Diabolical: Ben Andrews' family's fury at killer driver's sentence (From Bournemouth Echo)

Unfortunately the man was only convicted of careless driving and the sentence has to be appropriate to the charge.
It is light for the death of another human being, but that wasn't what the driver was charged with.

This is why the legal age limit for drinking should be increased to 21.

Plus this "soldier" was over the legal limit for alcohol, so it should have been a DUI, not careless driving.

RIP Ben.

djd wrote:
Unfortunately the man was only convicted of careless driving and the sentence has to be appropriate to the charge.
It is light for the death of another human being, but that wasn't what the driver was charged with.

The conviction was causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of alcohol as stated in the article...

Soldier Benjamin James Southall, 20, was jailed for 32 months for causing the death of 19-year-old Ben Andrews by careless driving when under the influence of alcohol.

Careless or inconsiderate driving falling not far short of dangerous driving attracts a prison sentence of:
Starting Point: 15 months custody
Sentencing range: 36 weeks - 3 years custody depending upon mitigating factors etc. The 32 month sentence is therefore not far short of the maximum sentence. Perhaps Sergeant Stroud could explain what sentence within the guideline is acceptable?
The question has to be why wasn't he charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, where offences with the most serious culpability, have sentencing guidelines seven to fourteen years' imprisonment?

A young life taken away and a family suffering from grief. Our legal system seems to have little respect for justice.

If Mr Southall was only convicted for dangerous driving then there was obviously some other reasons or contributing factors for the tragic loss off mr Andrews which clearly were not all by Mr Southalls wrong doings as the judge has pointed out.
This story is all very one sided and I can imagine there is a lot more loose ends in it if it's looked further into.

12rab21 wrote:
If Mr Southall was only convicted for dangerous driving then there was obviously some other reasons or contributing factors for the tragic loss off mr Andrews which clearly were not all by Mr Southalls wrong doings as the judge has pointed out.
This story is all very one sided and I can imagine there is a lot more loose ends in it if it's looked further into.

He was not convicted of Dangerous Driving but Causing Death by Careless Driving. The 32 month sentence is close to the maximum allowed in law. I would think that the reduction in the sentence from the maximum is because he pleaded guilty at the outset.

In the States you could get a life sentence for that.

Drink+driving+death=
manslaughter. That should be the minimum charge. Being under the influence of alcohol should never, ever, be used in mitigation, as it so often is this days for all sorts of crimes.

Old Colonial wrote:
Drink+driving+death=

manslaughter. That should be the minimum charge. Being under the influence of alcohol should never, ever, be used in mitigation, as it so often is this days for all sorts of crimes.

we are told by the authorities that driving carelessly is is a lapse that all competent and normally careful drivers may do. That is the whole thrust behind the Driver Improvement Courses. This driver received a sentence of 32 months, which is nearly the maximum and I would suggest that the influence of alcohol extended the sentence not mitigated it.
The CPS obviously came to the conclusion that the careless driving together with drinking alcohol did not meet the criteria for a Dangerous Driving charge. We shall just have to trust the authorities who are in place to protect the public and the accused.

rayc wrote:

12rab21 wrote:
If Mr Southall was only convicted for dangerous driving then there was obviously some other reasons or contributing factors for the tragic loss off mr Andrews which clearly were not all by Mr Southalls wrong doings as the judge has pointed out.
This story is all very one sided and I can imagine there is a lot more loose ends in it if it's looked further into.

He was not convicted of Dangerous Driving but Causing Death by Careless Driving. The 32 month sentence is close to the maximum allowed in law. I would think that the reduction in the sentence from the maximum is because he pleaded guilty at the outset.

The maximum custodial sentence for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs is actually 14 years now. The sentencing guidelines state that the starting point for this offence should have been 6 years based on the alcohol level in blood. I think everyone should be right to be disappointed with this over lenient sentence and the CPS should appeal it in order to promote the anti drink/drug drive message.

rayc
It would appear that you are as little concerned about driving with excess alcohol as you are about driving at excess speed.
One can only hope that the sentiment you put forward in your final sentence in regard to this sentence, you also think should apply with regard to speed limits, i.e. 'We shall just have to trust the authorties who are in place to protect the public and the accused.'
Some hope!

nobbjockie wrote:

rayc wrote:

12rab21 wrote:
If Mr Southall was only convicted for dangerous driving then there was obviously some other reasons or contributing factors for the tragic loss off mr Andrews which clearly were not all by Mr Southalls wrong doings as the judge has pointed out.
This story is all very one sided and I can imagine there is a lot more loose ends in it if it's looked further into.

He was not convicted of Dangerous Driving but Causing Death by Careless Driving. The 32 month sentence is close to the maximum allowed in law. I would think that the reduction in the sentence from the maximum is because he pleaded guilty at the outset.

The maximum custodial sentence for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs is actually 14 years now. The sentencing guidelines state that the starting point for this offence should have been 6 years based on the alcohol level in blood. I think everyone should be right to be disappointed with this over lenient sentence and the CPS should appeal it in order to promote the anti drink/drug drive message.

