Free to go: driver who left body of 23-year-old dad in undergrowth by Upton Bypass escapes jail

Daniel Robbie

Daniel Robbie

First published in News
Last updated
by , Chief Reporter

THE mother of a young father who was found dead more than a day after he was hit by a delivery driver says that she is “gutted” that the “coward” who failed to report the accident was not jailed.

This afternoon delivery driver Matthew James, 27, who had denied charges of failing stop at the scene of an accident and failing to report an accident, escaped jail.

Bournemouth Magistrates' Court found him guilty at a trial last month after hearing that James, of Stoneylawn in Winterborne Kingston, struck 23-year-old Daniel Robbie, of Throop Close, Bournemouth, shortly before 6am on September 14 last year.

The body of Mr Robbie, who had been riding a micro-scooter, was found the next day in bushes next to the road.

Today, James was handed a 12-week prison term, suspended for 12 months, along with 180 hours of unpaid work, a six-month driving ban, £1,000 in costs and an £80 victim surcharge.

Speaking to the Daily Echo after the case, Daniel's mum Julie Croucher said that no sentence was enough.

She added: “People need to realise what a coward the driver is for not stopping, but he tried to convince himself that he had hit a badger.

“Instead, he ignored the fact he had to own up to this and left my son there until he was found on the Sunday afternoon.”

This afternoon, the court was told that it had always been the Crown Prosecution's case that James was not responsible for the death of Mr Robbie, but his actions meant that there was a long delay in his body being found.

In mitigation, Mark Hensley said that James had not tried to hide the fact that he had been involved in an accident.

He added: “He might be forgiven for his misunderstanding of what the law is in relation to an accident in these particular circumstances.

“He is very sorry about the fact that this has happened.

“He is going to live with it for the rest of his life, knowing that someone has been killed as a result of this tragic accident and it has affected him.”

At the trial last month, magistrates found that James, who did not face a death by careless driving charge, had “deliberately closed” his eyes to events.

The trial heard that he had “lied repeatedly” to his girlfriend and family, claiming that he had hit a badger with his Toyota van.

Later, he admitted to police that he had made the account up.

However, he said he had no idea of what he had hit and assumed that the crash involved wildlife.

But he had struck Mr Robbie, whose body was found 32 hours later by a family member, partially concealed in undergrowth.

The following day he read an article on the Daily Echo’s website, which reported that that a man had been killed along the stretch of road.

The defendant searched Google on his phone in the early hours of the next morning for the term 'crush my car'.

Speaking after the case today, Daniel's mum, Julie Croucher, said she was “gutted” that James was not jailed.

She added: “No sentence is enough. Like I said before, I hope he lives with this for the rest of his life, like we have to live the rest of our lives without Dan.

“We understand that members of the public may have something to say about my son riding a scooter on the road. They don't know the circumstances of why he was trying to get home to his family.

“There is no law saying that he could not ride on the road, as you see people walking and cycling along this road.

“People need to realise what a coward the driver is for not stopping, but he tried to convince himself that he had hit a badger.

“Instead, he ignored the fact he had to own up to this and left my son there until he was found on the Sunday afternoon.

“This has been the hardest year of my life and we are yet still to go through the inquest hearing - and this will be a few days short of a year since we lost Daniel, if that is not hard enough to cope with.

“I would like to thank all of the investigating officers for their hard work on my son's case.”

Comments (65)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:02pm Wed 23 Jul 14

spooki says...

So you can hit someone on a road, high enough to smash the windscreen on a van, claim it was a badger, then happily go on whilst knowing that man was there for about 32 hours and may have been saved if you'd reported it sooner?
Let's all go round doing that shall we? Yes, perhaps Mr Robbie shouldn't have been there in the first place but that is NO excuse for purposely lying to everyone to try (including yourself) and hide what will come out in the end. I hope this guy is happy with himself. He left a father, brother, son lying in a ditch.
Absolutely disgusted.
So you can hit someone on a road, high enough to smash the windscreen on a van, claim it was a badger, then happily go on whilst knowing that man was there for about 32 hours and may have been saved if you'd reported it sooner? Let's all go round doing that shall we? Yes, perhaps Mr Robbie shouldn't have been there in the first place but that is NO excuse for purposely lying to everyone to try (including yourself) and hide what will come out in the end. I hope this guy is happy with himself. He left a father, brother, son lying in a ditch. Absolutely disgusted. spooki
  • Score: 40

4:07pm Wed 23 Jul 14

AFCBLUKE says...

British justice system at its best.... absolutely disgusting.
British justice system at its best.... absolutely disgusting. AFCBLUKE
  • Score: 10

4:13pm Wed 23 Jul 14

billy bumble says...

A guy who stole £800 is going to jail

And this one gets away ( comparatively ) with his crime

Doesn't compute
A guy who stole £800 is going to jail And this one gets away ( comparatively ) with his crime Doesn't compute billy bumble
  • Score: 28

4:15pm Wed 23 Jul 14

suzigirl says...

I know exactly what it is like to lose a son in a RTC when the driver leaves the scene but in my case the driver knew exactly what he was doing as he was a disqualified driver.

This case is completely different in that it was dark and Mr Robbie should not have been travelling on the road on a micro scooter for whatever reason. The van driver has to live with the consequences for the rest of his life............. but my thoughts are with Mr Robbie's family for their loss.......
I know exactly what it is like to lose a son in a RTC when the driver leaves the scene but in my case the driver knew exactly what he was doing as he was a disqualified driver. This case is completely different in that it was dark and Mr Robbie should not have been travelling on the road on a micro scooter for whatever reason. The van driver has to live with the consequences for the rest of his life............. but my thoughts are with Mr Robbie's family for their loss....... suzigirl
  • Score: 109

4:26pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Loonyspoon says...

This coward sounds like he is only interested in self preservation. I doubt very much that he will learn from or have to bear the burden of his actions, selfish people like this rarely do. The fact that he consistantly lied and was looking for a way to cover up what he had done shows us what type of character he is. At the end of it all, his actions cost a young man his life. If he is not ashamed of himself I hope his family are.
This coward sounds like he is only interested in self preservation. I doubt very much that he will learn from or have to bear the burden of his actions, selfish people like this rarely do. The fact that he consistantly lied and was looking for a way to cover up what he had done shows us what type of character he is. At the end of it all, his actions cost a young man his life. If he is not ashamed of himself I hope his family are. Loonyspoon
  • Score: -22

4:28pm Wed 23 Jul 14

kangaroo_joey says...

Although what this guy has done is wrong and should arguably gone to jail, for the mother of the guy he hit to say there is no law to say her son shouldnt have been riding a micro scooter on this road is laughable, it is a main road with a speed limit of 70mph, to ride a micro scooter with no lights or anything to alert road users he was there, he was simply asking to be hit. Just becuase there are no laws/rules saying you cant do something it doesnt make it right and you should do it.
Although what this guy has done is wrong and should arguably gone to jail, for the mother of the guy he hit to say there is no law to say her son shouldnt have been riding a micro scooter on this road is laughable, it is a main road with a speed limit of 70mph, to ride a micro scooter with no lights or anything to alert road users he was there, he was simply asking to be hit. Just becuase there are no laws/rules saying you cant do something it doesnt make it right and you should do it. kangaroo_joey
  • Score: 149

4:34pm Wed 23 Jul 14

bimbos365 says...

Drink drive dodge if you don't stop !
Drink drive dodge if you don't stop ! bimbos365
  • Score: -15

4:43pm Wed 23 Jul 14

k82000 says...

kangaroo_joey wrote:
Although what this guy has done is wrong and should arguably gone to jail, for the mother of the guy he hit to say there is no law to say her son shouldnt have been riding a micro scooter on this road is laughable, it is a main road with a speed limit of 70mph, to ride a micro scooter with no lights or anything to alert road users he was there, he was simply asking to be hit. Just becuase there are no laws/rules saying you cant do something it doesnt make it right and you should do it.
Actually I think you will find there is no law that states you cannot walk ride a bike/scooter on this road.
[quote][p][bold]kangaroo_joey[/bold] wrote: Although what this guy has done is wrong and should arguably gone to jail, for the mother of the guy he hit to say there is no law to say her son shouldnt have been riding a micro scooter on this road is laughable, it is a main road with a speed limit of 70mph, to ride a micro scooter with no lights or anything to alert road users he was there, he was simply asking to be hit. Just becuase there are no laws/rules saying you cant do something it doesnt make it right and you should do it.[/p][/quote]Actually I think you will find there is no law that states you cannot walk ride a bike/scooter on this road. k82000
  • Score: -71

4:43pm Wed 23 Jul 14

k82000 says...

kangaroo_joey wrote:
Although what this guy has done is wrong and should arguably gone to jail, for the mother of the guy he hit to say there is no law to say her son shouldnt have been riding a micro scooter on this road is laughable, it is a main road with a speed limit of 70mph, to ride a micro scooter with no lights or anything to alert road users he was there, he was simply asking to be hit. Just becuase there are no laws/rules saying you cant do something it doesnt make it right and you should do it.
Actually I think you will find there is no law that states you cannot walk ride a bike/scooter on this road.
[quote][p][bold]kangaroo_joey[/bold] wrote: Although what this guy has done is wrong and should arguably gone to jail, for the mother of the guy he hit to say there is no law to say her son shouldnt have been riding a micro scooter on this road is laughable, it is a main road with a speed limit of 70mph, to ride a micro scooter with no lights or anything to alert road users he was there, he was simply asking to be hit. Just becuase there are no laws/rules saying you cant do something it doesnt make it right and you should do it.[/p][/quote]Actually I think you will find there is no law that states you cannot walk ride a bike/scooter on this road. k82000
  • Score: -68

4:53pm Wed 23 Jul 14

suzigirl says...

k82000 wrote:
kangaroo_joey wrote: Although what this guy has done is wrong and should arguably gone to jail, for the mother of the guy he hit to say there is no law to say her son shouldnt have been riding a micro scooter on this road is laughable, it is a main road with a speed limit of 70mph, to ride a micro scooter with no lights or anything to alert road users he was there, he was simply asking to be hit. Just becuase there are no laws/rules saying you cant do something it doesnt make it right and you should do it.
Actually I think you will find there is no law that states you cannot walk ride a bike/scooter on this road.
Get real mate! In that case you go and try it then - wait until it is pitch dark, get a micro scooter with no lights, wear dark clothing and go up the Upton Bypass - let's see how far you get................ Unfortunately in life people do stupid things and unfortunately Mr Robbie paid with his life....
[quote][p][bold]k82000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kangaroo_joey[/bold] wrote: Although what this guy has done is wrong and should arguably gone to jail, for the mother of the guy he hit to say there is no law to say her son shouldnt have been riding a micro scooter on this road is laughable, it is a main road with a speed limit of 70mph, to ride a micro scooter with no lights or anything to alert road users he was there, he was simply asking to be hit. Just becuase there are no laws/rules saying you cant do something it doesnt make it right and you should do it.[/p][/quote]Actually I think you will find there is no law that states you cannot walk ride a bike/scooter on this road.[/p][/quote]Get real mate! In that case you go and try it then - wait until it is pitch dark, get a micro scooter with no lights, wear dark clothing and go up the Upton Bypass - let's see how far you get................ Unfortunately in life people do stupid things and unfortunately Mr Robbie paid with his life.... suzigirl
  • Score: 135

4:58pm Wed 23 Jul 14

muscliffman says...

suzigirl wrote:
I know exactly what it is like to lose a son in a RTC when the driver leaves the scene but in my case the driver knew exactly what he was doing as he was a disqualified driver.

This case is completely different in that it was dark and Mr Robbie should not have been travelling on the road on a micro scooter for whatever reason. The van driver has to live with the consequences for the rest of his life............. but my thoughts are with Mr Robbie's family for their loss.......
A very fair comment in the circumstances.

Two regrettable big wrongs caused this tragedy, but the driver of the van made only one of them in trying to run away from the consequences of his unintended actions. The unfortunate victim however should simply not have put himself in the serious and quite obvious danger that he did.

This seems a reasonable outcome particularly as the van driver will be living with this for the rest of his days - regardless of whether he was detained in a prison for a while or not.

No winners here, a sad situation all round.
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: I know exactly what it is like to lose a son in a RTC when the driver leaves the scene but in my case the driver knew exactly what he was doing as he was a disqualified driver. This case is completely different in that it was dark and Mr Robbie should not have been travelling on the road on a micro scooter for whatever reason. The van driver has to live with the consequences for the rest of his life............. but my thoughts are with Mr Robbie's family for their loss.......[/p][/quote]A very fair comment in the circumstances. Two regrettable big wrongs caused this tragedy, but the driver of the van made only one of them in trying to run away from the consequences of his unintended actions. The unfortunate victim however should simply not have put himself in the serious and quite obvious danger that he did. This seems a reasonable outcome particularly as the van driver will be living with this for the rest of his days - regardless of whether he was detained in a prison for a while or not. No winners here, a sad situation all round. muscliffman
  • Score: 93

5:24pm Wed 23 Jul 14

dvdr says...

Of course it is sad that a man has been killed, but to wear dark clothing and ride a microscooter with no lights on a main road in the dark is not sensible, whatever the circumstances. Unfortunately, he paid with his life for his foolishness. This is not to excuse the driver who hit him and fled, but the man killed was just tempting fate beyond reason. The court has to take this into consideration, not just take the side of the man's relations, whatever they may feel.
Of course it is sad that a man has been killed, but to wear dark clothing and ride a microscooter with no lights on a main road in the dark is not sensible, whatever the circumstances. Unfortunately, he paid with his life for his foolishness. This is not to excuse the driver who hit him and fled, but the man killed was just tempting fate beyond reason. The court has to take this into consideration, not just take the side of the man's relations, whatever they may feel. dvdr
  • Score: 62

5:36pm Wed 23 Jul 14

jaomi4 says...

i still dont understand why he hasnt been charged with causing Mr Robbies death. i am also disgusted at such a lenient sentence.
i still dont understand why he hasnt been charged with causing Mr Robbies death. i am also disgusted at such a lenient sentence. jaomi4
  • Score: -64

5:48pm Wed 23 Jul 14

The irate commuter says...

Lots of Mr James' family hitting the thumbs down i see!
Lots of Mr James' family hitting the thumbs down i see! The irate commuter
  • Score: -9

6:15pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Wackerone says...

jaomi4 wrote:
i still dont understand why he hasnt been charged with causing Mr Robbies death. i am also disgusted at such a lenient sentence.
Because he didn't cause Mr. Robbie's death. Mr. Robbie's stupidity was the sole cause of his own demise. The only crime here was 'failing to report'.
[quote][p][bold]jaomi4[/bold] wrote: i still dont understand why he hasnt been charged with causing Mr Robbies death. i am also disgusted at such a lenient sentence.[/p][/quote]Because he didn't cause Mr. Robbie's death. Mr. Robbie's stupidity was the sole cause of his own demise. The only crime here was 'failing to report'. Wackerone
  • Score: 88

6:16pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Wackerone says...

jaomi4 wrote:
i still dont understand why he hasnt been charged with causing Mr Robbies death. i am also disgusted at such a lenient sentence.
Because he didn't cause Mr. Robbie's death. Mr. Robbie's stupidity was the sole cause of his own demise. The only crime here was 'failing to report'.
[quote][p][bold]jaomi4[/bold] wrote: i still dont understand why he hasnt been charged with causing Mr Robbies death. i am also disgusted at such a lenient sentence.[/p][/quote]Because he didn't cause Mr. Robbie's death. Mr. Robbie's stupidity was the sole cause of his own demise. The only crime here was 'failing to report'. Wackerone
  • Score: 50

6:25pm Wed 23 Jul 14

action not talk says...

Compare with driver who killed jade who got 6 years(even that is not enough if you consider he'll only serve half that term) failure to stop perverting course of justice and taking the life of another person
Compare with driver who killed jade who got 6 years(even that is not enough if you consider he'll only serve half that term) failure to stop perverting course of justice and taking the life of another person action not talk
  • Score: 2

7:01pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Domingo De Santa Clara says...

I hope the CPS appeals this woefully inadequate sentence.
I hope the CPS appeals this woefully inadequate sentence. Domingo De Santa Clara
  • Score: -40

7:03pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

9:15pm Fri 27 Jun 14
Sir Beachy Head says..
Anyway, my guess will be no jail, hefty fine, some unpaid community work, 120 hours or so, courts costs of £ 385, victim surcharge of £15

.......

I wasn't far out :-)
9:15pm Fri 27 Jun 14 Sir Beachy Head says.. Anyway, my guess will be no jail, hefty fine, some unpaid community work, 120 hours or so, courts costs of £ 385, victim surcharge of £15 ....... I wasn't far out :-) Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: 2

7:05pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Huey says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
9:15pm Fri 27 Jun 14
Sir Beachy Head says..
Anyway, my guess will be no jail, hefty fine, some unpaid community work, 120 hours or so, courts costs of £ 385, victim surcharge of £15

.......

I wasn't far out :-)
Well done give yourself a pat on the back and a smiley face. Oh you already did
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: 9:15pm Fri 27 Jun 14 Sir Beachy Head says.. Anyway, my guess will be no jail, hefty fine, some unpaid community work, 120 hours or so, courts costs of £ 385, victim surcharge of £15 ....... I wasn't far out :-)[/p][/quote]Well done give yourself a pat on the back and a smiley face. Oh you already did Huey
  • Score: 24

7:05pm Wed 23 Jul 14

freespeech4all says...

he showed no remorse what so ever for his actions and worse still when the truth was plain to see to host family he still lied. well sir I am a great believer in karma. and one day when something. horrendous happens to you don't ask yourself why just think back to that day and your actions since. because that will be the reason why.
he showed no remorse what so ever for his actions and worse still when the truth was plain to see to host family he still lied. well sir I am a great believer in karma. and one day when something. horrendous happens to you don't ask yourself why just think back to that day and your actions since. because that will be the reason why. freespeech4all
  • Score: -24

7:17pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Commonsense? says...

