Gob-smacked...

[spudchucka]

Be careful what you post publicly. This dude, no matter how "worthless" you think he may be, has been found guilty and convicted by the Court. The adequacy or otherwise of his sentence has been determined by the Court. This is where your beef should lie (if that is truly your concern), rather than with the perpetrator.

Just when the lynching mob was about to ride out...............the voice of reason prevails.

Shame, I'd been hoping lynching mobs would make a come back some day!

[spudchucka]

He did plead guilty to the careless driving causing death charge (though I think it'd be difficult for legal council to think up a defence in this instance) but I find his defence of the driving while forbidden charge laughable.

I am assuming that the judge's decision about the possibility of not understanding the word 'forbidden' was based upon arguments put forward by the defence council, rather than arrived at independently by the judge.

In my experience the courts never take a hard line over a Driving While Forbidden charge. Pretty much every person I've charged has either been convicted and discharged or discharged without conviction. The charge carries a $10,000 fine, there is no term of imprisonment. From a law enforcement point of view the only positive consequence to charging someone with forbidden driving is that their car gets impounded for 28 days.

[2_SL0]

In my experience the courts never take a hard line over a Driving While Forbidden charge. Pretty much every person I've charged has either been convicted and discharged or discharged without conviction. The charge carries a $10,000 fine, there is no term of imprisonment. From a law enforcement point of view the only positive consequence to charging someone with forbidden driving is that their car gets impounded for 28 days.

That is just to soft. :disapint: