Anyone on here a judge?
Discussion
EddyP said:
singlecoil said:
I think it will help you if you can come to terms with the fact that accidents happen, and can have dreadful consequences. You are acknowledging that it was an accident, but you still want him punished?
[I should use the term RTC rather than RTA.He should face punishment yes, why shouldn't he? He may not have intended to drive into her, but his actions did cause it, why shouldn't he be punished for his actions? For example driving at a reasonable speed, not driving whilst excessively tired, not driving whilst under the influence (OK not illegally but as the barrister said, he would have still slowed down his reaction times)
EddyP said:
The full sentence, is a 6 month suspended, 250 hours community service, 18 month ban and a curfew on Fri/Sat nights for 3 months.
The charge was death by careless driving.
He was just under the drink drive limit on his breath test, evidence suggested he was excessively tired because he had been up till 2.30am on social media, (accident occurred at 18.40).
He claims that he was dazzled by oncoming headlights, when he regained his vision he saw he was heading into the verge so corrected, but was too aggressive in his correction and lost control, he was then travelling down the road sideways around a slight corner when he met my sister. It was established he was at the NSL (60mph) my sister was at 43mph, she didn't even get time to brake.
Clean licence, no previous.
He had a text message what they think is 2 mins after the accident, I just hope they've done a better job of this part of the investigation than much of the other stuff they've done, if he had that text just before the impact it would have changed things quite dramatically.....
It's the suspended part that upsets us the most, I don't care on the circumstances, if you take a life through your actions then any sentence should have a custodial part to it.
I can understand why you feel he should have had 6 mths inside. I'm sure I would feel the same. Clearly something happened and he lost control of his car. Even if dazelled by oncoming cars most of us don't lose control. The charge was death by careless driving.
He was just under the drink drive limit on his breath test, evidence suggested he was excessively tired because he had been up till 2.30am on social media, (accident occurred at 18.40).
He claims that he was dazzled by oncoming headlights, when he regained his vision he saw he was heading into the verge so corrected, but was too aggressive in his correction and lost control, he was then travelling down the road sideways around a slight corner when he met my sister. It was established he was at the NSL (60mph) my sister was at 43mph, she didn't even get time to brake.
Clean licence, no previous.
He had a text message what they think is 2 mins after the accident, I just hope they've done a better job of this part of the investigation than much of the other stuff they've done, if he had that text just before the impact it would have changed things quite dramatically.....
It's the suspended part that upsets us the most, I don't care on the circumstances, if you take a life through your actions then any sentence should have a custodial part to it.
It upsets me greatly that the Scottish Bin Lorry crash and the driver there does not appeared to have had justice served and he killed 9 from what I would suggest when he was perhaps more culpable.
There was a PH member 10pence? 10pc ? That posted his tale when he was involved in a crash and he went to prison. I recall he was in a car MX5? and the collision was with a motorbike. He had spun on a bend I believe - pls correct me if I recall wrongly.
What sort of cars where they both in? Was there was no braking or avoiding action from your sister? - don't get me wrong I'm not putting any blame on her just curious as to what happened and if any active/passive safety things may have helped . ie on a previous car we had a auto prebrake linked to the adaptive cruise control ie WV or on our Audi we also have a pre brake/pre crash assistance.
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 20th April 10:16
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 20th April 10:17
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 20th April 10:20
I hesitate to post on this thread. First up, sorry for your loss. There is something different about having a relative die in "not-natural" circumstances, been there, not an RTA, but you have my sympathy. It's harder. The only advice I can offer is to grieve and let go of the circumstances. Otherwise it will eat you for the rest of your days.
On the sentence, I think the challenge is that the bloke did nothing wrong enough to break the law. He'd been drinking, but legally. He was not speeding. He was tired, but everyone is tired. He (received?) a text, but that is not against the law, unless he was distracted by it. He lost control of his car, for some reason. We can surmise that he lost control of it for the above reasons, but we have no evidence. If your sister had not been there, he would have stacked the car, walked away and claimed on insurance. Basically, a long list of small errors culminated in a tragedy. None of us know if any of the errors contributed to the accident. He could literally have overcorrected.
This comes down to whether you imprison someone for an accident. Given what he actually did, I think the answer has to be no. Given the outcome, I can see that you would want the answer to be yes. If we go down a route of imprisonment, we're saying that losing control of a car, despite driving within the limits of the law, is potentially imprisonable: record, loss of job, all that. I think that is a very harsh decision to make.