It's a crying shame that Mr Robbie's children have been left fatherless as a result of what is best described as a tragic accident. I doubt that there was any malice on the part of Mr James & he has been sentenced accordingly for breaking those laws which he infringed.
Arguably there 'may' have been a chance that Mr Robbie would have survived if given immediate medical attention but I very much doubt anyone's ability to withstand a 70mph impact from a motor vehicle.
Mr James would have had to live with the guilt of being involved regardless of wether or not he'd reported the incident, which ought to be punishment enough. A custodial sentence isn't going to bring Mr Robbie back but will merely sate the appetite for revenge from some of the other posts authors above.
Of course, whilst there is no law prohibiting me from cycling, walking, microscooting or dancing down the A35 during the hours of darkness, I just wouldn't do it! I quite enjoy reading the Darwin awards but have no desire to feature in them.
It's a crying shame that Mr Robbie's children have been left fatherless as a result of what is best described as a tragic accident. I doubt that there was any malice on the part of Mr James & he has been sentenced accordingly for breaking those laws which he infringed. Arguably there 'may' have been a chance that Mr Robbie would have survived if given immediate medical attention but I very much doubt anyone's ability to withstand a 70mph impact from a motor vehicle. Mr James would have had to live with the guilt of being involved regardless of wether or not he'd reported the incident, which ought to be punishment enough. A custodial sentence isn't going to bring Mr Robbie back but will merely sate the appetite for revenge from some of the other posts authors above. Of course, whilst there is no law prohibiting me from cycling, walking, microscooting or dancing down the A35 during the hours of darkness, I just wouldn't do it! I quite enjoy reading the Darwin awards but have no desire to feature in them. Commonsense?
  • Score: 55

7:20pm Wed 23 Jul 14

stonegardens says...

Its wasn't dark and Dan had been seen early on narrow country lanes , also by a lorry and they all manage not to hit him. The only sorry is man has made was through his solicitor he didn't even have the guts to face Dan's family and say sorry and all he was worried about was how he can't pay his fine. Also his and his family/friends attitude towards my friend and her family has been disgusting. I hope they never have to go through what I have seen my friend go through .
Its wasn't dark and Dan had been seen early on narrow country lanes , also by a lorry and they all manage not to hit him. The only sorry is man has made was through his solicitor he didn't even have the guts to face Dan's family and say sorry and all he was worried about was how he can't pay his fine. Also his and his family/friends attitude towards my friend and her family has been disgusting. I hope they never have to go through what I have seen my friend go through . stonegardens
  • Score: -35

7:20pm Wed 23 Jul 14

abc100 says...

Am I right in thinking that he had been to a party before he got on a micro scooter and then decided to ride it on a dual carriageway??
Am I right in thinking that he had been to a party before he got on a micro scooter and then decided to ride it on a dual carriageway?? abc100
  • Score: 52

7:21pm Wed 23 Jul 14

kalebmoledirt says...

spooki wrote:
So you can hit someone on a road, high enough to smash the windscreen on a van, claim it was a badger, then happily go on whilst knowing that man was there for about 32 hours and may have been saved if you'd reported it sooner?
Let's all go round doing that shall we? Yes, perhaps Mr Robbie shouldn't have been there in the first place but that is NO excuse for purposely lying to everyone to try (including yourself) and hide what will come out in the end. I hope this guy is happy with himself. He left a father, brother, son lying in a ditch.
Absolutely disgusted.
What the benefits would there be sending a working Man to prison for a terrible mistake the courts have ruled,.sure the people involved don't need the commenters to advise them on emotional response
[quote][p][bold]spooki[/bold] wrote: So you can hit someone on a road, high enough to smash the windscreen on a van, claim it was a badger, then happily go on whilst knowing that man was there for about 32 hours and may have been saved if you'd reported it sooner? Let's all go round doing that shall we? Yes, perhaps Mr Robbie shouldn't have been there in the first place but that is NO excuse for purposely lying to everyone to try (including yourself) and hide what will come out in the end. I hope this guy is happy with himself. He left a father, brother, son lying in a ditch. Absolutely disgusted.[/p][/quote]What the benefits would there be sending a working Man to prison for a terrible mistake the courts have ruled,.sure the people involved don't need the commenters to advise them on emotional response kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 23

7:35pm Wed 23 Jul 14

stonegardens says...

It was not dark Dan was seen early by several drivers one in a lorry and they all manage to see him. He only said sorry through his solicitor he didn't have the decency to face Dan's family and say sorry and his and his family/friends attitude towards my friends family has been disgusting . I hope they never have to go through what my friend has gone through and what she will for the rest of her life.
It was not dark Dan was seen early by several drivers one in a lorry and they all manage to see him. He only said sorry through his solicitor he didn't have the decency to face Dan's family and say sorry and his and his family/friends attitude towards my friends family has been disgusting . I hope they never have to go through what my friend has gone through and what she will for the rest of her life. stonegardens
  • Score: -25

7:46pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Bob49 says...

curiously a comment i made questioning whether this driver was attempting to pervert the course of justice by looking up stuff about trying to have his car crushed has been removed

given the amount of thumbs down elsewhere I should imagine that his friends are trying to spin him into a good light

unfortunately no amount of censorship will do that
curiously a comment i made questioning whether this driver was attempting to pervert the course of justice by looking up stuff about trying to have his car crushed has been removed given the amount of thumbs down elsewhere I should imagine that his friends are trying to spin him into a good light unfortunately no amount of censorship will do that Bob49
  • Score: 7

8:01pm Wed 23 Jul 14

MCAME1989 says...

Discusting

This guy gets let off!...and another that puts a lady In Hospital is given years in prison!
Where's the logic in that?
Discusting This guy gets let off!...and another that puts a lady In Hospital is given years in prison! Where's the logic in that? MCAME1989
  • Score: -15

8:12pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Commonsense? says...

MCAME1989 wrote:
Discusting

This guy gets let off!...and another that puts a lady In Hospital is given years in prison!
Where's the logic in that?
He wasn't let off. He was sentenced for failing to report an accident. That was the crime he commited - That Mr Robbie was hit & subsequently died was an accident. Mr Robbie was complicit in his own demise because he was riding a micro scooter down the A35, in dark clothing 'during the early hours'.
[quote][p][bold]MCAME1989[/bold] wrote: Discusting This guy gets let off!...and another that puts a lady In Hospital is given years in prison! Where's the logic in that?[/p][/quote]He wasn't let off. He was sentenced for failing to report an accident. That was the crime he commited - That Mr Robbie was hit & subsequently died was an accident. Mr Robbie was complicit in his own demise because he was riding a micro scooter down the A35, in dark clothing 'during the early hours'. Commonsense?
  • Score: 47

8:23pm Wed 23 Jul 14

utciad says...

Wackerone wrote:
jaomi4 wrote:
i still dont understand why he hasnt been charged with causing Mr Robbies death. i am also disgusted at such a lenient sentence.
Because he didn't cause Mr. Robbie's death. Mr. Robbie's stupidity was the sole cause of his own demise. The only crime here was 'failing to report'.
****.... he killed Mr Robbie, because he HIT HIM WITH HIS VAN!!!
surely that's 'killing someone??
Also, KNOWING he had hit something, FAILED to stop, THEN tried to COVER UP what he KNEW he had done???

As for 'having to live with it for the rest of his life' well, he won't suffer there then will he, because he has no conscience or morals... as shown by his cowardly attempts to cover up what he knew he had done, and as mentioned 'his lack of any remorse'!!!

Once again, the law is an ****.....
[quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jaomi4[/bold] wrote: i still dont understand why he hasnt been charged with causing Mr Robbies death. i am also disgusted at such a lenient sentence.[/p][/quote]Because he didn't cause Mr. Robbie's death. Mr. Robbie's stupidity was the sole cause of his own demise. The only crime here was 'failing to report'.[/p][/quote]****.... he killed Mr Robbie, because he HIT HIM WITH HIS VAN!!! surely that's 'killing someone?? Also, KNOWING he had hit something, FAILED to stop, THEN tried to COVER UP what he KNEW he had done??? As for 'having to live with it for the rest of his life' well, he won't suffer there then will he, because he has no conscience or morals... as shown by his cowardly attempts to cover up what he knew he had done, and as mentioned 'his lack of any remorse'!!! Once again, the law is an ****..... utciad
  • Score: -24

8:39pm Wed 23 Jul 14

peace77 says...

