Parents' victim statement edited to spare feelings of driver who killed child

[agricola]

This is perhaps the most upsetting thing I've read for ages. It sounds as if its something the Daily Mail would reject as being too far fetched for one of their "make them angry" articles, but by all accounts it actually happened:

An MP has called for a change in judicial rules after the parents of a four-year-old girl killed by a speeding driver had their victim impact statement edited because it would upset the driver during his sentencing.

Glenn and Rebecca Youens’ daughter, Violet-Grace, was with her grandmother when Aidan McAteer mounted the pavement in a stolen car. He had been travelling at 83mph in a 30mph zone. Violet-Grace suffered catastrophic injuries and died in hospital.

It has now emerged that during his sentencing earlier this year McAteer won the right to have parts of the family’s statement redacted.

Marie Rimmer MP told a Westminster Hall debate that McAteer’s barrister at Liverpool crown court objected to the parents’ full statement, arguing that the defendant would find it “too upsetting”.

She said: “The judge accepted this and the CPS barrister gave the parents a copy of their impact statement with parts they could not read out in open court highlighted.”

Judicial independence is something that should be cherished, but I find that decision unforgiveable.

 

[A380]

That’s just indefensible. To be told that your emotions and feelings are worth less than the person who killed your child. If there was any justice the judge would have been the person to go to their door and tell them.

 

[JimW]

That sounds terrible, what's the possible basis for the decision? If you ask for an impact statement surely you take what you get?

 

[NoXion]

Too upsetting?! Maybe don't run over little kids if you don't want to be hurt by the words of their relatives?

Him and his counsel are fucking pricks

 

[Baronage-Phase]

That is fucked up.

 

[8ball]

To be told that your emotions and feelings are worth less than the person who killed your child.

Is that what it means? I may think all sorts of things about you, but whether someone reads them out to you in public is immaterial to their value (or otherwise).

 

[JimW]

So the cunt was emotionally fine unless he heard some bad words?

 

[A380]

Is that what it means? I may think all sorts of things about you, but whether someone reads them out to you in public is immaterial to their value (or otherwise).

Yes, I think that is what it means. Part of the criminal ‘justice’ system is about being held to account for your actions. That includes facing up to the harm your chosen activities caused.

 

[8ball]

Yes, I think that is what it means. Part of the criminal ‘justice’ system is about being held to account for your actions. That includes facing up to the harm your chosen activities caused.

If that comes down to a single reading in a courtroom then things are too far gone to be fixed.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

If he has the right not to be upset at the parents' words, do the parents get the right not to be upset by his actions?

 

[JimW]

Christ, if you'd done this under every extenuating circumstance if you weren't considering ending it all you'd be changed utterly and off volunteering wherever you could make small amends.

 

[8ball]

Christ, if you'd done this under every extenuating circumstance if you weren't considering ending it all you'd be changed utterly and off volunteering wherever you could make small amends.

Well, not everyone is wired up the same way. I don't know the facts of the case any more than what is in the linked article, though.

 

[Sprocket.]

There is no such thing as justice.

 

[nogojones]

So he must read the statement - or he wouldn't have known what it contained?

It would likely have been very upsetting, but he would have seen it before, so he didn't want to be upset in public?

Or had he not seen it and his barrister wad trying to protect him from the impact of the statement?

 

[8ball]

So he must read the statement - or he wouldn't have known what it contained?

It would likely have been very upsetting, but he would have seen it before, so he didn't want to be upset in public?

Or had he not seen it and his barrister trying to protect him from the impact of the statement?

There’s a whole load of stuff we don’t know.

 

[nogojones]

There’s a whole load of stuff we don’t know.

...and as I don't know any of it, I just don't feel qualified to comment any more

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Or had he not seen it and his barrister wad trying to protect him from the impact of the statement?

Was my reading of the report.

 

[Sue]

So this is obviously wrong but I'm not sure that victim impact statements should be used (I presume) for sentencing.

If you don't have friends or family to make one, does that mean your life is less valuable than someone who does?

 

[8ball]

So this is obviously wrong but I'm not sure that victim impact statements should be used (I presume) for sentencing.

If you don't have friends or family to make one, does that mean your life is less valuable than someone who does?

I totally agree. Feels like it’s bringing a little of the Jeremy Kyle show to the courtroom.

 

[nogojones]

Was my reading of the report.

You know, if I had run over and killed some kid whilst I was being a twat, I'd feel pretty shit about myself without hearing how bad the parents felt.

As I said before I know shit all about this, but maybe the driver is pretty close to breaking point and his barrister was genuinely concerned for his clients state of mind and the potential risk of self harm/suicide.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

You know, if I had run over and killed some kid whilst I was being a twat, I'd feel pretty shit about myself without hearing how bad the parents felt.

As I said before I know shit all about this, but maybe the driver is pretty close to breaking point and his barrister was genuinely concerned for his clients state of mind and the potential risk of self harm/suicide.

Perhaps.

Personally I think you are being overly charitable to the scumbag.

 

[8ball]

Perhaps.

Personally I think you are being overly charitable to the scumbag.

Both interpretations are possibilities, as are others. Personally, I think the main work on getting people to confront what they’ve done should be done away from the courtroom, which should be entirely concerned with conviction and sentencing.

 

[Yossarian]

The driver ran away past the dying girl and fled to Amsterdam to "clear his head and smoke some weed" - after he was sentenced to 9 years and 4 months, he had another 10 days added to his sentence for posting on Instagram from prison, it doesn't sound as if he was so incapacitated by remorse that he would have been unable to hear an impact statement.

Killer's extra jail time for online posts

 

[SpookyFrank]

You know, if I had run over and killed some kid whilst I was being a twat, I'd feel pretty shit about myself without hearing how bad the parents felt.

As I said before I know shit all about this, but maybe the driver is pretty close to breaking point and his barrister was genuinely concerned for his clients state of mind and the potential risk of self harm/suicide.

Fuck him. This wasn't one bad decision or a lapse of concentration, it was running red lights at 85mph in a 30 zone. If anything a better reason to skip the victim statement would be that there's no prospect of inducing remorse.

 

[Artaxerxes]

Bet he's a cyclist as well.

 

[nogojones]

Bet he's a cyclist as well.

Can't be. There's less than one page of vitriol about him