On the sentence, I think the challenge is that the bloke did nothing wrong enough to break the law. He'd been drinking, but legally. He was not speeding. He was tired, but everyone is tired. He (received?) a text, but that is not against the law, unless he was distracted by it. He lost control of his car, for some reason. We can surmise that he lost control of it for the above reasons, but we have no evidence. If your sister had not been there, he would have stacked the car, walked away and claimed on insurance. Basically, a long list of small errors culminated in a tragedy. None of us know if any of the errors contributed to the accident. He could literally have overcorrected.
This comes down to whether you imprison someone for an accident. Given what he actually did, I think the answer has to be no. Given the outcome, I can see that you would want the answer to be yes. If we go down a route of imprisonment, we're saying that losing control of a car, despite driving within the limits of the law, is potentially imprisonable: record, loss of job, all that. I think that is a very harsh decision to make.
Ed,
Very sorry to hear of your loss.
Your post reminded me of a PH-er who was the guilty party in an RTC and did serve a custodial sentence. I can't recall if the motorcyclist he hit died or was seriously injured, but in any case it's well worth a read on some of the posts about how a 'normal person on an enthusiastic drive' finds himself behind bars a year later.
There is a summary 5 posts down on this page: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
If you look at the poster's history, he did write up a lot more on the prison experience.
The drink / tiredness complicate the case you mention, but on PH many of us will be guilty of enjoying a little speed where we think it's safe to do so and could conceivably end up in front of a judge.
Very sorry to hear of your loss.
Your post reminded me of a PH-er who was the guilty party in an RTC and did serve a custodial sentence. I can't recall if the motorcyclist he hit died or was seriously injured, but in any case it's well worth a read on some of the posts about how a 'normal person on an enthusiastic drive' finds himself behind bars a year later.
There is a summary 5 posts down on this page: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
If you look at the poster's history, he did write up a lot more on the prison experience.
The drink / tiredness complicate the case you mention, but on PH many of us will be guilty of enjoying a little speed where we think it's safe to do so and could conceivably end up in front of a judge.
There but for the grace of god go I. There have been times where I've been a little tired, driving at night, car has come round with odd-pointing headlights and I've had to look away, only to look back up and realise that a bend was there that I hadn't noticed before, leading to a rapid correction. Back in my younger days I might add, these days as a wizened old chap of nearly-40 I prioritise my sleep over anything else. Thing is it happens, it shouldn't but it does.
I tend to agree that the sentence seems about right, but without seeing the whole facts as well as the conduct of the defendant I don't know if it actually is. I do know that if I were in Eddy's shoes I'd be screaming for the guy's head, so I have massive respect for the way Ed has handled himself in this thread. It must be desperately difficult for you and your family, and even offering my sympathy still seems not enough.
I tend to agree that the sentence seems about right, but without seeing the whole facts as well as the conduct of the defendant I don't know if it actually is. I do know that if I were in Eddy's shoes I'd be screaming for the guy's head, so I have massive respect for the way Ed has handled himself in this thread. It must be desperately difficult for you and your family, and even offering my sympathy still seems not enough.
Very sad for all involved.
Only here to add, HERE is a thread from the other side of the docks
We all need to remember that life is fragile.
Only here to add, HERE is a thread from the other side of the docks
We all need to remember that life is fragile.
Eddy, as others have said, so sorry for your loss. I can't imagine how it would feel to be in this situation.
As XJay has mentioned above, I can't comment on the sentence as I'm not a legal bod.
What I will say is this though, try to fix what you can. Be there for your family (which you no doubt are already) and if you need any help at all, seek it. This tragedy has happened and no matter what sentence was handed down to the person who caused it, it won't bring your sister back.
You need to concentrate on what you can influence and change. Help or get help for your mother. Don't let this terrible event affect more lives than it has done so already. Be there for your nieces and your brother in law. Ensure that anything they need is provided.
Most of all, look after yourself. Make sure you don't fall into any mental health traps. You will be quite rightly angry and hurting. However, don't let it eat you away. If you need to talk to anyone, make sure you do.
The above is just my opinion. Please feel free to tell me to do one if this causes you any offence.
As XJay has mentioned above, I can't comment on the sentence as I'm not a legal bod.
What I will say is this though, try to fix what you can. Be there for your family (which you no doubt are already) and if you need any help at all, seek it. This tragedy has happened and no matter what sentence was handed down to the person who caused it, it won't bring your sister back.
