Woman jailed for using a mobile minutes before a fatal crash

Woman jailed for using a mobile minutes before a fatal crash

Author
Discussion

98elise

Original Poster:

26,368 posts

160 months

Friday 1st August 2014
quotequote all
Is this just sloppy reporting, or is there more to this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28585757

I don't condone the use of a mobile at the wheel, but if it was 6 minutes before a crash (fatal or otherwise) then what does that have to do with the accident?

You could have been pulled up safely, or walking to your car 6 minutes before an accident.

Mill Wheel

6,149 posts

195 months

Friday 1st August 2014
quotequote all
The reasons are all there in the report - it doesn't seem sloppy to me, she got what she deserved.

BBC News said:
Usaceva, who admitted causing death by dangerous driving at a previous hearing, was also banned from driving for eight years.
BBC News said:
Usaceva had been caught using her phone behind the wheel on two previous occasions and her licence was endorsed in 2009 and 2012, the court heard.
BBC News said:
Sentencing Usaceva, Judge Sean Enright said: "If you were not sending texts at the time, then you were fiddling with your phone and that is what caused this collision.

"In my opinion there is not a scrap of remorse.

"Mobile phone use while driving is a plague on our society," he added.

Cooperman

4,428 posts

249 months

Friday 1st August 2014
quotequote all
Probably a fair sentence, but one must feel sorry for her 8-year-old son who will now be in care until he is around 11, all through no fault of his own.
A very sad case all round, but she knew what she was doing having been previously convicted of using her mobile on 2 occasions.

carinaman

21,214 posts

171 months

Friday 1st August 2014
quotequote all
This woman didn't get porridge:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2631286/Dr...


I assume it's a combination of people thinking their phone calls or texts are more important than driving and thinking that driving is unimportant?

It's a sad indictment of the times we live in. At least the mobile phone telcos are coining it in.

SK425

1,034 posts

148 months

Friday 1st August 2014
quotequote all
Mill Wheel said:
The reasons are all there in the report - it doesn't seem sloppy to me, she got what she deserved.
Something's missing in the report. Why did the judge conclude this

BBC News said:
Sentencing Usaceva, Judge Sean Enright said: "If you were not sending texts at the time, then you were fiddling with your phone and that is what caused this collision.
when mitigation said this?

BBC News said:
Mitigating for her, Ian Brownhill said: "There is a gap of six minutes - I would say clear water - between using the phones and the accident itself."
Either the judge reached that conclusion by rectal pluck, or despite what was said in mitigation the judge's conclusion was supported by some evidence. We might choose to believe that one of those is rather more likely than the other, but the report doesn't shed any light.

TheEnd

15,370 posts

187 months

Friday 1st August 2014
quotequote all
It's quite possible the accident was something like wandering onto the wrong side of the road for a distance, which would be why they think she must have been hugely distracted.

longshot

3,286 posts

197 months

Friday 1st August 2014
quotequote all
SK425 said:
Mill Wheel said:
The reasons are all there in the report - it doesn't seem sloppy to me, she got what she deserved.
Something's missing in the report. Why did the judge conclude this

BBC News said:
Sentencing Usaceva, Judge Sean Enright said: "If you were not sending texts at the time, then you were fiddling with your phone and that is what caused this collision.
when mitigation said this?

BBC News said:
Mitigating for her, Ian Brownhill said: "There is a gap of six minutes - I would say clear water - between using the phones and the accident itself."
Either the judge reached that conclusion by rectal pluck, or despite what was said in mitigation the judge's conclusion was supported by some evidence. We might choose to believe that one of those is rather more likely than the other, but the report doesn't shed any light.
Perhaps the evidence was that she ploughed into the back of another car.
To do so would mean either her car was faulty or she wasn't looing where she was going.
She had and had been using to mobile phones, ergo....

I personally find it baffling why people can't turn the things off when they get into their car or for that matter why people allow their lives to be governed by them.

