Suspended sentence for 95 year old driver who killed a man.
Discussion
La Liga said:
would putting this woman in prison be a deterrent to the 'elderly taking to the road'?
....
Yes. ....
You could argue that the headlines around this incident alone would make people stop and think whether they or their elderly relative is safe to drive. The shock of a prison sentence would further add to that thinking so yes, it very much would be a deterrent IMHO.
La Liga, you're well versed in the sentencing guidelines side of things, is there any guidance that says elderly people should get a lighter sentence?
SCEtoAUX said:
She should have been sent to prison, something which might well make a few more old people think about whether they're fit to drive.
This makes no more sense from you than it did from the last chap a few minutes ago.You're looking for a person who:
- is so old they wouldn't go to prison if they were found guilty of DbDD
- Is a dangerously poor driver
- doesn't know it
- saw the article
- reflected upon it
- realised they are more bothered by being in prison than they are about killing someone
- consequently gives up driving
Two hopes, I'm afraid, and definitely not worth the hassle, expense and extreme likelihood of causing this woman's death.
Gmlgml said:
As sad as the case is for all concerned I’d be asking questions of A) the GP who signed them as fit to drive and B) their family, who must have realised their loved one shouldn’t be on the road.
Assuming the offender passed her driving test before age 70 then she would have received her most recent self-certification letter from the DVLA at age 94. Probably not long before she killed her victim. An appalling case that highlights the ludicrously relaxed licensing system in this country. Unfortunately, a tougher licensing regime for pensioners is not a vote winner; so I wouldn’t anticipate anything to change any time soon. AllyBassman said:
Assuming they're a decent human being,
they will have to live with the guilt of taking a life for the rest of theirs. That in itself is a punishment.
This, basically. There's information beyond what's available in news reports etc, and whether someone is borderline suicidal and wracked with guilt from what happened, to the other extreme of "fthey will have to live with the guilt of taking a life for the rest of theirs. That in itself is a punishment.
k him, I'm glad I did it" should make a big difference to the end result. ferrariF50lover said:
SCEtoAUX said:
She should have been sent to prison, something which might well make a few more old people think about whether they're fit to drive.
This makes no more sense from you than it did from the last chap a few minutes ago.You're looking for a person who:
- is so old they wouldn't go to prison if they were found guilty of DbDD
- Is a dangerously poor driver
- doesn't know it
- saw the article
- reflected upon it
- realised they are more bothered by being in prison than they are about killing someone
- consequently gives up driving
Two hopes, I'm afraid, and definitely not worth the hassle, expense and extreme likelihood of causing this woman's death.
The fear of ending up in prison 'may' help them focus on the danger rather that their stubborn independence.
Why was it dangerous driving? Her foot slipped or she hit the wrong pedal, it's careless driving at worst and she could still have been charged with causing death. We all make mistakes, and yes just occasionally someone dies. That's a risk we all face in this life.
Charging 95 yr old people and sending them to jail just makes a tragic situation even more tragic. Revenge killing has no place in the justice system.
Charging 95 yr old people and sending them to jail just makes a tragic situation even more tragic. Revenge killing has no place in the justice system.
jm doc said:
Why was it dangerous driving? Her foot slipped or she hit the wrong pedal, it's careless driving at worst and she could still have been charged with causing death. We all make mistakes, and yes just occasionally someone dies. That's a risk we all face in this life.
Charging 95 yr old people and sending them to jail just makes a tragic situation even more tragic. Revenge killing has no place in the justice system.
“It was held in Att Gen’s Reference (No.4 of 2000) [2001] EWCA Crim 780; that the fact that a driver had pressed the accelerator unintentionally, when he had meant to press the brake, was no defence to a charge of dangerous driving. The offence was intended to cover cases in which a driver had made a mistake with tragic consequences; but the fact that the offence was due to a mistake went only to mitigation, not guilt.” Wilkinsons, 5.07Charging 95 yr old people and sending them to jail just makes a tragic situation even more tragic. Revenge killing has no place in the justice system.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 sets out five purposes of sentencing. These are the:
- punishment of offenders
- reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence)
- reform and rehabilitation of offenders
- protection of the public
- making of reparation by offenders to people affected by their offences
The Surveyor said:
La Liga, you're well versed in the sentencing guidelines side of things, is there any guidance that says elderly people should get a lighter sentence?
