Four and a half years

Not defending him in anyway, he deserves his punishment but he didn't intend to hurt anyone. Unlike the analogy above where someone takes a gun out and shoots someone.
 
He didn't intend to hurt anyone but if you're in charge of something that can potentially kill people and you choose to drive at "well over" the 60mph speed limit and "in disregard" of the wet road surface, warning signs before the crossroads and hazards created by two other vehicles because you're in a rush to get home the you deserve more than the sentence he got.
 
Spot on Hackney - should've got at least 10 years / serve 5.
The leniency shown to criminals in this country is a fkn disgrace .
 
I've no idea about the circumstances of the accident but the chances are if he'd been driving within the law the accident would still have happened presumably without such catastrophic results. Would he then still be a criminal?
Again surmising but if the other driver had been in some way responsible would they have been a criminal also?
 
I've no idea about the circumstances of the accident but the chances are if he'd been driving within the law the accident would still have happened presumably without such catastrophic results. Would he then still be a criminal?
Again surmising but if the other driver had been in some way responsible would they have been a criminal also?
"the crash at 14:30 GMT would have been averted had Packenham not been driving "well over" the 60mph speed limit"

Presumably it wouldn't have happened. he lost control, he was driving too fast, not within the law.
 
Was that the conclusion of the Police investigation?

The man was clearly being reckless/selfish/stupid/dangerous.

It's a good job non of us have ever done any of those things
 
Back
Top