Remember the little girl who died on a quadbike?

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

Her dad just admitted manslaughter, and has been sentenced to nine months in the jail.

Suspended for two years.

That'll be a smack on the wrist, then.

actually, portanddemon, it might make a few parents stop and think.. it is making us discuss the issue.. it might well make somoene say to their DH/DW 'don;t do XYZ, if there is an accident, there is every chance you could end up in prison'

don;t know why deaths of this nature are dealt with so leniently, like the fact a vehicle rather than a gun or other weapon caused it makes it less reprehensible

a non-street legal quadbike - when she's 7 - on a single track road in the pitch dark.

then bringing her home after she'd been struck by a 4x4 and not phoning an ambulance until she'd collapsed.

if he were my husband, he wouldn't have been taking the kids out on the quadbikes on the road at all, much less in the dark on a public road.

i'd have had no qualms about phoning the police had he done that. none whatsoever.

it's totally illegal for very good reason.

Did the mother know he was taking the children on the quad bikes?
I cannot remember whether they were together or separated at the time of the accident.

i don't know, was responding to your question of 'if it was your husband'.

because tbh, i'm with naily on this, NO comparison. she was on a non-street legal quad bike in the dark on a single track, public road.

i feel sorry for the woman who hit her.

you can't see a sheep on roads like that in the dark at night till you've pretty much already struck them, that's why such roads are so dangerous, that's why there are laws about what constitutes a street legal vehicle and age limits about their use.

It was discussed plenty when it actually happened. And, frankly, if prison isn't a deter others or make someone less likely to reoffend then I would always (or almost always... there may be exceptions I haven't thought of) argue against it. In the case of killing someone else's child I think there would quite likely be both a deterrent and a preventing reoffending effect.

The case itself I can see might make parents stop and think, yes. The sentence? No, I still can't see it, sorry.

Completely agree with portanddemon.

Not sure what the 'right' sentence would have been in this case. Agree little purpose would be served by jailing him but suspended sentence and keeping his bikes away from the road for two years seems rather lenient.

Also agree sentencing for killing someone with a vehicle often seems out of line. If you weighing your options up in cold blood, the best chance of avoiding severe punishment for a killing would be to run the victim over. Or, if you are a man, marry them.

Agree with PortandDemon, jailing him would have served no useful purpose and would have taken up space that could be used to punish criminals who are likely to reoffend.

All of us have done something stupid at one time or another. I once drove while very tired and almost caused an accident. I would never do it again and can't now imagine why I did. Sheer reckless foolishness.

Yes, feel very sorry for woman who hit the little girl, I know somebody who had somebody run in front of their car from behind a bus, it really shook the driver up (luckily she was only going slowly and there was no long term damage done to the pedestrian)
I'm in no way justifying what he has done, it was bloody stupid.

Just read the article and the wife has stood by him and was there when the bikes were purchased. Doesn't mention whether she knew they were out on the road though.

The girl's mother knew nothing about it. She is divorced from the father, and had no say about the risks to which her daughter's father judged it appropriate to expose her daughter.

Poor woman.

"Chelmsford Crown Court heard Lizzie and her brother regularly used 50cc quad bikes on Bluebell Farm, their parents' organic free range egg farm."

"But on December 13 last year, Mr Cooke, 46, his wife Claire Batt, 34, and another man travelled to a shop to buy the children new bikes."

"Mr Cooke and his wife, who has stood by him throughout, refused to comment as they left court on Monday."

Is the woman mentioned not the girls mother then?

No she's not. She was her step-mother.

Sorry, I'm getting confused. The this is London article says "Following her death, her father and mother Claire Batt" which kinda leads me to believe the mother did know?

Which is splitting hairs, I know, and doesn't change the circumstances, I was just wondering her position.

OMG they were divorced, she wasn't there. This just gets worse. The poor poor mother. What an utterly irresponsable cretin. This beggars belief.

I think the reporting has gotten skewed somewhere - both articles I have read have indicated the parents are together, but I was sure they were separated (until I read the articles today)

Sorry maybe I'm getting mixed up with another couple. I seem to remember reading that the parents of Elizabeth were divorced and that this guy's wife was her step mother. But it might be another couple, there's never any shortage of tragic tot stories.

Pointless filling overcrowded jails with people like this father.

It was a tragedy, and awareness should be raised about the dangers of quadbikes and sitonlawnmowers too (four children in Ireland alone lost a limb this summer, so I heard on the radio).

But the poster who said that we are as careful as we think of being for the sake of our children not in order to avoid a sentence is correct.

I do feel extremely sorry for the mother in particular though. She is probably thinking, if only the children had been with me it wouldn't have happened.

LBL - no need to apologise, I had assumed that they were divorved before I read those article, I'm not sure why.

Oh I don't know if it would be worse if you weren't there really. I think I'd feel worse if I hadn't stopped my DH doing something as stupid and irresponsible as that.

But it is odd, I was absolutely certain I'd read that the parents weren't together. Perhpas that was mis-reporting at that time, rather than this time. (Or perhaps I'm just going senile, totally likely option.)

What I don't understand is how vastly different sentences can be for similar "crimes".

There was a woman who lived near me who was driving at reckless speeds with her daughter in the car and she crashed and her daughter died. She went to prison for 12 months.

I do remember at the time thinking that was quite harsh. Yes, her stupid actions had killed someone, but she hadn't set out to kill her and will have to live with the loss of her daughter for ever. What would a 12 month prison sentence achieve?

Tragic case but this man shouldn't go to prison.

Having said that, I have long maintained that anybody seeking to commit murder should do it from behind the weheel of a car - they can't touch you for it, it would seem.

Think of the girl's brother too - he has lost his sister in tragic circumstances, if his dad went to prison then he'd be without a dad and indeed his dad's income.

I'm sure this family have all suffered enough.

Totally agree with Expat.

It strikes me that the police and courts took exactly the right approach in this case.

Where someone's negligent actions result in the death of someone, then that person is guilty of manslaughter provided that that the person's actions objectively created an obvious and serious risk to the deceased. In this case, clearly the father was guilty of manslaughter by reason of gross negligence.

Equally clearly, however, sentencing guidelines for different types of manslaughter vary considerably but amongst the things which should be taken into consideration are: seriousness of the offence (in terms of injury to victim, number of victims, degree of carelessness); previous record and convictions; likelihood of the person to re-offend; risk to the public in the future; amount of remorse shown; assistance given at the scene and whether the victim was a close friend or family member. It seems pretty clear to me that whilst the offence itself was very serious, every single other factor mitigated against a punitive prison sentence (and very rightly so to my mind).

It strikes me that the police and courts took exactly the right approach in this case.

Where someone's negligent actions result in the death of someone, then that person is guilty of manslaughter provided that that the person's actions objectively created an obvious and serious risk to the deceased. In this case, clearly the father was guilty of manslaughter by reason of gross negligence.

Equally clearly, however, sentencing guidelines for different types of manslaughter vary considerably but amongst the things which should be taken into consideration are: seriousness of the offence (in terms of injury to victim, number of victims, degree of carelessness); previous record and convictions; likelihood of the person to re-offend; risk to the public in the future; amount of remorse shown; assistance given at the scene and whether the victim was a close friend or family member. It seems pretty clear to me that whilst the offence itself was very serious, every single other factor mitigated against a punitive prison sentence (and very rightly so to my mind).

Agree that nothing would be served by sending him to prison. But I can't help thinking (though I'm sure this would be legally impossible) that he should get a life-time driving ban. He has demonstrated that he has about as much road-sense as a pigeon.