Our messed up judicial system
26 November 2013, 11:03 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our messed up judicial system
Here is the outcome of the case where the driver embedded an Audi in a house:
Drunk novice driver James Pratt crashed into house
Here is the text of said artcile:
A couple of things annoy me here.
1) Why a suspended jail sentence? What will that teach this ar5ehole? It wasn't like it was an unavoidable accident... he had no licence, stole the vehicle and was over the legal alcohol limit. He could have killed people in that house and yet he is walking around as happy as Larry!
2) The judge makes no order for compensation becuase he can't pay it as he has no job... FFS what a great message that sends out... got no income, do what you like!!!
What happened to all this getting tough on crime that this and the previous government bang on about? More words with no actions!!!!
Drunk novice driver James Pratt crashed into house
Here is the text of said artcile:
A drunk motorist who crashed into a house during his first time behind the wheel, trapping a family inside, has been given a suspended sentence.
James Pratt crashed the Audi A3 into another car before becoming airborne and hitting the house in Stockton.
At Teesside Crown Court, he admitted aggravated vehicle taking, driving with no insurance or licence and driving with excess alcohol in August.
Pratt, 20, was given an 18-month jail sentence suspended for two years.
Along with a 12-month supervision order, he was told to complete 150 hours of unpaid work, disqualified from driving for two years and will have to take an extended driving test.
Crashed through door
Pratt had taken his aunt's Audi A3 after getting drunk at his brother's 21st birthday party in Stockton.
The speeding car struck the other vehicle, launched into the air and cleared the garden wall before crashing through the front door of the house, blocking the staircase with debris.
Judge George Moorhouse told Pratt, who had no previous convictions: "Clearly drink-driving in these circumstances is unforgiveable, someone could have been killed.
"I am told it is the first occasion you have ever driven a motor car. It might have been the last."
The judge said he made no order for compensation because Pratt had no job or money.
Katie Walker, her partner and her 15-month-old daughter were rescued by firefighters through the bedroom window.
James Pratt crashed the Audi A3 into another car before becoming airborne and hitting the house in Stockton.
At Teesside Crown Court, he admitted aggravated vehicle taking, driving with no insurance or licence and driving with excess alcohol in August.
Pratt, 20, was given an 18-month jail sentence suspended for two years.
Along with a 12-month supervision order, he was told to complete 150 hours of unpaid work, disqualified from driving for two years and will have to take an extended driving test.
Crashed through door
Pratt had taken his aunt's Audi A3 after getting drunk at his brother's 21st birthday party in Stockton.
The speeding car struck the other vehicle, launched into the air and cleared the garden wall before crashing through the front door of the house, blocking the staircase with debris.
Judge George Moorhouse told Pratt, who had no previous convictions: "Clearly drink-driving in these circumstances is unforgiveable, someone could have been killed.
"I am told it is the first occasion you have ever driven a motor car. It might have been the last."
The judge said he made no order for compensation because Pratt had no job or money.
Katie Walker, her partner and her 15-month-old daughter were rescued by firefighters through the bedroom window.
1) Why a suspended jail sentence? What will that teach this ar5ehole? It wasn't like it was an unavoidable accident... he had no licence, stole the vehicle and was over the legal alcohol limit. He could have killed people in that house and yet he is walking around as happy as Larry!
2) The judge makes no order for compensation becuase he can't pay it as he has no job... FFS what a great message that sends out... got no income, do what you like!!!
What happened to all this getting tough on crime that this and the previous government bang on about? More words with no actions!!!!
26 November 2013, 12:23 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see both sides to this, but I think teenagers (or 20 year olds) can do some pretty stupid things. I'm not sure that turning the kid into a 'con' is going to do much for anyone.
26 November 2013, 01:00 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another case of the law only applying to the tax payer Alcazar.
Trending Topics
26 November 2013, 01:22 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the outcome of the case where the driver embedded an Audi in a house:
Drunk novice driver James Pratt crashed into house
Here is the text of said artcile:
A couple of things annoy me here.
1) Why a suspended jail sentence? What will that teach this ar5ehole? It wasn't like it was an unavoidable accident... he had no licence, stole the vehicle and was over the legal alcohol limit. He could have killed people in that house and yet he is walking around as happy as Larry!
2) The judge makes no order for compensation becuase he can't pay it as he has no job... FFS what a great message that sends out... got no income, do what you like!!!
What happened to all this getting tough on crime that this and the previous government bang on about? More words with no actions!!!!
Drunk novice driver James Pratt crashed into house
Here is the text of said artcile:
A couple of things annoy me here.
1) Why a suspended jail sentence? What will that teach this ar5ehole? It wasn't like it was an unavoidable accident... he had no licence, stole the vehicle and was over the legal alcohol limit. He could have killed people in that house and yet he is walking around as happy as Larry!
2) The judge makes no order for compensation becuase he can't pay it as he has no job... FFS what a great message that sends out... got no income, do what you like!!!
What happened to all this getting tough on crime that this and the previous government bang on about? More words with no actions!!!!
