brown paste in my signature if you
want to reply!
 
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:44:29 -0000, "Thomas" <tom [at] greysheep [dot]
co [dot] uk> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Hang on... you're saying that we should imprison people
>purely for the purpose of scaring people into inaction? I
>can understand that kind of argument as far as murderers
>and rapists are concerned, but for this...

Bad drivers kill more poeple than murderers so are in
greater need of deterrent sentencing.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
 
in message <[email protected]>, "Thomas" <tom
[at] greysheep [dot] co [dot] uk> ('') wrote:

>
> "burt" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:ZtZ8c.14715$Cu5.13588@news-
> binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> "Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Aberdeen Evening Express
>> >
>> > £300 fine for death crash teen
>>
>> and a derisory 6 month ban.
>
> and... ?
>
> Whilst any loss of human life is, of course, regrettable,
> what else should be done?

He should have been banned from holding a driving
licence. For life.

It isn't a right. Withdrawing it should not be seen as a
punishment.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke)
http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; If God does not write
LISP, God writes some code so similar to ;; LISP as to make
no difference.