View Full Version : Is this justice?
philbut
20-08-07, 11:52 AM
Read this article in the oxford mail last week. A woman killed a biker whilst driving the WRONG WAY across a dual carriageway. She was not given a custodial sentence due to her "good character and carer" from what I can gather.
http://archive.oxfordmail.net/2007/8/15/180733.html
This raises a few points in my mind
1) surely the punishment should be the same for anyone as all are equal in the eyes of the law, or so we are lead to believe
2) Punishment is meant to act as a deterant to others primarily, as two wrongs do not make a right - destroying another family by sending this woman to jail would not deter others as people do not intend to be stupid, so would a custodial sentence have achieved anything?
3) was the biker to blame in part for speeding, or do you feel it was entirely the fault of the woman.
The article doesn't include the diagram of the crash that the paper showed - I simply could not believe what she had done! it is even more stupid than the description sounds - she traveled the wrong way down a slip road to cross the carriageway to reach a gap in the barrier, which was for traffic traveling the other direction!
No it's not justice.
The prosecution can appeal if the sentence is 'unduly lenient'. Let's hope they do.
Luckypants
20-08-07, 12:59 PM
If that had been any one of us, not a member of the funny handshake club we would be in clink for sure. This person killed someone through gross stupidity or wilful negligence, seeing as how she 'missed' 9 signs telling her to turn left onto the dual carriageway.
It matters not that the person killed was riding a motorcycle or that they were speeding (nothing in the article to support that).
I think the language of the judge gives away the fact that he is protecting someone of 'his class'.
Very cross about this.
philbut
20-08-07, 01:05 PM
If that had been any one of us, not a member of the funny handshake club we would be in clink for sure. This person killed someone through gross stupidity or wilful negligence, seeing as how she 'missed' 9 signs telling her to turn left onto the dual carriageway.
It matters not that the person killed was riding a motorcycle or that they were speeding (nothing in the article to support that).
I think the language of the judge gives away the fact that he is protecting someone of 'his class'.
Very cross about this.
i agree chap, very cross too. I have just read the online version, and it is slightly different from the printed version. The judge is quoted as saying the biker was "partially at fault as it is clear he was travelling in excess of 100mph". Cops reckon he was doing between 87 and 103. mmmm well I wouldn't speed if i knew people were gonna drive the wrong way down the road towards me!!! and then get away with it!
Luckypants
20-08-07, 01:13 PM
The judge is quoted as saying the biker was "partially at fault as it is clear he was travelling in excess of 100mph". Cops reckon he was doing between 87 and 103.
How do those two statements tally?? Cops give a speed range and the judge decides that is 'clear evidence' he was doing over 100???
Bloody judges, half of them live in la-la land I'm convinced of it!
Biker Biggles
20-08-07, 01:40 PM
I wonder how they get the speed of the bike?He clearly was not clocked by a camera,and I don't believe you can garner much from skidmarks in a high speed impact like this must have been.
This is clearly a case of class favouritism,and is by no means uncommon.An ordinary bloke who was not quite so "golden"would have gone straight to prison for that.
Having said all that,I am strongly opposed to the current fashion for locking people up for making mistakes simply because someone has died as a result.I believe that the crime is driving like a knob whether or not that causes a crash on that occasion,just like I believe that drink driving is a crime irrespective of whether you kill someone that day.Even more contraversially,I don't think "driving like a knob"should carry a prison sentence,unless you are a persistant one who can't be controlled any other way.Prison costs an absolute fortune,and does virtually no good at all,with only a small number of people really needing to be there.
Not many will agree I'm sure.;)
Think the Judge is a tit; I don't see how a motorcyclist can be in anyway to blame for someone driving the wrong way up a dual carriageway.
I don't see any point in jailing the driver though.
Just my tuppence worth.
I'm actually going to stick my head above the parapet on this and say "maybe".
No she didn't get a custodial sentance. But she given a 51 week prison sentance, albeit suspended. She was also banned for 4 years (quite a long ban) and 150 hours community service.
I don't think she did it maliciously therefore I don't really see what is to be gained from imprisoning her. She has got to live with what she's done. Assuming she is a medical doctor (I couldn't tell from the article) then she should have some idea of the value of life. She has been monumentally stupid and I think selfish but I would think that this whole experiance from being told what she had done through to going to court has probably been very unpleasant.
