Barton.

When I was in the beach, I was practising my swimming technique as I walked towards the sea and a group of lads not looking what they were doing ran into me and when in McDonald’s as I reached for a straw it was at the same time as he walked past

 

Not well if the reports coming out of Fleetwood are anything to go by!

 

If she was a man she'd be in prison now imo.

 

that was what she was accused of. Committed suicide before the trial.

 

Seriously mate thats not something to joke about.

 

And what the evidence pointed towards. And why he was covered in blood. And confessed. And why the inquest into her death basically found her guilty.

 

More a case of celebrity status regardless of her gender.

 

if she was poor shed be in prison by now. Although if you read the local papers, how many times someone who drives when banned , just gets banned again and again.

 

Agree with that too but she has a history of driving offences and lack of generally caring about anyone's safety that is longer than any I've seen

 

I agree she should be serving time.

 

She was found guilty and the judge made it clear she should have got a custodial sentence but the law prevented it.

As someone above said the law is an Ass

 

Im not an expert but I think the judge is completely wrong. Looking at the sentencing guidelines she ticks pretty much every aggravating factors box which is used to impose an immediate custodial sentence whilst failing to tick any of the mitigating factors boxes to avoid one.

It seems to me that the only reason the judge has allowed her to skip prison is that she did her annual pilgrimage to priory however I don't think this is complying with the terms blah blah blah because complying with the terms of her OTHER releases means not driving as she was already banned.

To be honest the safest thing that could happen for everyone else would be if she got in a car again and had a single vehicle accident that left her physically unable to drive ever again.

 

You’d hope a Judge was an expert

 

He likes playing Daleks Boss.

 

Case adjourned while March.

 

Then be delayed until the following year. His legal bills must be something else.

 

Er, not quite Mr ST!

You'd be right to say that the sentencing guideline requirements were all ticked in this case so as to justify a custodial sentence. But neither the guidelines nor the law requires a custodial sentence. It is always open to a sentencing bench or judge to find sufficient features to mitigate away from an immediate sentence. But in this case you have to go back to the original sentencing hearing in September. Price's case on that occasion came before a bench of lay magistrates. They deferred sentence on condition that Price attended treatment for her dependencies and committed no further offences between then and the adjourned hearing date (yesterday). The magistrates' powers were limited to a potential six months' imprisonment. As Price originally pleaded guilty she would have been entitled to one-third discount off any sentence. That would have made the maximum she could have received a total of four months, of which she would have served half. So the bench could only have restricted her behaviour for two months. No doubt they hoped that the assessment would lead to a community order that would achieve some reform of her behaviour for a longer period. That said, I suspect most professional judges would have taken the view that she had had previous chances, and that the sentencing aims of punishment and deterrence would have had to come to the fore.

The case came back before District Judge Amanda Kelly, a professional judge. Sentencing law and precedent provides that where (as here) the prospect of a non-custodial sentence is held out providing that the defendant complies with the conditions attached to deferment, then provided that is the case then a custodial sentence can not be imposed at the resumed hearing. No criticism should therefore be levelled at District Judge Kelly, who strongly intimated that she would not have considered a non-custodial penalty had she been seized of the case from the outset. It used to be the case that deferred sentencing cases came back before the same bench, but court cuts and pressures of listing arrangements mean that these days the resumed hearing is probably more likely to come before a different tribunal. That is a source of frustration for those who, as here, would not have held out the offer of a community penalty in the first place.

As ever in these cases, there is more to it than the tabloid headlines would make out.

 

Here’s a thing…

There’s no such thing as karma. It’s crap innit.

Some of the nicest people in the world live very unremarkable lives, and plenty of absolute ars eholes live long happy lives.

Barton will have a decent career, won’t care about how many people hate him cos it won’t affect his life. The closest he’ll be touched by consequence is that his kids won’t look up to him the way yours will to you. But he’s probably too arrogant to realise.