A couple wept tears of anger last night as an uninsured hit-and-run driver who killed their young son escaped prison sentence.

 

Jason Diprose, 21, mowed down four-year-old Casey O'Callaghan and left him to die after reversing the wrong way down a one-way street.

 

But he walked free after being given a community service order - despite a string of motoring convictions and only ever having had one lesson.

 

Despite never having passed a driving test and having a string of convictions for other motoring offences, the cocky thug sauntered away from court with a community service order yesterday after pleading guilty to driving without due

care and attention.

 

A gang of his yob pals threatened and assaulted photographers outside.

 

To hear of cases like these imparts anger and despair in equal measure among law-abiding citizens everywhere.

 

So what do you think? Do you think anybody who kills on the road should be jailed? Should driving offences be treated more seriously? Is this an injustice for the family of Casey O'Callaghan?

 

Source: Sunday Express

not always jailed.... sometimes accidents are unavoidable, but in the main if a driver kills someone else through neglect, drink, drugs, uninsured, unlicenced etc then yes, its manslaughter.

not always jailed.... sometimes accidents are unavoidable, but in the main if a driver kills someone else through neglect, drink, drugs, uninsured, unlicenced etc then yes, its manslaughter.

I agree with Rob.What really annoys me are cases such as the one Brian mentioned. What is up with the Judge or the law that someone like Diprose doesn't receive a prison sentence and this case isn't the only one I've heard about. What sort of message does this give out? It certainly is an injustice for the family of Casey O'Callaghan!

I agree with mushroomman, or whatever your name is, if it is by neglect and illegal substances than yes, they should be jailed.

The presumption should be that they face jail, yes. However sometimes there may be circumstances which mean a custodial sentence is not appropriate.

 

It's more important that such people receive a hefty driving ban. That could be accompanied by a suspended sentence with a clear indication that they will go to jail if caught driving while still banned.

The presumption should be that they face jail, yes. However sometimes there may be circumstances which mean a custodial sentence is not appropriate.

 

It's more important that such people receive a hefty driving ban. That could be accompanied by a suspended sentence with a clear indication that they will go to jail if caught driving while still banned.

 

Oh because that makes up for the young child's life they took away doesnt it?

Oh because that makes up for the young child's life they took away doesnt it?

 

the driver might have been doing nothing wrong, sometimes accidents are unavoidable, and tragedy strikes... the driver should only be jailed if he was doing something wrong.... speeding, drunk, drugged, unlicenced etc.

"Driving Without Due Care and Attention".....?? Some kind of joke innit....? Is it not about time we had an offence similar to the US legal system's "Vehicular Manslaughter"....? I dont usually advocate taking ideas from the Yanks, but when you see cases such as this one, you have to think "what the fukk???"

 

This is a case of some lousy little chav thug getting away, literally, with murder.... It aint on.. I've got a low-tolerance threshold for motorists who act irresponsibly anyway, but this little b/astard doesn't even have a licence......? Get Islamic on his ass.... Cut the little bugger's hands off??? :lol: :lol: :lol:

"Driving Without Due Care and Attention".....?? Some kind of joke innit....? Is it not about time we had an offence similar to the US legal system's "Vehicular Manslaughter"....? I dont usually advocate taking ideas from the Yanks, but when you see cases such as this one, you have to think "what the fukk???"

 

This is a case of some lousy little chav thug getting away, literally, with murder.... It aint on.. I've got a low-tolerance threshold for motorists who act irresponsibly anyway, but this little b/astard doesn't even have a licence......? Get Islamic on his ass.... Cut the little bugger's hands off??? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Where you in court listening to all the evidence then? No, I thought not.

 

I would guess that it's quite likely that the boy ran into the road - possibly from behind a parked car but the report doesn't really contain any detail at all. It doesn't even say whether he had a qualified driver with him at the time. There are plenty of more serious offences which could have been used and which would have been more likely to result in a custodial sentence. The fact that they were not used suggests that there was thought to be little chance of a conviction. So, faced with him being acquitted of a more serious charge or convicted of a lesser charge, they went for the latter.

 

I share your lack of tolerance for irresponsible motorists. But the main aim must be to keep such people off the roads where they pose a danger to others.

Where you in court listening to all the evidence then? No, I thought not.

 

I would guess that it's quite likely that the boy ran into the road - possibly from behind a parked car but the report doesn't really contain any detail at all. It doesn't even say whether he had a qualified driver with him at the time. There are plenty of more serious offences which could have been used and which would have been more likely to result in a custodial sentence. The fact that they were not used suggests that there was thought to be little chance of a conviction. So, faced with him being acquitted of a more serious charge or convicted of a lesser charge, they went for the latter.

 

I share your lack of tolerance for irresponsible motorists. But the main aim must be to keep such people off the roads where they pose a danger to others.

 

Whether the kid ran into the road or not - this little fukker was UNINSURED, ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD, HAD OTHER MOTORING OFFENCES AGAINST HIM.... Evidence?? Pretty damning to those of us possessed of a little common sense (ie, not lawyers then..).... How can you keep this arse out of car..? Take his licence away?? Oh, hang on - HE DOESN'T HAVE ONE!!!!!! No, the prosecution just bottled out of giving this scumbag what he deserves.....

 

All very well being 'liberal minded' and fair an all, but some people in this society just don't deserve your time and patience mate... I think this nasty little chav b/astard is one of them.... The actions of him and his mates outside the court just say everything to me about the type of utter scum they are...... They are not worthy of your very nice, liberal-minded words mate.. They'd probably spit on you.... after they set you on fire....

Hit and run, YES and also banned from driving.

Whether the kid ran into the road or not - this little fukker was UNINSURED, ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD, HAD OTHER MOTORING OFFENCES AGAINST HIM.... Evidence?? Pretty damning to those of us possessed of a little common sense (ie, not lawyers then..).... How can you keep this arse out of car..? Take his licence away?? Oh, hang on - HE DOESN'T HAVE ONE!!!!!! No, the prosecution just bottled out of giving this scumbag what he deserves.....

 

absolutely.... the kid was in no way culpable at all as the driver was not supposed to be on the road.

absolutely.... the kid was in no way culpable at all as the driver was not supposed to be on the road.

Given his age, I wasn't suggesting that the child was to blame. I was merely guessing that he ran out into the road. However, based on what little I know about the case (i.e. the same as the rest of us), all I can say is that this young man appears to be a danger to the public when behind the wheel of a car. Beyond that, I know nothing about him. So, I'm happy to see him banned form driving for several years but I don't know enough to say whether he should serve a prison sentence.

 

It depends on the situation, if it happened for reasons such as driving under the influence, or the intent to murder...then of course. But sometimes there are unavoidable accidents that may not even be the drivers fault, and those situations should be looked at in a different stance.

Whether the kid ran into the road or not - this little fukker was UNINSURED, ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD, HAD OTHER MOTORING OFFENCES AGAINST HIM.... Evidence?? Pretty damning to those of us possessed of a little common sense (ie, not lawyers then..).... How can you keep this arse out of car..? Take his licence away?? Oh, hang on - HE DOESN'T HAVE ONE!!!!!! No, the prosecution just bottled out of giving this scumbag what he deserves.....

 

I agree 100%. Even if the kid was 100% to blame the dude still didn't have the right to even start driving and after doing so whatever happens for whatever reason I do consider the dudes fault totally. He certainly should have been jailed.

 

But for the main question, no, not all killer drivers should be jailed. Accidents happen, even freak accidents that have really no-one to blame for. I understand that sometimes you even have to break the law (drive without a license and so on) and shouldn't be jailed even if you cause an accident. I mean, let's say you don't have a license and you go camping with your friend. Your friend is attacked by a bear who tears his hand off. There is no cell reception there so you really don't have any other choice than start driving your friend towards a hospital...and then you loose control of the car and kill someone...should you be jailed? But for the bast*rd in the article above, they should have jailed him for a year or two.

In cases of death through drink, drugs, excessive speeding and so on absolutely, jail should be automatic but someone who is just abiding by the rules of the road and some cretin cyclist swerves into their path or a kid runs into the road to retrieve a ball and the driver cant avoid then no they should not go to jail but through drink and drugs and so on I would charge them with MURDER not death by careless driving or manslaughter

In cases of death through drink, drugs, excessive speeding and so on absolutely, jail should be automatic but someone who is just abiding by the rules of the road and some cretin cyclist swerves into their path or a kid runs into the road to retrieve a ball and the driver cant avoid then no they should not go to jail but through drink and drugs and so on I would charge them with MURDER not death by careless driving or manslaughter

 

I would agree (I have serious issues with tw@t cyclists in London who seem to think it's their god-given right to run red lights and almost fukkin' run me over when I cross the road when the GREEN MAN IS ON....), but neither of those criteria exist in this case mate..... That prick was driving the wrong side of the road....

 

No, I think all cases should be looked at carefully. Sometimes these accedents are complete accidents which no one could have predicted. However I think if the killer driver has Drugs/alcahol in thier system then they should be jailed.

The presumption should be that they face jail, yes. However sometimes there may be circumstances which mean a custodial sentence is not appropriate.

 

It's more important that such people receive a hefty driving ban. That could be accompanied by a suspended sentence with a clear indication that they will go to jail if caught driving while still banned.

 

But what´s the point to ban someone to drive, when the person does not even have a driving licence to start with...