I think the thing that upsets me most is that she has probably been treated differently due to the fact that she is (probably) a respected (lets assume) professional and can probably afford a very expensive (and lets assume competant) defense lawyer.
I'm not a loonie left (or whatever they are called) and generally I would like to see the criminal system be tougher. But in this instance I think a suspended sentance, long ban and community service is perhaps reasonable.
I think if I made a mistake on the roads leading to the death of someone that would be bad enough. If I ended up in prison I think I would probably kill myself.
On the subject of the speed of the bike... (which I think is completely irrelevant to all discussions about this and therefore not commented on above)
... we don't know the details but it could potentially have been determined from something like traffic monitoring cameras. They might not be able to be used to proscecure you for speeding but that doesn't mean that you can't work out someone's approximate speed from looking at footage from one.
No, this is not justice. This is England, the best place in the world for murderers. How can you become 'confused' unless driving on the left is something you are not familiar with? As a qualified doctor, I am assuming she was at least 25 years old, and therefore had some knowledge of the road. You do not 'miss' 9 road signs. You IGNORE 9 road signs. This man dies because this doctor wanted to get to her destination early. Just because its a vehicle, not a gun, does not stop it from being murder, as when you are in control of a 2 tonne machione, you accept the responsibility for that piece of machinery's danger to others.
The judge was obviously NOT impartial, as he referred to her character, the judge is supposed to represent impartiality, not favouritism, and thereefore should have received an official warning for poor misconduct, but they won't, because their bosses are also in the funny handshake brigade. Maybe we should all join it?!
rhetorical question, he 'deserved to die, and was partially at fault, because he was speeding' !?!?! In that case, does a man who is carrying money 'deserve' to be robbed and stabbed at his door, as was the case with the rich london banker early last year? I don't think so, do you?
John 675
20-08-07, 03:12 PM
come on ED there must be something else that can be done, how can tha tbe legal? she killed a man regardless of the fact he was a biker, because of neglegence sure that should be a manslaughter charge and charged accordingly....
then again if she is part of the backhand and dodgy rich persons club... then what can you do... GRRRRR :smt013:smt013:smt013
neilfab
20-08-07, 03:29 PM
On a slightly different tack, what was this doctor's partner doing while all this was going on. Presumably he was in the passenger front seat - didn't he notice the road signs either? IMHO he is just as culpable as her.
The jury did its job in her case but was let down by the totally out of touch Judge.
northwind
20-08-07, 03:50 PM
The judge was obviously NOT impartial, as he referred to her character, the judge is supposed to represent impartiality, not favouritism, and thereefore should have received an official warning for poor misconduct
Leaving aside the rest of it- because to me it sounds like open and shut vehicular manslaughter- this part is utter nonsense. It's totally standard for good character to be brought up, and totally appropriate for the judge to mention it. You seem to be interpreting this as the judge saying "I like the defendant, so I'll go easy" but that's just missing the point entirely, what he's actually saying is "The defendant doesn't have any history of dangerous driving, speeding, or other criminal offences"- which is very relevant for sentencing, because we treat repeat offenders and hardened criminals differently to people with no record or history.
The biker speeding could be relevant- the speed of the collision could make the difference between life and death, or accident and avoidance. Only an idiot could interpret that as "The biker deserved to die" frankly. It doesn't make the accident the biker's fault, but it means that they're partly responsible for the outcome.
I'm not saying the sentence is right, or just, you understand, just that it's wrong for different reasons ;)
tomjones2
20-08-07, 03:53 PM
On the question of speed I belive that they can work it out from the vehicle damage, I guess this has the flaw of knowing which vechicle was travelling at which speed. I imagine skid marks were left as well.
On the question of the woman I belive that she should have gone to jail for dangerous driving. She was willfully breaking a very well marked junction. However non of us (as far as I know) were present in court so we do not know the full case. I also agree with many others that if she was not a doctor or equivelant she would be in jail.
I think that the police and courts are very focused on speeding as the main cause of accidents, I think you would be less likley to get a serious punishment for overtaking on a blind corner or over the crest of a hill than doing 120mph on a clear road. In my mind I think the overtaking is far more dangerous.
