Lord Ahmed

[chaggle]

This one caught my eye:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Labour-Peer-Lord-Ahmed-Who-Sent-And-Received-Texts-While-Driving-On-A-Motorway-To-Be-Sentenced/Article/200902415229161?lpos=UK_News_Second_UK_News_Articl e_Teaser_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15229161_Labour_Peer_Lord_Ahmed_Who_Se nt_And_Received_Texts_While_Driving_On_A_Motorway_ To_Be_Sentenced



A Labour peer is due to be sentenced after he admitted sending and receiving text messages while driving on a motorway just before a man died in a crash.




Lord Ahmed's solicitor said he was "rendered momentarily unconscious" by the impact of the crash and suffered a very serious head injury.
Steve Smith said there was no connection between his client sending and receiving the text messages and the fatal accident.


The article doesn't say what constituted the "Dangerous Driving" with which he is being charged. Presumably it is either 'texting while driving' or 'colliding with a stationary car', but not both as he wasn't doing them at the same time.

Can we assume that it is the texting while driving rather than the accident else the charge would have been one of Causing death by dangerous driving?

It will be interesting to see whether the sentence reflects the fact that they were not linked. Somehow I doubt it.

[chaggle]

Well, while I was writing the above, he was sentenced to 12 weeks jail. So either he was done for the fatal accident (neither SKY nor BBC say that this is the case) or you get 12 weeks inside for texting while driving. I wish it was clearer in the articles what the actual charge was!

[Dubious Dick]

This is very confusing. Where is the evidence that the texting was not the cause for Ahmed hitting the Audi? Was the other guy dead before Ahmed hit his car?

Surely this guy should be stripped of his peerage for sheer stupidity?

The use of mobiles while driving drives me mad. The sanctions are still ludicrously weak, and I see it every day e.g. some t**t in a Beamer M3 screaming past me on the motorway doing about 95 a few days ago while merrily chatting away.

Why does this extraordinarily dangerous activity attract such light penalties?

I know that hands free is not necessarily safe, but it is surely safer i.e. both hands free to control the car at least, and it amazes me when I see idiots in expensive cars who can't be bothered to get the necessary kit.

It is a shame Ahmeds head injuries weren't worse.

[chaggle]

The use of mobiles while driving drives me mad. The sanctions are still ludicrously weak, and I see it every day e.g. some t**t in a Beamer M3 screaming past me on the motorway doing about 95 a few days ago while merrily chatting away.

Why does this extraordinarily dangerous activity attract such light penalties?



The BBC are now saying this




The judge, Mr Justice Wilkie, said that the text messaging had finished before the accident took place and was not connected to the fatal incident. But he said that using a mobile phone while driving at speeds of 60mph was highly dangerous and only a custodial sentence would be appropriate

.

So ANYONE using a mobile phone at high speed should/will get a custodial sentence? We'll see eh?

[Matt]

Via Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/intexticated.asp) today I disovered the neologism intexticated (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=intexticated). I commend this usage to the house.

[Jack of Kent]

The Court of Appeal has now suspended the sentence, but on the basis of personal mitigation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7939988.stm

[chaggle]

So, you're driving on the motorway, the mobile rings, you answer it and talk for a few minutes. You send a text. The police spot you, stop you and charge you. You are found guilty by the jury and the judge sentences you to 12 weeks imprisonment. A likely scenario? I don't think so. It probably wouldn't get past the first stop by the police. If it got to court, probably a small fine and some points on your licence.

So why did Lord Ahmed get a prison sentence? Only because he was involved in a fatal accident.

My point is that sentencing judges seem unable to separate actions from consequences. I believe they are supposed to. In this case it is even worse. The judge said that the accident was not linked with the mobile phone use.

I know people who have been on the wrong end of this kind of sentencing although not under the same circumstances.

[Matt]

He pleaded guilty to Dangerous Driving. Given that texting whilst driving is dangerous driving especially at motorway speeds and in the dark, and the phone records make it incontrovertable that he deliberately and repeatedly did so whilst on the motorway, he had to really. The relavence of the fatal accident was fisrtly that it brought his crime to light and secondly that it required a full investigation.

A custodial sentace is entierly within the guidelines for Dangerous Driving.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/dangerous_driving/

He was not found Guilty of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving. That would have been a far more severe sentance. Had the courts determined that his Dangerous Driving was a direct cause of the fatal accident then he would be looking at 12 months.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_dangerous_driving/

[chaggle]

Yes Matt, agree with your points. But I've not heard of anyone else getting that kind of sentence for the same kind of actions, nor do I expect to. Yet that kind of thing must happen thousands (millions?) of times per day.

I'll now dismount my Percheron

[Matt]

Yes Matt, agree with your points. But I've not heard of anyone else getting that kind of sentence for the same kind of actions, nor do I expect to. Yet that kind of thing must happen thousands (millions?) of times per day.

I'll now dismount my Percheron

It probably does happen very frequently. It strikes me that it's one of those difficult to prossecute things. I'm not aware that there's much case law to compare this sentance against. The new tougher sentances haven't been in force for very long. HOwever I can find examples of sentance where texting has been implicated in causing death by dangerous driving.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-469825/Teenager-jailed-ploughing-grandmother-70mph-texting-friend.html

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/02/02/driver_jailed_for_texting/

[Tim the Mage]

The frequesncy or enforcability of something isn't the matter under consideration here. The prosecution was not able to prove without doubt that Lord Ahmed was texting at the time of the crash but the proof of him texting was substantive (up to 2mins before the accident when he sent his last text).

The sentence given was within the bounds of sentences for dangerous driving to which Lord Ahmed admitted.

[mksimith2]

Lord Ahmed
dvdcollects

[skbuncks]

Lord Ahmed
dvdcollects

eh?

[Croydon Bob]

eh?

Spambot. It tried to post a link?

[skbuncks]

Spambot. It tried to post a link?

Ah, makes sense. I was at a loss about how DVD rental services could possibly fit into the thread

skb