to rant about the leniency of sentences dished out in this country? The court case of the 2 brothers in Coventry who were run over is a ghastly read.

[ChocolateDoll]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-43926623

30 previous convictions for driving without licence and insurance.

High on cocaine (4 times over the limit. News to me that there is a limit for cocaine ).

Driving at 60mph in a 30mph area.

Hit and killed 2 boys aged 6 and 2.

Hit them with such velocity that one of them was thrown high into the air and landed some distance away.

Drove off and attempted to leave the scene.

Sentenced to NINE years. Nine sodding years.

Not only were the consequences in this case so high, but it was also caused by genuine, thought out, recklessness. A momentary lapse of judgement, this was not. A very clear accident waiting to happen.

Would love it if anyone could give any insight into the justification for 9 years? Is this also a situation where, in reality, he’ll be out in half that?

And it gets worse.

The driver in the Coventry case was only released from prison the week before the accident, for possession of an offensive weapon.

AND, he was disqualified from driving for 10 years upon his release.

He also attached a member of the public who tried to prevent him leaving the scene.

There’s so many charges to brought here, I just don’t get how he’s ended up with 9 years.

Even if he was allowed to serve the sentences concurrently, the max for death by dangerous driving is 14 years. If this case doesn’t warrant the max, what on earth does?

I know i’m ranting a bit here, but if there’s any legally-minded people on here, I’d love to understand just how a case can end up like this.

with a record like that and clearly no intention to stop driving dangerously, the pity is the keys werent thrown earlier and two lives saved.

Parliament was looking at bringing new laws to increase sentences in the worst cases last year. Not sure what's happening with that but they desperately need to do something.

I don't really understand why such cases can't come under Manslaughter which would have allowed for a life sentence.

If I am reading the news articles correctly, he pled guilty which will give him some mitigation on his sentence.

Whilst it is frustrating to see criminals not get the max sentences, if courts stopped giving mitigation for guilty pleas, defendants would have nothing to lose and everything to gain by forcing every case to trial. The criminal justice system would not be able to cope.

They should be put away for life. Scum of the earth

A swift bullet to the head would have been more fitting.

Pointless waste of life.

Terrible. A life sentence for the family of those little ones. At the very least they should have had the maximum for every commited crime and twice it for both babies.

Im not a fan of social media justice but i do hope that everyone realises what they look like so they cant just get on with their lives after serving paltry sentences.

Its a disgrace.
There are sentences appropriate for accidents. There are sentences for lapses of judgement.
In a case like this it should be the sentence for murder..

What a fucking stellar upstanding person he is for the personal mitigation. @learnedfriend from your name am assuming your giving professional viewpoint so not pointing vitriol at you of course!

Ah, right okay. Understand about the pleading guilty reduction (legally, if not morally anyway).

Not sure what the ‘personal mitigation’ is that gets applied on top of this?

I’ve often thought (well, not often, occasionally) that if you want to murder someone then using a car is the way to do it.

This is dreadful. He absolutely knew what he was doing when he got behind the wheel. It should be treated as manslaughter in my opinion.

There has to be a discount for pleading guilty early, or no fucker would do it, but the mitigation feels like a bit of a slap in the face.

That is just awful. YANBU. Petition signed. If I was a parent of those children I would be waiting for him when he came out. I could not tolerate this as "justice" . It isnt.

What would he have needed to do to get the maximum 14 years? I think the fact he wasn't given the maximum sentence is as shocking as the fact the maximum sentence is so low to be honest.

As others have said, hell have got a discount for pleading guilty.

They should have also given him sentences for driving under the influence of drugs, driving without insurance or a licence, attempting to leave the scene, etc, all to be served one after the other.

I think if someone kills someone with their car and leaves the scene, (or attempts to leave the scene in this case) they should be eligible for same sentence length as murder. This is so sad. 30 fucking convictions !

If people can get away with 9 years if they plead guilty then the maximum sentence should be increased. I know someone who caused a death by dangerous driving but she lost control of her car - she wasn't on the phone, drunk, on drugs or speeding. The guilt she feels will last her a lifetime but this man didn't even show any remorse. To me this case was murder.

If 9 years is the 'sentence' this will most likely mean 4 or so years in prison with the remainder being out on license (on a tag) - more often than not only 40% of a 'sentence' is actually served in a prison. Absolutely disgraceful but unfortunately not at all surprising.

Many thanks to MyLearnedFriend for the legal lessons :-)

It is good to comprehend how such seemingly absurd sentences can come about.

I’m still wondering though....what about all the other (lesser) charges? Why would this man not be charged separately for all those crimes, and made to serve the sentences consecutively?

Someone in jail wont take well to him being there. He wont last long inside after killing two children, I dont think. From the experience of family who have worked in them, they don't take kindly to child killers.

Okay, thank you again . So sentences for multiple offences committed at the same event are always served concurrently?

I wasn’t aware of that. Think I understand the application of the law now. This particular point seems bonkers on a much wider scale though.

It’s basically saying that if you’ve murderded someone anyway, you may as well nick their wallet; set fire to the body; and assault an arresting police officer because what difference is any of that going to make now

I can’t read it, it’s too awful.

My DH studied law and did a bit of work on dangerous driving and driving related offences.

Apparently, one of the reasons petitions for higher sentences don’t get as many signatures as one might expect is that people can identify too much with the crime.

They can imagine themselves or a family member losing control, making a mistake etc. and they think longer sentences are unnecessarily punitive for what might be an accident.

I’m not saying that’s the case here - this clearly is a lot more serious than most - just in general.