Doing a McCann - Drunk mum spared jail for leaving boy at home as she was 'not as bad as the McCanns'

Madeleine McCann case used as reason not to jail over-the-limit crash mum who'd left five-year-old home alone


Posted: January 13, 2014


A MUM left her five-year-old son who had Asperger’s Syndrome home alone at night - but was caught after a road rage row with another driver.
The professional woman was over the limit when she went out for a drive leaving her little boy asleep on the settee.
She crashed into a car at traffic lights - and when police went to her home they found the "vulnerable" little boy all alone.
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, admitted child neglect and was facing a jail term.
But her lawyer pleaded for her freedom - because Kate and Gerry McCann were never prosecuted for leaving daughter Madeleine alone in their holiday apartment.
A court heard the mother had been drinking heavily when she drove to a supermarket cashpoint shortly before midnight.
On the way back she smashed into the rear of a car being driven by swimming coach Bronnie-May Dunn, 21, who had stopped at a red traffic light.
Miss Dunn suffered head injuries in the crash but the drunken mum shouted at her: "That was your f***ing fault."
The airbags on the woman's Ford Mondeo were inflated but she sped off, leaving Miss Dunn injured in her car.
Police followed the woman home to arrest her but she told them: "I can’t be arrested, my son is in the house and he’s only five."
Prosecutor Stephen Head said: "Sure enough, when police went into the house they found the five-year-old boy asleep under a blanket on the settee.
"She told police she had driven to the cashpoint to get money to buy herself a takeaway meal and had left the little boy with her niece.
"But her niece was not in the house and her son, who has Asperger’s syndrome, was all alone."
Magistrates at Merthyr Tydfil heard the woman, who was held in high regard by her employer, was more than two-and-a-half times the drink drive limit.
Mr Head told the court: "She told police she left the scene of the accident because she wanted to get back to her son."
Probation officer Graham Craig said the little boy, an only child, was "extremely vulnerable" because of his Asperger’s Syndrome.
Mr Craig said: "His mother accepts full responsibility and knows that a potentially catastrophic situation could have developed at home while she was out.
"She accepts making a series of poor decisions and that alcohol was a factor."
Gareth Morgan, defending, asked the magistrates not to impose a custodial sentence saying the woman had not touched a drop of alcohol since the night she left her son alone last October 30.
He said: "The parents of Madeleine McCann were guilty of child neglect for leaving their little girl much longer than my client.

"They were never prosecuted for it.
"The mother in this case is ashamed and remorseful at putting her young child at risk in the way she did."
The woman, who can not be identified for legal reasons, admitted child neglect, drink driving and leaving the scene of an accident.
She was given a 12-month supervision order, ordered to carry out 120 hours unpaid work and told to attend 15 sessions on a thinking skills course.
She was also banned from driving for 22 months.
The court heard she had been suspended from the her job and was expecting to be dismissed at a disciplinary hearing after 14 year’s employment.
The crash victim, Miss Dunn, suffered a head injury and whiplash when the woman hit her at traffic lights.
Miss Dunn said after the case: "I couldn't believe it when she hit me from behind then drove off with her air bags inflated.
"I was off work for a while with head injuries but I think the most important person in all this is her little boy.
"The road accident led to the authorities discovering she had left her vulnerable five-year-old boy alone at night."









http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/limit-crash-mum-left-year-old-home/story-20436401-detail/story.html

Only 3 comments on this article so far, here is one of them.......


***? Are the courts so stupid that they believe this nonsense? Obviously. Nothing like the McCanns, who were a short distance away dining with friends and checking on their children, not driving round the streets more than twice over the driving limit. Suckers



http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/limit-crash-mum-left-year-old-home/story-20436401-detail/story.html

I don't, under any circumstances, ever, at all, even for a moment, think that leaving a child alone is acceptable.
However, I am glad that someone has taken the obvious route and used the McCs as a precedent.
Perhaps this might re-set the social focus.
This is the true pandora's box bursting open and it was only a matter of time.
The authorities have done their utmost to keep the McCs out of court, the media have pandered to their crime of neglect, (as it would be, if applied to any other living mortal leaving their child alone), and excused and comforted the poor McCs who are already suffering enough having actually 'lost' their child, under perhaps even 'terrible' circumstances, if the paedophiles have had their hands on her.
And the floodgates have been opened too now.
How can any court in the UK now deny a neglecting parent the same clearing of guilt ?
Now, and finally only now, will the authorities actually start facing up to the can of worms that they have released and start behaving in the socially responsible manner that the electorate expects of them and take the McCs to task on this matter ?
If not, then every case of neglect (new, or even historical) will be justifiably eligible to be placed alongside the McCs example, and thousands of parents (single or pairs) who have long resisted going out for a binge session, will see this new state of freedom as a legitimate relief from their former social and moral constraints with regards to their responsibility to 'not neglect a child'.
Now is the time for children to start fearing.
The McCs left a child alone but that wasn't deemed 'neglect'.
So it follows that leaving a child alone no longer has a definition in the word 'neglect'.
In short, after this, the McCs will now have obliterated the very 'notion of neglect'.
Well done McCs and all your fellow neglectors and of course the authorities who have helped them so assiduously.

[quote="candyfloss"]Only 3 comments on this article so far, here is one of them.......


***? Are the courts so stupid that they believe this nonsense? Obviously. Nothing like the McCanns, who were a short distance away dining with friends and checking on their children, not driving round the streets more than twice over the driving limit. Suckers



http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/limit-crash-mum-left-year-old-home/story-20436401-detail/story.html[/quote

==============

Just like being in their back garden really,

I wonder if this will make the bigger news sites as I can see there may be a few interesting comments made....  wonder if any newsies will approach the McCanns for their take on the story. That could be lively.

paradigm67 wrote:I wonder if this will make the bigger news sites as I can see there may be a few interesting comments made....  wonder if any newsies will approach the McCanns for their take on the story. That could be lively.

ooo eeeerrrrrr.  Maybe one of the Nationals will pick up on it but prob not.  Well the solicitor can't be sued by them can he?  Said in defence of his client and I would hazard a guess he was sure of the law on leaving children alone before he used this defence.

sallypelt wrote:Madeleine McCann case used as reason not to jail over-the-limit crash mum who'd left five-year-old home alone


Posted: January 13, 2014


A MUM left her five-year-old son who had Asperger’s Syndrome home alone at night - but was caught after a road rage row with another driver.
The professional woman was over the limit when she went out for a drive leaving her little boy asleep on the settee.
She crashed into a car at traffic lights - and when police went to her home they found the "vulnerable" little boy all alone.
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, admitted child neglect and was facing a jail term.
But her lawyer pleaded for her freedom - because Kate and Gerry McCann were never prosecuted for leaving daughter Madeleine alone in their holiday apartment.
A court heard the mother had been drinking heavily when she drove to a supermarket cashpoint shortly before midnight.
On the way back she smashed into the rear of a car being driven by swimming coach Bronnie-May Dunn, 21, who had stopped at a red traffic light.
Miss Dunn suffered head injuries in the crash but the drunken mum shouted at her: "That was your f***ing fault."
The airbags on the woman's Ford Mondeo were inflated but she sped off, leaving Miss Dunn injured in her car.
Police followed the woman home to arrest her but she told them: "I can’t be arrested, my son is in the house and he’s only five."
Prosecutor Stephen Head said: "Sure enough, when police went into the house they found the five-year-old boy asleep under a blanket on the settee.
"She told police she had driven to the cashpoint to get money to buy herself a takeaway meal and had left the little boy with her niece.
"But her niece was not in the house and her son, who has Asperger’s syndrome, was all alone."
Magistrates at Merthyr Tydfil heard the woman, who was held in high regard by her employer, was more than two-and-a-half times the drink drive limit.
Mr Head told the court: "She told police she left the scene of the accident because she wanted to get back to her son."
Probation officer Graham Craig said the little boy, an only child, was "extremely vulnerable" because of his Asperger’s Syndrome.
Mr Craig said: "His mother accepts full responsibility and knows that a potentially catastrophic situation could have developed at home while she was out.
"She accepts making a series of poor decisions and that alcohol was a factor."
Gareth Morgan, defending, asked the magistrates not to impose a custodial sentence saying the woman had not touched a drop of alcohol since the night she left her son alone last October 30.
He said: "The parents of Madeleine McCann were guilty of child neglect for leaving their little girl much longer than my client.

"They were never prosecuted for it.
"The mother in this case is ashamed and remorseful at putting her young child at risk in the way she did."
The woman, who can not be identified for legal reasons, admitted child neglect, drink driving and leaving the scene of an accident.
She was given a 12-month supervision order, ordered to carry out 120 hours unpaid work and told to attend 15 sessions on a thinking skills course.
She was also banned from driving for 22 months.
The court heard she had been suspended from the her job and was expecting to be dismissed at a disciplinary hearing after 14 year’s employment.
The crash victim, Miss Dunn, suffered a head injury and whiplash when the woman hit her at traffic lights.
Miss Dunn said after the case: "I couldn't believe it when she hit me from behind then drove off with her air bags inflated.
"I was off work for a while with head injuries but I think the most important person in all this is her little boy.
"The road accident led to the authorities discovering she had left her vulnerable five-year-old boy alone at night."









http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/limit-crash-mum-left-year-old-home/story-20436401-detail/story.html

She should think herself lucky that there was not a team of burglars operating in her area at the time

plebgate wrote:

paradigm67 wrote:I wonder if this will make the bigger news sites as I can see there may be a few interesting comments made....  wonder if any newsies will approach the McCanns for their take on the story. That could be lively.

ooo eeeerrrrrr.  Maybe one of the Nationals will pick up on it but prob not.  Well the solicitor can't be sued by them can he?  Said in defence of his client and I would hazard a guess he was sure of the law on leaving children alone before he used this defence.

That's an interesting premise to be honest. The McCanns have never had to answer for any neglect charges and so the solicitors comments I assume could be seen as libellous. However, no matter how much the McCann team like slapping people with lawsuits in defence of their 'reputation' I doubt very much whether they will act on this one as it will reraise all those questions they have never had to answer to.  The solicitor in question is a genius - hes managed to say what everyone has thought for years and I believe there will be no comeback from it. I bet they are squirming away nicely at that.

This could be a very important watershed. A very dangerous precedent could be set. How will the powers-that-be react?

I genuinely don't believe that this is the first case comparable with the McCann's. I just think that, over the last 7 years, the media have been too scared to print these stories without fear of legal action. It appears that they are no longer scared   

If it is the same story it is on the front page of Mirror.............

[quote="paradigm67"][quote="plebgate"][quote="paradigm67"]I wonder if this will make the bigger news sites as I can see there may be a few interesting comments made....  wonder if any newsies will approach the McCanns for their take on the story. That could be lively.[/quote]
ooo eeeerrrrrr.  Maybe one of the Nationals will pick up on it but prob not.  Well the solicitor can't be sued by them can he?  Said in defence of his client and I would hazard a guess he was sure of the law on leaving children alone before he used this defence.[/quote]

That's an interesting premise to be honest. The McCanns have never had to answer for any neglect charges and so the solicitors comments I assume could be seen as libellous. However, no matter how much the McCann team like slapping people with lawsuits in defence of their 'reputation' I doubt very much whether they act on this one as it will reraise all those questions they have never had to answer to.  The solicitor in question is a genius - hes managed to say what everyone has thought for years and I believe there will be no comeback from it. I bet they are squirming away nicely at that.[/quote]

Lawyers in court can't be sued for defamation for statements made during court proceedings, quite rightly. So the is no chance of comeback. The same applies to parliamentarians in the Commons or Lords. On occasion this immunity has been used to great effect.

Oooh! Is it starting??

Also being debated here: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3783-the-mccanns-have-to-be-guilty-of-child-neglect#81814

ulyssesoh wrote:

plebgate wrote:

Lawyers in court can't be sued for defamation for statements made during court proceedings, quite rightly. So the is no chance of comeback. The same applies to parliamentarians in the Commons or Lords. On occasion this immunity has been used to great effect.

Cheers, didn't know that. Don't want to detract from the thread topic but how would that work then as a point for defence. The lawyer uses that as a defence even though it is not 'factually' correct as a point of law. They have never been found guilty of neglect/actually accused of neglect officially. If that's the case I wouldn't have thought it could be used in mitigation for a party actually charged and in court for that offence. I would have thought it would have been dismissed.

wow, that is great to see. something's afoot..

Not great seeing yet another irresponsible parent though.

paradigm67 wrote:< snip >
Cheers, didn't know that. Don't want to detract from the thread topic but how would that work then as a point for defence. The lawyer uses that as a defence even though it is not 'factually' correct as a point of law. They have never been found guilty of neglect/actually accused of neglect officially. If that's the case I wouldn't have thought it could be used in mitigation for a party actually charged and in court for that offence. I would have thought it would have been dismissed.

When submitting reasons to persuade the Court to take a lenient view when sentencing, any such plea in mitigation is limited only to the imaginations of the defence counsel and their client(s). 

I have no doubt that should the perpetrators of the heinous crimes against Madeleine McCann be convicted of their offences, any pleas in mitigation will far exceed the creative abilities of even the most inventive of novelists.   

My heart goes out to the twins. Imagine reading that in the local shop. I hope someone is looking out for them as this nasty business unravels. They must be two very confused little kids, having been told the truth is all in the bewk.

they never left the children home alone.

Each night at least one adult was missing from the table due to an alleged sicknes ( how convenient it only affected one adult a day)

Gerry himself told us they weren't left alone when he referred to one of the other... twins.
( he was going to say children but stopped himself in the process of free editing knowing the first question to be asked would be what other children and where were they all sleeping.

The only way they could claim abduction was going down the home alone. neglect route.

if the children were all being watched by an adult, there could never have been an abduction since any predator looking in would have seen the adult.

They aren't going to take on an adult and risk arrest, injury or both,

Without the neglect 'admission' there could never have been an abduction.

No abduction and a missing child means a lot of awkward questions, especially after the cadaver and blood dogs reacted.

Neglect could be plea bargained down and they would likely keep their licences although restrictions and clauses would probably apply.

Murder can be hard to plea bargain down, especially if her remains are found and evidence showed old injuries , long term sedation etc,

Depending on the manner of death they could possibly plea deal down to 2nd degree or manslaughter and in kate's case plead diminished responsibility and spend tieme in a hospital.
In this case they would lose their licences, do time either in jail or hospital.
They would also face a raft of other claims relating to the fund, obtaining money by deception, wire fraud, concealing a corpse, filing a false police report, obstruction of justice, perverting the course of justice, slander and linel  all from different countries, basically anyone who dontated money, also they could face claims from anyone who was identified as a suspect either directly or by implication, all the families who suffered press intrusion etc because their child looked like Maddie, including a little boy.
They could , in fact probably, face  lawsuits from the media who paid them for stories directly or indirectly, who paid com-pen-say-shun when faced with lawsuits from the mccanns via carter *uck.

This could also result in suits from all those gagged or prevented from discussing the case such as Dr. Amaral, Pat Brown and Tony Bennet.
Demands to pay back money they got from unleashing the lawyers.

Not only would they be jobless, probably unemployable even as a shelf stacker in tesco's at night or  in McD's.
Who would want to work with them or be served by them?
They would lose their home, their children would either go to a family member, although given the behavior of the families, they could still be at risk so taken into care and fostered out would be more likely along with a no contact stipulation given kates theres to end it and they would all be togeather.
They lose their medical licences forever, they are shunned by the social circles they aspired to as well as currently, they lose their friends and all those who had positions of power or money suddenly become unavailable when they call.

They lose everything, all those years spent studying are now wasted, they are overqualified to apply a bandaid to a  grazed knee. they become social pariah;s, which given gerry's ego would be a huge blow,

This really is an all or nothing last throw of the dice.

What they don't understand or refuse to accept is once a crime is done, it cannot be undone.

it can be days, weeks, months, even years, decades or centuries, it will be solved. as we have seen with jimmy saville and cyril smith.

What you have done is not only affecting the twins and will do for the rest of their lives, it not only affects your families and friends, your neighbors etc, it will also impact on your future generations.

Lying only delays justice for a while, it doesn't stop it.
cases if not solved are not put in the trashcan to be forgotten about, thhey get pulled out and checked again for new clues, to examine forensic evidence even more closely thanks to advances in science and technolgy.

Who know, perhaps time travel could be invented and LE could go back to before the crime was commited and watch what happens and who did what ( they couldn't prevent it). Not currently possible but who knows what the future holds.

Right now, you haven't been charged because as the PJ put it, they don't know what crimes were committed.
They can't charge you with neglect if an adult was babysitting them every night.
They will face charges as will the tapas 7 once they ecide what crimes were commited.

Everyone knows Maddie is long dead, you even told us kate and gerry.

it is a case of when you will be arrested and charged not if.

The difference between the 2 cases is that the 5yr old boy did not get harmed.

Oh, I forgot, according to the pathetic parents there is no proof Madeleine did get harmed in any way.

The McCanns would not be drawn on Mr Morgan’s claim last night. Spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “We will not comment on details in a court case.”
===========================================================

But he CAN comment on this court case which implies his paymasters were negligent!

Sentence has been passed and is on public record.

Therefore anyone can comment!

Very, very surprised Mitchell isn't defending his paymasters non-neglect to the hilt!

Something to 'hide' perhaps?

Certainly seems to have hit a nerve what with Mitchell saying 'we will not comment....' and then does exactly that!

No MCCANN NEGLECT = NO ABDUCTION.

Sir Sugar is not amused. There are many a more profitable ways in which the McCs could have dealt with this scandal.
You're fired!

Jeez, void.  That's not what I need to see before bedtime. 

Isn't it enough that forum members are constantly exposed to mugshots of K&G and their pink poodle to say nothing of Uncle John, Auntie Phil,  2 grannies, 2 Brian Kennedys, and all of the other pondlife which inhabits this particular swamp?