I said in a previous post that the maximum sentence for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving was 14 years. The charge was Causing Death by Careless Driving which has a maximum sentence of 36 months. The 32 months was not an over lenient sentence for THAT offence especially as he entered a guilty plea. It was the CPS who chose to prosecute fro careless rather than dangerous so they are unlikely to appeal the sentence when the most they can achieve is a further 4 months.

John T wrote:
rayc
It would appear that you are as little concerned about driving with excess alcohol as you are about driving at excess speed.
One can only hope that the sentiment you put forward in your final sentence in regard to this sentence, you also think should apply with regard to speed limits, i.e. 'We shall just have to trust the authorties who are in place to protect the public and the accused.'
Some hope!

That is a travesty and you have no idea how concerned I am about driving whilst under the influence of alcohol. I am not the CPS and I had no say in what the charge should be. Read my first post which says "The question has to be why wasn't he charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving...?
Can you answer that question?

How can driving under the influence of alcohol be considered 'careless'?
By definition, anyone who drives a vehicle whilst their judgement is impaired by alcohol or drugs is a dangerous driver.

Careless driving?... nonsense! It's dangerous driving.

Still, as long as we continue to appoint these 'liberal' thinkers to positions of authority in services, like the CPS, we are likely to get these deeply upsetting and frustrating sentences handed out.

4 years in jail for writing something on Facebook?

32 months for taking a life by driving a car when drunk?

It really is a very odd world........

rayc wrote:

nobbjockie wrote:

rayc wrote:

12rab21 wrote:
If Mr Southall was only convicted for dangerous driving then there was obviously some other reasons or contributing factors for the tragic loss off mr Andrews which clearly were not all by Mr Southalls wrong doings as the judge has pointed out.
This story is all very one sided and I can imagine there is a lot more loose ends in it if it's looked further into.

He was not convicted of Dangerous Driving but Causing Death by Careless Driving. The 32 month sentence is close to the maximum allowed in law. I would think that the reduction in the sentence from the maximum is because he pleaded guilty at the outset.

The maximum custodial sentence for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs is actually 14 years now. The sentencing guidelines state that the starting point for this offence should have been 6 years based on the alcohol level in blood. I think everyone should be right to be disappointed with this over lenient sentence and the CPS should appeal it in order to promote the anti drink/drug drive message.

I said in a previous post that the maximum sentence for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving was 14 years. The charge was Causing Death by Careless Driving which has a maximum sentence of 36 months. The 32 months was not an over lenient sentence for THAT offence especially as he entered a guilty plea. It was the CPS who chose to prosecute fro careless rather than dangerous so they are unlikely to appeal the sentence when the most they can achieve is a further 4 months.

According to the news report above the charge was in fact causing death by careless driving under the influence of alcohol and not what you say. Personally I feel that the sentencing guidelines can be based on opinion and are far from definitive when it comes to the line between careless and dangerous. Please review this yourself. http://sentencingcou
ncil.judiciary.gov.u
k/docs/web_causing_d
eath_by_driving_defi
nitive_guideline.pdf

Leaving aside whether we think the 32 months is an adequate sentence, why will this man be allowed to drive the day he leaves prison? Why has he not had a significantly longer driving ban imposed?

We read time and again of people imprisoned for, say, 12 months with a concurrent ban of about the same time. That's ridiculous!

Arjay wrote:
How can driving under the influence of alcohol be considered 'careless'?
By definition, anyone who drives a vehicle whilst their judgement is impaired by alcohol or drugs is a dangerous driver.

Careless driving?... nonsense! It's dangerous driving.

Still, as long as we continue to appoint these 'liberal' thinkers to positions of authority in services, like the CPS, we are likely to get these deeply upsetting and frustrating sentences handed out.

4 years in jail for writing something on Facebook?

32 months for taking a life by driving a car when drunk?

It really is a very odd world........

This is again another tragic case. Only yesterday I read about a Taxi driver who had killed a cyclist. He was fined just £35! Has life really become this cheap? You'd get a stiffer fine for dropping litter or cycling on the pavement.

12rab21 wrote:
If Mr Southall was only convicted for dangerous driving then there was obviously some other reasons or contributing factors for the tragic loss off mr Andrews which clearly were not all by Mr Southalls wrong doings as the judge has pointed out.
This story is all very one sided and I can imagine there is a lot more loose ends in it if it's looked further into.

Seriously? I think you must have a loose end somewhere!

I in no way condone drink driving, and feel for the family of Mr Andrews, but we have to consider each case in merit. The CPS decided that given the evidence presented that Mr Southall was infact guilty of careless driving under the influence of alcohol. His militay character must have been the reason for the Judges sentence, we need to remember, that although somebody commits a crime of this type, the intent to kill isnt there. Does our already over populated prisons need these kind of people in for a lengthy sentence. He will have a life sentence in his head, and I am sure although his life will go on, he will regret the decision to drink and drive for the rest of his life.
The CPS are to blame for his sentence, they give out the sentencing guide for judges, not the individual!!

12rab21 wrote:
If Mr Southall was only convicted for dangerous driving then there was obviously some other reasons or contributing factors for the tragic loss off mr Andrews which clearly were not all by Mr Southalls wrong doings as the judge has pointed out.
This story is all very one sided and I can imagine there is a lot more loose ends in it if it's looked further into.

Where do you think that "this story is all very one sided?"

and....what causes you to "imagine there are a lot more loose ends in it?"

It would be interesting to get your views.

8ourn3m0uth1ad wrote:
I in no way condone drink driving, and feel for the family of Mr Andrews, but we have to consider each case in merit. The CPS decided that given the evidence presented that Mr Southall was infact guilty of careless driving under the influence of alcohol. His militay character must have been the reason for the Judges sentence, we need to remember, that although somebody commits a crime of this type, the intent to kill isnt there. Does our already over populated prisons need these kind of people in for a lengthy sentence. He will have a life sentence in his head, and I am sure although his life will go on, he will regret the decision to drink and drive for the rest of his life.
The CPS are to blame for his sentence, they give out the sentencing guide for judges, not the individual!!

As you rightly say, it's the CPS who are to blame.
As I mentioned in my post above, there is no way that any right thinking person can describe driving when drunk as anything other than 'dangerous'.

It's certainly not 'careless' !

We clearly have people appointed to positions way above their capability in our legal system today.

Which is a shame.....

This guy should never drive again. There is no right to drive on the roads: it is done under licence. Causing a death should lead to a permanent ban. Does anyone feel that their loved ones are safe out there on the roads with this guy out there?

If the Police Sergeant believes that this was an unduly lenient sentence he can ask the CPS to appeal the sentence. However, he should know that the sentencing guidelines state that the starting point for sentencing in this tragic case is 18 mths and a range between 26 weeks and 4 years. This driver received a sentence of 2yrs and 8 mths, which is at the higher end. How can the Sergeant be surprised - did he not read the sentencing guidelines before going into court? Did anybody also not tell the family what the likely sentence would be? Contrary to what people think the Judge has little flexibility in what sentence to give. An awful loss of life but lets not start blaming the Judge.

8ourn3m0uth1ad wrote:
I in no way condone drink driving, and feel for the family of Mr Andrews, but we have to consider each case in merit. The CPS decided that given the evidence presented that Mr Southall was infact guilty of careless driving under the influence of alcohol. His militay character must have been the reason for the Judges sentence, we need to remember, that although somebody commits a crime of this type, the intent to kill isnt there. Does our already over populated prisons need these kind of people in for a lengthy sentence. He will have a life sentence in his head, and I am sure although his life will go on, he will regret the decision to drink and drive for the rest of his life.
The CPS are to blame for his sentence, they give out the sentencing guide for judges, not the individual!!

Dude, the guy killed someone.

Whilst many can fully understand why the family wish to share their view on the sentence I thought there was a golden rule that the Police do not criticise sentencing decisions. The Police (if supported by CPS) can appeal a sentencing decision if they consider it unduly lenient but if they don't appeal they surely shouldn't go public with their personal views.

rad21 wrote:
If the Police Sergeant believes that this was an unduly lenient sentence he can ask the CPS to appeal the sentence. However, he should know that the sentencing guidelines state that the starting point for sentencing in this tragic case is 18 mths and a range between 26 weeks and 4 years. This driver received a sentence of 2yrs and 8 mths, which is at the higher end. How can the Sergeant be surprised - did he not read the sentencing guidelines before going into court? Did anybody also not tell the family what the likely sentence would be? Contrary to what people think the Judge has little flexibility in what sentence to give. An awful loss of life but lets not start blaming the Judge.

You may be misunderstanding the conviction which is causing death by careless driving under the influence of alcohol. The starting point is 6 years with a maximum of 14 years. http://sentencingcou
ncil.judiciary.gov.u
k/docs/web_causing_d
eath_by_driving_defi
nitive_guideline.pdf

Bournesouthmouth Downpokes wrote:

8ourn3m0uth1ad wrote: I in no way condone drink driving, and feel for the family of Mr Andrews, but we have to consider each case in merit. The CPS decided that given the evidence presented that Mr Southall was infact guilty of careless driving under the influence of alcohol. His militay character must have been the reason for the Judges sentence, we need to remember, that although somebody commits a crime of this type, the intent to kill isnt there. Does our already over populated prisons need these kind of people in for a lengthy sentence. He will have a life sentence in his head, and I am sure although his life will go on, he will regret the decision to drink and drive for the rest of his life. The CPS are to blame for his sentence, they give out the sentencing guide for judges, not the individual!!

Dude, the guy killed someone.

I know the guy killed someone, but my expression is relating to the fact that no sentence will bring back Mr Andrews, therefore what benefit is it to the prison service to have this type of criminal in the system for a long time. His punishment will begin when he gets out, driving bans, getting a job, physcological etc... The judge has identified his good character and with glowing reports from the military, I am guessing this has helped with the judges decision.
This article doesnt cover enough about the accident, and like previously quoted, there may have been reasons why the CPS didnt prosecute for dangerous driving?
For thought, "The driving agency reckon you are twice as dangerous when texting during driving, than when you have had a drink" how many of us have done that!!

nobbjockie wrote:

rad21 wrote:
If the Police Sergeant believes that this was an unduly lenient sentence he can ask the CPS to appeal the sentence. However, he should know that the sentencing guidelines state that the starting point for sentencing in this tragic case is 18 mths and a range between 26 weeks and 4 years. This driver received a sentence of 2yrs and 8 mths, which is at the higher end. How can the Sergeant be surprised - did he not read the sentencing guidelines before going into court? Did anybody also not tell the family what the likely sentence would be? Contrary to what people think the Judge has little flexibility in what sentence to give. An awful loss of life but lets not start blaming the Judge.

You may be misunderstanding the conviction which is causing death by careless driving under the influence of alcohol. The starting point is 6 years with a maximum of 14 years. http://sentencingcou

ncil.judiciary.gov.u

k/docs/web_causing_d

eath_by_driving_defi

nitive_guideline.pdf

I think you are misunderstanding the guidelines. You are quoting the sentencing for an offender who has an alcohol level at twice the legal limit with no aggravating factors and momentary inatenttion. I am quoting for when someone is just over the legal limit which this chap was.

nobbjockie wrote:

rad21 wrote: If the Police Sergeant believes that this was an unduly lenient sentence he can ask the CPS to appeal the sentence. However, he should know that the sentencing guidelines state that the starting point for sentencing in this tragic case is 18 mths and a range between 26 weeks and 4 years. This driver received a sentence of 2yrs and 8 mths, which is at the higher end. How can the Sergeant be surprised - did he not read the sentencing guidelines before going into court? Did anybody also not tell the family what the likely sentence would be? Contrary to what people think the Judge has little flexibility in what sentence to give. An awful loss of life but lets not start blaming the Judge.

You may be misunderstanding the conviction which is causing death by careless driving under the influence of alcohol. The starting point is 6 years with a maximum of 14 years. http://sentencingcou ncil.judiciary.gov.u k/docs/web_causing_d eath_by_driving_defi nitive_guideline.pdf

nobbjockie, you need to read all the guide, not just the first section. The sentencing range can be as little as 28 weeks or as long as 14 years, it all depends on the levels of alcohol, and also the level of carelessness afforded to the individual. Again, the article does not disclose the level of alcohol or the level of carelessness that the judge has been able to base his guidelines. Where you have plucked the starting point at 6 years I dont know, but please try and keep comments factual. I dont know if I have missed it, but does anyone know what sort of ban this guy got?

8ourn3m0uth1ad wrote:

nobbjockie wrote:

rad21 wrote: If the Police Sergeant believes that this was an unduly lenient sentence he can ask the CPS to appeal the sentence. However, he should know that the sentencing guidelines state that the starting point for sentencing in this tragic case is 18 mths and a range between 26 weeks and 4 years. This driver received a sentence of 2yrs and 8 mths, which is at the higher end. How can the Sergeant be surprised - did he not read the sentencing guidelines before going into court? Did anybody also not tell the family what the likely sentence would be? Contrary to what people think the Judge has little flexibility in what sentence to give. An awful loss of life but lets not start blaming the Judge.

You may be misunderstanding the conviction which is causing death by careless driving under the influence of alcohol. The starting point is 6 years with a maximum of 14 years. http://sentencingcou ncil.judiciary.gov.u k/docs/web_causing_d eath_by_driving_defi nitive_guideline.pdf

nobbjockie, you need to read all the guide, not just the first section. The sentencing range can be as little as 28 weeks or as long as 14 years, it all depends on the levels of alcohol, and also the level of carelessness afforded to the individual. Again, the article does not disclose the level of alcohol or the level of carelessness that the judge has been able to base his guidelines. Where you have plucked the starting point at 6 years I dont know, but please try and keep comments factual. I dont know if I have missed it, but does anyone know what sort of ban this guy got?

The article does state 89 in blood so just over the limit.

Yes,the news report states '89mg per 100ml of blood', the legal limit being 80mg. So he was just over the legal limit, not drunk as some posts have quoted. It was a tragic ACCIDENT, Mr Southall did not set out to kill or harm that night and he will have to live with this for the rest of his life. It appears the Judge gave the almost maximum sentence for the charges set. My heart goes out to both families, however, being angry and bitter will hamper the healing and delay the grieving process.

8ourn3m0uth1ad wrote:

nobbjockie wrote:

rad21 wrote: If the Police Sergeant believes that this was an unduly lenient sentence he can ask the CPS to appeal the sentence. However, he should know that the sentencing guidelines state that the starting point for sentencing in this tragic case is 18 mths and a range between 26 weeks and 4 years. This driver received a sentence of 2yrs and 8 mths, which is at the higher end. How can the Sergeant be surprised - did he not read the sentencing guidelines before going into court? Did anybody also not tell the family what the likely sentence would be? Contrary to what people think the Judge has little flexibility in what sentence to give. An awful loss of life but lets not start blaming the Judge.