That said one indication of 'tough on crime' is the prison population which rose rapidily for a decade starting from 1998
26 November 2013, 01:42 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Please excuse my Spelling - its not the best !!
Posts: 2,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unbelievable sentence, but possibly the max that can be given in the circumstances ?
I would prefer to see a 5 year ban at least - might make said person think about the consequences of their actions ?
I guess the householders insurances pays for the damage to the house ? And the householder get increased premiums as a consequence ?
Richard
I would prefer to see a 5 year ban at least - might make said person think about the consequences of their actions ?
I guess the householders insurances pays for the damage to the house ? And the householder get increased premiums as a consequence ?
Richard
26 November 2013, 02:10 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Knebworth, Herts
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) Lots of things could have happened. They cannot prosecute for things that "could" have happened. You're right; he could have killed someone. But he didn't.
2) You can't give what you don't have. At best, compensation would have been paid at £5 per month for the next 20 years or something.
2) You can't give what you don't have. At best, compensation would have been paid at £5 per month for the next 20 years or something.
26 November 2013, 02:13 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes so what's the problem? Why should the homeowners have higher premiums on their insurance because of some irresponsible and probably workshy ar5ehat!
26 November 2013, 02:44 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think he should have been given 12 months mimimum, an invoice for the damage and ban from driving for 10 years. That would have been a soft sentance.
It's ok saying that all young people do stupid things, but they don't. Stupid people do stupid things. Stupid people do dangerous things. If he obtained a driving licence then he also knew what was expected of him and his driving. He chose not to follow the rules of the road and his actions nearly killed a mother and child.
I was 17 when I passed my test and in the maximum I have ever had before driving is 1 pint and even then, I usually wait at least a couple of hours before driving. I also had a lot of peer pressure as I was one of the first in my 6th form to get my licence. I 'was' the first to get a car.
Age is no excuse.
It's ok saying that all young people do stupid things, but they don't. Stupid people do stupid things. Stupid people do dangerous things. If he obtained a driving licence then he also knew what was expected of him and his driving. He chose not to follow the rules of the road and his actions nearly killed a mother and child.
I was 17 when I passed my test and in the maximum I have ever had before driving is 1 pint and even then, I usually wait at least a couple of hours before driving. I also had a lot of peer pressure as I was one of the first in my 6th form to get my licence. I 'was' the first to get a car.
Age is no excuse.
26 November 2013, 03:21 PM
#13
Attack, or even LOOK like you are going to attack, their money making scams, they don't half hit you hard!
26 November 2013, 05:51 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: If you're not braking or accelerating you're wasting time.
Posts: 2,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good idea.Next time I go shopping,rather than taking my own car & risking a £60 parking fine(minimum) I can steal a car & park it in John Lewis's window.
26 November 2013, 05:56 PM
#15
Seen a story in the papers yesterday and I dont understand it , but the jist of it was . . .
A 20yo man found guilty of some sexual abuse (cant remember what , but doesnt really matter) of young girls , committed the crimes when he was a teen (think below 18) was sent to serve his punishment in a young offenders centre ?
Why is a 20yo serving time there ? Is that the best place for a pedeofile , locked up with young people ?
Judgements in courts today worry me sometimes.
A 20yo man found guilty of some sexual abuse (cant remember what , but doesnt really matter) of young girls , committed the crimes when he was a teen (think below 18) was sent to serve his punishment in a young offenders centre ?
Why is a 20yo serving time there ? Is that the best place for a pedeofile , locked up with young people ?
Judgements in courts today worry me sometimes.
26 November 2013, 06:03 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seen a story in the papers yesterday and I dont understand it , but the jist of it was . . .
A 20yo man found guilty of some sexual abuse (cant remember what , but doesnt really matter) of young girls , committed the crimes when he was a teen (think below 18) was sent to serve his punishment in a young offenders centre ?
Why is a 20yo serving time there ? Is that the best place for a pedeofile , locked up with young people ?
Judgements in courts today worry me sometimes.
A 20yo man found guilty of some sexual abuse (cant remember what , but doesnt really matter) of young girls , committed the crimes when he was a teen (think below 18) was sent to serve his punishment in a young offenders centre ?
Why is a 20yo serving time there ? Is that the best place for a pedeofile , locked up with young people ?
Judgements in courts today worry me sometimes.
26 November 2013, 06:09 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
26 November 2013, 06:10 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
26 November 2013, 06:14 PM
#20
Just hoked the bin to find the story.He was 15/17 , they were 12/13. Took indecent pics and blackmailed them into doing worse. Sentence is 6 years in A juvenile detention centre , as a 20 year old ! Ryan Higgins is his name. 
Last edited by CharlySkunkWeed; 26 November 2013 at 06:19 PM.
26 November 2013, 06:15 PM
#21
its a load of **** thats what it is,there is no deterrent these days for crimes unless its crimes that bring in money for the government ie speeding etc,even non payment of council tax can carry a prison sentence
if anybody commits crime against me i will just smash them to bits-at least i know they have been punished
if anybody commits crime against me i will just smash them to bits-at least i know they have been punished
26 November 2013, 06:20 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seen a story in the papers yesterday and I dont understand it , but the jist of it was . . .