Who is removing the comments ahh is poor mr James more upset about the comments stating the facts and not so upset that he killed a young man. Ok so if he stopped and phoned an ambulance it would have gone 2 ways he could have lived or died. But atleast he would have given mr Robbie that chance and comfort but to hit him leave him all that time dying,then to go home lie to his family find time to look up how to crush his car are you fricking serious and say he is not to blame . That makes you all just as much filth as he is.
Who is removing the comments ahh is poor mr James more upset about the comments stating the facts and not so upset that he killed a young man. Ok so if he stopped and phoned an ambulance it would have gone 2 ways he could have lived or died. But atleast he would have given mr Robbie that chance and comfort but to hit him leave him all that time dying,then to go home lie to his family find time to look up how to crush his car are you fricking serious and say he is not to blame . That makes you all just as much filth as he is. peace77
  • Score: -30

8:40pm Wed 23 Jul 14

kalebmoledirt says...

Would have been different if a young family ,not familiar with the mode of transport used by fathers in distress used in Dorset ,swerved and kill all on board .Mr James was misguided in his judgment as was the Mr Robbie in his chosen vehicle to travel the 13 miles home in the early hours . Perhaps a taxi would have been a better choice .Google micro scooter
Would have been different if a young family ,not familiar with the mode of transport used by fathers in distress used in Dorset ,swerved and kill all on board .Mr James was misguided in his judgment as was the Mr Robbie in his chosen vehicle to travel the 13 miles home in the early hours . Perhaps a taxi would have been a better choice .Google micro scooter kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 24

8:46pm Wed 23 Jul 14

peace77 says...

kalebmoledirt wrote:
Would have been different if a young family ,not familiar with the mode of transport used by fathers in distress used in Dorset ,swerved and kill all on board .Mr James was misguided in his judgment as was the Mr Robbie in his chosen vehicle to travel the 13 miles home in the early hours . Perhaps a taxi would have been a better choice .Google micro scooter
Perhaps me James stopping would have made a bigger difference you stupid idiot
[quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: Would have been different if a young family ,not familiar with the mode of transport used by fathers in distress used in Dorset ,swerved and kill all on board .Mr James was misguided in his judgment as was the Mr Robbie in his chosen vehicle to travel the 13 miles home in the early hours . Perhaps a taxi would have been a better choice .Google micro scooter[/p][/quote]Perhaps me James stopping would have made a bigger difference you stupid idiot peace77
  • Score: -34

8:49pm Wed 23 Jul 14

peace77 says...

peace77 wrote:
kalebmoledirt wrote:
Would have been different if a young family ,not familiar with the mode of transport used by fathers in distress used in Dorset ,swerved and kill all on board .Mr James was misguided in his judgment as was the Mr Robbie in his chosen vehicle to travel the 13 miles home in the early hours . Perhaps a taxi would have been a better choice .Google micro scooter
Perhaps me James stopping would have made a bigger difference you stupid idiot
You seriously are a ****
[quote][p][bold]peace77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: Would have been different if a young family ,not familiar with the mode of transport used by fathers in distress used in Dorset ,swerved and kill all on board .Mr James was misguided in his judgment as was the Mr Robbie in his chosen vehicle to travel the 13 miles home in the early hours . Perhaps a taxi would have been a better choice .Google micro scooter[/p][/quote]Perhaps me James stopping would have made a bigger difference you stupid idiot[/p][/quote]You seriously are a **** peace77
  • Score: -31

8:55pm Wed 23 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

peace77 wrote:
Wackerone wrote:
jaomi4 wrote:
i still dont understand why he hasnt been charged with causing Mr Robbies death. i am also disgusted at such a lenient sentence.
Because he didn't cause Mr. Robbie's death. Mr. Robbie's stupidity was the sole cause of his own demise. The only crime here was 'failing to report'.
Clearly the words of a murderer or his family he lied to all scum
What a charmer.
[quote][p][bold]peace77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jaomi4[/bold] wrote: i still dont understand why he hasnt been charged with causing Mr Robbies death. i am also disgusted at such a lenient sentence.[/p][/quote]Because he didn't cause Mr. Robbie's death. Mr. Robbie's stupidity was the sole cause of his own demise. The only crime here was 'failing to report'.[/p][/quote]Clearly the words of a murderer or his family he lied to all scum[/p][/quote]What a charmer. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 18

8:57pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Wackerone says...

utciad wrote:
Wackerone wrote:
jaomi4 wrote:
i still dont understand why he hasnt been charged with causing Mr Robbies death. i am also disgusted at such a lenient sentence.
Because he didn't cause Mr. Robbie's death. Mr. Robbie's stupidity was the sole cause of his own demise. The only crime here was 'failing to report'.
****.... he killed Mr Robbie, because he HIT HIM WITH HIS VAN!!!
surely that's 'killing someone??
Also, KNOWING he had hit something, FAILED to stop, THEN tried to COVER UP what he KNEW he had done???

As for 'having to live with it for the rest of his life' well, he won't suffer there then will he, because he has no conscience or morals... as shown by his cowardly attempts to cover up what he knew he had done, and as mentioned 'his lack of any remorse'!!!

Once again, the law is an ****.....
When will you and your ilk get it into your small brains that Mr. James did not kill Mr. Robbie on purpose, he didn't set out with that intention. That is the difference, that is the law. Facts! Mr. James may have to live with this for the rest of his life because of an act of stupidity by someone else. Again, the only crime here in the eyes of the law, is a failure to report .
[quote][p][bold]utciad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jaomi4[/bold] wrote: i still dont understand why he hasnt been charged with causing Mr Robbies death. i am also disgusted at such a lenient sentence.[/p][/quote]Because he didn't cause Mr. Robbie's death. Mr. Robbie's stupidity was the sole cause of his own demise. The only crime here was 'failing to report'.[/p][/quote]****.... he killed Mr Robbie, because he HIT HIM WITH HIS VAN!!! surely that's 'killing someone?? Also, KNOWING he had hit something, FAILED to stop, THEN tried to COVER UP what he KNEW he had done??? As for 'having to live with it for the rest of his life' well, he won't suffer there then will he, because he has no conscience or morals... as shown by his cowardly attempts to cover up what he knew he had done, and as mentioned 'his lack of any remorse'!!! Once again, the law is an ****.....[/p][/quote]When will you and your ilk get it into your small brains that Mr. James did not kill Mr. Robbie on purpose, he didn't set out with that intention. That is the difference, that is the law. Facts! Mr. James may have to live with this for the rest of his life because of an act of stupidity by someone else. Again, the only crime here in the eyes of the law, is a failure to report . Wackerone
  • Score: 37

8:57pm Wed 23 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

action not talk wrote:
Compare with driver who killed jade who got 6 years(even that is not enough if you consider he'll only serve half that term) failure to stop perverting course of justice and taking the life of another person
Two hugely different cases and if you can't see that then you must find life very difficult.
[quote][p][bold]action not talk[/bold] wrote: Compare with driver who killed jade who got 6 years(even that is not enough if you consider he'll only serve half that term) failure to stop perverting course of justice and taking the life of another person[/p][/quote]Two hugely different cases and if you can't see that then you must find life very difficult. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 28

9:01pm Wed 23 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Commonsense? wrote:
It's a crying shame that Mr Robbie's children have been left fatherless as a result of what is best described as a tragic accident. I doubt that there was any malice on the part of Mr James & he has been sentenced accordingly for breaking those laws which he infringed.
Arguably there 'may' have been a chance that Mr Robbie would have survived if given immediate medical attention but I very much doubt anyone's ability to withstand a 70mph impact from a motor vehicle.
Mr James would have had to live with the guilt of being involved regardless of wether or not he'd reported the incident, which ought to be punishment enough. A custodial sentence isn't going to bring Mr Robbie back but will merely sate the appetite for revenge from some of the other posts authors above.
Of course, whilst there is no law prohibiting me from cycling, walking, microscooting or dancing down the A35 during the hours of darkness, I just wouldn't do it! I quite enjoy reading the Darwin awards but have no desire to feature in them.
Well written. (And I say that not just because I happen agree with you but because it is a reasoned arguement)
[quote][p][bold]Commonsense?[/bold] wrote: It's a crying shame that Mr Robbie's children have been left fatherless as a result of what is best described as a tragic accident. I doubt that there was any malice on the part of Mr James & he has been sentenced accordingly for breaking those laws which he infringed. Arguably there 'may' have been a chance that Mr Robbie would have survived if given immediate medical attention but I very much doubt anyone's ability to withstand a 70mph impact from a motor vehicle. Mr James would have had to live with the guilt of being involved regardless of wether or not he'd reported the incident, which ought to be punishment enough. A custodial sentence isn't going to bring Mr Robbie back but will merely sate the appetite for revenge from some of the other posts authors above. Of course, whilst there is no law prohibiting me from cycling, walking, microscooting or dancing down the A35 during the hours of darkness, I just wouldn't do it! I quite enjoy reading the Darwin awards but have no desire to feature in them.[/p][/quote]Well written. (And I say that not just because I happen agree with you but because it is a reasoned arguement) scrumpyjack
  • Score: 34

9:16pm Wed 23 Jul 14

ScoobyVic says...

kangaroo_joey wrote:
Although what this guy has done is wrong and should arguably gone to jail, for the mother of the guy he hit to say there is no law to say her son shouldnt have been riding a micro scooter on this road is laughable, it is a main road with a speed limit of 70mph, to ride a micro scooter with no lights or anything to alert road users he was there, he was simply asking to be hit. Just becuase there are no laws/rules saying you cant do something it doesnt make it right and you should do it.
I wouldn't say 'he was asking to be hit' maybe not the best judgement but certainly wasn't asking for it. My condolences to Mr Robbie's family, this accident was just awful and for a family member to find him, even worse. If I had hit something on that road that had damaged my car, especially if i wasn't sure what it was, I would've stopped and called the police, this could've turned out a whole different ssituation for both parties had he just reported it straight away.
[quote][p][bold]kangaroo_joey[/bold] wrote: Although what this guy has done is wrong and should arguably gone to jail, for the mother of the guy he hit to say there is no law to say her son shouldnt have been riding a micro scooter on this road is laughable, it is a main road with a speed limit of 70mph, to ride a micro scooter with no lights or anything to alert road users he was there, he was simply asking to be hit. Just becuase there are no laws/rules saying you cant do something it doesnt make it right and you should do it.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't say 'he was asking to be hit' maybe not the best judgement but certainly wasn't asking for it. My condolences to Mr Robbie's family, this accident was just awful and for a family member to find him, even worse. If I had hit something on that road that had damaged my car, especially if i wasn't sure what it was, I would've stopped and called the police, this could've turned out a whole different ssituation for both parties had he just reported it straight away. ScoobyVic
  • Score: 20

9:20pm Wed 23 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Bob49 wrote:
curiously a comment i made questioning whether this driver was attempting to pervert the course of justice by looking up stuff about trying to have his car crushed has been removed

given the amount of thumbs down elsewhere I should imagine that his friends are trying to spin him into a good light

unfortunately no amount of censorship will do that
So thinking of doing something is now illegal? Now where have I read that before......
[quote][p][bold]Bob49[/bold] wrote: curiously a comment i made questioning whether this driver was attempting to pervert the course of justice by looking up stuff about trying to have his car crushed has been removed given the amount of thumbs down elsewhere I should imagine that his friends are trying to spin him into a good light unfortunately no amount of censorship will do that[/p][/quote]So thinking of doing something is now illegal? Now where have I read that before...... scrumpyjack
  • Score: 5

9:46pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Bambamthe1st says...

There's a quote from forest gump that springs to mind
There's a quote from forest gump that springs to mind Bambamthe1st
  • Score: 2

10:02pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Bob49 says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Bob49 wrote:
curiously a comment i made questioning whether this driver was attempting to pervert the course of justice by looking up stuff about trying to have his car crushed has been removed

given the amount of thumbs down elsewhere I should imagine that his friends are trying to spin him into a good light

unfortunately no amount of censorship will do that
So thinking of doing something is now illegal? Now where have I read that before......
no, that is just something you have made up as I never said that

what I did question was whether this man was attempting to pervert the course of justice by destroying evidence ... the evidence of his search for 'crush my car' on google suggests he had that intention

and it is that intention that should be taken into consideration when being sentenced

that's all .. no matter how you try to spin it
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob49[/bold] wrote: curiously a comment i made questioning whether this driver was attempting to pervert the course of justice by looking up stuff about trying to have his car crushed has been removed given the amount of thumbs down elsewhere I should imagine that his friends are trying to spin him into a good light unfortunately no amount of censorship will do that[/p][/quote]So thinking of doing something is now illegal? Now where have I read that before......[/p][/quote]no, that is just something you have made up as I never said that what I did question was whether this man was attempting to pervert the course of justice by destroying evidence ... the evidence of his search for 'crush my car' on google suggests he had that intention and it is that intention that should be taken into consideration when being sentenced that's all .. no matter how you try to spin it Bob49
  • Score: -5

10:20pm Wed 23 Jul 14

HRH of Boscombe says...

Wackerone wrote:
jaomi4 wrote:
i still dont understand why he hasnt been charged with causing Mr Robbies death. i am also disgusted at such a lenient sentence.
Because he didn't cause Mr. Robbie's death. Mr. Robbie's stupidity was the sole cause of his own demise. The only crime here was 'failing to report'.
It's called 'hit and run' to the rest of us!
.
In any form it's cowardly, selfish and frankly evil.
.
To deny someone help after a serious accident just to avoid getting into trouble is no better than murder
[quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jaomi4[/bold] wrote: i still dont understand why he hasnt been charged with causing Mr Robbies death. i am also disgusted at such a lenient sentence.[/p][/quote]Because he didn't cause Mr. Robbie's death. Mr. Robbie's stupidity was the sole cause of his own demise. The only crime here was 'failing to report'.[/p][/quote]It's called 'hit and run' to the rest of us! . In any form it's cowardly, selfish and frankly evil. . To deny someone help after a serious accident just to avoid getting into trouble is no better than murder HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: -17

11:40pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Chief-Wiggum says...

HRH of Boscombe wrote:
Wackerone wrote:
jaomi4 wrote:
i still dont understand why he hasnt been charged with causing Mr Robbies death. i am also disgusted at such a lenient sentence.
Because he didn't cause Mr. Robbie's death. Mr. Robbie's stupidity was the sole cause of his own demise. The only crime here was 'failing to report'.
It's called 'hit and run' to the rest of us!
.
In any form it's cowardly, selfish and frankly evil.
.
To deny someone help after a serious accident just to avoid getting into trouble is no better than murder
If he didn't know he had hit a human how is it hit and run? Who the hell expects to come across some lad on a micro scooter wearing dark clothing traveling at 70mph? He shouldn't have been there and then this wouldnt of happened. The van driver should of come clean about hitting something but even if he did it wouldn't have prevented the poor lads death.
[quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jaomi4[/bold] wrote: i still dont understand why he hasnt been charged with causing Mr Robbies death. i am also disgusted at such a lenient sentence.[/p][/quote]Because he didn't cause Mr. Robbie's death. Mr. Robbie's stupidity was the sole cause of his own demise. The only crime here was 'failing to report'.[/p][/quote]It's called 'hit and run' to the rest of us! . In any form it's cowardly, selfish and frankly evil. . To deny someone help after a serious accident just to avoid getting into trouble is no better than murder[/p][/quote]If he didn't know he had hit a human how is it hit and run? Who the hell expects to come across some lad on a micro scooter wearing dark clothing traveling at 70mph? He shouldn't have been there and then this wouldnt of happened. The van driver should of come clean about hitting something but even if he did it wouldn't have prevented the poor lads death. Chief-Wiggum
  • Score: 26

11:50pm Wed 23 Jul 14

JemBmth says...

What about "Ignorance is no Defence in the Law"?
What about "Ignorance is no Defence in the Law"? JemBmth
  • Score: -10

12:21am Thu 24 Jul 14

Babybop says...

After agreeing that Mr Robbie, even though by law is allowed, shouldn't of been travelling on a micro scooter on a dual carriage way, does not mean he should of been left to die like that. While Mr James may not have known he hit somebody, even though it wasn't dark as it was morning light. After hitting anything that caused so much damage he should of stopped even when arriving at work to call the police. The fact he googles 'crush my car' on finding out Mr Robbie had died does not put him in a good light and if he was truly remorseful, he would of called the police instead and reported what had happened. My thoughts are with Mr Robbies family as NO ONE would want to lose a family member, let a lone this way. My thoughts are with Mr James for the fact it was an accident but I hope that although he may not be remorseful, that common sense would tell him, he went around the situation completely the wrong way. I can see points from both sides but their was error from both sides but I feel the sentence should have been slightly more.
After agreeing that Mr Robbie, even though by law is allowed, shouldn't of been travelling on a micro scooter on a dual carriage way, does not mean he should of been left to die like that. While Mr James may not have known he hit somebody, even though it wasn't dark as it was morning light. After hitting anything that caused so much damage he should of stopped even when arriving at work to call the police. The fact he googles 'crush my car' on finding out Mr Robbie had died does not put him in a good light and if he was truly remorseful, he would of called the police instead and reported what had happened. My thoughts are with Mr Robbies family as NO ONE would want to lose a family member, let a lone this way. My thoughts are with Mr James for the fact it was an accident but I hope that although he may not be remorseful, that common sense would tell him, he went around the situation completely the wrong way. I can see points from both sides but their was error from both sides but I feel the sentence should have been slightly more. Babybop
  • Score: 7

6:48am Thu 24 Jul 14

kalebmoledirt says...

