BTCC's Frank Wrathall in court after cyclist collision

[RemarkLima]

Chrisgr31 said:

RemarkLima said:

Nice, thanks for diminishing my diminishing helmsmanship abilities even further.

<snip>

In fact, I'd go so far as if you have to "consciously think" about driving, then you're probably not that competent either /Devils advocate

IMHO, this and this story all come down to "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

I wasn't really meaning to diminish your helmsmanship abilities further was just pondering a point really.

I think there is an argument that some are better natural drivers than others and indeed I suspect there are many of us have who have been lucky to recover a situation that could have been disastrous.

My own view is that driving is far too easy these days. Cars are confortable, they have air conditioning, they have comfy seats, decent radios/stereos, they have power steering, assisted breaks etc. All of these things make a car far easier to drive and as a result as drivers we have to concentrate on the actual driving less. The result is allowing the mind to think of other things and thats where it all starts to go wrong.

Very true, for most cars are just white goods and are treated with the same interest as the dishwasher, you press a button and it goes. You turn a key and get to B from A.

The logical conclusion of this, if Google get their way, is self driving cars. For the vast majority this will be "a good thing". And if it were to mean traffic could be managed on a much larger scale, the road network "optimised", then it would also be very good indeed. Quite a way off, but the ultimate engineering goal IMHO.

[Marc W]

thunderbelmont said:

Now - back to Frank. He's done it, he's got no excuse. He's going to jail. 5-7 years is the normal term. it COULD be up to 14 years.

Jumping the gun a bit, the case isn't being heard until January now. Makes it a bit pointless having a court if people on the internet find him guilty before the case is even heard!

[Seight_Returns]

VictoriaYorks said:

The cyclist being over the alcohol limit was the first thing I thought when I read that he had been at the tennis club in the afternoon, but I presumed they would have already done tests for that?

And once again, it wouldn't necessarily be a reason not to prosecute Wrathall even if he had have been (and once again from the facts as reported there's no suggestion that he was). The actions of others on the road don't make us any less responsible or accountable for our own actions.

Just because someone is drunk, or driving/cycling like a pratt or otherwise not doing what they should to say safe - doesn't lessen our duty of care towards them as careful and competent drivers.

If someone does something stupid - as a consequence of their being drunk, irresponsible, very young, very old, mentally impaired or otherwise - and you run them down and kill them in circumstances that the hypothetical careful, competent driver couldn't reasonably have done anything to avoid the collision, then you've done nothing wrong.

But if you run over and kill a drunk, unlit, reckless cyclist whilst s/he is performing an illegal manauvere - in circumstances that the hypothetical competent, careful driver would have been expected to have easily avoided the collision and as such your driving is shown to be far below the required standard - then you're going to prison for a long time.

Being able to establish that the other party in a collision was doing something wrong at the time certainly helps to build a defence - but it isn't automatically a defence in itself.

And just to give a balanced view - Wrathall being on the phone at the time he was involved in a collision doesn't automatically mean that he was diving far below the required standard and that the death was a consequence of that bad driving - but it hasn't done him any favours.

[Graham]

Seight_Returns said:

And just to give a balanced view - Wrathall being on the phone at the time he was involved in a collision doesn't automatically mean that he was diving far below the required standard and that the death was a consequence of that bad driving - but it hasn't done him any favours.

indeed, the question is was his driving dangerous and did that cause the cyclists death. I dont care if he had his phone in his hand or his co*k if his driving was dangerous then he should go down, if it wasnt then he shouldnt. fairly cut and dried, and not something you can figure out without all the facts.

[thunderbelmont]

Marc W said:

thunderbelmont said:

Now - back to Frank. He's done it, he's got no excuse. He's going to jail. 5-7 years is the normal term. it COULD be up to 14 years.

Jumping the gun a bit, the case isn't being heard until January now. Makes it a bit pointless having a court if people on the internet find him guilty before the case is even heard!

I'm sorry - I didn't see anything in the news reports about it being adjourned until January - all the reports I'd read / seen simply stated "The Case Continues".

Do you have other information?

The evidence presented so far shows guilt, and nothing other. Sorry. As nice as a guy that Frank is, this lapse of reason/concentration is going to be very costly.

[Reardy Mister]

thunderbelmont said:

Marc W said:

thunderbelmont said:

Now - back to Frank. He's done it, he's got no excuse. He's going to jail. 5-7 years is the normal term. it COULD be up to 14 years.

