"Uninsured learner driver who killed schoolgirl walks free from court
with £265 fine

A grieving mother yesterday condemned an uninsured driver who was
handed a £265 fine for causing a crash which resulted in the death of
her daughter.

Samuel Clements, 19, illegally drove his Renault 19 two days after
buying it, but the vehicle was unroadworthy.

As he sped along a busy dual carriageway, he lost control of the car
and rolled it along an embankment, coming to rest upside down. His
passenger Sarah Gaecke, 15, was stumbling out of the wreckage when she
was struck and killed by another car.

'He has ended my daughter's life and got nothing: Vici Gaecke, and
her daughter Sarah, who was a passenger in Samuel Clements' car

Despite previous convictions for driving without insurance and without
a licence,
Clements walked free.

He was fined £25 for driving without a licence, £40 for having a
defective tyre and £200 for having no insurance..."

More:

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 06:49:46 +0100, Doug wrote
(in article
<30bec97c-2530-4739-adc3-d401e69cec2b@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>):

Doug wrote:

He didn't kill her though, did he Doug.

On 1 Aug, 07:27, Abo wrote:

He caused her to be killed. Or are you blaming instead the other
killer motorist who actually struck her? Maybe both drivers are to
blame and should have received appropriate punishment, instead of
being allowed to get away with taking a life, as is often the case on
our roads.

Doug riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

That line of logic seems to be favoured by you when quad bikes
are involved.

Quite why you seem to think that _any_body here will do anything other
than condemn the twat who was driving without insurance, without a
licence and in an unroadworthy car, I don't know.

But - and this is a fairly important point - he _didn't_ kill her. She
got out of his car, without any major injury (or even any mention of any
minor injury), then was hit by another car.

Quite why that other car was going past an upturned car with people
wandering round the road is another question, of course...

Doug wrote:

Maybe I am.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:49:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug riseup.net>
wrote:

Really? In what respect, and where did he buy it from.

Was it proved he was speeding? If so how?

Something a bit missing there like Lugless's dribblesome willy.

"Derek Geldard" miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c596949ed3p13gu3c49khanhjjkbjhjrkp@4ax.com...

Well it had a defective tyre - this was one of the charges on which he was
convicted. That makes it unroadworthy.

She was only an accessory if she knew that Clements was committing the
offences. When you get a lift from someone, do you inspect the car for
roadworthiness and check that the car is insured and the driver has a
licence? She may have known - but then again she may not.

In article <30bec97c-2530-4739-adc3-
d401e69cec2b@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 16:26:38 +0100, "Mortimer" privacy.net> wrote:

More detail is indicated.

In what respect was the tyre defective that made the vehicle
unroadworthy? It would be interesting to know if it had any bearing on
the first accident. This is the impression the Lugless one appears to
be trying to give.