I wouldn't say well versed, I occasionally look them up and try to interpret them, but I'm certainly no expert. The judge is saying it's low level so I'd assume that means it's a level 3, which has a range of 2-5 years custody. I assume the guilty plea discount is applied after so perhaps that's where the 16 month figure has been arrived at. It also states that death by dangerous can be sentenced within the top level of death by careless if there's even less cupability.
Within it being 2 years or below, the option to suspend the sentence is available.
In terms of elderly people getting a lighter sentence, I don't know. I'd doubt it's formalised but I imagine it could have an impact in terms of assessing how much risk the person presents to society.
ferrariF50lover said:
This makes no more sense from you than it did from the last chap a few minutes ago.
You're looking for a person who:
- is so old they wouldn't go to prison if they were found guilty of DbDD
- Is a dangerously poor driver
- doesn't know it
- saw the article
- reflected upon it
- realised they are more bothered by being in prison than they are about killing someone
- consequently gives up driving
Two hopes, I'm afraid, and definitely not worth the hassle, expense and extreme likelihood of causing this woman's death.
Nothing is being done to stop them, I am told it would take too many resources to retest them.You're looking for a person who:
- is so old they wouldn't go to prison if they were found guilty of DbDD
- Is a dangerously poor driver
- doesn't know it
- saw the article
- reflected upon it
- realised they are more bothered by being in prison than they are about killing someone
- consequently gives up driving
Two hopes, I'm afraid, and definitely not worth the hassle, expense and extreme likelihood of causing this woman's death.
My friend's wife was badly injured child was killed by an 87 gent who optician had told him his sight was terrible and to stop driving. His daughter had written to DVLA to try and get them to take her father licence but she was offered no help. Apparently, the DVLA just contacted him and he said he was ok to drive so he carried on until he ploughed through and red light killing my friends 4 year old and injuring his wife.
That guy got the same ok don't drive anymore.
The 83 gives zero cares and remained inconvenienced by the hole court case!
La Liga said:
The Surveyor said:
La Liga, you're well versed in the sentencing guidelines side of things, is there any guidance that says elderly people should get a lighter sentence?
I wouldn't say well versed, I occasionally look them up and try to interpret them, but I'm certainly no expert. The judge is saying it's low level so I'd assume that means it's a level 3, which has a range of 2-5 years custody. I assume the guilty plea discount is applied after so perhaps that's where the 16 month figure has been arrived at. It also states that death by dangerous can be sentenced within the top level of death by careless if there's even less cupability.
Within it being 2 years or below, the option to suspend the sentence is available.
In terms of elderly people getting a lighter sentence, I don't know. I'd doubt it's formalised but I imagine it could have an impact in terms of assessing how much risk the person presents to society.
The Overarching Principles Guideline includes youth or age (where it affects the responsibility of the individual defendant) as “a factor indicating significantly lower culpability.”
Prison is beyond pointless.
We asked dad to stop driving at about 84 - he made it to 89 - on foot! If anyone absolutely hated a newfangled electronic switch handbrake on his DSG Golf it was him!!!
Its a duty to keep an eye on them though and one society and those involved in road safety should be taking a more proactive part in. My Mum still drives at 84 - she's a bit slow and sometimes over-cautious but its very much our family duty to keep an eye, and shes fine for now. Since they turned the local outpatients hospital into flats, and the bus stop is too far to walk to, she has to drive 35 miles to the nearest hospital for her check ups so its actually quite a lifeline for her...
We asked dad to stop driving at about 84 - he made it to 89 - on foot! If anyone absolutely hated a newfangled electronic switch handbrake on his DSG Golf it was him!!!
Its a duty to keep an eye on them though and one society and those involved in road safety should be taking a more proactive part in. My Mum still drives at 84 - she's a bit slow and sometimes over-cautious but its very much our family duty to keep an eye, and shes fine for now. Since they turned the local outpatients hospital into flats, and the bus stop is too far to walk to, she has to drive 35 miles to the nearest hospital for her check ups so its actually quite a lifeline for her...
agtlaw said:
jm doc said:
Why was it dangerous driving? Her foot slipped or she hit the wrong pedal, it's careless driving at worst and she could still have been charged with causing death. We all make mistakes, and yes just occasionally someone dies. That's a risk we all face in this life.
Charging 95 yr old people and sending them to jail just makes a tragic situation even more tragic. Revenge killing has no place in the justice system.
“It was held in Att Gen’s Reference (No.4 of 2000) [2001] EWCA Crim 780; that the fact that a driver had pressed the accelerator unintentionally, when he had meant to press the brake, was no defence to a charge of dangerous driving. The offence was intended to cover cases in which a driver had made a mistake with tragic consequences; but the fact that the offence was due to a mistake went only to mitigation, not guilt.” Wilkinsons, 5.07Charging 95 yr old people and sending them to jail just makes a tragic situation even more tragic. Revenge killing has no place in the justice system.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 sets out five purposes of sentencing. These are the:
- punishment of offenders
- reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence)
- reform and rehabilitation of offenders
- protection of the public
- making of reparation by offenders to people affected by their offences
jm doc said:
You can cause a death when driving and be charged with CDCD rather than CDDD. A simple error (which this clearly was, and quite possibly age related) should not be classifed as dangerous just because a death occurred. This was not in any way reckless or wilfully bad driving and there was no suggestion that she had been advised to stop driving on any health issues or that she had misled the DVLA on her licence renewal declaration. It's beyond me why she was charged with CDDD and all it seems to have done is feed in to a baying mob mentality as witnessed in the courtroom scenes after the verdict.
With respect you've not seen the prosecution file so can't know whether that was the appropriate charge or not. I can't imagine the CPS were keen to charge a 95 year old with an offence they didn't feel they had a realistic prospect of conviction of.
I don't know the development cost involved but it must be possible to 're-develop' a driving sim game to test the driving competence of the elderly rather than test race craft or a lap time round the Nurburgring. Gran Turismo already has a driving licence section 
.
The 'Can grandma still drive ? ' game would introduce various hazardous scenarios which would require certain core skills ( observation/awareness, hazard identification, reaction times etc etc ) to be displayed by the person being tested. Driving sim games already 'score' the player against certain known metrics; If grandma / Grandad doesn't achieve the required minimum driving comptence standard then their licence is withdrawn until they can. The test could be quite severe with plenty of virtual risks and hazards being presented but nobody ( tester / public / person being tested ) would actually be put in danger.
Driving sim games all have replay facilities, each test could easily be recorded as evidence of competence, or other wise. I can also see merit in showing an elderly person a replay of a virtual incident they had been involved in. This may help bring some home truths to bear and hopefully cause some of the less competent to consider giving up their licence willingly.
The hardware cost would be relatively small ( platform ( PS4 / XBOX), TV, wheel and pedal set ), would be about £1000. Don't ask me whether the testing would be the responsibility of the police or medical profession, I have got that far yet.
Just a thought.
. The 'Can grandma still drive ? ' game would introduce various hazardous scenarios which would require certain core skills ( observation/awareness, hazard identification, reaction times etc etc ) to be displayed by the person being tested. Driving sim games already 'score' the player against certain known metrics; If grandma / Grandad doesn't achieve the required minimum driving comptence standard then their licence is withdrawn until they can. The test could be quite severe with plenty of virtual risks and hazards being presented but nobody ( tester / public / person being tested ) would actually be put in danger.
Driving sim games all have replay facilities, each test could easily be recorded as evidence of competence, or other wise. I can also see merit in showing an elderly person a replay of a virtual incident they had been involved in. This may help bring some home truths to bear and hopefully cause some of the less competent to consider giving up their licence willingly.
The hardware cost would be relatively small ( platform ( PS4 / XBOX), TV, wheel and pedal set ), would be about £1000. Don't ask me whether the testing would be the responsibility of the police or medical profession, I have got that far yet.
Just a thought.
Edited by Crackie on Friday 5th January 13:46
Edited by Crackie on Friday 5th January 13:53
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff