michaelH

No Kev: stupidity may not be a defence in itself, but a stupid mistake may be, because if, as in Maxine's case, you are charged with 'knowingly assisting an offender' the jury cannot convict you unless they are 'sure' (at least beyond reasonable doubt) that you knew or believed he was guilty. It seems pretty clear that Maxine did not know or believe this, even if she suspected it, and that was why the jury rightly acquitted her on the more serious charges. It seems amazing to me that the usual quota of time-served rapists, murderers, robbers, etc will be leaving our prisons over the next few months with nothing at all to fear from the public, whereas a silly besotted girl who believed in her bloke's innocence and stupidly lied for him (without making any real difference to the outcome) will need to be given a new life abroad once she has finished a sentence of almost unprecedented severity for a crime of that kind. I blame those vindictive and ignorant editors and columnists at the Star, Sun, etc for this. They would ruin anyone's life in order to sell a few more newspapers.

A law professor writes: Given that Maxine Carr was acquitted on the charges of knowingly assisting an offender, the jury clearly were not satisfied that she knew or even believed him to be guilty when she lied to the police. The jury might just possibly have got that wrong, but I doubt it. I would have reached the same conclusion as they did. That being the case, the sentence imposed on her was pretty harsh. Had it not been such a high profile case (and not all murder cases are) she would probably have got rather less. Her lawyers had told her to expect no more than 30 months, which would have meant her immediate release, given time already served. She was a fool and she certainly acted wrongly, but her punishment has been very severe and her vilification by some tabloid newspapers is pretty sickening. Huntley had battered and dominated her for years, and yet she still believed in him. Poor sad woman. Has she not suffered enough already? To give you some context, three and a half years would not have been out of line if she herself had been guilty of manslaughter as a result of a deliberate criminal act such as assault (ie the kind of crime Huntley admitted committing). Earlier this year a husband who battered his unfaithful wife to death with an iron bar (he hit her with it over 70 times and pretended it was a burglar who did it) got away with just four years for manslaughter (reduced on appeal from an orginal 6 years which the C of A said was 'too severe') but what if anythng did our tabloid press make of that. Did they even notice? As for revealing past offences at trial, sometimes it is necessary and sometimes it is done. It can now be done even where the defendant has previously been acquitted of that other crime, but only where it is now pretty obvious that the guy is a serial offender who was just lucky the previous times. I think the prosecution might well have considered using Huntley's past as evidence in their case, but decided it was too marginal and that they could nail him without having to go down that route - as of course they did. But did you notice that one of the jurors was not prepared to convict him on the evidence given? How credulous can one get?

These mpg figures do seem pretty dire. In a thread a few weeks back there was someone who could get well over 500 miles from a single tank. I usually get about 400- 420 from my 200 sport if I fill up soon after the warning light comes on (just over 13 gallons). I use optimax where possible, and I usually aim for smooth rather than hard driving. I don't do a lot of city driving in this car, but I do quite often crawl along a congested M6 around Birmingham, so I offer a warm welcome to the new toll road...

Lexus Jim is right of course in saying that a blow out at 100 must be more dangerous than one at 70, but then nothing is wholly safe. Is the risk of a possible blowout on the empty motorway greater than the risk of hitting an emerging tractor or cyclist as you come round the bend of the B road at 50 mph? Or the school kid as you pass the school gates at 20 mph? That is my point. As for speed cameras and safety, I don't recall the roads being more dangeous back in the days before they arrived, but I do recall more police cars on the motorways. and the police can usually distinguish between dangerous and non-dangerous driving. Also, people who got disqualified under the totting up rules used to be those who regularly drove like idiots. Now there are thousands of basically safe drivers staring disqualification in the face. No, I am not one of those (no points or convictions, as yet), but I do think that the current points system is now too harsh on high milers and needs revision. Minor speed infringements should be punished only by a fine, or perhaps by a fine and 1 or 2 points.

Guilty, of course, and many times too. In fact, guilty of 100 + mph on a couple of occasions. But since I am one of those annoying members who lectures people about the evils of racing on public roads, perhaps I had better attempt to justify myself. 100 mph, even on a deserted, dry motorway in perfect visibility, driving a safe and powerful car (a Celica and an IS200 in my examples), remains strictly illegal of course, but I don't see it as any more dangerous than most other kinds of driving - and far less dangerous than a perfectly legal 50 mph on a 'fast' B road with bends, oncoming traffic, farm turnings, pedestrians, badgers and side roads. In contrast, if I were to drive at 100 mph on a busy section of the M6 in pouring rain, that would be madness and would probably merit instant disqualification or worse. Any good driver will drive according to the road weather and traffic conditions, and that may often mean driving at well below the legal speed limit, but it may also allow for the limit to be exceeded, in moderation. Speed cameras don't know this of course. In contrast, racing powerful cars on a public road must almost by definition involve pushing things to (or near to) the limit. As such, it is inherently dangerous. Does anyone disagree?

I wholly agree with franmac. Accidents can happen to any of us, and this guy was the first to admit he boobed. Who has never done something equally silly? My all time best effort involved an attempt to rod a blocked sewer pipe, which broke and sent a geyser of filth all over my garden. It just went on and on, driven by the back pressure, I suppose... but the flowers were really good that summer. And on a more general point, why we always seem to sneer at people who drive Mercs or (in particular) BMWs? Are they the enemy or something? If so, why?

Apart from facing the justified wrath of Dipstick or others like him, anyone killing or injuring another road user whilst racing on a public road might easily be looking at a prison sentence of around 3-4 years and this could rise to 6 years or more where there is 'an extremely high level of culpability' (see R v Cooksley [2003] 3 All ER 40). If serious injury results, but not death, expect around 9-12 months imprisonment.

I really don't understand why boy racers should even want to buy a grown up's car like the IS200. Racing from the traffic lights to the pub? And then back again after a few pints perhaps? If you want to race your cars then by all means race them on a track, where you are less likely to kill or cripple someone.