You may be misunderstanding the conviction which is causing death by careless driving under the influence of alcohol. The starting point is 6 years with a maximum of 14 years. http://sentencingcou ncil.judiciary.gov.u k/docs/web_causing_d eath_by_driving_defi nitive_guideline.pdf

nobbjockie, you need to read all the guide, not just the first section. The sentencing range can be as little as 28 weeks or as long as 14 years, it all depends on the levels of alcohol, and also the level of carelessness afforded to the individual. Again, the article does not disclose the level of alcohol or the level of carelessness that the judge has been able to base his guidelines. Where you have plucked the starting point at 6 years I dont know, but please try and keep comments factual. I dont know if I have missed it, but does anyone know what sort of ban this guy got?

I believe it was a 5 year driving ban ...

Having read all the comments I would just like to say that Ben meant a lot to me, he was cheeky funny popular & kind - he was only 19.
Our last conversation together was about his future, he wanted to be a police officer & was a volunteer at our local Youth & Community Centre. He comes from a lovely family who have already had to endure Ben's birthday & Christmas without him before even getting to court.
Last May he was not driving too fast, in fact he was just leaving the little village where I live & preparing to approach a roundabout. The other driver was driving fast after coming off the roundabout, with his headlights on full beam, on the wrong side of the road. Some of Ben's friends were driving in a car behind him & will never get over witnessing the head on collision happening in front of them, despite Ben's efforts to steer out of this drivers way.
I'm not being over emotional but want you to see him as more than a name in a news report & to understand how bad the crash was. The emergency services who responded were greatly affected by the scene, it was your worst nightmare & then there was Paul Andrews - Ben's dad, holding his 19 year old son's hand as we lost him, it has been heartbreaking & the recent court ruling has further hurt & devastated Ben's family & friends. Ben was worth more than 32 months & a 5 year driving ban.

biba62 wrote:
Yes,the news report states '89mg per 100ml of blood', the legal limit being 80mg. So he was just over the legal limit, not drunk as some posts have quoted. It was a tragic ACCIDENT, Mr Southall did not set out to kill or harm that night and he will have to live with this for the rest of his life. It appears the Judge gave the almost maximum sentence for the charges set. My heart goes out to both families, however, being angry and bitter will hamper the healing and delay the grieving process.

The sample was taken some 4 hours later, ordinary people have their samples taken within one hour normally ( so I'm lead to believe ) I understand that you lose approximately 1 unit of alcohol per hour. That would make him drunk, however you look at it. Did you read the article before commenting?

JaxKerr please understand that a lot of regular commenters refrain from commenting on tragic articles such as this as a mark of respect for the person involved and the family and friends, but believe me although we may not know what it is like to go through such tragedy our thoughts are with you

12rab21 wrote:
If Mr Southall was only convicted for dangerous driving then there was obviously some other reasons or contributing factors for the tragic loss off mr Andrews which clearly were not all by Mr Southalls wrong doings as the judge has pointed out.
This story is all very one sided and I can imagine there is a lot more loose ends in it if it's looked further into.

At the end of the day, Mr Southall killed a young life by getting into a car drunk in doing so he has to except total responsibility for his actions. I feel you comments are offensive to Ben's family and friends. A young man was killed because of a drunken idiot. No excuse!!!!

I think that this is ridiculous. Ben Southall may have not intentionally gone out to harm Ben Andrews but his stupid decision to drink and drive caused him to take a life of a 19 year old! It has caused a lot of devastation for Ben's family and for his friends that we all lost someone very close and dear on the 7th of may. Loosing Ben was one of the hardest things I have ever had to cope with, he was a very close friend, he was a wonderful young man with a heart of gold and he would never hurt anyone. The sentence that was given for 32 months and a 5 year driving ban to Ben Southall is no where near enough justice in my eyes. Don't drink and drive, It saves life's and I hope that people understand the devastation it can cause.

It's disgusting should have got 15yrs+ you've taken a life a family will never recover from that. Yet he be walking about in 20 mths without a care in the world!

It's odd that the echo doesn't relish the righteous indignation so readily every time a cyclist killer gets community service,or 3 points.

Personally I think anyone who kills on the road should serve 5 years at least.

For all of you that would like to know the echo forgot to report that a back calculation was carried out and he was found to be twice over the limit . I knew Ben Andrews very well and was at the accident on that night and can tell you he played no part in his own death .
So all of you that talk about what you don't know about please be mindful of the pain you could be causing his family who are already going though great pain . I hope none of you ever have to go through what this family has and still are

collielady wrote:

12rab21 wrote:
If Mr Southall was only convicted for dangerous driving then there was obviously some other reasons or contributing factors for the tragic loss off mr Andrews which clearly were not all by Mr Southalls wrong doings as the judge has pointed out.
This story is all very one sided and I can imagine there is a lot more loose ends in it if it's looked further into.

At the end of the day, Mr Southall killed a young life by getting into a car drunk in doing so he has to except total responsibility for his actions. I feel you comments are offensive to Ben's family and friends. A young man was killed because of a drunken idiot. No excuse!!!!