Jumping the gun a bit, the case isn't being heard until January now. Makes it a bit pointless having a court if people on the internet find him guilty before the case is even heard!

I'm sorry - I didn't see anything in the news reports about it being adjourned until January - all the reports I'd read / seen simply stated "The Case Continues".

Do you have other information?

The evidence presented so far shows guilt, and nothing other. Sorry. As nice as a guy that Frank is, this lapse of reason/concentration is going to be very costly.

Presented to whom? Are you on the jury? Or have you passed judgement and assert that everyone else should also, based on what is printed in the Daily Mail? Christ almighty...

[thunderbelmont]

Reardy Mister said:

thunderbelmont said:

Marc W said:

thunderbelmont said:

Now - back to Frank. He's done it, he's got no excuse. He's going to jail. 5-7 years is the normal term. it COULD be up to 14 years.

Jumping the gun a bit, the case isn't being heard until January now. Makes it a bit pointless having a court if people on the internet find him guilty before the case is even heard!

I'm sorry - I didn't see anything in the news reports about it being adjourned until January - all the reports I'd read / seen simply stated "The Case Continues".

Do you have other information?

The evidence presented so far shows guilt, and nothing other. Sorry. As nice as a guy that Frank is, this lapse of reason/concentration is going to be very costly.

Presented to whom? Are you on the jury? Or have you passed judgement and assert that everyone else should also, based on what is printed in the Daily Mail? Christ almighty...

I haven't read the Daily Mail report - which I guess would be fire and brimstone. No, I read the reports in the various local newspapers, and other online reporting, to gain a balanced view of what was presented to the court.

We are entitled to our opinions, and I have a very strong opinion about people who drive with a phone to their ear.

[Reardy Mister]

thunderbelmont said:

Reardy Mister said:

thunderbelmont said:

Marc W said:

thunderbelmont said:

Now - back to Frank. He's done it, he's got no excuse. He's going to jail. 5-7 years is the normal term. it COULD be up to 14 years.

Jumping the gun a bit, the case isn't being heard until January now. Makes it a bit pointless having a court if people on the internet find him guilty before the case is even heard!

I'm sorry - I didn't see anything in the news reports about it being adjourned until January - all the reports I'd read / seen simply stated "The Case Continues".

Do you have other information?

The evidence presented so far shows guilt, and nothing other. Sorry. As nice as a guy that Frank is, this lapse of reason/concentration is going to be very costly.

Presented to whom? Are you on the jury? Or have you passed judgement and assert that everyone else should also, based on what is printed in the Daily Mail? Christ almighty...

I haven't read the Daily Mail report - which I guess would be fire and brimstone. No, I read the reports in the various local newspapers, and other online reporting, to gain a balanced view of what was presented to the court.

We are entitled to our opinions, and I have a very strong opinion about people who drive with a phone to their ear.

I'd be interested to look at links to those, so that I too can benefit from the extra information.

[anonymous-user]

thunderbelmont said:

Reardy Mister said:

thunderbelmont said:

Marc W said:

thunderbelmont said:

Now - back to Frank. He's done it, he's got no excuse. He's going to jail. 5-7 years is the normal term. it COULD be up to 14 years.

Jumping the gun a bit, the case isn't being heard until January now. Makes it a bit pointless having a court if people on the internet find him guilty before the case is even heard!

I'm sorry - I didn't see anything in the news reports about it being adjourned until January - all the reports I'd read / seen simply stated "The Case Continues".

Do you have other information?

The evidence presented so far shows guilt, and nothing other. Sorry. As nice as a guy that Frank is, this lapse of reason/concentration is going to be very costly.

Presented to whom? Are you on the jury? Or have you passed judgement and assert that everyone else should also, based on what is printed in the Daily Mail? Christ almighty...

I haven't read the Daily Mail report - which I guess would be fire and brimstone. No, I read the reports in the various local newspapers, and other online reporting, to gain a balanced view of what was presented to the court.

We are entitled to our opinions, and I have a very strong opinion about people who drive with a phone to their ear.

I haven't been able to read of any evidence or defence statement yet, just read what the prosecution had said. Where are you looking?

[agtlaw]

Frank Wrathall appeared at Liverpool Crown Court on 14th January 2014 when he pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving. He will appear for sentence at Liverpool Crown Court on Friday 7th February 2014.

[thechosenfamily]

Looking at some porridge then I would imagine.

Being a racing driver I can well see a judge making a bit of an example.

Pleading guilty will reduce sentence but could get 3 years.

Shame as such a promising driver and my tip for for greatness before this tragedy.

[marshal_alan]

it was kept quiet but not that quiet, why do you think frank has sold his btcc gear to united autosports. sorry but as much as he is a nice guy the law on using mobiles while driving has been there for a while plus when you are toqing you must take extra care. racing driver or not there is no excuses

[oobster]

Thanks for taking the time to update the thread agt.

[Reardy Mister]

I'll be amazed if he gets stir.

And I don't think he deserves it. He does deserve to serve the community in some way and atone, possibly a suspended sentence. But jail isn't atonement, it's revenge in a case like this.

There a too many wilful criminals and not enough space in the prisons and to be honest, I don't think Frank going to prison is in the public interest.

He is decent lad from a decent family (and wealthy, let's not pretend that has no bearing) who made a terrible mistake that has already had significant repercussions for him personally. Just can't see it, myself (jail time).

[thechosenfamily]

Reardy Mister said:

I'll be amazed if he gets stir.

And I don't think he deserves it. He does deserve to serve the community in some way and atone, possibly a suspended sentence. But jail isn't atonement, it's revenge in a case like this.

There a too many wilful criminals and not enough space in the prisons and to be honest, I don't think Frank going to prison is in the public interest.

He is decent lad from a decent family (and wealthy, let's not pretend that has no bearing) who made a terrible mistake that has already had significant repercussions for him personally. Just can't see it, myself (jail time).

I would be the first to hope he doesn't, I have met the fella and he is a great guy.

But, there is a big campaign going on a the moment about these sorts of offences admittedly centred in London.

Death by dangerous driving, guilty plea or not, appears to carry a mandatory jail sentence upto 14 years.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_man...

I cannot see him avoiding it to be honest

[agtlaw]

Wrong offence. Prison is not mandatory - even for that offence.

Some death by careless driving stats from 2012:

66 - immediate custody
68 - suspended sentence
91 - community order
8 - fine
5 - other

Of the immediate custody cases:

25 - under 12 months
12 - 12-18 months
9 - 18-24 months
2 - 2-3 years
4 - 3-5 years

Driving carelessly whilst using a mobile phone and causing a death is borderline death by dangerous driving. A custodial sentence is a virtual certainty. The only question is whether it is immediate or suspended. 9 months immediate custody wouldn't be appellable.

Edited by agtlaw on Thursday 6th February 08:22

[The Wookie]

thechosenfamily said:

I would be the first to hope he doesn't, I have met the fella and he is a great guy.

But, there is a big campaign going on a the moment about these sorts of offences admittedly centred in London.

Death by dangerous driving, guilty plea or not, appears to carry a mandatory jail sentence upto 14 years.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_man...

I cannot see him avoiding it to be honest

It's actually Death by Careless that he's pleaded guilty to which from what I understand doesn't carry a mandatory sentence, although looking at the sentencing guidelines it's unfortunately difficult to see how he will avoid at least a short spell:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manu...

It is a tragedy for everyone involved.

[heebeegeetee]

The Wookie said:

It's actually Death by Careless that he's pleaded guilty to which from what I understand doesn't carry a mandatory sentence, although looking at the sentencing guidelines it's unfortunately difficult to see how he will avoid at least a short spell:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manu...

It is a tragedy for everyone involved.

Agreed.

The problem is, that yes there are countless willful criminals out there but on the whole they don't kill people. Death is just the worst thing, and can also/often leaves other (totally innocent) people behind to lead a life sentence of their own.

[Crafty_]

Reardy Mister said:

I'll be amazed if he gets stir.

And I don't think he deserves it. He does deserve to serve the community in some way and atone, possibly a suspended sentence. But jail isn't atonement, it's revenge in a case like this.

There a too many wilful criminals and not enough space in the prisons and to be honest, I don't think Frank going to prison is in the public interest.

He is decent lad from a decent family (and wealthy, let's not pretend that has no bearing) who made a terrible mistake that has already had significant repercussions for him personally. Just can't see it, myself (jail time).

Doesn't change the fact he managed to kill someone whilst breaking the law though. If it was your mum/dad/brother etc he had killed would you feel the same way ?

As wookie says its a tragedy all round, but I don't understand this thing of discrimination (positive or otherwise) affecting the sentence given.

[dudleybloke]

when bluetooth headsets are everywhere for about £10 theres no excuse for driving without one.