Amy's mother slams death driver's "insulting" sentence (From Somerset County Gazette)

I feel for this woman for the loss of her daughter. I am also glad that the male who was the main factor of the death has gone down I do not feel his sentence is long enough at all. However with burnell she did not kill the girl so I feel the judge made the right choice at the end of the day. You all say a life for a life ok this is fine but if you all see it like that then one life lost = the person who killed the girl the male. Make his sentence life but don't punish any one else for his lack of sense when it comes to his driving.

Totally agree, her sentence should be double as she pleaded not guilty and dragged the Hofmeister family through the pain of a trial. It takes two or more to have a race so if she was not involved then who else was? Just as guilty as the lad that killed poor Amy but deserves a bigger sentence for trying to insult the jury's intelligence.

Totally agree jones pleaded guilty early on and sentence seems fair. Burnell as seemed smug all the way through and tried to mock the system by getting pregnant in order to get a lighter sentence.

She has lied all the way through, claiming her speed to 25-30mph when witnesses tell a different story. Stating she did not travel the same route of jones. Witnesses and cctv evidence from the bus lane they cut down prove otherwise. I can see no remorse without the depression excuse as she has stuck with her lies all the way through.

How can someone say she got pregnant to lighten her sentence pregnant or not the judge would have given a sentence. I for one would like to know exactly what was said buy the judge and not just go by what gets said by other people and the media alike.

If she is thick enough to to try and convince a jury she was not racing Jones then she is thick enough to think she will get a lighter sentence for being pregnant, after all it didn't take her long did it.

That may be the case but the judge would have given the jail sentence to what he thought was correct. If she got pregnant to "lighten" her sentence as she is as you state thick would it not make sense that a judge would have seen this? And given a long term sentence anyway? If the judge truly believes that burnell was jointly responsible he would have given the same if not more than jones. As I said before I would like to know what was said in the court room by the judge and not just from the best bits to sale news.

I think that 18months is a joke for Leanne. She had been bragging that because she is pregnant, they wouldn't send her to prison. I have heard this for myself.
She denied her involvement throughout, despite there being CCTV and witness evidence. Although it was not her who killed Amy directly, she played a huge role, as if she wasn't racing him he may not have been doing that speed.
She is a liar, and a smug young woman who got off far too lightly. It is disgusting!

Well said Flick.

Dreamslie wrote:
How can someone say she got pregnant to lighten her sentence pregnant or not the judge would have given a sentence. I for one would like to know exactly what was said buy the judge and not just go by what gets said by other people and the media alike.

He took into account as her brief mentioned she would give borth in prison and be seperated from the child. This was taken into account by the judge sentencing as he mentioned so.

Still I would rather hear from the courts themselves and not word of mouth from any one else. What was actually said in the room when it come to his sentence and then what was said about hers?

It takes two to have a race. Not only is 'she' as guilty she is worse for lying on top of it all. How is this justice? The sky may have gained a beautiful star but the earth has lost a precious girl!!

Saw the local news last night and the coverage of Burnells' family (I think it was) leaving the court. What a disgrace! It just goes to show the mind set of these people. You should be ashamed of yourselves and show more respect to people and Amy.

Where the hell is the justice, he only got seven years!, he could be out in four! With good behaviour, Amy's poor family have got a life sentence due to the action of him and burnel.

Cherryblossomgirl wrote:
Saw the local news last night and the coverage of Burnells' family (I think it was) leaving the court. What a disgrace! It just goes to show the mind set of these people. You should be ashamed of yourselves and show more respect to people and Amy.

That was the family of the guy they said he has done time before and he will do his time stood on his head. And I assume it was his father that said something along the lines on he's done time before and will do time again something along those lines.

Am I missing something here? How can Burnell only get an 18 month sentence if she was found guilty of causing a child's death by dangerous driving? Burnell put Amy's poor family through a trial, pleading her innocence, but was found guilty by every member of the jury. There's clearly no incentive to tell the truth in court is there? It may not of been Burnell's car that hit Amy but if it wasn't for her dangerous driving, Amy would still be alive today.
Burnell is soon to become a mother (that was convenient) and someone should tell her that smoking is bad for the baby.  Knowing that Burnell will never have the wonderful mother and daughter bond that Amy and her Mum would of experienced in her short life, is something.  Amy would of been proud of her Mum... need I say more.

How can you say that burnell will never have the same bond with her child? Any parent will have a bond with a child no matter what. And as for smoking whilst pregnant she isn't the only one so who cares? Still waiting for the exact words from court as no one seems to know what got said so still no judgement from me

Dreamslie wrote:
How can you say that burnell will never have the same bond with her child? Any parent will have a bond with a child no matter what. And as for smoking whilst pregnant she isn't the only one so who cares? Still waiting for the exact words from court as no one seems to know what got said so still no judgement from me

Dreamslie, you appear very defensive about Miss Burnell in these posts. Suggesting that Jone's should have received a longer sentence and that Burnell's sentence was harsh. She was found GUILTY of causing death by dangerous driving. She wasn't merely a bystander, she was instrumental in causing Amy's death. 

I am not defending any one I would just like to know more solid facts before judging someone when the whole stories gets told exactly how it was in the court room then I will judge until then in my eyes jones killed the girl so he should get more time he could have over took any one that night everyone is going nuts due to the fact they were a couple at the time right?

Dreamslie wrote:
I am not defending any one I would just like to know more solid facts before judging someone when the whole stories gets told exactly how it was in the court room then I will judge until then in my eyes jones killed the girl so he should get more time he could have over took any one that night everyone is going nuts due to the fact they were a couple at the time right?

They were playing games knowing they had been drinking.

The aggravating factors for me are she had lied all the way. Wasted hours of police time and still believes she is not to blame.

She has got pregnant knowing it would be considered in sentencing and she smokes like s chimney, drinks energy drinks and shows no remorse.

At least jones stopped lying early on and has been responsible adult. We all make mistakes it's how we behave after, that shows the any depth of character.

Jones couldn't really lie about what he done at the end of the day everyone knew he was driving. Were they over the limit for drink driving or is this just some thing that like a lot of things probably isn't relevant to the matter? I also agree that everyone makes mistakes some worse than other admittedly.

Abort the foetus?

SomewhereInIlminster wrote:
Abort the foetus?

The stress coupled with the energy drinks and smoking are not going to help the foetus.

I know someone who drank redbull in the early stages of pregancy when they didnt realise they were pregnant. The child has serious hyper activity problems. They no energy drinks are no good for pregnant women thats why it states not suitable on them. Unforntunately leanne seems the type of women that doesnt really care about much.

SomewhereInIlminster wrote:
Abort the foetus?

Didn't someone say the child was due in September? Is abit late to get rid of it don't you think?

I think taking that baby from her the moment it's out would be the best thing for it. Aside from the fact she clearly has respect for human life full stop, and that in itself would make for a questionable parent, but couple that with the sickening disregard for her own unborn child through the energy drinks and heavy smoking (when she used to work in Musgrove?! How hard up for staff were they?!) and the crime she committed....well, I wouldn't want to be her kid. Her sentence was an absolute joke, and her attitude appalling to the point of being creepy. I think both sentences were far too light. Eight and half years between two people for killing a child?! You get more than that for robbing a bank! Is human life that low value these days?

*has no respect for human life*

May I first start, by sending my thoughts and best wishes, to Jane, Ben and the family during what must be, one of the hardest periods of their lives. I can’t even imagine how much anger and pain they are feeling right now, and hope and pray I never have to.
No parent should bury their child, and Jane is now serving the sentence, that these two irresponsible and selfish people should be serving. Quite clearly from video footage via the media, Leanne Burnell has no regard for anyone or anything other than herself, and if my family acted the way that theirs did outside of the court, the other day, I would have been ashamed.
Secondly I would like to apologize to Jane and Ben, for the insult handed down to these two in sentence time. For years now, many have been calling for a review of the justice system, every time something tragic like this happens, and for years it has been waved to one side, the powers that be listen for a couple of months, then their ears get distracted, and they then seem to be too interested in listening to the views and opinions of other countries, and worry about human rights, rather than listening to the people who put them their to work on their behalves.
Quite clearly Britain is broken, and the decent, honest people of this country, have now had enough. There are too many who repeatedly break the law, and get a slap on the wrist every time, or serve little time only to be released, and who’s crime then escalates, yes a small percentage do not re-offend, but when a person has a history, like Jones, and we are not talking PETTY crimes as it has been referred to, keep re-offending then surely this should be taken into account, as to how this person is going to act on release. The softly, softly approach needs to stop now, victims should not be paying for these peoples crimes, as it seems Jane and her family now are.

I wish there was another option in your poll: Should both Burnell and Jones have got longer sentences. That what I would vote for.... Would be very interested in finding out how 6% of those who have responded think that serving a few months in jail for starting a race through a residential area tha ended up causing the death of a child shouldn't be increased.
So sad that a baby is going to have that start in life...I hope a full assessment is made by Social Services very early on.

Why is everyone bringing the baby into account of what happened it has nothing to do with the unborn child it is what has happened with the persons involved. Who ever said about the fact burnell used to work in musgrove did any one know what she was like whilst working their? If no then how can you say they were desperate for staff? I still would like to know word for word what was said in the court room before passing judgement on burnell. If she played such a huge role in the event then pregnant or not the judge would have to had given her a sentence equall to the crime committed.

ok right, firstly i knew leanne, yes she does smoke and had done throughout her pregnancy but i know from talking to doctors that you should never give up smoking when pregnant, just cut down so that doesnt matter at all, and as for her 'drinking energy drinks' thats lies because she has never touched one since she's been pregnant. The baby will have a bond with her mother, like any other mother and daughter, her being in prison will only make her want to have an even stronger bond when she is out.

Oh right.....guess the local news must have photoshopped the can into shot then.....tw@ts, the pair of you. You are clearly friends of hers, if you're that high in morality why did you not talk into doing the decent thing and pleading guilty?

Don't have a go at me, I'm only stating my opinion just like everybody else has been.

Dreamslie wrote:
Why is everyone bringing the baby into account of what happened it has nothing to do with the unborn child it is what has happened with the persons involved. Who ever said about the fact burnell used to work in musgrove did any one know what she was like whilst working their? If no then how can you say they were desperate for staff? I still would like to know word for word what was said in the court room before passing judgement on burnell. If she played such a huge role in the event then pregnant or not the judge would have to had given her a sentence equall to the crime committed.

If you are so desperate to find out what was said in court why did you not attend the hearing and as you seem to have a very real problem with believing what has been reported why read the paper in the first place. I may be completely wrong but you come across as the type of person that would disbelieve anything they were told unless they had seen it with their own eyes.

daisy101 wrote:
ok right, firstly i knew leanne, yes she does smoke and had done throughout her pregnancy but i know from talking to doctors that you should never give up smoking when pregnant, just cut down so that doesnt matter at all, and as for her 'drinking energy drinks' thats lies because she has never touched one since she's been pregnant. The baby will have a bond with her mother, like any other mother and daughter, her being in prison will only make her want to have an even stronger bond when she is out.

Glad she has one fan left in taunton.

What qualified doctor in is telling women to keep smoking in pregancy. They may advise you to come off it gradually but I have never met one who says don't give up in pregancy, just cut back.

Well several people I know have been told that, cutting out cigarettes completely can cause stress to a baby, and anyway there is no scientific evidence stating that smoking harms your baby, a lot of my family smoke and they have all had successful births and very healthy children, its not up to you or anybody else what people do during their pregnancy.

daisy101 wrote:
Well several people I know have been told that, cutting out cigarettes completely can cause stress to a baby, and anyway there is no scientific evidence stating that smoking harms your baby, a lot of my family smoke and they have all had successful births and very healthy children, its not up to you or anybody else what people do during their pregnancy.

http://smokefree.nhs
.uk/smoking-and-preg
nancy/

" When you smoke you inhale over 4,000 chemicals from the cigarette. One of these is a dangerous chemical called carbon monoxide, which gets into your bloodstream.
This restricts the oxygen that's essential for your baby's healthy growth and development, and because cigarettes restrict their oxygen supply, their tiny heart has to beat harder every time you smoke."

daisy101 wrote:
Well several people I know have been told that, cutting out cigarettes completely can cause stress to a baby, and anyway there is no scientific evidence stating that smoking harms your baby, a lot of my family smoke and they have all had successful births and very healthy children, its not up to you or anybody else what people do during their pregnancy.

This is the problem no one feels they are part of soceity so smoking and excessive drinking straining NHS resources is a god given right.

The trial was not stressful to the baby then no! It was a very good time to have a baby. This is the type of attitude that leads tragic accidents like this. What I do drink smoke, race my car drink is no ones buisness but my own.

There is no scientific evdience !! Read a book it slows growth and raises the levels of toxins in the babies bodies. They are now drawing scientific links to increased risks of cancers.

I have watched two people die from smoking found my dad dead on the bathroom floor, from smoking related illness. Anyone who taken up smoking in the last 30 years if tricking themselves it will bite them and their children. A relative of mine smoked through pregnancy and now her daughter is small for her and and gets every bug going. My kids are healthy and good sizes for the ages and dont have a reduced immune system as my partner never smoked nor have I.

Not all babies are born small or are unhealthy if you smoke.

daisy101 wrote:
ok right, firstly i knew leanne, yes she does smoke and had done throughout her pregnancy but i know from talking to doctors that you should never give up smoking when pregnant, just cut down so that doesnt matter at all, and as for her 'drinking energy drinks' thats lies because she has never touched one since she's been pregnant. The baby will have a bond with her mother, like any other mother and daughter, her being in prison will only make her want to have an even stronger bond when she is out.


Enough said you cannot get through to that level of ignorance - don't you think that Amy had that same kind of bond with her Mum - but as we all know it was stolen from both of them!

As I said I'm just having my opinion just like everybody else.

