Woman jailed for using a mobile minutes before a fatal crash

[SK425]

Durzel said:

He made a statement that demonstrated he believed on the balance of probabilities and the evidence presented that that's what she was doing.

I guess that might be it. To be fair, we're not talking about a 'beyond reasonable doubt' level of proof because guilt vs innocence isn't the question here - she admitted the offence anyway. But nonetheless, it would seem a bit weird for a judge to just spout forth some stuff because they reckon it might be true. I hope it's not normal behaviour for a judge to say something like "you were fiddling with your phone and that's what caused the collision" unless it's been established that fiddling with the phone is what caused the collision.

[98elise]

Prawnboy said:

when you have been nicked for using phones twice before and you were using one 6 minutes previous to the accident it's a very good chance phones are the cause.

Thats the link I don't see. Its a bit like saying you have points for speeding, therefore you can be done for speeding when there is no evidence that you have been.

The evidence shows she used her phone 6 minutes before. How is it then a factor in the accident? The law works on what can be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not what that she probably was or was not doing.

[tenpenceshort]

If the woman cannot provide a plausible explanation for why she failed to notice the stationary car in front of here, then you have a prima facie case of careless driving.

If you delve deeper, in the absence of the woman's own explanation, and look for independent evidence, you can draw certain inferences.

The phone records show she was using two different phones whilst driving, only a handful of minutes before the accident. She had relatively recent convictions for using her phone whilst driving. What does the witness evidence from other drivers say (we don't know, as it isn't fully reported in the BBC article)?

I think it's a reasonable inference to draw that, in the absence of the driver putting forward any plausible explanation, with evidence from the phones and previous convictions, and the guilty plea, that the phones were the most likely cause of the inattention.

[HoHoHo]

I had the misfortune to have a certain Katie Price behind me not too long ago and guess what.........she was talking on her phone whilst driving.

However, she had at that time only just got her license back having been banned for........

Using her mobile phone whilst driving

At a suitable time when at a roundabout I took a picture of her still on her phone for prosperity and went on my way. 5 minutes later whilst I was driving along the A24 at the legal limit she whizzed past my in her famous pink RR at (I would guess 100+) with her phone glued to her ear still.

The problem is that this behaviour is OK until it goes wrong. If we're honest we've probably all used our phones at some time or another whilst driving and some on PH probably still do but hopefully the majority now understand the importance of driving and concentrating on doing just that rather than making a call at the same time.

I find (in general) school run mums are incapable of driving without having a phone glued to their ear.....must be organising their coffee mornings I guess

[SK425]

tenpenceshort said:

I think it's a reasonable inference to draw that, in the absence of the driver putting forward any plausible explanation, with evidence from the phones and previous convictions, and the guilty plea, that the phones were the most likely cause of the inattention.

I'd agree that's a reasonable inference. It's not proof beyond reasonable doubt (although that, in the guilt vs innocence sense, is not the issue here). And reasonable though the inference is, alone it is not enough to support the judge's statement as quoted in the BBC link. Of course, we don't know what else the judge had to support that statement, nor whether the BBC brutally ripped that quote out of some rather important and clarifying context.

[SK425]

HoHoHo said:

The problem is that this behaviour is OK until it goes wrong.

Any distraction is OK until it goes wrong. There's nothing special about phones.

[tenpenceshort]

SK425 said:

I'd agree that's a reasonable inference. It's not proof beyond reasonable doubt (although that, in the guilt vs innocence sense, is not the issue here). And reasonable though the inference is, alone it is not enough to support the judge's statement as quoted in the BBC link. Of course, we don't know what else the judge had to support that statement, nor whether the BBC brutally ripped that quote out of some rather important and clarifying context.

Innocence or guilt is not an issue; she pleaded guilty to the offence.

To find facts you don't have to prove each one beyond reasonable doubt. The judge was likely convinced it is more likely than not the phones were the cause of the inattention (balance of probabilities).

[SK425]

tenpenceshort said:

To find facts you don't have to prove each one beyond reasonable doubt. The judge was likely convinced it is more likely than not the phones were the cause of the inattention (balance of probabilities).

That takes us back to there being something important missing from the BBC report. Either the judge was only convinced that it was more likely than not, in which case there's presumably some context missing from the BBC's quote (something like, "It is likely that..." at the beginning) or there was something more substantial than just the reasonable inference you described that led the judge to the conclusion quoted.

[HoHoHo]

SK425 said:

HoHoHo said:

The problem is that this behaviour is OK until it goes wrong.

Any distraction is OK until it goes wrong. There's nothing special about phones.

I agree but was specifically referring to phones as this is the point of this story.

[tenpenceshort]

When it comes down to it, in pleading guilty, without a Newton Hearing to dispute any of it, the defendant accepted the prosecution's case, including the allegation that being distracted by the phone was the cause of the inattention. As far as I'm aware that entitles the judge to treat it as fact.

[longshot]

SK425 said:

HoHoHo said:

The problem is that this behaviour is OK until it goes wrong.

Any distraction is OK until it goes wrong. There's nothing special about phones.

Car manufacturers are putting more and more stuff into cars to distract you from looking out of the window.

It does make you wonder how much distraction is acceptable and how much is too much?

I remember years ago a transport minister saying that he didn't allow music in his car so it couldn't distract him.
I remember thinking that it was ridiculous but maybe he had a point particularly if you know someone killed because soemone was buried in his media centre.

Makes you think that for some, driverless cars can't come soon enough.

[TooMany2cvs]

surveyor said:

It strikes me as odd that presumably the Police could not prove that the accident was caused by her being on the phone, but yet it was specifically mentioned.

What do the Police need to "prove" (beyond reasonable doubt) in this case? Nothing. They didn't even give any evidence. Nobody did - since she pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving...

Sure, maybe the judge took the mobile phone use shortly before the collision - in conjunction with her several previous convictions for mobile use whilst driving - into account in the sentencing, but that doesn't need to be proved BRD. So long as he can justify his sentencing WRT the guidelines to any appeal, that's all that's needed there.

[sherbertdip]

I'll wager she isn't as stupid as she appears for being caught previously.

She could well have been caught previously by comparing the time of her usage on the phone to the time plod caught her, and subsequently set the time on her phone fast so that she could argue the next time she was caught that her phone said she wasn't using it at that time. Obviously she couldn't set it slow as she would then be a time traveller.

It's all a matter of relativity!

[HertsBiker]

What if she was parked when using the phone, them drove off? Judge sounds very biased due to past convictions.

[Mill Wheel]

tenpenceshort said:

When it comes down to it, in pleading guilty, without a Newton Hearing to dispute any of it, the defendant accepted the prosecution's case, including the allegation that being distracted by the phone was the cause of the inattention. As far as I'm aware that entitles the judge to treat it as fact.

^^^ THIS ^^^
Which is why I found the mitigation comment puzzling.

longshot said:

Car manufacturers are putting more and more stuff into cars to distract you from looking out of the window.

It does make you wonder how much distraction is acceptable and how much is too much?
<<SNIP>>
Makes you think that for some, driverless cars can't come soon enough.

There are going to be some who turn to look the first time they see a driverless car, and have an accident as a result... it IS going to be difficult not to once drivers become aware of what the model of car is badged with.

[Derek Smith]

hora said:

Why the concern for the 8yr old? Surely a young Graduate has died. Shouldnt we be more concerned for his families loss?

I see idiot women texting or typing every day driving past me on my bicycle. It now feels like a game of Russian Roulette cycling.

The child is an innocent party. The deceased is beyond further harm. We should also be concerned about the bereaved relatives and loved ones of course.

Every action has consequences. A criminal action not only hurts the victim but the ripples spread wide. I know a chap, lovely bloke, whose daughter was murdered and he eventually hanged himself.

[speedking31]

Initially the car will have a driver, just he won't be controlling it, but he must be prepared to take over at a moments notice.

Imagine how difficult it will be for the police to spot people using their mobile while driving when it will be quite legal to sit in a driverless car, in the driver's seat, eating, texting, looking at the map etc. particularly as it may or may not be in driverless mode.

[tenpenceshort]

speedking31 said:

Initially the car will have a driver, just he won't be controlling it, but he must be prepared to take over at a moments notice.

Imagine how difficult it will be for the police to spot people using their mobile while driving when it will be quite legal to sit in a driverless car, in the driver's seat, eating, texting, looking at the map etc.

We're going off at a serious tangent here, but there's an interesting discussion to be had over the criminal responsibility (if any) when cars on auto-pilot are responsible for serious injuries and deaths on the road.

In theory there could be an increasing number of instances where no individual can be held criminally accountable for a death.

Will society accept this situation? I'm not so sure it will, as there is a natural demand for retribution of some sort in respect of such deaths.

[SK425]

tenpenceshort said:

When it comes down to it, in pleading guilty, without a Newton Hearing to dispute any of it, the defendant accepted the prosecution's case, including the allegation that being distracted by the phone was the cause of the inattention. As far as I'm aware that entitles the judge to treat it as fact.

Is that how it works? Is pleading guilty to dangerous driving saying, "I accept that my driving fell far below the 'careful and competent' standard" or is pleading guilty saying "I accept that my driving fell far below the standard and I accept every last word the prosecution says about me without question"?

[agtlaw]

SK425 said:

tenpenceshort said:

When it comes down to it, in pleading guilty, without a Newton Hearing to dispute any of it, the defendant accepted the prosecution's case, including the allegation that being distracted by the phone was the cause of the inattention. As far as I'm aware that entitles the judge to treat it as fact.

Is that how it works? Is pleading guilty to dangerous driving saying, "I accept that my driving fell far below the 'careful and competent' standard" or is pleading guilty saying "I accept that my driving fell far below the standard and I accept every last word the prosecution says about me without question"?

Pleading guilty means you accept the whole of the prosecution case.

If you plead guilty but don't accept the full facts then the Court of Appeal would expect to see an agreed written basis of plea or otherwise (as mentioned above) thrash it out in front of a judge by way of a trial of issue (a.k.a. Newton hearing)