By pleading guilty, doesnt that mean Mr Southall is accepting total responsibility? He doesn't decide the punishment, awarded to him. I do feel for Mr Andrews family, friends and also the others injuried by Mr Southall, but he can't be blamed for the way the british law dictates sentences.

I thought it was a license to drive , not a license to kill :(

Thoughts are with Ben's family.

Bournesouthmouth Downpokes wrote:
This is why the legal age limit for drinking should be increased to 21.

Plus this "soldier" was over the legal limit for alcohol, so it should have been a DUI, not careless driving.

RIP Ben.

Why should the legal age limit for drinking be 21 because of this? Are there no drunk drivers over the age of 21?

David Furmage. wrote:
I thought it was a license to drive , not a license to kill :(

Thoughts are with Ben's family.

These comments were all very interesting until you wrote this.

I've got my own views on the type of people I feel are more likely to drink and drive but I don't think this is the right place to raise them do you?

His age had nothing to do with it so stop fishing for a reaction.

ragj195 wrote:

David Furmage. wrote:
I thought it was a license to drive , not a license to kill :(

Thoughts are with Ben's family.

These comments were all very interesting until you wrote this.

I've got my own views on the type of people I feel are more likely to drink and drive but I don't think this is the right place to raise them do you?

His age had nothing to do with it so stop fishing for a reaction.

sorry David I quoted the wrong post.

biba62 wrote:
Yes,the news report states '89mg per 100ml of blood', the legal limit being 80mg. So he was just over the legal limit, not drunk as some posts have quoted. It was a tragic ACCIDENT, Mr Southall did not set out to kill or harm that night and he will have to live with this for the rest of his life. It appears the Judge gave the almost maximum sentence for the charges set. My heart goes out to both families, however, being angry and bitter will hamper the healing and delay the grieving process.

I have a car sticker from MADD (Mothers against drunk drivers) in California that says"Drunk driving is no accident". Getting behind the wheel when drunk is a deliberate act and if someone dies as a result that is manslaughter - no excuses.Same goes for using a mobile phone.It is not careless, you made the choice and it is illegal. Change the guidelines and remeber YOU KILLED AN INNOCENT VICTIM.

Deaths caused by road accidents, (I firmly belief that there are NO accidents as the driver is responsible their actions), should be automatically treated as Manslaughter. Simple as that.

EGHH wrote:
Deaths caused by road accidents, (I firmly belief that there are NO accidents as the driver is responsible their actions), should be automatically treated as Manslaughter. Simple as that.

Exactly. The Poice no longer refer to car crashes as RTAs, Road Traffic Accidents. They are RTCs, Road Traffic Collisions. Accidents imply that there is no one at fault but in most incidents someone is always to blame; too fast, too tired, too drunk!
If an employee suffered an accident at work and was killed and the cause was found to be negligence on his employers part, that employer would go to prison. Its as simple as that. How is this any different from a drunk getting into a car and later killing someone? Neither set out to kill but the result is the same.

As some of you have not taken notice to my previous quote I was also in court on Monday and the echo has not reported correctly he was twice over the limit .
When talking to Ben Andrews family today they think that people should try and think what it feels like to loose a child or even worse to watch and hold your child in your arms whilst he or she is dieing this is something no parent should ever go though .
One other thing that some of you might find interesting is the fact that the police report says that SOUTHALL was across double white lines , speeding and his head lights were on full beam . One of the passengers in Ben Andrews car says that SOUTHALL verd across t he road at them and Ben Andrews tried to avoid SOUTHALL but had no were to go he braked very hard causing the front of his car to dive , as SOUTHALL did not brake his car went up and caused so much damage to Ben Andrews car .
The police vehicle inspectors gave Ben Andrews car a clean bill and said it would pass a mot , so could you please explain to us all how Ben Andrews contributated to his own death as you must know more than the people that investigate these matters

8ourn3m0uth1ad wrote:

collielady wrote:

12rab21 wrote:
If Mr Southall was only convicted for dangerous driving then there was obviously some other reasons or contributing factors for the tragic loss off mr Andrews which clearly were not all by Mr Southalls wrong doings as the judge has pointed out.
This story is all very one sided and I can imagine there is a lot more loose ends in it if it's looked further into.

At the end of the day, Mr Southall killed a young life by getting into a car drunk in doing so he has to except total responsibility for his actions. I feel you comments are offensive to Ben's family and friends. A young man was killed because of a drunken idiot. No excuse!!!!

By pleading guilty, doesnt that mean Mr Southall is accepting total responsibility? He doesn't decide the punishment, awarded to him. I do feel for Mr Andrews family, friends and also the others injuried by Mr Southall, but he can't be blamed for the way the british law dictates sentences.

I felt strongly enough to comment earlier as it became apparent to me that people commenting had very little factual information & didn't seem to realize how dangerous & reckless Southall's driving was that evening.
I had planned to leave it at that but the comment in support of Southall pleading guilty & therefore taking full responsibility for the crash etc etc has led me to comment again.

Yes, Southall did plead Guilty - eventually ... hopefully I have not been mis informed but I am led to believe that a previous plea for the awful injuries caused to Ben's 2 passengers had actually been a Not Guilty which bought him some time & gave him Christmas at home.
Where was Ben at Christmas? He wasn't out on our staff meal to thank him for volunteering for the last year, he wasn't at home with his younger brother & sister, mum & dad - he was dead, killed by Southall, who could have walked the 5 mins to the taxi rank in town & been driven home by someone who hadn't drunk 7-8 pints, who wouldn't be speeding with their lights on full beam on the wrong side of the road, head on into the car Ben was trying to steer out of it's path. Southall came out of no where, Ben didn't stand a chance, there was nothing his dad could do but hold him as he died ALL because of Southall.

So YES a lot of people have a huge problem with the 32 months & 5 yr driving ban given, it's not what Ben or his family deserve, but personally speaking my biggest problem is with Southall & the fact that he had a choice, he didn't have to drive & now there are countless people having to live with the pain of Ben not being here. I don't 'blame Southall for the way the british law dictates sentences' - but yes that sentence has caused a lot of upset for everyone, who can blame his family for feeling cheated yet again - but I & many many others do blame Southall for killing Ben & causing heartbreak to all who cared for him.

Hearing the crash being called an accident dumbs down how reckless & out of control Southall was of his vehicle due to the alcohol he had consumed, he had no right to get in his car drunk, take away a 19 year old's life & devastate a family.
So as far as him pleading Guilty & taking full responsibility for his actions - I think you'll find his plea's, (Not Guilty & then Guilty) were in HIS best interests nothing more.

JaxKerr wrote:

8ourn3m0uth1ad wrote:

collielady wrote:

12rab21 wrote: If Mr Southall was only convicted for dangerous driving then there was obviously some other reasons or contributing factors for the tragic loss off mr Andrews which clearly were not all by Mr Southalls wrong doings as the judge has pointed out. This story is all very one sided and I can imagine there is a lot more loose ends in it if it's looked further into.

At the end of the day, Mr Southall killed a young life by getting into a car drunk in doing so he has to except total responsibility for his actions. I feel you comments are offensive to Ben's family and friends. A young man was killed because of a drunken idiot. No excuse!!!!

By pleading guilty, doesnt that mean Mr Southall is accepting total responsibility? He doesn't decide the punishment, awarded to him. I do feel for Mr Andrews family, friends and also the others injuried by Mr Southall, but he can't be blamed for the way the british law dictates sentences.

I felt strongly enough to comment earlier as it became apparent to me that people commenting had very little factual information & didn't seem to realize how dangerous & reckless Southall's driving was that evening. I had planned to leave it at that but the comment in support of Southall pleading guilty & therefore taking full responsibility for the crash etc etc has led me to comment again. Yes, Southall did plead Guilty - eventually ... hopefully I have not been mis informed but I am led to believe that a previous plea for the awful injuries caused to Ben's 2 passengers had actually been a Not Guilty which bought him some time & gave him Christmas at home. Where was Ben at Christmas? He wasn't out on our staff meal to thank him for volunteering for the last year, he wasn't at home with his younger brother & sister, mum & dad - he was dead, killed by Southall, who could have walked the 5 mins to the taxi rank in town & been driven home by someone who hadn't drunk 7-8 pints, who wouldn't be speeding with their lights on full beam on the wrong side of the road, head on into the car Ben was trying to steer out of it's path. Southall came out of no where, Ben didn't stand a chance, there was nothing his dad could do but hold him as he died ALL because of Southall. So YES a lot of people have a huge problem with the 32 months & 5 yr driving ban given, it's not what Ben or his family deserve, but personally speaking my biggest problem is with Southall & the fact that he had a choice, he didn't have to drive & now there are countless people having to live with the pain of Ben not being here. I don't 'blame Southall for the way the british law dictates sentences' - but yes that sentence has caused a lot of upset for everyone, who can blame his family for feeling cheated yet again - but I & many many others do blame Southall for killing Ben & causing heartbreak to all who cared for him. Hearing the crash being called an accident dumbs down how reckless & out of control Southall was of his vehicle due to the alcohol he had consumed, he had no right to get in his car drunk, take away a 19 year old's life & devastate a family. So as far as him pleading Guilty & taking full responsibility for his actions - I think you'll find his plea's, (Not Guilty & then Guilty) were in HIS best interests nothing more.

The comment was not in support of Mr Southall pleading guilty, it only states that by pleading guilty how do we not know he has taken responsibility? You were Mr Andrews friend and I can appreciate your hurt, and having spoken to an independent witness at the court, I believe Mr Southall did not plead guilty to the other charges as this was a mistake by the CPS in the type of charge they initially charged Mr Southall with. Apparently he couldnt plead guilty otherwise this was double jeopardy with the first most serious charge. If the CPS had realised this initially, then Mr Southall would have gone down before Christmas. A lot of criminals are made out to be worse than they are due to the judicial service, lawyers making names for themselves and using prosecution/defendan
ts as their guinea pigs!!