Maypole wrote:
daisy101 wrote: ok right, firstly i knew leanne, yes she does smoke and had done throughout her pregnancy but i know from talking to doctors that you should never give up smoking when pregnant, just cut down so that doesnt matter at all, and as for her 'drinking energy drinks' thats lies because she has never touched one since she's been pregnant. The baby will have a bond with her mother, like any other mother and daughter, her being in prison will only make her want to have an even stronger bond when she is out. Enough said you cannot get through to that level of ignorance - don't you think that Amy had that same kind of bond with her Mum - but as we all know it was stolen from both of them!

Its a waste of time, chances are if she is friend of that woman then she is of the same mindset. Convinces herself to believe her own lies.

Smoking is not bad for your baby etc.... Its her life she can do as she likes its her....blah blah.

Head and brick wall come to mind.

FreeSpeech? wrote:

Dreamslie wrote:
Why is everyone bringing the baby into account of what happened it has nothing to do with the unborn child it is what has happened with the persons involved. Who ever said about the fact burnell used to work in musgrove did any one know what she was like whilst working their? If no then how can you say they were desperate for staff? I still would like to know word for word what was said in the court room before passing judgement on burnell. If she played such a huge role in the event then pregnant or not the judge would have to had given her a sentence equall to the crime committed.

If you are so desperate to find out what was said in court why did you not attend the hearing and as you seem to have a very real problem with believing what has been reported why read the paper in the first place. I may be completely wrong but you come across as the type of person that would disbelieve anything they were told unless they had seen it with their own eyes.

Not everyone can make it to a trail and why go when it's nothing to do with any one but the families involved? Im just having my view on things like the rest of you probably are. You all choose to listen to what makes the news and ignore the fact some things will get left out as it isn't "good news". Hearing what was said in court for the 2 people involved and seeing the rubbish they put on the news about it are two different things. I'm sure though you must know everything that went on in court (or at least like to think you do) so why not enlighten us with how it went? Or are you just saying what got said in the news and in the paper just like 90% of others who like to think they know what's going on. At least I am not pretending that I know everything that went on that day I would like to know word for word before making judgement.

Dreamslie wrote:

FreeSpeech? wrote:

Dreamslie wrote:
Why is everyone bringing the baby into account of what happened it has nothing to do with the unborn child it is what has happened with the persons involved. Who ever said about the fact burnell used to work in musgrove did any one know what she was like whilst working their? If no then how can you say they were desperate for staff? I still would like to know word for word what was said in the court room before passing judgement on burnell. If she played such a huge role in the event then pregnant or not the judge would have to had given her a sentence equall to the crime committed.

If you are so desperate to find out what was said in court why did you not attend the hearing and as you seem to have a very real problem with believing what has been reported why read the paper in the first place. I may be completely wrong but you come across as the type of person that would disbelieve anything they were told unless they had seen it with their own eyes.

Not everyone can make it to a trail and why go when it's nothing to do with any one but the families involved? Im just having my view on things like the rest of you probably are. You all choose to listen to what makes the news and ignore the fact some things will get left out as it isn't "good news". Hearing what was said in court for the 2 people involved and seeing the rubbish they put on the news about it are two different things. I'm sure though you must know everything that went on in court (or at least like to think you do) so why not enlighten us with how it went? Or are you just saying what got said in the news and in the paper just like 90% of others who like to think they know what's going on. At least I am not pretending that I know everything that went on that day I would like to know word for word before making judgement.

It'd be contempt of court to misreport the proceedings, leaving out key parts of the judgement would just make a news provider look incompetent.

If you google you can find a large proportion of the Judges' summing up on another site where there is an explanation of the lower than tariff sentences.

Samej1 wrote:

Dreamslie wrote:

FreeSpeech? wrote:

Dreamslie wrote:
Why is everyone bringing the baby into account of what happened it has nothing to do with the unborn child it is what has happened with the persons involved. Who ever said about the fact burnell used to work in musgrove did any one know what she was like whilst working their? If no then how can you say they were desperate for staff? I still would like to know word for word what was said in the court room before passing judgement on burnell. If she played such a huge role in the event then pregnant or not the judge would have to had given her a sentence equall to the crime committed.

If you are so desperate to find out what was said in court why did you not attend the hearing and as you seem to have a very real problem with believing what has been reported why read the paper in the first place. I may be completely wrong but you come across as the type of person that would disbelieve anything they were told unless they had seen it with their own eyes.

Not everyone can make it to a trail and why go when it's nothing to do with any one but the families involved? Im just having my view on things like the rest of you probably are. You all choose to listen to what makes the news and ignore the fact some things will get left out as it isn't "good news". Hearing what was said in court for the 2 people involved and seeing the rubbish they put on the news about it are two different things. I'm sure though you must know everything that went on in court (or at least like to think you do) so why not enlighten us with how it went? Or are you just saying what got said in the news and in the paper just like 90% of others who like to think they know what's going on. At least I am not pretending that I know everything that went on that day I would like to know word for word before making judgement.

It'd be contempt of court to misreport the proceedings, leaving out key parts of the judgement would just make a news provider look incompetent.

If you google you can find a large proportion of the Judges' summing up on another site where there is an explanation of the lower than tariff sentences.

I'm not on about things been left out in court it's the papers and news that will leave it out to make the news we all know that the news uses the bits that will make them look good and sale what they want. If people are stupid enough to believe the paper and news without hearing both sides well bigger fools them.

Dreamslie wrote:

Samej1 wrote:

Dreamslie wrote:

FreeSpeech? wrote:

Dreamslie wrote:
Why is everyone bringing the baby into account of what happened it has nothing to do with the unborn child it is what has happened with the persons involved. Who ever said about the fact burnell used to work in musgrove did any one know what she was like whilst working their? If no then how can you say they were desperate for staff? I still would like to know word for word what was said in the court room before passing judgement on burnell. If she played such a huge role in the event then pregnant or not the judge would have to had given her a sentence equall to the crime committed.

If you are so desperate to find out what was said in court why did you not attend the hearing and as you seem to have a very real problem with believing what has been reported why read the paper in the first place. I may be completely wrong but you come across as the type of person that would disbelieve anything they were told unless they had seen it with their own eyes.

Not everyone can make it to a trail and why go when it's nothing to do with any one but the families involved? Im just having my view on things like the rest of you probably are. You all choose to listen to what makes the news and ignore the fact some things will get left out as it isn't "good news". Hearing what was said in court for the 2 people involved and seeing the rubbish they put on the news about it are two different things. I'm sure though you must know everything that went on in court (or at least like to think you do) so why not enlighten us with how it went? Or are you just saying what got said in the news and in the paper just like 90% of others who like to think they know what's going on. At least I am not pretending that I know everything that went on that day I would like to know word for word before making judgement.

It'd be contempt of court to misreport the proceedings, leaving out key parts of the judgement would just make a news provider look incompetent.

If you google you can find a large proportion of the Judges' summing up on another site where there is an explanation of the lower than tariff sentences.

I'm not on about things been left out in court it's the papers and news that will leave it out to make the news we all know that the news uses the bits that will make them look good and sale what they want. If people are stupid enough to believe the paper and news without hearing both sides well bigger fools them.

Misreporting the proceeding IS leaving things out of the paper, nothing to do with the court process.

I'm genuinely interested in what you feel has been reported incorrectly here, I've read a wider description of the judgement and I can't see any bias - if you feel there is, have a chat with the editor, I have in the past and they are willing to listen and explain!

I Am willing to accept the fact they aren't allowed to leave things out. However until all sides of the story come out I am still with the judge 100%. There has to be a reason why there was a difference in sentence duration and not just because she is pregnant because that means nothing.

Dreamslie wrote:
I Am willing to accept the fact they aren't allowed to leave things out. However until all sides of the story come out I am still with the judge 100%. There has to be a reason why there was a difference in sentence duration and not just because she is pregnant because that means nothing.

As much as I can appreciate that you are entitled to your own opinion on this situation, I also feel like you need to be reminded that this is a public site in which Jane, Ben and the rest of Amy's family can all read. Fair enough you don't believe that Burnell should have received a longer sentence but out of respect for Jane thinking that the sentence itself was a insult do you really feel it necessary to voice your opinion on a site like this? Want to know everything that got said in the courtroom? Add Jane on facebook and ask her any questions-or just read her statuses and maybe you can begin to understand. Amy; a daughter, sister, cousin, granddaughter and many other things has been lost due to severe childish racing games. Show some respect.

Ok if that's the case about this been a public site how about the feelings of the families of every one involved obviously if I need to show some respect then surely every one on here should be the same with it? Maybe the site should regard the comments of both sides before allowing any comments to be made on the site at all

Dreamslie wrote:
Ok if that's the case about this been a public site how about the feelings of the families of every one involved obviously if I need to show some respect then surely every one on here should be the same with it? Maybe the site should regard the comments of both sides before allowing any comments to be made on the site at all

But your opinion on Burnell not needing any more time wasn't necessary-this is a article about Amy and by you carrying on backing Burnell you're being disrespectful. Leonard and Burnell don't deserve any respect-and even if they did, it doesn't need to be shown here. But as I've said already, you're entitled to your own opinion-I just don't feel this is the place where you should voice it. This site hasn't been put up purely for the comments, its been put up to inform the public of the ongoings surrounding the case.