peace77 wrote:
peace77 wrote:
kalebmoledirt wrote:
Would have been different if a young family ,not familiar with the mode of transport used by fathers in distress used in Dorset ,swerved and kill all on board .Mr James was misguided in his judgment as was the Mr Robbie in his chosen vehicle to travel the 13 miles home in the early hours . Perhaps a taxi would have been a better choice .Google micro scooter
Perhaps me James stopping would have made a bigger difference you stupid idiot
You seriously are a ****
Your hysterical paraphrasing and rants at people opinions have bought nothing to the debate
[quote][p][bold]peace77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peace77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: Would have been different if a young family ,not familiar with the mode of transport used by fathers in distress used in Dorset ,swerved and kill all on board .Mr James was misguided in his judgment as was the Mr Robbie in his chosen vehicle to travel the 13 miles home in the early hours . Perhaps a taxi would have been a better choice .Google micro scooter[/p][/quote]Perhaps me James stopping would have made a bigger difference you stupid idiot[/p][/quote]You seriously are a ****[/p][/quote]Your hysterical paraphrasing and rants at people opinions have bought nothing to the debate kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 17

8:50am Thu 24 Jul 14

spooki says...

kalebmoledirt wrote:
spooki wrote:
So you can hit someone on a road, high enough to smash the windscreen on a van, claim it was a badger, then happily go on whilst knowing that man was there for about 32 hours and may have been saved if you'd reported it sooner?
Let's all go round doing that shall we? Yes, perhaps Mr Robbie shouldn't have been there in the first place but that is NO excuse for purposely lying to everyone to try (including yourself) and hide what will come out in the end. I hope this guy is happy with himself. He left a father, brother, son lying in a ditch.
Absolutely disgusted.
What the benefits would there be sending a working Man to prison for a terrible mistake the courts have ruled,.sure the people involved don't need the commenters to advise them on emotional response
When did I advise people how respond emotionally? I said "I hope".
Why do you see yourself fit to belittle people's comments?
He knew he'd hit something. He was driving a van. What kind of badger (as he said he may have hit) would climb up onto the windscreen if a van and smash the glass?
Then why did Mr James look up 'crush my car' on the internet? Put it together yourself, it's not difficult. When he thought he may have hit a person he should have owned up. That is my view.
Yes it was a stupid thing for Mr Robbie to do but no one deserves to die after 32 hours lying in a ditch.
[quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spooki[/bold] wrote: So you can hit someone on a road, high enough to smash the windscreen on a van, claim it was a badger, then happily go on whilst knowing that man was there for about 32 hours and may have been saved if you'd reported it sooner? Let's all go round doing that shall we? Yes, perhaps Mr Robbie shouldn't have been there in the first place but that is NO excuse for purposely lying to everyone to try (including yourself) and hide what will come out in the end. I hope this guy is happy with himself. He left a father, brother, son lying in a ditch. Absolutely disgusted.[/p][/quote]What the benefits would there be sending a working Man to prison for a terrible mistake the courts have ruled,.sure the people involved don't need the commenters to advise them on emotional response[/p][/quote]When did I advise people how respond emotionally? I said "I hope". Why do you see yourself fit to belittle people's comments? He knew he'd hit something. He was driving a van. What kind of badger (as he said he may have hit) would climb up onto the windscreen if a van and smash the glass? Then why did Mr James look up 'crush my car' on the internet? Put it together yourself, it's not difficult. When he thought he may have hit a person he should have owned up. That is my view. Yes it was a stupid thing for Mr Robbie to do but no one deserves to die after 32 hours lying in a ditch. spooki
  • Score: -8

9:55am Thu 24 Jul 14

JemBmth says...

JemBmth wrote:
What about "Ignorance is no Defence in the Law"?
Why the thumbs down? It is supposed to be fact. IGNORANCE is NOT supposed to be a defence in law.
[quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: What about "Ignorance is no Defence in the Law"?[/p][/quote]Why the thumbs down? It is supposed to be fact. IGNORANCE is NOT supposed to be a defence in law. JemBmth
  • Score: -4

10:22am Thu 24 Jul 14

Mr W. White says...

The courts / law in this country are an absolute joke!!! He should have served 10 years for this!
The courts / law in this country are an absolute joke!!! He should have served 10 years for this! Mr W. White
  • Score: -21

12:25pm Thu 24 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Bob49 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Bob49 wrote:
curiously a comment i made questioning whether this driver was attempting to pervert the course of justice by looking up stuff about trying to have his car crushed has been removed

given the amount of thumbs down elsewhere I should imagine that his friends are trying to spin him into a good light

unfortunately no amount of censorship will do that
So thinking of doing something is now illegal? Now where have I read that before......
no, that is just something you have made up as I never said that

what I did question was whether this man was attempting to pervert the course of justice by destroying evidence ... the evidence of his search for 'crush my car' on google suggests he had that intention

and it is that intention that should be taken into consideration when being sentenced

that's all .. no matter how you try to spin it
Intention without action is a thought.

Try one sometime.
[quote][p][bold]Bob49[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob49[/bold] wrote: curiously a comment i made questioning whether this driver was attempting to pervert the course of justice by looking up stuff about trying to have his car crushed has been removed given the amount of thumbs down elsewhere I should imagine that his friends are trying to spin him into a good light unfortunately no amount of censorship will do that[/p][/quote]So thinking of doing something is now illegal? Now where have I read that before......[/p][/quote]no, that is just something you have made up as I never said that what I did question was whether this man was attempting to pervert the course of justice by destroying evidence ... the evidence of his search for 'crush my car' on google suggests he had that intention and it is that intention that should be taken into consideration when being sentenced that's all .. no matter how you try to spin it[/p][/quote]Intention without action is a thought. Try one sometime. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 4

12:31pm Thu 24 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

JemBmth wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
What about "Ignorance is no Defence in the Law"?
Why the thumbs down? It is supposed to be fact. IGNORANCE is NOT supposed to be a defence in law.
Its ignorance of the law.

Jeez it's not hard.
[quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: What about "Ignorance is no Defence in the Law"?[/p][/quote]Why the thumbs down? It is supposed to be fact. IGNORANCE is NOT supposed to be a defence in law.[/p][/quote]Its ignorance of the law. Jeez it's not hard. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 3

12:36pm Thu 24 Jul 14

kalebmoledirt says...

peace77 wrote:
peace77 wrote:
kalebmoledirt wrote:
Would have been different if a young family ,not familiar with the mode of transport used by fathers in distress used in Dorset ,swerved and kill all on board .Mr James was misguided in his judgment as was the Mr Robbie in his chosen vehicle to travel the 13 miles home in the early hours . Perhaps a taxi would have been a better choice .Google micro scooter
Perhaps me James stopping would have made a bigger difference you stupid idiot
You seriously are a ****
So you think that people will stop expressing an opinion because you try to bully them with foul mouthed personal remarks,You wish
[quote][p][bold]peace77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peace77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: Would have been different if a young family ,not familiar with the mode of transport used by fathers in distress used in Dorset ,swerved and kill all on board .Mr James was misguided in his judgment as was the Mr Robbie in his chosen vehicle to travel the 13 miles home in the early hours . Perhaps a taxi would have been a better choice .Google micro scooter[/p][/quote]Perhaps me James stopping would have made a bigger difference you stupid idiot[/p][/quote]You seriously are a ****[/p][/quote]So you think that people will stop expressing an opinion because you try to bully them with foul mouthed personal remarks,You wish kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 7

1:52pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Commonsense? says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
What about "Ignorance is no Defence in the Law"?
Why the thumbs down? It is supposed to be fact. IGNORANCE is NOT supposed to be a defence in law.
Its ignorance of the law.

Jeez it's not hard.
I would like to suggest ignorance on the part of both Mr James & Mr Robbie. Ignorance of the law on Mr James part (agreed, no defence) & ignorance of the chances of sustaining a serious injury/death if micro-scooting down the A35. Arguably, both have been punished.

Mr James can only be found guilty of & punished for what can be proven, since that is the way the legal system works in this country. Those comments above inferring that Mr James is a murderer might do well to remember that there are libel laws too since he was neither charged nor found guilty of murder.

What is beyond doubt is that Mr James was misguided in his actions, both immediately after the incident & in the days that followed. He has been sentenced appropriately, according to the law, for the crimes of which he was found guilty.
The attempts at literary mob justice above are little better than Mr James attempts to avoid prosecution. Libel is also against the law. There is clearly a certain 'mentality' pervading amongst some of the posts' authors above - the same mentality that might lead one to believe that it was safe to ride a micro-scooter along the A35.

As someone else said earlier, there are no winners in this case. It's very, very sad. One can only hope that Mr James will have learned from his errors & that Mr Robbie did not suffer for very long. For those who knew Mr Robbie: Mr James did commit a crime & justice has been meted out according to the law. It is nobody's place to do otherwise. I am sorry for your loss of a son, brother & father. I hope that in time you will be able to come to terms with it.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: What about "Ignorance is no Defence in the Law"?[/p][/quote]Why the thumbs down? It is supposed to be fact. IGNORANCE is NOT supposed to be a defence in law.[/p][/quote]Its ignorance of the law. Jeez it's not hard.[/p][/quote]I would like to suggest ignorance on the part of both Mr James & Mr Robbie. Ignorance of the law on Mr James part (agreed, no defence) & ignorance of the chances of sustaining a serious injury/death if micro-scooting down the A35. Arguably, both have been punished. Mr James can only be found guilty of & punished for what can be proven, since that is the way the legal system works in this country. Those comments above inferring that Mr James is a murderer might do well to remember that there are libel laws too since he was neither charged nor found guilty of murder. What is beyond doubt is that Mr James was misguided in his actions, both immediately after the incident & in the days that followed. He has been sentenced appropriately, according to the law, for the crimes of which he was found guilty. The attempts at literary mob justice above are little better than Mr James attempts to avoid prosecution. Libel is also against the law. There is clearly a certain 'mentality' pervading amongst some of the posts' authors above - the same mentality that might lead one to believe that it was safe to ride a micro-scooter along the A35. As someone else said earlier, there are no winners in this case. It's very, very sad. One can only hope that Mr James will have learned from his errors & that Mr Robbie did not suffer for very long. For those who knew Mr Robbie: Mr James did commit a crime & justice has been meted out according to the law. It is nobody's place to do otherwise. I am sorry for your loss of a son, brother & father. I hope that in time you will be able to come to terms with it. Commonsense?
  • Score: 11

3:15pm Thu 24 Jul 14

suzigirl says...

Well said Commonsense?
Well said Commonsense? suzigirl
  • Score: 6

4:46pm Thu 24 Jul 14

davecook says...

jaomi4 wrote:
i still dont understand why he hasnt been charged with causing Mr Robbies death. i am also disgusted at such a lenient sentence.
He was not solely to blame for the accident. The victim was riding with no lights, and was virtually impossible to see.
[quote][p][bold]jaomi4[/bold] wrote: i still dont understand why he hasnt been charged with causing Mr Robbies death. i am also disgusted at such a lenient sentence.[/p][/quote]He was not solely to blame for the accident. The victim was riding with no lights, and was virtually impossible to see. davecook
  • Score: 14

6:29pm Thu 24 Jul 14

mableone says...

utciad wrote:
Wackerone wrote:
jaomi4 wrote:
i still dont understand why he hasnt been charged with causing Mr Robbies death. i am also disgusted at such a lenient sentence.
Because he didn't cause Mr. Robbie's death. Mr. Robbie's stupidity was the sole cause of his own demise. The only crime here was 'failing to report'.
****.... he killed Mr Robbie, because he HIT HIM WITH HIS VAN!!!
surely that's 'killing someone??
Also, KNOWING he had hit something, FAILED to stop, THEN tried to COVER UP what he KNEW he had done???

As for 'having to live with it for the rest of his life' well, he won't suffer there then will he, because he has no conscience or morals... as shown by his cowardly attempts to cover up what he knew he had done, and as mentioned 'his lack of any remorse'!!!

Once again, the law is an ****.....
http://sentencingcou
ncil.judiciary.gov.u
k/docs/MCSG_%28web%2
9_-_July_2014.pdf

Suggest you look up guidelines and then see that this was a good call by the Magistrates. You can't sentence for a crime that was not charged. Wish people would look at the facts before making stupid comments.
[quote][p][bold]utciad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jaomi4[/bold] wrote: i still dont understand why he hasnt been charged with causing Mr Robbies death. i am also disgusted at such a lenient sentence.[/p][/quote]Because he didn't cause Mr. Robbie's death. Mr. Robbie's stupidity was the sole cause of his own demise. The only crime here was 'failing to report'.[/p][/quote]****.... he killed Mr Robbie, because he HIT HIM WITH HIS VAN!!! surely that's 'killing someone?? Also, KNOWING he had hit something, FAILED to stop, THEN tried to COVER UP what he KNEW he had done??? As for 'having to live with it for the rest of his life' well, he won't suffer there then will he, because he has no conscience or morals... as shown by his cowardly attempts to cover up what he knew he had done, and as mentioned 'his lack of any remorse'!!! Once again, the law is an ****.....[/p][/quote]http://sentencingcou ncil.judiciary.gov.u k/docs/MCSG_%28web%2 9_-_July_2014.pdf Suggest you look up guidelines and then see that this was a good call by the Magistrates. You can't sentence for a crime that was not charged. Wish people would look at the facts before making stupid comments. mableone
  • Score: 9

7:29pm Thu 24 Jul 14

jaomi4 says...

Chief-Wiggum wrote:
HRH of Boscombe wrote:
Wackerone wrote:
jaomi4 wrote:
i still dont understand why he hasnt been charged with causing Mr Robbies death. i am also disgusted at such a lenient sentence.
Because he didn't cause Mr. Robbie's death. Mr. Robbie's stupidity was the sole cause of his own demise. The only crime here was 'failing to report'.
It's called 'hit and run' to the rest of us!
.
In any form it's cowardly, selfish and frankly evil.
.
To deny someone help after a serious accident just to avoid getting into trouble is no better than murder
If he didn't know he had hit a human how is it hit and run? Who the hell expects to come across some lad on a micro scooter wearing dark clothing traveling at 70mph? He shouldn't have been there and then this wouldnt of happened. The van driver should of come clean about hitting something but even if he did it wouldn't have prevented the poor lads death.
if the driver wasnt paying enough attention to notice a human, let alone hitting a human, then he cant have been driving safely (as previously indicated, it was not dark and even if it were i presume his van had headlights?!). to not know what you hit, is no excuse. it damaged his windscreen. no badger is that big, he should have stopped and checked if he really was unsure, which i doubt. instead he simply fled and tried to cover it up. thats hit and run to me. cowardly and disgusting. no one will ever know if Dan could have been saved.
[quote][p][bold]Chief-Wiggum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jaomi4[/bold] wrote: i still dont understand why he hasnt been charged with causing Mr Robbies death. i am also disgusted at such a lenient sentence.[/p][/quote]Because he didn't cause Mr. Robbie's death. Mr. Robbie's stupidity was the sole cause of his own demise. The only crime here was 'failing to report'.[/p][/quote]It's called 'hit and run' to the rest of us! . In any form it's cowardly, selfish and frankly evil. . To deny someone help after a serious accident just to avoid getting into trouble is no better than murder[/p][/quote]If he didn't know he had hit a human how is it hit and run? Who the hell expects to come across some lad on a micro scooter wearing dark clothing traveling at 70mph? He shouldn't have been there and then this wouldnt of happened. The van driver should of come clean about hitting something but even if he did it wouldn't have prevented the poor lads death.[/p][/quote]if the driver wasnt paying enough attention to notice a human, let alone hitting a human, then he cant have been driving safely (as previously indicated, it was not dark and even if it were i presume his van had headlights?!). to not know what you hit, is no excuse. it damaged his windscreen. no badger is that big, he should have stopped and checked if he really was unsure, which i doubt. instead he simply fled and tried to cover it up. thats hit and run to me. cowardly and disgusting. no one will ever know if Dan could have been saved. jaomi4
  • Score: -5

10:11pm Thu 24 Jul 14

letch40 says...

What on earth is this country coming to. No justice at all for the death Daniel Robbie. I cannot believe that Matt James was only found guilty of failing to report, surely he is guilty of causing death by careless driving!

He has no conscience what so ever or he wold have stopped to check what he had hit, although I strongly believe he knew instantly that he had hit a man and just tried to cover it up. Daniel may still be alive today had medical assistance taken place shortly after the incident.

KARMA, is all i'm going to say.
What on earth is this country coming to. No justice at all for the death Daniel Robbie. I cannot believe that Matt James was only found guilty of failing to report, surely he is guilty of causing death by careless driving! He has no conscience what so ever or he wold have stopped to check what he had hit, although I strongly believe he knew instantly that he had hit a man and just tried to cover it up. Daniel may still be alive today had medical assistance taken place shortly after the incident. KARMA, is all i'm going to say. letch40
  • Score: -6

11:49pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Commonsense? says...

The thing is, Mr James could only be charged with what can be proven & not what you, I or anybody else 'strongly believe'
They do it the other way round in Spain - guilty until proven innocent. I'd suggest we have the better legal system, but it can be seen above that there is a taste for mob justice. What next, angry villagers with pitch forks & torches? I'd not be too surprised. If one doesn't like the law, you CAN change it by voting for the political party that says it will reform those areas you are interested in. Alternatively, a petition to parliament with more than 100,000 signatures HAS to be debated. Calling for murder charges, hanging & such like doesn't change anything.
The thing is, Mr James could only be charged with what can be proven & not what you, I or anybody else 'strongly believe' They do it the other way round in Spain - guilty until proven innocent. I'd suggest we have the better legal system, but it can be seen above that there is a taste for mob justice. What next, angry villagers with pitch forks & torches? I'd not be too surprised. If one doesn't like the law, you CAN change it by voting for the political party that says it will reform those areas you are interested in. Alternatively, a petition to parliament with more than 100,000 signatures HAS to be debated. Calling for murder charges, hanging & such like doesn't change anything. Commonsense?
  • Score: 1

8:46am Fri 25 Jul 14

BarrHumbug says...

letch40 wrote:
What on earth is this country coming to. No justice at all for the death Daniel Robbie. I cannot believe that Matt James was only found guilty of failing to report, surely he is guilty of causing death by careless driving!

He has no conscience what so ever or he wold have stopped to check what he had hit, although I strongly believe he knew instantly that he had hit a man and just tried to cover it up. Daniel may still be alive today had medical assistance taken place shortly after the incident.

KARMA, is all i'm going to say.
Unfortunately a large proportion of the blame in Daniels death lays upon his choice to ride a child's scooter on a dual carriageway in the early hours of the morning. I'm sure if he had been riding a bicycle with lights, helmet etc then it would have made the magistrates case for careless driving much easier.

I think the problem with a lot of the comments above is that they are looking for someone to blame for their friends/family members death rather than accepting that he himself played a large part in it through his dangerous and reckless choice to ride a child's scooter on the dual carriageway. True Mr James should have stopped and he has been convicted for that, but I doubt very much that it would have made any difference to the outcome and i'm sure court took this into account

Looking at this another way, if any of you saw your own son or daughter riding a child's scooter on the dual carriageway what would you do, tell them they were reckless and stupid and put them in the car or stop every approaching car and tell the drivers to pay extra attention to where they are going because they might knock your child down?
[quote][p][bold]letch40[/bold] wrote: What on earth is this country coming to. No justice at all for the death Daniel Robbie. I cannot believe that Matt James was only found guilty of failing to report, surely he is guilty of causing death by careless driving! He has no conscience what so ever or he wold have stopped to check what he had hit, although I strongly believe he knew instantly that he had hit a man and just tried to cover it up. Daniel may still be alive today had medical assistance taken place shortly after the incident. KARMA, is all i'm going to say.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately a large proportion of the blame in Daniels death lays upon his choice to ride a child's scooter on a dual carriageway in the early hours of the morning. I'm sure if he had been riding a bicycle with lights, helmet etc then it would have made the magistrates case for careless driving much easier. I think the problem with a lot of the comments above is that they are looking for someone to blame for their friends/family members death rather than accepting that he himself played a large part in it through his dangerous and reckless choice to ride a child's scooter on the dual carriageway. True Mr James should have stopped and he has been convicted for that, but I doubt very much that it would have made any difference to the outcome and i'm sure court took this into account Looking at this another way, if any of you saw your own son or daughter riding a child's scooter on the dual carriageway what would you do, tell them they were reckless and stupid and put them in the car or stop every approaching car and tell the drivers to pay extra attention to where they are going because they might knock your child down? BarrHumbug
  • Score: 5

4:18pm Fri 25 Jul 14

meadow24 says...

I hope this will make people gain some perspective:

The death was not deliberate, any normal human could see that Mr James did not see Dan and aim to knock him down. He was not drunk or speeding so could not be convicted of 'dangerous driving'.

The actions of Mr James after the accident is what he has been punished for.
Regardless of if the punishment was good enough that wasnt exactly Mr James' choice.
The maximum jail sentence for failing to report is 6 months. Perhaps this is the courts lack of perspective?

Thoughts are with both sides as I'd hate to be either of them.

Malicious comments are completely unecessary, someone has lost their life and someone is mentally living with it forever. Thoughts are with all friends and family involved, RIP young man.
I hope this will make people gain some perspective: The death was not deliberate, any normal human could see that Mr James did not see Dan and aim to knock him down. He was not drunk or speeding so could not be convicted of 'dangerous driving'. The actions of Mr James after the accident is what he has been punished for. Regardless of if the punishment was good enough that wasnt exactly Mr James' choice. The maximum jail sentence for failing to report is 6 months. Perhaps this is the courts lack of perspective? Thoughts are with both sides as I'd hate to be either of them. Malicious comments are completely unecessary, someone has lost their life and someone is mentally living with it forever. Thoughts are with all friends and family involved, RIP young man. meadow24
  • Score: 4

4:56pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Wackerone says...

meadow24 wrote:
I hope this will make people gain some perspective:

The death was not deliberate, any normal human could see that Mr James did not see Dan and aim to knock him down. He was not drunk or speeding so could not be convicted of 'dangerous driving'.

The actions of Mr James after the accident is what he has been punished for.
Regardless of if the punishment was good enough that wasnt exactly Mr James' choice.
The maximum jail sentence for failing to report is 6 months. Perhaps this is the courts lack of perspective?

Thoughts are with both sides as I'd hate to be either of them.

Malicious comments are completely unecessary, someone has lost their life and someone is mentally living with it forever. Thoughts are with all friends and family involved, RIP young man.
Also, the 6 months maximum sentence is merely a starting point working backwards with previous good charactor, lack of criminal record, early plea and other mitigating circumstances all taken into consideration when determining sentence.
[quote][p][bold]meadow24[/bold] wrote: I hope this will make people gain some perspective: The death was not deliberate, any normal human could see that Mr James did not see Dan and aim to knock him down. He was not drunk or speeding so could not be convicted of 'dangerous driving'. The actions of Mr James after the accident is what he has been punished for. Regardless of if the punishment was good enough that wasnt exactly Mr James' choice. The maximum jail sentence for failing to report is 6 months. Perhaps this is the courts lack of perspective? Thoughts are with both sides as I'd hate to be either of them. Malicious comments are completely unecessary, someone has lost their life and someone is mentally living with it forever. Thoughts are with all friends and family involved, RIP young man.[/p][/quote]Also, the 6 months maximum sentence is merely a starting point working backwards with previous good charactor, lack of criminal record, early plea and other mitigating circumstances all taken into consideration when determining sentence. Wackerone
  • Score: 4

6:40pm Fri 25 Jul 14

letch40 says...

Because Mr James never stopped after the incident, no one knows if he was drunk or speeding. Perhaps this is why he never stopped. Either way he is innocent until proved otherwise so failing to stop has more than likely paid off for him. If this keeps him awake at night and it's all he can think about then that's enough punishment. However, considering the lies etc I doubt very much this is the case. He will no doubt be upset by these comments though.
Because Mr James never stopped after the incident, no one knows if he was drunk or speeding. Perhaps this is why he never stopped. Either way he is innocent until proved otherwise so failing to stop has more than likely paid off for him. If this keeps him awake at night and it's all he can think about then that's enough punishment. However, considering the lies etc I doubt very much this is the case. He will no doubt be upset by these comments though. letch40
  • Score: 5

9:12pm Fri 25 Jul 14

letch40 says...

Wackerone wrote:
meadow24 wrote:
I hope this will make people gain some perspective:

The death was not deliberate, any normal human could see that Mr James did not see Dan and aim to knock him down. He was not drunk or speeding so could not be convicted of 'dangerous driving'.

The actions of Mr James after the accident is what he has been punished for.
Regardless of if the punishment was good enough that wasnt exactly Mr James' choice.
The maximum jail sentence for failing to report is 6 months. Perhaps this is the courts lack of perspective?

Thoughts are with both sides as I'd hate to be either of them.

Malicious comments are completely unecessary, someone has lost their life and someone is mentally living with it forever. Thoughts are with all friends and family involved, RIP young man.
Also, the 6 months maximum sentence is merely a starting point working backwards with previous good charactor, lack of criminal record, early plea and other mitigating circumstances all taken into consideration when determining sentence.
Deliberate = murder

Accident = manslaughter

End of!
[quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]meadow24[/bold] wrote: I hope this will make people gain some perspective: The death was not deliberate, any normal human could see that Mr James did not see Dan and aim to knock him down. He was not drunk or speeding so could not be convicted of 'dangerous driving'. The actions of Mr James after the accident is what he has been punished for. Regardless of if the punishment was good enough that wasnt exactly Mr James' choice. The maximum jail sentence for failing to report is 6 months. Perhaps this is the courts lack of perspective? Thoughts are with both sides as I'd hate to be either of them. Malicious comments are completely unecessary, someone has lost their life and someone is mentally living with it forever. Thoughts are with all friends and family involved, RIP young man.[/p][/quote]Also, the 6 months maximum sentence is merely a starting point working backwards with previous good charactor, lack of criminal record, early plea and other mitigating circumstances all taken into consideration when determining sentence.[/p][/quote]Deliberate = murder Accident = manslaughter End of! letch40
  • Score: -4

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree