Texting peer released from prison
Sentence suspended for 12 months
Regcast training : Hyper-V 3.0, VM high availability and disaster recovery
The Court of Appeal has released a Labour peer who was jailed for 12 weeks for sending and receiving text messages while driving minutes before he was involved in a fatal motorway crash.
Lord Ahmed, 51, was charged with dangerous driving after using his mobile phone shortly before hitting a stationary car in the fast lane of the M1, killing Martyn Gombar, 28, from Leigh, Greater Manchester.
Ahmed pleaded guilty to the charge and was handed a 12-week jail term by sentencing judge Mr Justice Wilkie last month.
At the time Wilkie made it clear that Ahmed’s text messaging had finished two minutes before the accident took place and was not connected to the crash, which happened on Christmas Day 2007.
The Court of Appeal today reduced Ahmed’s sentence to 12 weeks suspended for 12 months due to “exceptional” circumstances surrounding the case.
It’s understood that Ahmed could be released from Doncaster Prison as early as tomorrow following the Court of Appeal’s ruling.
The BBC has more about the case here.®
Regcast training : Hyper-V 3.0, VM high availability and disaster recovery
COMMENTS
facts
As much as I would like to think the rich aren't bending us mortals over again.
You can't help but wonder what all the facts are, I mean, none of us no for sure as we weren't in the courtroom or at the accident.
But think about these:
1. so he sent his last message 2 miles up the road, there's no way to know he wasn't, a. reading another message, b. fiddling with his phone or c. writing a reply.
2. If it was dark on an unlit part of the motorway isn't it the drivers responsibility to ensure their travelling at a safe speed for the terrain, weather and visibility.
3. How many other cars before him managed to avoid the crashed vehicle?
Draw your own conclusions, but it wont change the fact that the rich and in government always seem to get away with things.
Standards of Driving
This thing reminds me of one clear sunny morning when I was driving to work. I noticed cars sitting in odd positions about half a mile down the road, there was a filling station there and it looked like there had been an accident. I took my foot off the gas and let the car slow down, cars were still overtaking at high speed, some running into cars already stopped.
As I got closer (now down to a few mph) cars were still flying past and adding to the carnage. As I was wondering how I could get my car out of the way (as both lanes were now blocked) another car came flying past with all wheels locked -- he piled into the cars and actually knocked some out of the way -- I was able to slowly drive through to safety. More cars were still piling into the wreckage while an announcement came over the radio saying the road was now completely blocked.
My point is what the **** were those drivers thinking about? -- the weather was clear and dry with good visibility, due to the layout of the road you could see the accident from a good bit away, more than enough time to respond but they didn't -- they just ignored it until too late.
Fortunately despite the carnage nobody was seriously hurt.
With driving standards like that I'm not surprised a stationery car on the motorway at night was hit, it wouldn't be a question of if but when.
@TeeCee
It's a lot safer to reverse into your drive, it's never a good idea to reverse out into traffic.
Re: huh??? - By Throatwobbler Mangrove
Throatwobbler Mangrove = "What - you mean like comparing the time of the last sent text message to the time the accident actually occurred?"
Where, exactly, is there an independant and accurate source for timing when the accident occurred?
Are we to take Ahmed's 999 call as the time of the accident? Would it have been like this?
"Yes, just ploughing into some poor bastard that other drivers avoided and thought I'd let you know immediately before falling unconscious, making a dazed recovery, getting my-fat-self and the ladies out and herding the hysterical bints to relative safety - you know, the usual quick exit from a crumpled car.
And, by the way, it didn't have anything to do with my previous texting as I certainly wasn't composing yet another text message at the time."
The legal thinking seems to be that if he had transmitted a text at the precise second of the crash (still needing an independant timer here) then that would be related to the crash, but if he is engaged in a series of long text exchanges prior to the crash we can take a Lord's word for it that he wasn't distracted preparing to send anymore, honest!
I just wonder if there was a two or three minute gap between any of the previous messages transmissions, as they were being read or prepared? Still, I'm sure we can rely on the police, CPS and unbiased Judges to do a technically proficient job on anything relating to IT - I'd let them work on my network anytime (not!).
(PS, and not related to you TM - I see the Liebor supporters are out in force. Good on you, lads, coming out en masse when there's a message to be pushed. I swear it's nearly as good as a fire alarm.)
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider
Data control in the cloud
