123mph speeding crash: "Insulting" prison sentence

[Loppylugs]

Man who killed pregnant woman after driving at 123mph on M66 jailed for 12 years

Adil Iqbal’s sentence ‘insulting’ says family solicitor, after crash that also seriously injured Frankie Jules-Hough’s son and nephew

www.theguardian.com

A man who killed a pregnant woman as he filmed himself speeding at 123mph has been handed a 12-year prison sentence.

Rose Gibson-Harper, a solicitor representing Jules-Hough’s family, severely criticised the sentence.

“Today’s 12-year sentence is insulting and an injustice to the catastrophic injuries little Tobias sustained, and the life sentence Mrs Hough’s family were needlessly handed following her and her unborn daughter’s death due to an act of sheer stupidity,” she said..

I see a 22 year old has been jailed for a miserable 12 years for killing a pregnant woman and severely injuring her son and nephew in a high speed crash on the M66. He was driving with one hand and filming himself at 123 mph when he lost control and ploughed into her car. Not the first time he had been doing high speeds and filming himself as previous misdemeanours of this nature had been recorded before.

New laws have been passed for judges to give much more severe sentences.

I think this judge needs replacing for what the lawyer representing the poor woman's family described as an "insulting" sentence. I know what I would like to do to the driver but my suggestion would probably be censored by the mods !!

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Do you read the Daily Mail by any chance? You are completely ill informed.

Edited.

Causing death by dangerous driving – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

Offence range: 2 – 18 years’ custody

18 years maximum (departing from this would be exceptional and very unusual)
Early guilty plea reduction (6 years, ⅓ discount)
Sentence: 12 years - the very highest sentence the Judge could have imposed in these circumstances. The Judge gave absolutely zero credit or leeway whatsoever other than the requirement to provide credit for the guilty plea.

The sentence is as high as you can possibly go according to the very latest guidelines and legislation.

Unsurprisingly the latest changes made to allow for up to life imprisonment are mainly for the purposes of a nice headline, rather than any practical purpose. The Sentencing Council felt a range of 2-18 years was the relevant band typically, so that is what they specified.

In any event, that level of imprisonment seems reasonable to me. As a society we have to recognise reckless or non intentional deaths, however sad, are completely different to intentional, premeditated murder.

There is a real argument to be made that locking him up at all is a waste of time. Non violent offenders rarely need to be imprisoned, other than to maintain a perceived deterrent effect for others. The lives lost cannot be restored, but I'm not sure how locking someone away for years makes the situation any better or easier. However, the UK is extremely poor at implementing meaningful alternatives to prison that could make a real difference to both the offenders and societies, mainly because there is an older electorate who seem to believe that everyone should be locked up for as long a time as possible and anything else is "woke nonsense".

 

[PudseyBearHST]

12 years is a joke (and no I’m not an old person)

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

12 years is a joke (and no I’m not an old person)

Perhaps you could elaborate as to why you think 12 years is a joke? That sentence is going to be extraordinarly devastating and extremely difficult for the offender, which is presumably what you think it should be?

Say they'd had 18 years instead of 12 - what difference do you think it would make to society, the offender and the unfortunate family left behind of the victim?

By the way, 12 years in prison is costing me and you around £500,000 of taxpayer funds for this one chap alone, someone who is reckless and dangerous, but not violent or aggressive, and unlikely to ever offend again. There must surely be a better way of punishing and rehabilitating people like him for substantially less cash, but also in a more meaningful way to the victims left behind.

This does not in any way minimise what he has done - but we don't lock people up for sheer vengeance or our own personal disgust at what has happened.

 

[crablab]

Do you read the Daily Mail by any chance? You are completely ill informed.

Fwiw the BBC news article reported this along similar lines to the OP's post, reporting only the headline tariff (and reaction) and included very little of the sentencing remarks. Notably, none of the sentencing remarks that explain how the sentence was arrived at.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Fwiw the BBC news article reported this along similar lines to the OP's post, reporting only the headline tariff (and reaction) and included very little of the sentencing remarks. Notably, none of the sentencing remarks that explain how the sentence was arrived at.

Sadly, most media outfits these days seem prone to sensationalism and what I can only describe as Daily Mail outrage.

 

[DarloRich]

Anyone who is concerned about sentencing might like to apply to be a magistrate. I am sure you could do a wonderful job. The details are below. Magistrates are desperately needed. Don't just moan. Do something. https://www.gov.uk/become-magistrate/can-you-be-a-magistrate

( I know this is different situation but for a lay person a magistrate role is a wonderful way to become involved in the justice system and make a contribution using your common sense to improve things)

 

[crablab]

Or if the OP is that concerned, they could consider writing to the Attorney General. Recent changes to the law mean that only a small number of submissions are needed to permit the AG to seek leave to appeal the sentence as 'unduly lenient'.

 

[DarloRich]

Or if the OP is that concerned, they could consider writing to the Attorney General. Recent changes to the law mean that only a small number of submissions are needed to permit the AG to seek leave to appeal the sentence as 'unduly lenient'.

absolutely - but I am sure it is much more satisfying to send people to prison yourself

 

[AlterEgo]

There is a real argument to be made that locking him up at all is a waste of time. Non violent offenders rarely need to be imprisoned, other than to maintain a perceived deterrent effect for others. The lives lost cannot be restored, but I'm not sure how locking someone away for years makes the situation any better or easier. However, the UK is extremely poor at implementing meaningful alternatives to prison that could make a real difference to both the offenders and societies, mainly because there is an older electorate who seem to believe that everyone should be locked up for as long a time as possible and anything else is "woke nonsense".

What do you think is a suitable punishment for someone who so recklessly deleted a woman and her unborn child, if not prison?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

What do you think is a suitable punishment for someone who so recklessly deleted a woman and her unborn child, if not prison?

Why are you assuming prison is THE punishment?

Prison is only very partially about punishment, it's main purpose is to protect the public from violent offenders and to rehabilitate the offender. We don't sentence anyone in this country for vengeance or as some sort of compensation for the offence. Do you want it to be retribution?

What exactly is the point of locking this chap up for 12 years?

I'd have banned him from driving for the maximum period, ordered an extended driving test before any theoretical license was ever reissued, confiscated his vehicle, and ordered extensive community and educational/training requirements. I'd not have ordered compensation as part of the criminal sentence, instead allowing the family to consider civil litigation which would have a significant financial impact on the offender, but also by not locking him up, makes it possible for him to work and become a productive member of society and pay the compensation that he ought to.

I strongly favour the Norwegian justice model. If our prisons were geared up in a similar manner, prison may be more appropriate, but they're not. In the UK, prison is a complete waste of time in most cases, with appalling outcomes for everyone.

Incarceration in Norway - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Loppylugs]

In any event, that level of imprisonment seems reasonable to me.

I am sure you would say that had it been a relation of yours that had been killed and no, I don't read any newspapers.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Yes, is is extremely reasonable in terms of the law and guideline, which you falsely insinuated the judge has disregarded.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2023 ==

Or if the OP is that concerned, they could consider writing to the Attorney General. Recent changes to the law mean that only a small number of submissions are needed to permit the AG to seek leave to appeal the sentence as 'unduly lenient'.

Although as above, the sentence is already as high as it can go in these circumstances, so it wouldn't get anywhere. Conversely, the offender could equally appeal for a reduction, and I'd bet, probably will, as he wouldn't have anything to lose by doing so, given the sentence is unlikely to exceed what he has already been given.

 

[66701GBRF]

Prison is only very partially about punishment, it's main purpose is to protect the public from violent offenders and to rehabilitate the offender. We don't sentence anyone in this country for vengeance or as some sort of compensation for the offence. Do you want it to be retribution?

What exactly is the point of locking this chap up for 12 years?

We also don’t pass lower sentences because it might otherwise cost more, so your previous comment about how much this will cost the tax payer is irrelevant. Prison is there as a deterrent as much as anything else.

This person clearly knows the rules of driving, you really think an extended test and community service is adequate??

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I am sure you would say that had it been a relation of yours that had been killed and no, I don't read any newspapers.

Sending someone to prison wouldn't bring back a deceased relative of mine. I'd get far more relief and satisfaction from that person have to put real effort into integrating into society again after such an event, knowing for the rest of their life what they had done. Given they're likely to lose most of the things they hold dear just from the conviction alone, their career, friends, perhaps their own family etc - if they're not violent or an ongoing danger, I'd wager they'd have a harder time being "free".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2023 ==

We also don’t pass lower sentences because it might otherwise cost more, so your previous comment about how much this will cost the tax payer is irrelevant. Prison is there as a deterrent as much as anything else.

This person clearly knows the rules of driving, you really think an extended test and community service is adequate??

Erm, sorry, but we at this very moment are not sending people to prison wherever possible, simply because the prison population is overcrowded and we don't want to spend anymore money on prisons or private sector secure accommodation....

So we are using cheaper alternatives already. Magistrate's even had their enhanced sentencing powers removed from them to ensure alternatives to prison were prioritised.

The driving test, ban etc is a mere procedural issue, it supplements and complements the community order.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why are you assuming prison is THE punishment?

Prison is only very partially about punishment, it's main purpose is to protect the public from violent offenders and to rehabilitate the offender.

It’s at least half about punishment and the other half is rehabilitation.

We don't sentence anyone in this country for vengeance or as some sort of compensation for the offence.

Yes we do. Prison is a punishment. People are locked up very frequently to be punished and within the concept of “repaying a debt to society”.

Do you want it to be retribution?

What exactly is the point of locking this chap up for 12 years?

I'd have banned him from driving for the maximum period, ordered an extended driving test before any theoretical license was ever reissued, confiscated his vehicle,

Not bad so far…

and ordered extensive community and educational/training requirements.

Such as? What would you get him to do?

I'd not have ordered compensation as part of the criminal sentence, instead allowing the family to consider civil litigation which would have a significant financial impact on the offender, but also by not locking him up, makes it possible for him to work and become a productive member of society and pay the compensation that he ought to.

So an attachment order, possibly for life, in order to pay blood money. One assumes he doesn’t have to pay that if he doesn’t earn a certain amount either. What exactly would his punishment be in that scenario?

 

[duncanp]

Perhaps you could elaborate as to why you think 12 years is a joke? That sentence is going to be extraordinarly devastating and extremely difficult for the offender, which is presumably what you think it should be?

So the sentence is going to be "...extraordinarily devastating and extremely difficult for the offender..." is it?

If so, then perhaps the offender should have thought about it before he committed the crime, or perhaps I should say crimes, as driving with one hand, driving at 123 mph and filming yourself whilst doing it are all crimes in their own right. It is not the first time he has been convicted of offences like these, so I think a longer prison sentence is justified, as well as being banned from driving for life, so that when he does eventually get released he will not be able to do this any more.

And as for being "...extraordinarily devastating and extremely difficult...", what about the consequences for the woman's family, who will have to live with this for the rest of their lives. Or don't they matter?

It is also interested to note that @Loppylugs is automatically assumed to be a Daily Mail reader just because he objects to what he thinks is the lenient nature of the sentence. This assumption speaks volumes about the person making that assumption.

 

[birchesgreen]

So the sentence is going to be "...extraordinarily devastating and extremely difficult for the offender..." is it?

I don't know about you but if i received a sentence that was more or less equal to half of my entire life at that point i'd feel pretty devastated. What is what the guy deserves.

I suspect some folks won't rest until their tiresome armchair hard man thirst for a bloody vengeance is sated though.

 

[duncanp]

I don't know about you but if i received a sentence that was more or less equal to half of my entire life at that point i'd feel pretty devastated. What is what the guy deserves.

I suspect some folks won't rest until their tiresome armchair hard man thirst for a bloody vengeance is sated though.

Like I say, if it is "devastating" for the offender, then he should have thought about that beforehand.

No-one forced him to commit this offence, and as it wasn't his first he must have been aware of the potential consequences.

 

[C J Snarzell]

Aside from what we think about the prison sentence, would it not be a suggestion to impose a life time ban never to hold a driving licence again in these circumstances?

I do know there has been other cases in the past where judges have banned people from ever getting behind a wheel.

CJ

 

[Lost property]

First, I'm about as far removed from being a Mail reader as possible...heaven forbid I should ever share their hypocrisy and "moral standards "..neither am I one of the "lock 'em up and throw away the key " brigade.

In this case, I have NO sympathy for the driver. He killed two people, one unborn, and left two others with life changing catastrophic injuries...all because he "thought" he could drive, at speed, recklessly on the public highway.

Speed, when applied by amateurs, is a killer. They are not trained, or proficient, to handle and control it safely...if they want to show their "prowess ", either go to track days, or, turn professional.

I have the same level of contempt for drink / drug drivers and any drivers who feel they are exempt from the RTA and will happily put others lives at risk as a result.

Thankfully, the legal process has ensured he won't be a danger to the public for some considerable time.

 

[156421]

It's interesting that in cases like this the BBC considers an unborn child to be a living entity, yet on "the abortion debate" clearly considers this not to be the case.

 

[66701GBRF]

Thankfully, the legal process has ensured he won't be a danger to the public for some considerable time.

...and this is why custodial sentences are warranted, unlike what some on here think.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't know about you but if i received a sentence that was more or less equal to half of my entire life at that point i'd feel pretty devastated. What is what the guy deserves.

I suspect some folks won't rest until their tiresome armchair hard man thirst for a bloody vengeance is sated though.

He’ll almost certainly be out in six years. If it was actually twelve years in prison he was looking at, I think I’d agree with you.

 

[Falcon1200]

That sentence is going to be extraordinarly devastating and extremely difficult for the offender, which is presumably what you think it should be?

Not quite so extraordinarily devastating as his deliberate action was to the people he killed and left bereaved. He will be released after what, 6 years, and will have the remainder of his life before him.

Prison is only very partially about punishment, it's main purpose is to protect the public from violent offenders and to rehabilitate the offender.

It is also a deterrent, although that has had no effect in this case. But it might sink in to others.

What exactly is the point of locking this chap up for 12 years?

Stops him killing anyone else on the road. His encounters with the Police before this incident (not accident) did nothing to change his behaviour.

 

[birchesgreen]

He’ll almost certainly be out in six years. If it was actually twelve years in prison he was looking at, I think I’d agree with you.

Well thats another issue.

He certainly should be disqualified from driving for life.

 

[Lost property]

Well thats another issue.

He certainly should be disqualified from driving for life.

I would suggest this should be applicable to anybody who is convicted of similar offences. They've proved they are incapable of driving, safely, and hence should be permanently banned as a result.

 

[Yew]

Thankfully, the legal process has ensured he won't be a danger to the public for some considerable time.

Given that this was a nonviolent offence, the same could have been achieved by a driving ban, with a much lower cost to the taxpayer.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jul 2023 ==

I would suggest this should be applicable to anybody who is convicted of similar offences. They've proved they are incapable of driving, safely, and hence should be permanently banned as a result

Surely that statement could be applied to anyone that has ever had an accident? I scratched my wing mirror against a wall last week, should I be banned for life?

 

[66701GBRF]

Given that this was a nonviolent offence, the same could have been achieved by a driving ban, with a much lower cost to the taxpayer.

There are literally 100's of people currently driving that either don't have insurance, a license or are disqualified, that doesn't seem to stop them. So no, you can't achieve the same result.

 

[duncanp]

Given that this was a nonviolent offence, the same could have been achieved by a driving ban, with a much lower cost to the taxpayer.

Er, how can killing two people by ploughing into their car at 123mph onthe M66 be considered non violent?