You need to concentrate on what you can influence and change. Help or get help for your mother. Don't let this terrible event affect more lives than it has done so already. Be there for your nieces and your brother in law. Ensure that anything they need is provided.
Most of all, look after yourself. Make sure you don't fall into any mental health traps. You will be quite rightly angry and hurting. However, don't let it eat you away. If you need to talk to anyone, make sure you do.
The above is just my opinion. Please feel free to tell me to do one if this causes you any offence.
singlecoil said:
It doesn't make any difference, if he didn't intend for the collision to occur then it was an accidental collision and therefore an accident.
Apart from disagreeing with you, it's irrelevant. If there is proven negligence then there is normally a punishment, intention rarely comes into it.The debate is often over the degree or culpability of any negligence.
In this case I can see that the driver was within limits and possibly doing nothing that we haven't all done, including the OP and the victim in the case he refers to.
My issue is that I really do struggle with the notion of losing control of a car in normal driving circumstances. I struggle to see how a competent or careful driver would ever lose control without some other extraneous circumstance.
And then if it's proven that you weren't careful, and you've killed somebody, then yes, surely it should be prison time?
Sorry for the impact this has on your family OP, I can't really begin to imagine how horrific it must be for all of you and your sister's friends etc.
Like others, I find it impossible to comment on the sentencing
But I am sure that whether he demonstrates remorse or not just now, this is going to weigh heavy on the driver for the rest of his life.
I know that won't bring you much comfort now, compared to what you think seeing him receive a hefty prison sentence might have done for you, but nothing at all is going to bring her back.
Dwelling on this for too long will eat you up. Which is no good for anyone.
You, your family and her friends need to try to fill the massive hole that her death has left behind in the lives of those most affected.
Help her daughters live a life that would make their mum proud.
Like others, I find it impossible to comment on the sentencing
But I am sure that whether he demonstrates remorse or not just now, this is going to weigh heavy on the driver for the rest of his life.
I know that won't bring you much comfort now, compared to what you think seeing him receive a hefty prison sentence might have done for you, but nothing at all is going to bring her back.
Dwelling on this for too long will eat you up. Which is no good for anyone.
You, your family and her friends need to try to fill the massive hole that her death has left behind in the lives of those most affected.
Help her daughters live a life that would make their mum proud.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 20th April 13:30
I think the OP has a valid point as I believe consequence should figure in punishment for offences and it is illogical that consequences are not a primary factor when considering punishment.
Consequences and context are closely linked when a 'crime' is committed, and context is everything.
Consequences and context are closely linked when a 'crime' is committed, and context is everything.
heebeegeetee said:
singlecoil said:
It doesn't make any difference, if he didn't intend for the collision to occur then it was an accidental collision and therefore an accident.
Apart from disagreeing with you, it's irrelevant. If there is proven negligence then there is normally a punishment, intention rarely comes into it.The debate is often over the degree or culpability of any negligence.
In this case I can see that the driver was within limits and possibly doing nothing that we haven't all done, including the OP and the victim in the case he refers to.
My issue is that I really do struggle with the notion of losing control of a car in normal driving circumstances. I struggle to see how a competent or careful driver would ever lose control without some other extraneous circumstance.
And then if it's proven that you weren't careful, and you've killed somebody, then yes, surely it should be prison time?
There's a difference between not being careful, and being negligent. There are very few synonyms in English, and 'carelessness' and 'negligence' are not among them.
First off condolences for your loss. It is truely tragic when you lose someone unexpectedly. I lost my cousin when I was about 12 to a lorry driver who was four times over the limit when she stopped in traffic on the m6, he never even touched the brakes. Killed my cousin and others in the line of cars had serious life changing injuries.
In the end he got 9 months and probably only served 5. It ruined my uncles life to a great extent and he never really got over it.
I have to say though that in this instance it sounds like an accident. Terrible and horrible for you and your family. Trust me though if he is in any way a normal human being he is being punished in other ways. I had a work colleague on a previous squadron, he killed two elderly people in an rta, not his fault but he never got over it. Years later he still had nightmares about the crash. I suspect but can't confirm it has changed his life irrevocably and he will never forget it.
Maybe you think his punishment is light and I could easily see your point of view but locking someone up for an accident does seem overly harsh and counter productive.
Anyway that's just my opinion and I hope that once you have finished grieving you can find peace within yourself.
In the end he got 9 months and probably only served 5. It ruined my uncles life to a great extent and he never really got over it.
I have to say though that in this instance it sounds like an accident. Terrible and horrible for you and your family. Trust me though if he is in any way a normal human being he is being punished in other ways. I had a work colleague on a previous squadron, he killed two elderly people in an rta, not his fault but he never got over it. Years later he still had nightmares about the crash. I suspect but can't confirm it has changed his life irrevocably and he will never forget it.
Maybe you think his punishment is light and I could easily see your point of view but locking someone up for an accident does seem overly harsh and counter productive.
Anyway that's just my opinion and I hope that once you have finished grieving you can find peace within yourself.
EddyP said:
I should use the term RTC rather than RTA.
He should face punishment yes, why shouldn't he? He may not have intended to drive into her, but his actions did cause it, why shouldn't he be punished for his actions? For example driving at a reasonable speed, not driving whilst excessively tired, not driving whilst under the influence (OK not illegally but as the barrister said, he would have still slowed down his reaction times)
Firstly, sorry for your loss. Very few people can begin to understand the emotions you're dealing with. He should face punishment yes, why shouldn't he? He may not have intended to drive into her, but his actions did cause it, why shouldn't he be punished for his actions? For example driving at a reasonable speed, not driving whilst excessively tired, not driving whilst under the influence (OK not illegally but as the barrister said, he would have still slowed down his reaction times)
I think the problem is whether he could reasonably have expected his actions to have the outcome they did. I've driven on a marginal amount of sleep before, as have millions of others I'm sure. I doubt anyone doing this would for one minute think this could result in an accident with loss of life.
You could make an argument that driving marginally under the limit, on little sleep (2:30am isn't really that early when you consider the accident happened in the evening) is irresponsible, but crucially it isn't illegal. There is some distance from this to negligent behaviour a reasonable person would know is reckless and could result in an accident (e.g. bald tyres, using a mobile whilst driving, grossly excessive speed for conditions, etc)
No one can imagine what you're going through emotionally, but all of your posts on this strongly hint at seeking vengeance rather than justice. As said above, if as the court seems to think this was a tragic uncharacteristic accident - what amount of punitive custodial sentencing would be "right"?
Edited by Durzel on Thursday 20th April 15:05
cmaguire said:
I think the OP has a valid point as I believe consequence should figure in punishment for offences and it is illogical that consequences are not a primary factor when considering punishment.
Consequences and context are closely linked when a 'crime' is committed, and context is everything.
And that's the reason why courts usually seek Victim Impact Statements before passing sentence. Consequences and context are closely linked when a 'crime' is committed, and context is everything.
There is a whole school of jurisprudence given over to what the purpose of sentencing should be. is it punitive, to punish the wrong doing? Is it for deterrent value? Is it for public protection, to prevent the risk of re-offending? Or is it rehabilitative, to try to put the offender back on the straight and narrow. There's inevitably a weighing of the competing interests in any given case.
Entirely understandably, the OP and his family probably can't much beyond the punishment school of sentencing. With the greatest of respect to the OP though, their view isn't the last word and while the court will take it into account, and perhaps attach more weight to it than other considerations, it's not the only determinant.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, perhaps the judge was of the view that there was nothing to be gained in potentially damaging a second family - the offender's own - over and above the victim's family, especially bearing in mind the findings about the relatively low level of culpability, and so imposed a community sentence for that reason? Without having heard the judge's sentencing remarks, we can only speculate.
Either way, I add my condolences and sympathies to the OP and his family to those already expressed earlier in the thread.
cmaguire said:
I think the OP has a valid point as I believe consequence should figure in punishment for offences and it is illogical that consequences are not a primary factor when considering punishment.
That makes justice an act of chance which is entirely wrong. It's no different to trial by ordeal, get a woman to hold a hot object and if she blisters or doesn't blister she's a witch so burn her. No thanks.For a more pertinent example, consider a car driver who passes a cyclist too closely in town. The cyclist wobbles, falls off, hits their head on the corner of the kerb, and dies from the injuries.
Another car driver at the same speed and in the same condition (not drunk, not tired, not speeding, not on the phone, cyclist not wearing a helmet) on a similar road but in another part of town, does the same thing and a cyclist wobbles/falls off, this time onto a grass verge where they bump their head on soft grass and mud but beyond the initial shock they're uninjured.
Why should a roll of the dice like that send the first driver to prison but not the second when the degree to which their driving fell below the expected standard was the same? The outcome was a matter of chance.
Immense sympathy to the OP for their loss.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff