Wednesday, 9 October 2019

I Wonder What He'd Have Got If He'd Hit A Magistrate's Child...?

Claire Dunn’s son, Jack, 13, was cycling to school in January when he was hit by Andrew Lancaster, 22, who overtook traffic as Jack used a zebra crossing at Hobleythick Lane, Westcliff.
The Southend High School for Boys pupil smashed his face open on the ground and was knocked out.
At Colchester Magistrates’ Court, Lancaster admitted driving a vehicle on a road without due care and attention.
Is that all he was charged with? Another example of CPS laziness, I guess...
Lancaster, of Brightwell Avenue, Westcliff received a fine of £166 and was ordered to pay court costs of £90. He also got five penalty points.
And no compensation order for the injury or damage to the bike? No wonder the mother is furious:
Claire, 41, said: “I cannot begin to say how disappointed I am with the magistrate. Five points and a fine does not reflect the circumstances or the physical and psychological injury inflicted upon my 13-year-old son.
“Had Jack not have been wearing his helmet, the outcome could have been fatal. To run into a child who is crossing a zebra crossing should result in an instant disqualification.
It’s disgraceful to think this man continues to use our roads.”
Yes. It's also disgraceful to think the magistrate continues to sit on the bench.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

The outcome is only to he expected. A possible scenario is that the defence brief, probably paid for by you and me through legal aid, will tell CPS that their client will plead not guilty to reckless driving, but guilty to due care.
At this point, money comes into it. CPS have targets to obtain guilty verdicts while remaining within a very tight budget. The cost of a trial is many more times that of a guilty plea at magistrates court, so guess which CPS will go for.
The result is that the magistrates are happy because they have dispensed justice based on the evidence before them; the CPS are happy that they obtained a conviction while remaining within budget; the defence brief is happy because the taxpayer has funded his next holiday in the sun; and the offender is happy because a huge fine and driving ban, possibly a custodial sentence, was avoided. The only person not happy is the victim and their priorities are fairly low down on the scale.
This is just another example of the wide chasm between the law and justice.
Penseivat

Anonymous said...

Poor old Andrew Lancaster, taken before the beak, fined and getting FIVE points - in comparison to Ann Sacoolas, who actually killed a lad, and got off Scot Free simply by claimimg diplomatic immunity and buggering off back to that Shithole she comes from, acting on the advice of someone at her Embassy.

The correct solution in both cases was (a) instant incarceration, (b) a flogging, (c) instant disqualification from driving, (d) a court order for restitution of damage to property, (e) compensation to the boy (or parents), and in the case of the bitch Sacoolas, second and third floggings followed by her and her husband being rendered personae non grata, and ejected from the country along with a selection of US Embassy staff.

Robert the Biker said...

Missing something here, surely the parents go after his insurance company for compo.