One thing that really suprised me a police saftey day was watching the copper show a video of where a vechile (lets say A) had tunred across the path of another car (B) and caused a very serious accident. However B was seriouly speeding, something like 60 in a 30. The policeman basically said that A was not really at fault because B was speeding even though the road appered on the CCTV to be quite straight and conditions good. While B should have not been speeding the attitude of the police seemed to be if you speed and have an accident it your fault regardless.
There are two types of justice in theis world, that which the judicial system jokingly stick to and natural or real justice.
In this case she should have been banged up for dangerous driving. Even if he was speeding who is to say he would ahve not been killed at 70??
If that was a member of my family i would be sticking to the eye for an eye saying, and lets put it this way that doctor would not be long for this world if that was my brother , etc.
but then i am a very vengeful and vindictive person when i want to be.
She's a doctor?!?!?! I hope I never have to go to her hospital! Oh how nice it is to live in a country where you cannot protect your home and family without going to jail, but can kill someone through pure stupidity and get away with it.
On a slightly different tack, what was this doctor's partner doing while all this was going on. Presumably he was in the passenger front seat - didn't he notice the road signs either? IMHO he is just as culpable as her.
The jury did its job in her case but was let down by the totally out of touch Judge.
Perhaps he was asleep?
Perhaps he doesn't drive, and therefore may not know what the signs mean.
Ignorance does not equal culpability.
Sid Squid
20-08-07, 09:52 PM
Lots to think about, to agree and disagree with.
However there does appear to be one thing that I can't agree with, that being the assertion that the driver has committed a stupid act.
This most emphatically wasn't stupidity, it was a clearly and deliberately reckless act, equally clearly the perpetrator didn't intend to injure or kill, but I simply cannot see how this can have been done mistakenly or absent mindedly, so therefore manslaughter, no? Of course the case brought is the decision of the CPS, the Judge tries the case brought before him/her.
The specific sentence has much to be criticised about it, it's woefully inadequate. There is unfortunate but understandable suspicion that the judge considered social and class circumstance as part of the process by which sentence was decided, this is simply shameful and does nothing to enhance the poor public view of judicial process. Notwithstanding Andy's comments which are correct.
I don't see the speeding as greatly relevant, obviously the exact circumstances of the collision aren't known to us, but a dual carriageway would ordinarily have a 70 limit. Head on with a vehicle travelling even walking pace and you're dead, end of.
tigersaw
20-08-07, 09:54 PM
Its a tricky one to comment on without hearing the witnesses statements. The article refers to 'nine separate road markings and signs' which were ignored/missed, but this does not mean there were 9 separate warnings, we could be refererring to signs placed either side of the road and stop trellis lines, all in the same place. It also states she went a short way, then by the sound of it tried to correct her actions. Lets not forget her boyfriend is critically injured too. That inferrs life threatening, so her actions may end up killing two people. At the end of the day she's off the road for a long time, shes got to live with what she has done. I'm unsure of the value of prison apart from revenge. I prefer to think of sending people to prison to protect the public from them, rather than as a punishment. Certainly the judges summary sounds biased.
The purpose of prison here would be to demonstrate to the rest of us that you cannot display such an appalling standard of driving, so bad in fact that you kill someone, and still walk the streets afterwards. It's both punishment and a deterrent. Prison won't bring the biker back, but is normal for causing death by dangerous driving. I'm surprised that this wasn't a manslaughter case. There's always another side to every story, even the most plausible tale has another version, but from what I have read the level of culpability here is high.
Cost of prison? Is that a relevant consideration?
Jools'SV Now
20-08-07, 11:23 PM
Having said all that,I am strongly opposed to the current fashion for locking people up for making mistakes simply because someone has died as a result.I believe that the crime is driving like a knob whether or not that causes a crash on that occasion,just like I believe that drink driving is a crime irrespective of whether you kill someone that day.Even more contraversially,I don't think "driving like a knob"should carry a prison sentence,unless you are a persistant one who can't be controlled any other way.Prison costs an absolute fortune,and does virtually no good at all,with only a small number of people really needing to be there.
Not many will agree I'm sure.;)
So Biker Biggles.........if I hold a gun to someones head and accidently pull the trigger, should I be treated the same as if I'd accidently shot a round into the air in the middle of a desert?:confused:
The circumstances and result do matter, I believe.
Having said that, you're very local and I don't wish to fall out, so hello from Finchley:-D
John 675
21-08-07, 08:28 AM
Bet she didnt think, being a high standing member of the public and educated beyond degree standard to put her hazzards on did she.... if you were traveling... even speeding at high speeds down a motorway and you saw hazzards flashing what would you do...
but this goes into the "what IF" section whch doesnt really help but comment still stands..:|
Flamin_Squirrel
21-08-07, 08:58 AM
I think that the police and courts are very focused on speeding as the main cause of accidents, I think you would be less likley to get a serious punishment for overtaking on a blind corner or over the crest of a hill than doing 120mph on a clear road. In my mind I think the overtaking is far more dangerous.
One thing that really suprised me a police saftey day was watching the copper show a video of where a vechile (lets say A) had tunred across the path of another car (B) and caused a very serious accident. However B was seriouly speeding, something like 60 in a 30. The policeman basically said that A was not really at fault because B was speeding even though the road appered on the CCTV to be quite straight and conditions good. While B should have not been speeding the attitude of the police seemed to be if you speed and have an accident it your fault regardless.
Although I'd agree with the first paragraph, I have to say I don't see anything wrong with the policemans view in the second for 2 reasons. Firstly because as northy points out regardless of fault it has a bearing on the outcome of the accident. Secondly because motorists, when pulling out of a junction, often go by the distance of oncoming vehicles and not their speed. This is because it's difficult to judge the speed of an object coming right at you, which would have been the case in the situation you describe.
There is often nothing wrong with speeding, but if you speed to excess you must take into account that other road users won't be expecting you to be going that fast. Fail to slow down past junctions with waiting cars at your peril.
philbut
21-08-07, 09:20 AM
415
here is a diagram of the incident - from memory. It was printed in the paper along with the article.
green arrows show correct direction of travel (the road running horizontally accross the diag is the A420 - it is a dual carriageway separated by a central reservation, with room for vehicles turning right to wait)
red shows the car driver, and dotted red shows her intended route if she hadn't crashed
blue shows the bike and the blue square shows the site of the accident.
I have shown the driver actually REVERSING back up the slip road to take the slip road for traffic leaving the dual carriageway.
There is no way she could have done this without realising that she was driving into the path of oncoming traffic.
gettin2dizzy
21-08-07, 11:38 AM
Victimised for being bikers
victimised for class
victimised for career choice
...
bah! stop whining!
I can't see any way this could be resolved. She's an idiot who obviously thought she could get away with it. But prison wouldn't help anything. Perhaps her history of compassion for people made the judge realise that the guilt alone was more than a sentence.
Poor bloke.
tomjones2
21-08-07, 12:07 PM
Although I'd agree with the first paragraph, I have to say I don't see anything wrong with the policemans view in the second for 2 reasons. Firstly because as northy points out regardless of fault it has a bearing on the outcome of the accident. Secondly because motorists, when pulling out of a junction, often go by the distance of oncoming vehicles and not their speed. This is because it's difficult to judge the speed of an object coming right at you, which would have been the case in the situation you describe.
There is often nothing wrong with speeding, but if you speed to excess you must take into account that other road users won't be expecting you to be going that fast. Fail to slow down past junctions with waiting cars at your peril.
I take what your saying, and I dont belive the person in turning car should have been serverly punished, the oncoming car was speeding siginficantly in town. What I was thinking is that it may be a dangerous road to go down to accept that not double checking other vechile speed is ok, this accident (not the doctors the other one in my post) could have been avoided by both parties. After riding a bike I am much more carefull to check both car and bikes speeds before turing.
It would seem that from the diagram and the report in the paper that IMHO she new exactly what she was doing and was trying to save herself a few minutes on her journey time. During the 90's, Highway Engineers closed loads of gaps like these for the same reason and she wasnt the first to do this and will unforntunately, not be the last.
As for the sentencing, how can I comment with any authority. My gut tells me this is Lenient but I wasnt there to here the evidence, hear her solicitors version of events, or see her remorse for the action. All I have to go on is about 6 paragraphs and a little sketch!
As for those who say "this isnt justice this is England", I can see that the Mail and the Sun are acheiving their aims in brain washing people in the fact that there is no law. Our system is based on the balancing of all evidence and circumstance available. As has been said, there is an appeal system to challenge any sentence given in situations like this.
I do have an opinion on this, but it is tempered based on what I know.
From looking at aerial photos, the junction layout must be factor in this. It should be made near impossible for this type of accident to occur again.
I agree that an injustice has been done in this case. I can understand the family wanting to seek retribution. It would be nice if some of that energy could be diverted into making that junction a much safer place. The best solution would be to introduce a roundabout. A quick solution could be the closure of the gap in the central reservation. It maybe an inconvenience to some, however, that is nothing if it were to save another life.
redlavachips
21-08-07, 11:07 PM
i think this is justice
"Dr Thuli Whitehouse, 27, was given a 51-week prison sentence but it was suspended for two years by a judge who at her trial had called her a "golden young woman". She was also banned from driving for four years and must do 150 hours' community work. "
150 hour is a long time and is a inconvience which will make her have more time to regret what she has done. also with a 4 year driving ban will mean she will lose her job
a prison sentence would ruin this women life, might lead her to bad habits (drugs) and leave worst than she is
with the judge proberly knowing this he gave her a lesser sentence which she can still serve the jail sentence if she commits another crime.
but i failed my law exam so my law isnt that good , lol :p
tigersaw
21-08-07, 11:19 PM
150 hour is a long time :p
Yup, 2 weeks work in my case
John 675
23-08-07, 08:36 AM
i think this is justice
can see your point mate but i gaurentee if just average joe was convicted of manslaughter... or death by dangerous driving he/she wouldnt be so lucky because being a plumber or a factory worker isnt a golden as a doctor is it lol,.. 150 hours is a major incovienence . . almost on par with not seeing your family member that was killed because some stupid women thought she could save a few mins by driving recklessly.. as i said before i bet she didnt even put her hazzards on when going the wrong way... its not like she didnt know she was doing it...
im dont personaly think this is justice, IMHO :D
[quote=Rog;1267212]
As for those who say "this isnt justice this is England", I can see that the Mail and the Sun are acheiving their aims in brain washing people in the fact that there is no law. quote]
Yes, indeed, I said that. And I have to apply and, occasionally, enforce the law for a living, so I'm no sun-reader (or do they just look at the pictures!).
Fortunately, we do live in a ssociety where you can appeal an unduly lenient and disproportionate sentence.
Unfortunately, it will cost the public purse, and ultimately you and I, an awful lot of money to do so. The only people who profit from crime appear to be solicitors!
The press always give an opinion, never a description of facts, so no doubt the actual facts of the case were very different from the few details dramatised for the press.
However, what is in question is not the guilty or not-guilty veredict, but rather, the impartiality of the judge, and whether this sentence on conviction would have applied to everyone, or whether there is indeed stilla class divide for punishment.
Discuss!
Bluewolf
23-08-07, 09:27 AM
Sweet zombie jesus, that's an absolute disgrace. :smt013
My mate got banged up for five years for causing the accidental death of a pedestrian who jumped over the central reservation of a dual carriagway and ran out in front of him. How in the name of sanity can she get away with that kind of sentence?!
Ceri JC
23-08-07, 09:35 AM
Having said all that,I am strongly opposed to the current fashion for locking people up for making mistakes simply because someone has died as a result.I believe that the crime is driving like a knob whether or not that causes a crash on that occasion,just like I believe that drink driving is a crime irrespective of whether you kill someone that day.Even more contraversially,I don't think "driving like a knob"should carry a prison sentence,unless you are a persistant one who can't be controlled any other way.Prison costs an absolute fortune,and does virtually no good at all,with only a small number of people really needing to be there.
Not many will agree I'm sure.;)
Yes. The vast majority of people (even police class one riders) make 'mistakes' every single time they go out on the road. Naturally, the severity of the mistake (and going the wrong way down a dual carriageway is a serious one) and frequency with which they occur vary wildly from person to person. One other massive variable (over which we often have no control) is the consequence of that mistake. Usually, we get away completely scott free. Sometimes, another vehicle might have to apply the brakes, change direction etc. this is bad, but aside from annoying the other person and breaking the highway code rarely actually causes any harm. Even more rarely, for whatever reason, you're actually involved in a crash as a result of your mistake. Even less frequently, you're involved in a crash with another person as the result of your mistake. Now, depending on another set of factors (which really are almost wholely outside your control) this could be a dirty great artic-lorry, a car, a big burly bloke, or a child in a pram. The consequence can range from "It's only a scratch mate, don't worry about it." to "You killed my baby!". The 'crime' is no different and it quite rightly seems unfair that someone should go to jail for clipping the side of a lorry.
How many of us can honestly say that in an unfamiliar town (or coming back to a familiar one after a road system change) we have never turned the wrong way down a one way street, or gone the wrong side of a keep left sign? I know I can't. Admittedly, this case sounds more like severe negligence on the part of the car driver than a common mistake. I do also think there's a degree of "well, the biker was clearly a working class oik and the sun shines out of this poor doctor's a***" in the judgement though.
Pedro68
23-08-07, 09:44 AM
Perhaps it isn't justice ...
I'm no legal-beagle, but I've just read the sentencing guidelines and here is my take on it:
Taken into account in the case are "aggravating" factors and "mitigating" factors.
The only "aggravating" factors in this case that one can see (according to CPS guidelines) were that the driver failed to heed warning signs (and possibly warnings from her passenger), and that her passenger was "critically injured" in the ensuing RTA.
This alone amounts to a short period of bad driving, which unfortunately resulted in the death of one other road user and the critical injuries to her passenger. As such it would appear that the driver was "moderately culpable", which the guidelines state should warrant a short custodial sentence.
However, there were a number of "mitigating" factors:
- a good driving record
- an absence of previous driving convictions
- a timely plea of guilty (probably)
- genuine shock or remorse (particularly because her partner was critically injured)
As such, I can see why the judge chose to reduce the sentence to a suspended one with community service, and the ban itself is a ban that exceeds the statutory 2 years minimum ban (for causing death by dangerous driving), and also reflects the "seriousness" of the bad driving exhibited, being that the ban was one of 4 years.
But ... there seems to be little in the sentencing guidelines on the nature of the offenders work/class, and as such I think the judge was wrong to raise this in his summation, or to even declare it as a possible "mitigating" factor in the reason for his apparent leniency in sentencing.
NOTE: The bikers speed doesn't even come into this because the primary consideration given by the CPS and the sentencing panel is to the culpability of the offender in such cases.
Alpinestarhero
23-08-07, 09:48 AM
Sorry, but it dosnt matter who you are, what you do etc etc
If you are thick and stupid enough to drive the WRONG way down a dual carrigeway, and in turn cause the death of someone (beit motorcyclist or not), then you should be thrown in jail.
Matt
i agree with you all and i don't think she should have been given a license to begin with she is clearly not intelligent enough, but on the punishment side of things the worst punishment she has got is having to live with the flashbacks of the incident and the fact that she has taken a life which is a soul destroyer. and i think would be worse than a prison sentence after all its just a holiday camp thats why d!ckheads don't mind doing time.
Even if the signs were missed. a DUAL carriageway!?! this means you would be driving on the wrong side of the road. Signs or not, how could this have been accidental? it was a short-cut, which cost one person, and almost one other, their lives. Just for the sake of a few extra seconds, saved, which was all anyones life is clearly worth to anyone who qould do it.
And to anyone who says they do it too, that doesn't make this driver right, it makes you as wrong!
Pedrosa
24-08-07, 04:55 PM
This is indeed a highly immotive topic and raises more questions than what have been answered by the verdict and sentences.
My reading of what happened is that the "golden" lady deliberately chose a cheat route which would save her a little time and would have been aware that she was to travel along a stretch of road incorrectly.(This type of incident is rife here in Spain and must be stamped out as soon as possible on the roads of any country)
My personal view of any death caused by a drunken driver,negligent driver or dangerous driver...oh yes and a proven speeding driver.....is that their privilege to possess a driving license should be removed immediately and for life. Arguing that the incident was completely out of character simply does not wash when culpability has been proven and a life lost as a result.
I find it most disturbing how the motorcyclist has been related to almost as a non entity here with no real regard given to the lost felt by his family and the value he brought to them.
Warthog
26-08-07, 10:13 AM
Sweet zombie jesus, that's an absolute disgrace. :smt013
My mate got banged up for five years for causing the accidental death of a pedestrian who jumped over the central reservation of a dual carriagway and ran out in front of him. How in the name of sanity can she get away with that kind of sentence?!
Thats terrible, how did he get 5 years if the pedestrian was running across a dual carriageway??
Ceri JC
26-08-07, 10:20 AM
Thats terrible, how did he get 5 years if the pedestrian was running across a dual carriageway??
I dunno, but I'm guessing his mate wasn't a "Golden" doctor. :|
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.