Ignoring all previous comments, you have to wonder how the poor victim's family feels knowing that there loved one's life has so little value in the eyes of the law? Terribly wrong isn't it? :?

Eh, that'd be nuts. There's a big difference between refusing to give specific evidence, and just not being available to give it- there's many reasons you might leave the scene while sober, only really oen reason you'd refuse to give a breathaliser. Not sticking up for hit and run drivers, but the solution isn't to punish them for something else that you can't prove, or even strongly imply- the solution is to punish hit and run more severely.

Not really sure what I think about this one case... I would say that 4 months in prison isn't something I'd laugh off, personally. I think like's been said, they didn't think they could make vehicular manslaughter stick.

This is what I really hate about the media. More often than not in cases like this, the press whip up a sensasionalised story which results in public wrath being directed at the legal system or more specifically the judge, when really the reason for such weak convictions is either police or CPS incompetance.

Judges dont sit around thinking up ways to let scum bags off the hook, they simply apply the law, and if the prosecution presents a **** poor case then they wont secure a conviction.

Of course, justice is expensive, so the goverment just keep on changing the law to make it easier to convict people. Sure some innocent people will have their lives ruined, but never mind :roll:

What I'm getting at with the presumtion of drink driving is to try to make hit and run as serious an offense as DD,but it won't happen under the current system.Some people don't realise how common hit and run is,and I feel that it needs to be dealt with far more seriously.Dress it up how you like,but hit and run should carry a mandatory 12 month ban and heavy fine,and failing to stop and render aid to a casualty should be an offense as well.Try driving away from the scene in France and you could become a guest of Napoleon very quickly.

totally agree

I cant see any good reason to leave the scene of an accident where someone has been injured until cops or ambulance arrive.
Only if you think you will get in more trouble by sticking around would you leave....hence the presumption should be that you were drunk. Why else would you leave unless you were unfit to drive the car in the first place and your being unfit was what led to the accident.

I hate giving the law the authority to presume something to be the case but there seems to be so little penalty for leaving the scene that maybe this would be the way to ensure people stuck around and dealt with the consequences of their actions.

Here here Spidi.You and I both live in an area where hit and run is virtually normal behavior when the scroats cause their dayly carnage on the road.Have you ridden along the Edgware Way A41 Southbound towards Apex corner recently?Those massive tyre marks just by the M1 bridge were made by some idiot ploughing into a bus a couple of weeks ago.Said idiot then tried to drive off but his car was so badly damaged the front fell off and he dragged it into the Burger King and legged it.If they find him he will get done for leaving the scene.He needs to banned from driving for a long time.

Hang on, you've totally lost the logic here. The main reason for leaving the scene of a crime is to try and avoid being caught at all. If you're thinking you'll get away with it, then of course you think you'll get in more trouble by sticking around, you don't have to be drunk for that to be the case.

If you think that someone's committed a crime, but that the sentence was too soft, you should be talking about raising the sentence for that crime, not randomly convicting them of something else without proof or even hearsay. When we start sending people to prison for crimes that, who knows, they might have committed, we're ****ed.

I'll only say one thing

CPS - Criminal Protection Service :evil: