[olduser]

I saw this on BBC news website;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74myelnrywo

Obviously it was a tragedy for the lady and her family, and friends, and I offer condolences to them.

I have not read the Judges summing up but surely driving after sniffing laughing gas should be a lifetimes ban + a hefty custodial sentence?
Then we consider the damage caused which is at least manslaughter.

Or am I looking at this the wrong way?

[Rolebama]

I think there must be more to the story than has been reported. I have seen stories in the media of deaths caused by people driving under impairment, by drugs or alcohol, who received much lesser sentences. I am also aware of deaths being caused by drivers falling asleep on our motorways where they suffered lesser sentences.

[Nick]

I would suspect that the sticking would be there's no defined offence for being under the influence of something like nitrous oxide - it's neither alcohol or a drug. And whilst possession has been illegal since 2023 it seems that it's hard to test for in the same way you might for drink or drugs: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czj34ve0zj9o

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by olduser

I saw this on BBC news website;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74myelnrywo

Obviously it was a tragedy for the lady and her family, and friends, and I offer condolences to them.

I have not read the Judges summing up but surely driving after sniffing laughing gas should be a lifetimes ban + a hefty custodial sentence?
Then we consider the damage caused which is at least manslaughter.

Or am I looking at this the wrong way?

It is absolutely no different to driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs, drink or drug driving or drunk in charge, they all have consequences and over the years I have lost count of how many I have arrested for each of those various offences.

Driving under the influence of any other substance carries the same penalties, but (Like you I have not read the courts summing up) the severity of the conviction has to be based on the evidence presented at the time, any contrition or remorse expressed by the defendants, and impact statements, any mitigation as well as their antecedents.

It is often not just a case of "You have been a naughty boy (or girl) we are going to ban you for life and throw away the key, especially if they are first time offenders, it goes deeper than that.

People may not like it, but that is the system we have in this country, hence the reason why people often criticise the courts for handing out lenient penalties in fatal crash cases, but it has to be based on the evidence, and the fact that someone was unfortunate to die is immaterial

[NMNeil]

I'm 100% against anyone driving under the influence of any drug, alcohol, marijuana, coke etc, but this nonsense of just banning them from driving is ridiculous.
If you have repeatedly shown you can't be trusted with a deadly weapon it needs to be taken away from you. Gun, knife, baseball bat are all already treated this way, but if the weapon is a car, and yes cars are often used as weapons, it's somehow different. Let them keep the deadly weapon but simply take away the piece of paper that says they are allowed to drive.
Why the disparity?