Zod

35,295 posts

257 months

Friday 1st August 2014
quotequote all
SK425 said:
BBC News said:
Mitigating for her, Ian Brownhill said: "There is a gap of six minutes - I would say clear water - between using the phones and the accident itself."
Either the judge reached that conclusion by rectal pluck, or despite what was said in mitigation the judge's conclusion was supported by some evidence. We might choose to believe that one of those is rather more likely than the other, but the report doesn't shed any light.
She had been using two phones. How do you know she wasn't reading or composing texts on one of the phones, but hadn't got round to sending yet?


carinaman

21,214 posts

171 months

Friday 1st August 2014
quotequote all
SK425 said:
Either the judge reached that conclusion by rectal pluck, or despite what was said in mitigation the judge's conclusion was supported by some evidence. We might choose to believe that one of those is rather more likely than the other, but the report doesn't shed any light.
It said she showed no remorse.

I suppose if she wasn't on the phone and it wasn't a contributory factor that may be why?

Besides the times of texts and calls being logged can't handsets be forensically interrogated to determine if some function on the phone was being used in that six minutes of 'clear water' between the call or text and the accident?

I am not for or against, I'd rather people were tried on the evidence and facts rather than assumptions and guesses.

Mill Wheel

6,149 posts

195 months

Friday 1st August 2014
quotequote all
SK425 said:
Mill Wheel said:
The reasons are all there in the report - it doesn't seem sloppy to me, she got what she deserved.
Something's missing in the report. Why did the judge conclude this

BBC News said:
Sentencing Usaceva, Judge Sean Enright said: "If you were not sending texts at the time, then you were fiddling with your phone and that is what caused this collision.
when mitigation said this?

BBC News said:
Mitigating for her, Ian Brownhill said: "There is a gap of six minutes - I would say clear water - between using the phones and the accident itself."
Either the judge reached that conclusion by rectal pluck, or despite what was said in mitigation the judge's conclusion was supported by some evidence. We might choose to believe that one of those is rather more likely than the other, but the report doesn't shed any light.
The topic title reads, "Woman jailed for using a mobile minutes before a fatal crash" but the report linked to says "Woman who used two mobile phones jailed for Wisbech death crash"
It then goes on to report that she admitted the charge of causing death by careless driving.
The defence brief was chancing his arm in MITIGATING with the possibility that she wasn't reading a text or composing one, or he would have tried that as a defence and proposed some other cause for the fact she ploughed into another vehicle with sufficient force to cause the death of the occupant.

Unless they published the full court transcript, it could hardly be described as sloppy... the facts are there including her previous convictions for phone use.

Speed Badger

2,667 posts

116 months

Friday 1st August 2014
quotequote all
Well I'm assuming that the assumption by the courts is that despite her denials, she was sodding around on her phone shortly before smashing into the back of another car with enough force to kill somebody. As no mechanical defects were reported, what else could it have been? Absently looking out the side window? Putting her make-up on whilst eating a sandwich?

Moonhawk

10,730 posts

218 months

Friday 1st August 2014
quotequote all
98elise said:
.....but if it was 6 minutes before a crash (fatal or otherwise) then what does that have to do with the accident?
I guess it depends whether the court believe that 6 minutes actually did elapse.

Where did they get the time of the calls from (from the phone, from the call provider) and where did they get the time of the accident (from witnesses watches, from the police notes, from CCTV).

Unless they used the same method (or a verified method) of measuring the time in both cases - it's quite possible that these times could be out of sync - especially when you consider that watches and clocks on phones can be set arbitrarily - and that the time of the accident may not be know precisely.

Perhaps the court didn't consider the evidence supporting the mitigation that there was actually a 6 minute gap to be sufficiently convincing.

speedking31

3,543 posts

135 months

Friday 1st August 2014
quotequote all
It's a bit of a worry that because I did 100 mph last week that high speed could be the cause of an accident I have this week, even if they don't know the speed I was doing at the time yikes

98elise

Original Poster:

26,368 posts

160 months

Friday 1st August 2014
quotequote all
Mill Wheel said:
SK425 said:
Mill Wheel said:
The reasons are all there in the report - it doesn't seem sloppy to me, she got what she deserved.
Something's missing in the report. Why did the judge conclude this

BBC News said:
Sentencing Usaceva, Judge Sean Enright said: "If you were not sending texts at the time, then you were fiddling with your phone and that is what caused this collision.
when mitigation said this?

BBC News said:
Mitigating for her, Ian Brownhill said: "There is a gap of six minutes - I would say clear water - between using the phones and the accident itself."
Either the judge reached that conclusion by rectal pluck, or despite what was said in mitigation the judge's conclusion was supported by some evidence. We might choose to believe that one of those is rather more likely than the other, but the report doesn't shed any light.
The topic title reads, "Woman jailed for using a mobile minutes before a fatal crash" but the report linked to says "Woman who used two mobile phones jailed for Wisbech death crash"
It then goes on to report that she admitted the charge of causing death by careless driving.
The defence brief was chancing his arm in MITIGATING with the possibility that she wasn't reading a text or composing one, or he would have tried that as a defence and proposed some other cause for the fact she ploughed into another vehicle with sufficient force to cause the death of the occupant.

Unless they published the full court transcript, it could hardly be described as sloppy... the facts are there including her previous convictions for phone use.
Applogies, I was going to link to the daily mail, but linked to BBC at the kast minute. The tone of most reporting is that the phone use was a factor, and also the judge makes reference to it.

To me they are two seperate incidents.

Mill Wheel

6,149 posts

195 months

Friday 1st August 2014
quotequote all
speedking31 said:
It's a bit of a worry that because I did 100 mph last week that high speed could be the cause of an accident I have this week, even if they don't know the speed I was doing at the time yikes
In which case you could use that in your defence instead of admitting the charge - whatever that might be.

SK425

1,034 posts

148 months

Friday 1st August 2014
quotequote all
longshot said:
Perhaps the evidence was that she ploughed into the back of another car.
To do so would mean either her car was faulty or she wasn't looing where she was going.
She had and had been using to mobile phones, ergo....
Ergo...? That's it? I presume there was a little more rigour to the analysis than that smile

Zod said:
She had been using two phones. How do you know she wasn't reading or composing texts on one of the phones, but hadn't got round to sending yet?
I don't (and I never claimed I did). What I was idly curious about was how the judge knew she was.

Mill Wheel said:
Unless they published the full court transcript, it could hardly be described as sloppy... the facts are there including her previous convictions for phone use.
Sorry. I wasn't going as far as calling it sloppy, but I do think it would have been helpful if the report had added a bit of explanation to dispel the apparent contradiction between the quote they chose to use from mitigation and the quote they chose to use from the judge (the two quotes do not actually contradict, but at first glance they might appear to). Just a brief comment - full court transcript not required smile.

Speed Badger said:
As no mechanical defects were reported, what else could it have been? Absently looking out the side window? Putting her make-up on whilst eating a sandwich?
Well indeed. Either of those, or any of the other countless ways one can distract oneself without a phone.

Prawnboy

1,326 posts

146 months

Friday 1st August 2014
quotequote all
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.

Durzel

12,232 posts

167 months

Friday 1st August 2014
quotequote all
She denied it all the way up to the court date too, which wouldn't have helped in her sentencing.

SK425 said:
Zod said:
She had been using two phones. How do you know she wasn't reading or composing texts on one of the phones, but hadn't got round to sending yet?
I don't (and I never claimed I did). What I was idly curious about was how the judge knew she was.
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 suspect given the nature of the offence (someone died, she denied liability right up til the end) that he wanted to make a damning statement, probably as much for anyone who would subsequently read it in newspapers, and that's it.

Edited by Durzel on Friday 1st August 14:38

longshot

3,286 posts

197 months

Friday 1st August 2014
quotequote all
SK425 said:
longshot said:
Perhaps the evidence was that she ploughed into the back of another car.
To do so would mean either her car was faulty or she wasn't looing where she was going.
She had and had been using to mobile phones, ergo....
Ergo...? That's it? I presume there was a little more rigour to the analysis than that smile
I presume there was too but I wasn't in court.

I am not a legal expert but I do know that she wouldn't have been found guilty unless the evidence pointed to it.

Anyway, I'll go back to what I said earlier, if people weren't so obsessed about knowing what life changing event their mates have done in the last 5 minutes or weren't so determined to tell the World what colour it was this morning, this sort of thing wouldn't happen.

Edited by longshot on Friday 1st August 14:39

surveyor

17,767 posts

183 months

Friday 1st August 2014
quotequote all
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.
Personally I would say that there is no more or less chance.

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.

I suspect some inaccurate reporting meaning that we have not got the full story.