Whereas a cynic would suppose that the CPS were doing a favour for a friend of a friend.
Can you, hand on heart, say that if it had been someone of less salubrious place of residence, and, dare I say it, having less "fragrance", it wouldn't have occurred to you to point out to them just how risky to life such an action was, and have punished them appropriately?
A spurned lover trashing their ex's car is the stuff of jokes and anecdote; but sending it through a building is in a very different league.
Did lover-boy's wife have any views on the matter?
Even if you're sure she won't reoffend, isn't there still a case for some element of punishment for what she's done, even if there's no need for a rehabilitative sentence?
Nonsense; if consequence-free reparations are good enough for our next (real) Prime Minister, it's good enough for the merely middle class.
Based on the information available this disposal seems perfectly correct. For this type of offence and many others the only function of punishment is to dissuade re-offending. In this case the court adressed that by rendering her liable to re-sentence in the event of further offencences of a similar nature against either her current victim or anyone else.
The suggestion that the justices would have been influenced by the defendant's apparent social advantage is in my experience utter nonsense.
Nonsense. Damage caused, damage paid. What about the poor block who had his HOUSE driven into.
This lady, who is obviously of some wealth considering she could lay claim to the funds to pay for the damage, has got off light.
What compensation can you give to the bloke who was attacked in this way I doubt you would have been so leniant if the show was on the other foot.
Your attitude is abysmal, this really annoyed me so I'm going to stop before I get rude.
I think this story is a perfect example of the employment of common sense, which is nice in the current Britain we live.
Although what was done was indeed breaking the law and dangerous, the motivation was clear for everyone, and can certainly be passed off as "exceptional circumstances". The conditional discharge serves to dissuade re-offending, although I don't think that should be an issue, unless she chose to court another married man...
Why mention the the steamy and passionate interlude in the first place if all you're going to do is draw a curtain over it?
And wouldn't a duvet be more appropriate?
Agree with post #1. If this had been a Vicky Pollard, would the result have been the same? Assuming the said Ms Pollard had already paid as promptly as this defendant.
err...if the offender had been a vicky pollard, then the punishment SHOULD have been more severe. A big part of the problem with the british justice system is a refusal to consider the background of the individuals in sentancing. I wish, oh how I wish, that the oiks and pondlife got double sentances (custodial) automatically.
Most of the offenders from the chav class are habitual offenders who are caught once out of a thousand times, and have nothing to lose. A nice middle class lady such as this one actually HAS a reputation to lose, and the finances to suffer loss through fining. A scroat given the same sentance would have paid nothing, and learnt nothing.
In short, the equality of justice is a mirage of the utopians.
By the way Bystander, is the lady still single? Perhaps your services are warranted...
I wonder why she was not done for Dangerous Driving? It seems odd that a person can intend to cause a crash, be lucky that no injury occurred, and end up with a lower penalty than a similar crash caused by a momentary inattention with no animus nocendi.
I am also reminded of the customs of yesteryear (admittedly only through stories), where a similar occasion of harm promptly followed by recompense would not have attracted the attention of the courts at all. Now we have "damage caused, damage paid for, and police, courts and all the bureaucracy of the state get their cut as well"?
Point taken grabbethemoneyandrunne. It's an angle of which I had not thought.
If she is single, I can see her staying that way for ever!
The offence appears to have taken place on private property. The 1861 offence of wanton or furious driving might have applied if she had injured someone. Criminal damage would seem to have been the only charge available.
Neither of the parties have my sympahty in this sorry tale. She was mad as a March Hare for doing what she did and is does not look as though she was presssed enough as to any belief she may have held as to any person likely to be injured inside the property( reasonably forseeable in my humble opinion). And as for the virile young man. I would suggest it was a salutory lesson about keeping his dick in his trousers, he had a bloody cheek expecting to get the damage paid for. One can only hope he got hammered by the Missus in the divorce settlement!
The pounding from your pulpit will probably drown this out, but it's possible to be married but separated. Or to have a wife who doesn't mind you having a bit on the side (big ups to our occasional visitor, 'anonimouse').
We have the crime passionel in France, does that exist in this country ?
"The offence appears to have taken place on private property. The 1861 offence of wanton or furious driving might have applied if she had injured someone. Criminal damage would seem to have been the only charge available."
PeterJP
Interesting. Does this mean that if I come off the road and crash into someone's property without injuring anyone I cannot be charged with any motoring offence?
As I understand the above, you might be able to escape a motoring offence if there were no evidence that your car was not fully under your control when it left the public highway, and no evidence that you had left the road in any dangerous manner. Going up a driveway at a reasonable speed: OK. Ploughing through a hedge: not OK.
But IANAL.
"..if there were no evidence that your car was not fully under your control when it left the public highway, and no evidence that you had left the road in any dangerous manner. "
I must admit, I had assumed the house was a typical British suburban dwelling with a sufficiently short front drive for it to be obvious that the car had been driven off the road with no intention of stopping.
One rule for the rich and another for the poor - eh? If the protaganists had a half-mile sweeping driveway there would be no (motoring) crime? Perhaps you could do her for going equiped?
Man, anyone would think none of you lot have ever had an affair.
Spurned woman did silly thing and damaged property, and then paid for it. Case closed. The state has no further place in this one, because her crime wasn't anything to do with society or the state.
Any suffering the 'victim' went through is a result not of a crime but of the affair, in which he was a willing participant. And if he sought compensation or a stronger punishment for his ex-lover through the courts then he would be a horrible little man and deserve to lose his precious car altogether.
It's right for the law to step out and let people pay for their mistakes on their own terms in cases like this, and the wealth or class of the people involved has nothing to do with it.
And she got out of paying the victim support fine surcharge as well! Couldn't you have fined her a fiver so she had to cough up the £15? And for a rage incident like this you could and should have disqualified her from driving. Talk about using a vehicle as a weapon....
(No surcharge because the offence took place before April 1st 2007 - ed)
Edited By Siteowner
Should we apply for an asbo to get her to keep her pants on ? or not to drive cars in to houses...
I'm sorry, she may not have had any previous convictions, but she committed a mindblowingly dangerous act!! Had anybody been in the kitchen they could have easily been killed. Had she ruptured a gas pipe she could have blown half the street up!
She caused £10,000 worth of damage and seriously endangered peoples lives. I cannot for a moment accept that this was worthy of a conditional discharge!
If I had sentenced her on the facts you have relayed, she would have received 4 month imprisonment for each offence, although I would have suspended such a sentence had there been reasons to do so.
"the only function of punishment is to dissuade re-offending." Absolute nonsense PeterJP. I have a client being sentenced for sexual assaults on children tomorrow. He's already a very old man and probably could not commit similar offences again. When he receives 8 to 10-years tomorrow it will not be to dissuade him from reoffending, it will be because of the harm he has done and the harm he potentially could have done to his victims! It will be a punishment for his actions.
"he motivation was clear for everyone, and can certainly be passed off as "exceptional circumstances". The conditional discharge serves to dissuade re-offending"
First, if she cannot control herself because she was dumped then she has no place in society - imagine what would happen if this was an excuse for everyone who lost a loved one! There would be anarchy.
Secondly, a spell inside would serve to dissuade any further offences far more than a possibility that she might be re-sentenced if she breached the Con D.
"The offence appears to have taken place on private property. The 1861 offence of wanton or furious driving might have applied if she had injured someone. Criminal damage would seem to have been the only charge available.
PeterJP"
Peter, I believe that the offence of dangerous driving must take place not on a public road, but on land to which the public has access. Therefore, I can see no reason why she could not be charged with dangerous driving - or frankly a number of other offences!
Phatboy - What would a Suspended Sentenc have achieved that a CD would not? In either case reoffending would have consequences. In any case, for a first offender I suspect that a custodial would be appealable. Pace Charlie Falconer, the suspended sentence will be - er- suspended pretty soon.
"First, if she cannot control herself because she was dumped then she has no place in society - imagine what would happen if this was an excuse for everyone who lost a loved one! There would be anarchy."
No place in society because she did something crazy after being chucked? Why not just deport all women and have done with it?
Christ. I'd take anarchy over a justice system that couldn't comprehend human emotion any day.
nonsense fiddlesticks stuff what a load of rubbish
Bystander, I didn't mean to say I would have suspended a sentence of imprison - merely that I would be open to the option if there were grounds. As to the difference between a CD and suspension - you no doubt know that a suspended sentence will have a requirement attached to it. It may be that this woman would benefit from some help with her temper. Further, I've always been a believer in justice being done and being seen to be done. In my eyes, a CD in these circumstances is not a just sentence for such a reckless act - as I said before, if somebody had been in the kitchen she would have been guilty of unlawful dangerous act manslaughter.
Thogar, I honestly can't see how you can justify destroying somebody's home and car because a relationship ended! This is not normal behaviour and I seriously doubt that many women would do something quite so stupid in the same circumstances. I hate to sound hard, but she got involved with a married man - she knew the score.
I suspect that if the man had done this to his married girlfriend after his relationship ended, it would be treated with the level of serverity that it deserves.
Had the woman written a couple of nasty letters or burned property belonging to him that he had left at her home, I could understand that being a 'normal' reaction. But to demolish his car and kitchen (KNOWING HE WAS IN THE HOUSE AND COULD BE INJURED OR KILLED) is not a normal reaction and should not be treated as such.
Thogar, if you believe that what she did is a reasonable reaction then I am glad that I am not one your ex's.
At no point did I say it was "reasonable", nor justified, friend. I said only that it was understandable, and human.
She was clearly not in a normal state of mind - indeed, it's hard to imagine a more stressful and distorting situation for her to be in. Surely no human being can remain rational or calm, or arguably even sane, after being so jilted. She damaged some property in a moment of madness (and it could literally have been that - surely you've seen what love and a snub can do to a person). She later paid for that damage. If she makes a habit of doing reckless things, by all means throw the book at her, but otherwise let her get on with her life - she's lost enough already.
Commenting by HaloScan
