That’s the point of suspended sentences. No prison unless something else is done during the suspended sentence period.
But, the article was not clear enough about this, or I missed something.
I think you may have missed the point. In the UK, as in most other countries, previous criminal convictions are generally not allowed to be brought up before the jury has reached its verdict. They can, and always will be, used by the judge to determine appropriate sentencing.
Sounds like this was also the case here, nothing from the report would indicate that his previous record was used as evidence to determine guilt; the firework offence was being dealt with in the same court at the same time, so not a pre-existing record, and therefore perfectly right and reasonable that the two offences would be dealt with in this way, just as they could have been in the UK.
1 Like
I see what you mean.
No jury here and although the courts have access to criminal records (Vostra), lawyers do not though defence lawyers can apply for them.
And yes, same as the UK, previous convictions and suspended sentences/clean records are taken into account only during sentencing.
I’d be interested to see how the case in question pans out after the appeal.
Like always in holidays when I eat and drink too much I was thinking nonsense:
A dead philosopher and friend of mine wrote in his book “2000 years of war” that laws do only protect criminals. If we would have no traffic laws there would be less traffic deads is what I was thinking in my alcohol (great Spanish wine) affected brain.
My driver who is a big cyclist got hurt today by another idiot car driver. He is OK but I want him to get good before driving again. I need to drive for myself or use taxis, as there are (thanks Spanish laws) no Uber and no Lyft’s around here.
What if there were no traffic laws, obviously they don’t work anyhow? Idiot drivers would die probably the first or second time they mount a vehicle. The really bad guys ride motorbikes or, if old like me, bicycles. But if there are no laws they could be killed by any car. But that would need to be intentional, not like now just for an idiot post on the phone or just some idiotic driving habits. And they would need to fear getting shot for what they have done because as I said, my friend thought that laws protect mainly the criminals.
Sorry for that words on a nice Thursday afternoon in the sun. I mainly think rare things here…
4 Likes
Wine tip?
Which great Spanish…
Completely off topic and please never drink when riding a bicycle or driving any vehicle.
Not sure if it stays secret if I tell you… but OK: -Tio Narciso from Pinoso (Frontier of Alicante con Murcia, still Alicante). 2024 was just incredible and the owner sold me last year the rest he still had for the 2025 price. I think he sells only OTC. Told me he had to rise prices but then charged me the same as last year (as it was last years wine), but said he could fit 18 liters in a 15 liter thingy and sold it to me for the 15 liters.
It is now 30 years that I buy wine there. It is the nephew now, so “Tio Narciso” is even more accurate.
1 Like
Ä year and a half later and the case which was originally dropped with no charge has now found the woman charged with manslaughter after two girls were killed and nine more children and two adults were injured.
Police watchdog the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is investigating 11 Met Police officers for their handling of the initial inquiry into the crash including four serving officers and one former detective constable who are being investigated for possible gross misconduct.
I was surprised to see you write ‘manslaughter’ which requires gross negligence, so went to check.
And no, in fact she’s been charged with causing death by dangerous driving and seven offences of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.
I also went to check the sentencing and found that it’s been increased for the third time in the last few decades, now allows a maximum of a life sentence to be imposed, previously max was 14 years (ten years from the late 1990s, five years before that). Very unlikely to get that much, normally three years would be considered a baseline.
But it seems that she was lying about the epileptic fir, so her sentence should reflect that, expect five years or so. If found guilty, of course…
1 Like
and then–She’s let out…should she be banned from driving, or at least have her driving limited in some way? Is this even possible?
Yes sorry. My mistake.
Interestingly, the crime of causing death by dangerous driving was introduced as juries were reluctant to agree on a guilty verdict for a manslaughter charge for driving a motor vehicle.
As well as her lying about the seizure, it appears there was a racist element to the Police investigation which may explain the way the charges were dropped so readily. This is part of the inquiry.
She’ll probably have to go on a refresher course …
Yes, she’ll almost certainly receive a very long ban and be required to take an extended driving test before having her licence returned.
I don’t want her driving skills tested; I want her head examined!
She tried that herself. Tried to plead an epileptic fit but it turned out she didn’t even suffer from it.
Been reading up a bit more. She had no history of epilepsy, but her confused behaviour at the scene was deemed to be consistent with that. Although I imagine someone having just caused such an accident and evidently already in denial would behave very oddly anyway.
Since the accident she claims to have suffered fits on several occasions. Allegedly she has some medical evidence for this. The original decision to drop any charges was based on this ‘diagnosis’, and the fact that charges have now been made suggests that the CPS no longer believes it to be real.
So I imagine this will continue to be her defence and that it will come down to more medical testing, so yes, I think she’s going to get her head examined again before the trial.
1 Like
I read that her behaviour after the crash was not representative of someone who had just had an epileptic fit.
Shock perhaps after mowing down a few children.
The statement from her lawyers, which of course needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, included this.
"Witnesses at the scene have been quoted in the media as describing Claire as being delirious and having bitten through her tongue, characteristic of those who have just suffered an epileptic fit.
“Paramedics who saw her immediately afterwards described her as being in the ‘postictal state’ also symptomatic of those who have just suffered an epileptic fit.”
Putting this out there, behind a a paywall though:
2 Likes
One line struck me:
Some of the best-selling pickups and SUVs in America are now bigger than military tanks from World War II
A massive German SUV passed me the other day, but then behind it was another which dwarfed the first one.
Probably something like these two:
Not quite as big as tanks though.
Size doesn’t matter for road rage:
1 Like