Yeah but it is used for comments everyone has a say so be it. People just don't like the fact that not everyone Is so quick to jump at burnell if any one doesn't like my opinion don't read it. It is quite simple really. And as I said before I do feel for Amy's family for the loss it would just be good for everyone not to judge quite as quick

Dreamslie wrote:
Yeah but it is used for comments everyone has a say so be it. People just don't like the fact that not everyone Is so quick to jump at burnell if any one doesn't like my opinion don't read it. It is quite simple really. And as I said before I do feel for Amy's family for the loss it would just be good for everyone not to judge quite as quick

what do you want to not judge her so quickly on?! The woman lied for a year about even being near the area when the crash happened-so of course people are going to be quick to judge her. It's a public site so clearly people are going to read it. But you're obviously a person who doesn't care as you would have stopped commenting a long time ago. Good luck with continuing to back burnell-you'll be one of the few who will.

Well to be honest there are more people out there that agree with how the judge went with things they just don't want to post on here as they know that everyone else will just attempt to have a go at them. (which they are right about). I also do not care that people may not like what I am putting put it is at the end of the day an honest opinion one of which will not change untill it comes to light about why the sentences are so different. So unfortunately untill that moment in time I will continue to back the judge. Sorry

Dreamslie wrote:
Well to be honest there are more people out there that agree with how the judge went with things they just don't want to post on here as they know that everyone else will just attempt to have a go at them. (which they are right about). I also do not care that people may not like what I am putting put it is at the end of the day an honest opinion one of which will not change untill it comes to light about why the sentences are so different. So unfortunately untill that moment in time I will continue to back the judge. Sorry

'Well to be honest there are more people out there that agree with how the judge went with things' ....then you continue to believe that-but you have just proved to every single person reading this that you show no respect to Jane, Ben or the rest of their family as for the third time this is a page due to Jane being insulted at the sentence they both received. We get that you don't care if people don't agree with you-we've established that the majority doesn't. Now just leave it. Its ridiculous.

I will for now stop putting on here but will how ever continue to read so for now cheers been nice talking to you. Maybe we will get to chat in the future bye bye

Dreamslie wrote:
Well to be honest there are more people out there that agree with how the judge went with things they just don't want to post on here as they know that everyone else will just attempt to have a go at them. (which they are right about). I also do not care that people may not like what I am putting put it is at the end of the day an honest opinion one of which will not change untill it comes to light about why the sentences are so different. So unfortunately untill that moment in time I will continue to back the judge. Sorry

Must be why 95% of people voting on this topic want her sentence increased.

I have to say with the guy he showed his remorse and sorrow by having the courage to look jane right in the eye and say sorry. As for the girl well, having read the information of people that know her and her attitude to this no remorse, no apology nothing.
There are four innocent people Jane, her son, Amy and the baby through actions of two people that has caused so much pain but at least one to the persons realised and admitted from day one and admitted his part and has tried to say sorry to Jane, and I believe if he could swap places with Amy he would.
But as for the girl I have to say girl not woman, her attitude could be deniel but not an apology only lies, lies, lies and an innocent child that is about to be born what chance does this child have with the mother that really has only concieved to try and get out of this but it will, not succeed it has only prolonged the sentence that will be reamended when the time is right which will not be to far off. So Jane you will be back at court to see the Justice that deserves Amy life.

well i cant belive what iv just read on hear . this isent about what the silly woman drinks/smokes .it is all about amy and her family . well iv knowen nittie for over 4 years and at no time has he ever passed a driving test nor had insurance .he thinks he owns the dam road . and how did he write the letter as he cant read nor write so crap their . AND AMY WAS KILLED BY THEM BOTH . thay should both of got the max term in jail . and no matter what anyone thinks that leanne should of got the same as nitty and also should NOT BE ALLOWED TO KEEP HER BABY but i hope every time she looks at the babay she remembers what she did . this i dought will happen as she is not depressed nor is she finding it heard to cope with the death of amy and this is the only way she can deal with it , SHE IS THE NASTIEST COLDEST EVIL **** IV EVER HAD THE MISFOUTUNE TO MEET . shes planned this baby to reduce her time inside if this isent true where is the father to care for it while shes inside and the poor little mite will get showen the same coldness as amys mum and ben have been showen . LIFE SHOULD MEAN LIFE IF U TAKE A LIFE U DO LIFE . AS FOR NITTY NOW HOW DID HE WRITE A LETTER TO THE COURTS AS HE CANT EVEN WRITE HIS NAME . . I LIK E OUTHERS WILL FULLY SURPORT AMYS MUM IN THE QUEST TO GET HER PRISON TERM EXTENDED LEANNE U TOOK JANES CHILD FROM HER SO U SHOULD HAVE UR CHUILD TAKEN AWAY FROM U UR BOTH SCUM AND WILL NEVER CHANGE

love for amy wrote:
well i cant belive what iv just read on hear . this isent about what the silly woman drinks/smokes .it is all about amy and her family . well iv knowen nittie for over 4 years and at no time has he ever passed a driving test nor had insurance .he thinks he owns the dam road . and how did he write the letter as he cant read nor write so crap their . AND AMY WAS KILLED BY THEM BOTH . thay should both of got the max term in jail . and no matter what anyone thinks that leanne should of got the same as nitty and also should NOT BE ALLOWED TO KEEP HER BABY but i hope every time she looks at the babay she remembers what she did . this i dought will happen as she is not depressed nor is she finding it heard to cope with the death of amy and this is the only way she can deal with it , SHE IS THE NASTIEST COLDEST EVIL **** IV EVER HAD THE MISFOUTUNE TO MEET . shes planned this baby to reduce her time inside if this isent true where is the father to care for it while shes inside and the poor little mite will get showen the same coldness as amys mum and ben have been showen . LIFE SHOULD MEAN LIFE IF U TAKE A LIFE U DO LIFE . AS FOR NITTY NOW HOW DID HE WRITE A LETTER TO THE COURTS AS HE CANT EVEN WRITE HIS NAME . . I LIK E OUTHERS WILL FULLY SURPORT AMYS MUM IN THE QUEST TO GET HER PRISON TERM EXTENDED LEANNE U TOOK JANES CHILD FROM HER SO U SHOULD HAVE UR CHUILD TAKEN AWAY FROM U UR BOTH SCUM AND WILL NEVER CHANGE

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't nitty the one that took the girls life he was after all the one who hit her?

Dreamslie, I'm afraid you've missed the point completely. Leanne Burnell was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. It does not matter that she did not physically hit Amy. The point is this: a jury was convinced that Leanne played a part in Amy's death that amounted to causing her death by driving dangerously. In other words, had it not been for Leanne Burnell, this tragedy would not have happened. The jury unanimously (that means all 12 of them) found Leanne guilty of causing Amy's death by dangerous driving. The judge in this case determined that Leanne Burnell was guilty of this offence at level 2 (driving that creates a substantial risk of danger), whilst Leonard Jones was guilty of the same offence, but at level 1 (the most serious offence encompassing driving that involved a deliberate decision to ignore, or a flagrant disregard for, the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others). Level 2 carries a sentencing range of 4-7 years imprisonment. Now, in this case, the judge sentenced Leanne Burnell to 18 months in prison, which is below the minimum sentencing guidelines for this offence. This is what the bottom line is - this is what the appeal is about. Therefore, it is perfectly resonable for the community to demand a higher sentence for Burnell. Do you require any further clarification or can you now understand the nature of this debate?

OpenMindFreeVoice wrote:
Dreamslie, I'm afraid you've missed the point completely. Leanne Burnell was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. It does not matter that she did not physically hit Amy. The point is this: a jury was convinced that Leanne played a part in Amy's death that amounted to causing her death by driving dangerously. In other words, had it not been for Leanne Burnell, this tragedy would not have happened. The jury unanimously (that means all 12 of them) found Leanne guilty of causing Amy's death by dangerous driving. The judge in this case determined that Leanne Burnell was guilty of this offence at level 2 (driving that creates a substantial risk of danger), whilst Leonard Jones was guilty of the same offence, but at level 1 (the most serious offence encompassing driving that involved a deliberate decision to ignore, or a flagrant disregard for, the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others). Level 2 carries a sentencing range of 4-7 years imprisonment. Now, in this case, the judge sentenced Leanne Burnell to 18 months in prison, which is below the minimum sentencing guidelines for this offence. This is what the bottom line is - this is what the appeal is about. Therefore, it is perfectly resonable for the community to demand a higher sentence for Burnell. Do you require any further clarification or can you now understand the nature of this debate?

I understood the debate all the way through. But it is at the end of the day also not up to the community and to the judge if he thought this was the correct sentence than that is up to him is it not?

Yes, it is up to the judge, but on this occasion it appears that he has made a bad judgement - a judgement which is outside of the rules. That is what the appeal process is there for - to review the decision and change it if necessary. Nobody is perfect, including judges. You may consider that he is right in his judgement, although I am unsure as to your reasoning. My personal belief is that he has made a mistake on this occasion and most readers of this article feel the same way.

Dreamslie wrote:

love for amy wrote:
well i cant belive what iv just read on hear . this isent about what the silly woman drinks/smokes .it is all about amy and her family . well iv knowen nittie for over 4 years and at no time has he ever passed a driving test nor had insurance .he thinks he owns the dam road . and how did he write the letter as he cant read nor write so crap their . AND AMY WAS KILLED BY THEM BOTH . thay should both of got the max term in jail . and no matter what anyone thinks that leanne should of got the same as nitty and also should NOT BE ALLOWED TO KEEP HER BABY but i hope every time she looks at the babay she remembers what she did . this i dought will happen as she is not depressed nor is she finding it heard to cope with the death of amy and this is the only way she can deal with it , SHE IS THE NASTIEST COLDEST EVIL **** IV EVER HAD THE MISFOUTUNE TO MEET . shes planned this baby to reduce her time inside if this isent true where is the father to care for it while shes inside and the poor little mite will get showen the same coldness as amys mum and ben have been showen . LIFE SHOULD MEAN LIFE IF U TAKE A LIFE U DO LIFE . AS FOR NITTY NOW HOW DID HE WRITE A LETTER TO THE COURTS AS HE CANT EVEN WRITE HIS NAME . . I LIK E OUTHERS WILL FULLY SURPORT AMYS MUM IN THE QUEST TO GET HER PRISON TERM EXTENDED LEANNE U TOOK JANES CHILD FROM HER SO U SHOULD HAVE UR CHUILD TAKEN AWAY FROM U UR BOTH SCUM AND WILL NEVER CHANGE

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't nitty the one that took the girls life he was after all the one who hit her?

If leanne was innoccent why did she lie to the police and all through her rial.

Because she was racing/ paying with nitty and it was overtaking her at 80 when she was doing around 65mph that caused the accident.

So it wasn't the fact he lost control and crashed his car that caused the accident?

Would he have crashed his car in such a manner if he wasn't racing? No, he wouldn't. Jesus, wipe the crap from your eyes and, as has been previously suggested, show some respect.

I think the time has come to ignore Dreamslie as whoever they are they are definitely on another planet from the rest of us and seems intent on winding everyone up with constant ill thought out drivel.

Dreamslie wrote:
So it wasn't the fact he lost control and crashed his car that caused the accident?

Is Leanne planning on appealing her conviction?

Yes that's right she has been convicted of causing the death of Amy with jones so your rediculous debate is 13 months to late.

This thread is to discuss whether or not the sentencing is correct. More importantly there are questions whether the judge applied the criteria to Leanne's sentence. In my mind she should of got at least 4 years not 18 months.

I haven't seen 'creecher' on this item, which is very unusual. 'creecher' is mostly antagonistic, sometimes the devil's advocate, maybe away from his desk or is 'dreamslie' in disguise. 'dreamslie', whilst obviously defending the indefensible, does appear to write in English - a talent cronies of the defendants would unlikely possess.
I do hope Amy's family can get the sentences increased without too much further distress. The remainder of us need to be protected from this scum. One only has to briefly wander around this lovely town centre, to observe too many of these mindless creatures and their unfortunate offspring. How depressing. The sun seems to bring out the worst examples, 'commonly' with expensive tattoos and piercings - presumably with the rest of us picking up the 'tab' (puns intended)
What have we done to engender this new feral under species
By the way I can't believe that 'love for amy' is anything other than a sham. If you ignore the spelling and the grammer, scan reading encourages me to believe the writer is more edicated than at first glance.
The whole essence of this report is quite simple - the defendants have been found guilty of these crimes but the judge has been found lacking. Appeals by Amy's family, by all reasonable argument, must succeed
RIP Amy

I cannot believe the lack of respect some of you people are showing! Everyone is entitled to their opinion but broadcasting it to people who are clearly grieving is just disgusting. What is this world coming to?

Anonone wrote:
I haven't seen 'creecher' on this item, which is very unusual. 'creecher' is mostly antagonistic, sometimes the devil's advocate, maybe away from his desk or is 'dreamslie' in disguise. 'dreamslie', whilst obviously defending the indefensible, does appear to write in English - a talent cronies of the defendants would unlikely possess.
I do hope Amy's family can get the sentences increased without too much further distress. The remainder of us need to be protected from this scum. One only has to briefly wander around this lovely town centre, to observe too many of these mindless creatures and their unfortunate offspring. How depressing. The sun seems to bring out the worst examples, 'commonly' with expensive tattoos and piercings - presumably with the rest of us picking up the 'tab' (puns intended)
What have we done to engender this new feral under species
By the way I can't believe that 'love for amy' is anything other than a sham. If you ignore the spelling and the grammer, scan reading encourages me to believe the writer is more edicated than at first glance.
The whole essence of this report is quite simple - the defendants have been found guilty of these crimes but the judge has been found lacking. Appeals by Amy's family, by all reasonable argument, must succeed
RIP Amy

You do sound rather antagonistic yourself.

Yes, you've got me there.
I do think a judge should be able to deny many accused their 'human' rights when they behave like feral animals
It just makes my blood boil to read of so many families broken apart so callously.

I think it is such a poor example to all the children who knew Amy and went to school with her, admittedly the guy driving the car but he was playing chase with Leanne Burnell instigated by her and she has almost got away with it and how convenient it is now that she is pregnant, she should get the same as the guy got which was 7 years for killing Amy he had other charges and got more sentences, but for the death of Amy he got 7 years so the woman should get the same the message being sent out is YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH IT this is the message being sent out children at school who still miss Amy see that is that weell Leanne got aay with it so what, this is the problem with society the message is that I can get away with it the judge should be aware of the message he is sending out