drunk driver kills woman sleeping in tent , sentanced

I'd give the tnuc 8 years even if he'd not killed someone. Disgrace.

ps
The court heard Waterhouse, from Partington, Manchester, had a number of previous convictions including for violence, criminal damage, driving without insurance, and driving not in accordance with a licence.

8 years is pitiful

has to be one of the leanient  sent ever,

Why wasn't he charged with murder or manslaughter?

It was not intentional I assume.....

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/anna-evans-campsite-driver-jai...

try this,https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/drink-driver-who-kill...

put € under the link

Actually you have to put pound if you're in Britain. Works with the local currency.

dummie dave

be out in under 4

get more for robbing a loaf

Depends if you voted leave or remain.

In response to the € or £, not robbing a loaf.

So even if your drinking and driving kills someone you'll only get put away for 4 years.
No wonder people ignore the drinking and driving laws.

The sentence most certainly does not fit the crime and the death of a young woman. 8 years and 4 months is a disgraceful decision, I'd have given him 20 years personally.

terrible sentence

I'd sentence him to a prison in Siberia or an outhouse in Far Eastern Russia. It's too cosy in a British jail, I believe (no personal experience).

SEEMS THE NEWS ETC, MAKES THIS SEEM LIKE A DRUNK DRIVING A CAR AND ACCIDENTALLY KILLING A PERSON, THIS BLOKE DROVE INTO  TENTS WITHOUT A CARE IF ANYONE INSIDE,

The sentence looks perfectly fine to me. The lack of knowledge on this forum is appalling. Forget the fact that no one here has bothered waiting for(or reading) the detailed verdict, you lot act like you know how to apply the law when clearly none of you have a scooby. Sentencing isn't done by looking at newspaper articles and headlines. Its done according to the sentencing guidelines. That's a good starting point if any of you are interested.

fellow traveller you simply are the limit  - you hide behind the law book

he has previous -all over   - refused a breathalyser 

you really are the king of the excusers as you are with the rest of your clan

I am so glad you do not live in this country

stick to bear population moisok. For law related issues you'll need to use your brain.

I disagree strongly, detraveller. Firstly, I have pretty much zero tolerance where drinking and driving is concerned. Secondly, the maximum sentence as it is is 14 years. If that's all the law says he can be sentenced to, that's what I'd have given him.

Sentencing guidelines should be harsher in ALL DD cases is basically what I'm saying.

says in the news that he careered off the road into the campsite ,rather  than  drive around the campsite maliciously driving into the tents ...   the news report suggests a tragic case of wrong place at wrong time   while being  hit by a  maniac driver 

Oct 22, 2019 -- 10:54PM, Mikael D'Haguenet wrote:

I disagree strongly, detraveller. Firstly, I have pretty much zero tolerance where drinking and driving is concerned. Secondly, the maximum sentence as it is is 14 years. If that's all the law says he can be sentenced to, that's what I'd have given him.

Max penalty is 14 years correct. Lets say he's sentenced to 14(I would say all aggravating factors are accounted for when you use the max sentence. So this renders his previous offenses useless for sentencing)

Now consider mitigating factors.
Admission: Yes
Remorse: Yes(written note)

Let's ignore the mitigating factors. So 14 years prison sentence.

Seeing as he plead guilty two months after incident, he gets a one-third reduction for a guilty plea at first hearing. Even if this wasn't the first hearing, it definitely was the early stages, so he gets a quarter reduction. This brings his sentence down to 10.5 years(9.24 years if this was the first hearing).

Now add the mitigating factors, a judge who definitely knows more about the law than me and a lawyer whose sole job was to reduce the sentence, I would say 8 years 4 months makes sense. And is no way as outrageous as some posters are saying.

It is a completely different argument ifyou think the sentencing guidelines themselves are too lenient.

Note that the mitigating factors need to be considered before the consideration of reduction due to guilty plea. He gets the concession twice.

as I have said many times before you will come out and defend the scotes and the people of the book
yet you try to deny it

I am not sure why when it stares you in the face

you youself moralize and denigrate us for our views from your ivory tower in germany
passing sentence on us  and you don't even live here

you are the type who will cherry pick while rome is burning but then you are so clever aren't you

Well, if you're saying he effectively received the maximum sentence in the circumstances, then absolutely the sentencing guidelines are too lenient. Still, if he sent a remorseful note...

To detraveller, obviously.

Seems like he was only arguing the law to me, mo. I'm in no position to dispute anything he says. IF it is as he says, then sir, the law is an ass!

if i went out drunk , accidentaly hit and killed a person, would it be the same charge as what he did ?if yes, then something really wrong as he intended to injure/ kill someone, you dont do what he did without knowing the consequences.