A 20yo man found guilty of some sexual abuse (cant remember what , but doesnt really matter) of young girls , committed the crimes when he was a teen (think below 18) was sent to serve his punishment in a young offenders centre ?
Why is a 20yo serving time there ? Is that the best place for a pedeofile , locked up with young people ?
Judgements in courts today worry me sometimes.
A 20yo man found guilty of some sexual abuse (cant remember what , but doesnt really matter) of young girls , committed the crimes when he was a teen (think below 18) was sent to serve his punishment in a young offenders centre ?
Why is a 20yo serving time there ? Is that the best place for a pedeofile , locked up with young people ?
Judgements in courts today worry me sometimes.
26 November 2013, 06:47 PM
#23
26 November 2013, 11:33 PM
#24
Question for any plod or lawyers reading:
with a suspended sentence, how serious a new offence would the person found guilty have to commit (or how minor could they get away with), before the original sentence is applied for real?
with a suspended sentence, how serious a new offence would the person found guilty have to commit (or how minor could they get away with), before the original sentence is applied for real?
Last edited by markjmd; 26 November 2013 at 11:39 PM.
27 November 2013, 06:16 AM
#25
Driving around p1ssed is unforgivable and there are people who do it on a regular basis.
So is "borrowing" your aunties car.
However, we all do stupid things when we are young - well I have and this would include "borrowing" my fathers 911S back in the day (although I was not pissed).
No one was hurt in this incident.
It may be that the judge felt this young man was of previous good behaviour (?), had learnt his lesson and that a custodial sentence would have ruined his life.
Judges are entrusted to make these kind of decisions and of course sometimes will get it wrong.
One can either take the Daily Mail (does anyone actually read it?) view on this or the (perhaps) over optimistic one.
Depends on how you see it, but having been a stupid young man once upon a time, in the benevolence of my old age, I am prepared to hope the judge got this one right.
Having said that, I was not in the court room at the time, so I can't really say anything specific about the case.
So is "borrowing" your aunties car.
However, we all do stupid things when we are young - well I have and this would include "borrowing" my fathers 911S back in the day (although I was not pissed).
No one was hurt in this incident.
It may be that the judge felt this young man was of previous good behaviour (?), had learnt his lesson and that a custodial sentence would have ruined his life.
Judges are entrusted to make these kind of decisions and of course sometimes will get it wrong.
One can either take the Daily Mail (does anyone actually read it?) view on this or the (perhaps) over optimistic one.
Depends on how you see it, but having been a stupid young man once upon a time, in the benevolence of my old age, I am prepared to hope the judge got this one right.
Having said that, I was not in the court room at the time, so I can't really say anything specific about the case.
27 November 2013, 06:19 AM
#26
Maybe it depends on your lawyer
27 November 2013, 08:36 AM
#27
I think the court has taken the view that this has been a 'moment of madness'
27 November 2013, 12:29 PM
#28
Judges and the police are sometimes up their own jacksies.
My eldest had his pride and joy, an almost new Renault Clio 197 Sport rammed into a ditch by an uninsured driver who came past a give way on a country road.
The lad had cancelled his insurance on the previous week "because it was too dear...", but was still driving.
They EVENTUALLY did him for DWDCA, and no insurance. he did just under £5000 damage to my lad's car, and left him without that car for 6 weeks, gave both my lad and his passenger bad whiplash.
The copper on the scene later told my lad he wouldn't have done the other kid for DWDCA as he was only young!
And the magistrates gave him only 6 points, (each offence was supposed to have carried 6 points), and fined him a total of £135 including victim surcharge!
With that sort of punishment, is there any wonder more people drive without insurance?
Incidentally: it took my lad nearly a year to get his excess back, and his insurers stopped him two years NCD...
My eldest had his pride and joy, an almost new Renault Clio 197 Sport rammed into a ditch by an uninsured driver who came past a give way on a country road.
The lad had cancelled his insurance on the previous week "because it was too dear...", but was still driving.
They EVENTUALLY did him for DWDCA, and no insurance. he did just under £5000 damage to my lad's car, and left him without that car for 6 weeks, gave both my lad and his passenger bad whiplash.
The copper on the scene later told my lad he wouldn't have done the other kid for DWDCA as he was only young!
And the magistrates gave him only 6 points, (each offence was supposed to have carried 6 points), and fined him a total of £135 including victim surcharge!
With that sort of punishment, is there any wonder more people drive without insurance?
Incidentally: it took my lad nearly a year to get his excess back, and his insurers stopped him two years NCD...
Last edited by alcazar; 27 November 2013 at 12:30 PM.
27 November 2013, 12:41 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dl
27 November 2013, 01:44 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Si hoc legere scis numium eruditionis habes
Posts: 1,383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.theguardian.com/music/201...pted-rape-baby
Hopefully they will stand this sick t**t in a glass vat and slowly drip acid in to melt him from the feet upwards.
Hopefully they will stand this sick t**t in a glass vat and slowly drip acid in to melt him from the feet upwards.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM