Consistency in the Judiciary?
Case 1. Cyclist strikes and injures a young girl on a crossing. Cyclist completely at fault compounds matters by leaving the scene [handed himself in the next day]. Cyclist recieves a custodial sentence. I do not have a problem with this in any way.
Case 2. Mr Gunn (Maida Vale) is returning home from walking his dogs. As he reaches the centre of a zebra crossing he is struck and thrown across the road by a car driven by Mr Rashid (Kensal Rise) in broad daylight. Mr Gunn sadly died of his injuries the next day. Mr Rashid cannot read a number plate without glasses at a distance of 3m. You guessed it; Mr Rashid had lost his glasses and so was driving without them even though he knew he needed them. Highway code rule 92 - You MUST be able to read a number plate at 20m and if you need glasses to reach this minimum standard you MUST wear them at all times that you are driving. [Please note it is MUST not SHOULD]
Mr Rashid is sentenced to 140 hours unpaid work and £500 costs. The Judge decided that he had commited no offence with regard to Rule 92.
Is it me?!?
This post was edited by Levermonkey at 01:21pm 25 Jan 2014.