We will never change this until we make Drinking and Driving illegal.

Getting behind the wheel after drinking is not careless - it is a deliberate and wilful act. If you drive when you are drunk you are not in full control. Until causing death by drink driving is treated in the same way as any other manslaughter or murder there will always be drivers prepared to take a chance.

32 months is an insult to the victim and will not deter other drivers from taking a chance.

I quote ...
By pleading guilty, doesnt that mean Mr Southall is accepting total responsibility?
That was the initial sentence that I felt did support Southalls guilty plea as if it was a brave move, taking responsibility. The plea was in his best interests in terms of sentencing nothing more.
I quote ...
The comment was not in support of Mr Southall pleading guilty, it only states that by pleading guilty how do we not know he has taken responsibility?
In my opinion you back track here.

As for "A lot of criminals are made out to be worse than they are due to the judicial service, lawyers making names for themselves" ...
Southall has not been unfairly treated, rather the opposite - sadly this can not be said for Ben, his passengers, his friends in the car behind witnessing Ben in a head on collision, or his family.

Our views & opinions will of course differ & I do not want you to think that I am having a bit of a go, the choices Southall has made since the moment he got into his car twice over the limit have not been because it's time to stand up & be counted, they've been for himself & nothing more, the pain I see as a result of Southalls actions prompt me to comment if I read/hear either untrue statements or assumptions made to Southall taking full responsibility for Ben's life, I hope you can understand.

Golf nut wrote:
As some of you have not taken notice to my previous quote I was also in court on Monday and the echo has not reported correctly he was twice over the limit .
When talking to Ben Andrews family today they think that people should try and think what it feels like to loose a child or even worse to watch and hold your child in your arms whilst he or she is dieing this is something no parent should ever go though .
One other thing that some of you might find interesting is the fact that the police report says that SOUTHALL was across double white lines , speeding and his head lights were on full beam . One of the passengers in Ben Andrews car says that SOUTHALL verd across t he road at them and Ben Andrews tried to avoid SOUTHALL but had no were to go he braked very hard causing the front of his car to dive , as SOUTHALL did not brake his car went up and caused so much damage to Ben Andrews car .
The police vehicle inspectors gave Ben Andrews car a clean bill and said it would pass a mot , so could you please explain to us all how Ben Andrews contributated to his own death as you must know more than the people that investigate these matters

I would like to know how his car would pass an mot with the roof cut off and half the car destroyed? Thanks

JaxKerr wrote:
I quote ...
By pleading guilty, doesnt that mean Mr Southall is accepting total responsibility?
That was the initial sentence that I felt did support Southalls guilty plea as if it was a brave move, taking responsibility. The plea was in his best interests in terms of sentencing nothing more.
I quote ...
The comment was not in support of Mr Southall pleading guilty, it only states that by pleading guilty how do we not know he has taken responsibility?
In my opinion you back track here.

As for "A lot of criminals are made out to be worse than they are due to the judicial service, lawyers making names for themselves" ...
Southall has not been unfairly treated, rather the opposite - sadly this can not be said for Ben, his passengers, his friends in the car behind witnessing Ben in a head on collision, or his family.

Our views & opinions will of course differ & I do not want you to think that I am having a bit of a go, the choices Southall has made since the moment he got into his car twice over the limit have not been because it's time to stand up & be counted, they've been for himself & nothing more, the pain I see as a result of Southalls actions prompt me to comment if I read/hear either untrue statements or assumptions made to Southall taking full responsibility for Ben's life, I hope you can understand.

It seems you are blinkered by this incident and your insistance to comment if you read/hear either untrue or assumptions, but I believe this thread stems from your assumption to Mr Southall not taking total responsibility?? You also make some uneducated comment about the plea being in his best interest?? If you read all the coverage by the echo, you will realise he is and always was guilty, therefore he has only made a plea in accordance with the charges brought against him. I do not support Mr Southall or his crime, but feel if you comment on these matters, keep to facts and not your personal assumptions. I hope you can understand

If we as a society believe that we should be introducing a law to make it illegal to drink and drive then we shoo d sp

I can safely say I am most definately not 'blinkered' - what I am is very well informed with the facts, agreed the circumstances will obviously affect me more personally than you as I know/am connected to ALL involved - both sides.
I can assure you I make no assumptions & do not have to rely on the limited info reported in the Echo/one independant witness etc, so uneducated comments, which would be irresponsible in such a sensitive case, do not come from me.
My previous comments have acheived what I wanted - to share factual info when a question was asked & to share a bit about Ben, further comments after this serve no purpose.
There has been no 'insistance' to comment, I have posted here for Ben & for his grieving family. I don't think any of my comments/posts have had a negative or disrespectful tone to them unlike some.

To clear up some confusion here-the maximum sentence for causing death by careless driving is five years in prison. However the charge here was causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs-a distinct offence for which the maximum penalty is fourteen years. I do not see how he could possibly have any mitigation in relation to the offence itself, but he had personal mitigation as mentioned. Whether the sentence could be appealed would be a matter for the Attorney General. The sentence does seem remarkably lenient.