Lorry driver Frank Simpson sentenced - A9 layby crash death
Discussion
I find this sentence difficult to understand
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-cent...
"A lorry driver who killed another motorist by drifting off the A9 and smashing into his parked car in a lay-by been sentenced to 300 hours of unpaid work.
Frank Simpson veered off the road at 50mph in an 18-tonne lorry and failed to slow down before smashing into John Trimble's parked Vauxhall Corsa.
Simpson, who admitted causing death by careless driving, only braked after hitting Mr Simpson's car.
He was also given a six-month curfew.
In addition, the 35-year-old, from Edinburgh, was disqualified from driving for 30 months and ordered to re-sit the extended driving test.
Sheriff William Wood told Perth Sheriff Court that the offence was in the mid-range of careless driving."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-cent...
"A lorry driver who killed another motorist by drifting off the A9 and smashing into his parked car in a lay-by been sentenced to 300 hours of unpaid work.
Frank Simpson veered off the road at 50mph in an 18-tonne lorry and failed to slow down before smashing into John Trimble's parked Vauxhall Corsa.
Simpson, who admitted causing death by careless driving, only braked after hitting Mr Simpson's car.
He was also given a six-month curfew.
In addition, the 35-year-old, from Edinburgh, was disqualified from driving for 30 months and ordered to re-sit the extended driving test.
Sheriff William Wood told Perth Sheriff Court that the offence was in the mid-range of careless driving."
leighz said:
I find this sentence difficult to understand
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manu...OK, not Scottish, so there might be differences, but it's the basic rules they go by.
Since it was a Sheriff's court, it's the Summary trial sentencing which counts.
thanks - interesting
just difficult to reconcile this against (for instance) this:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=156...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-341429...
just difficult to reconcile this against (for instance) this:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=156...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-341429...
As this is an either-way offence, I'm surprised that it didn't meet the threshold for Crown Court and its associated powers of sentencing (or the equivalent in Scotland).
While there may be mitigating factors, the fact that this was a professional driver in such a large vehicle might be seen as aggravating factors, even though they are not listed. I'm not suggesting that it needs the maximum but I'd have thought it fell within the middle band for the CPS guidelines.
While there may be mitigating factors, the fact that this was a professional driver in such a large vehicle might be seen as aggravating factors, even though they are not listed. I'm not suggesting that it needs the maximum but I'd have thought it fell within the middle band for the CPS guidelines.
whoami said:
Interesting that the outcome has no impact on sentence.
I wouldn't say "no impact.""Because the principal harm done by these offences (the death of a person) is an element of the offence, the factor that primarily determines the starting point for sentence is the culpability of the offender. Accordingly ... the central feature should be an evaluation of the quality of the driving involved and the degree of danger that it foreseeably created."
"Where the level of carelessness is low and there are no aggravating factors, even the fact that death was caused is not sufficient to justify a prison sentence."
Sentencing Guidelines Council.
RobinOakapple said:
So what are people thinking the sentence ought to have been?
Without full details, it's hard to tell, but I would have thought (and these are assumptions):Mitigation: Professional driver, previous good record, possibly under personal or workload pressure, early cooperation with investigation, significant remorse, no evidence of previous poor driving/speeding?
Aggravation: Significant collision (i.e., not a minor collision where the death would be the obvious outcome), no attempt at evading, heavy vehicle, probably foreseeable that he was tired enough to fall asleep
So I'd be pitching that at around a 12 month custodial sentence after an early guilty plea and appropriate discount.
I might consider a suspended sentence if there were truly exceptional personal circumstances (i.e., significant risk of harm to prisoner due to mental or physical health issues, or dependency - not just financial - on a third party as the accused provides exceptional levels of personal/medical care).
Edit: in view of agtlaw's post above, I wouldn't consider that falling asleep at the wheel of an 18-ton truck is a low level of carelessness (compared to e.g., pulling out of a junction where the view is necessarily obscured, or a delayed reaction time due to dealing with a child when the person killed was at least somewhat at fault, but without the lapse of attention the accident could have been avoided altogether).
Edited by CYMR0 on Tuesday 29th March 16:33
Edited by CYMR0 on Tuesday 29th March 16:34
CYMR0 said:
..or dependency - not just financial - on a third party
Presumably you mean dependency of a third party?Of course losing his licence means he's lost his job and he's unlikely to be able to go back to professional HGV driving.
I always think people whose whole job is driving, or who need to drive as part of their job, suffer much more from a driving ban than those for whom losing their licence would merely be somewhat inconvenient.
Sorry, yes, that should be 'of' not 'on'.
I agree that driving bans are worse for those whose livelihood is driving, even compared to those who merely need to drive to work - but then there are lots of other jobs where you can be found unfit to practise, and even in unskilled jobs you can still lose your livelihood for making a serious mistake.
I agree that driving bans are worse for those whose livelihood is driving, even compared to those who merely need to drive to work - but then there are lots of other jobs where you can be found unfit to practise, and even in unskilled jobs you can still lose your livelihood for making a serious mistake.
CYMR0 said:
S - but then there are lots of other jobs where you can be found unfit to practise, and even in unskilled jobs you can still lose your livelihood for making a serious mistake.
Agree with both, but it's usually a very high bar that has to be passed to be declared unfit (although killing someone would probably generally qualify).The unskilled person can find another unskilled job somewhere else, whereas a banned pro-driver is excluded from that whole employment sector.
whoami said:
Interesting that the outcome has no impact on sentence.
It does have.Dangerous :-
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manu...
2yrs prison max
Death by dangerous :-
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manu...
14yrs prison max
I find it difficult to believe there's a low level of culpability in the incident involving a professional driver. If it was due to him nodding off he would have known earlier on his state of fitness to drive. Surely not that different from being pissed?
At no point do I wish to see the lorry driver go to jail btw - I'm just questioning the sanity of a sentencing regime that will lock up a biker for riding irresponsibly (repeatedly) but with no ill effect to anyone but would not jail a lorry driver who killed someone.
At no point do I wish to see the lorry driver go to jail btw - I'm just questioning the sanity of a sentencing regime that will lock up a biker for riding irresponsibly (repeatedly) but with no ill effect to anyone but would not jail a lorry driver who killed someone.
I tend to agree with you, but I think the courts see it as a question of 'wilfulness' in that presumably no one is suggesting that this driver set the cruise control and went for a nap in the back, ignoring the steering, whereas driving at [insert number greater than 70 mph here] is seen as wilfully abrogating control of the vehicle, and the unfolding situation, in a similar way.
Rightly or wrongly, you are assumed to have zero control of the vehicle above a certain speed and therefore the sentence reflects that. You can imagine a sheriff empathising with someone who falls asleep at the wheel (because driving at 40 mph in the middle lane is so tedious) but they would never, ever speed at 120...
Rightly or wrongly, you are assumed to have zero control of the vehicle above a certain speed and therefore the sentence reflects that. You can imagine a sheriff empathising with someone who falls asleep at the wheel (because driving at 40 mph in the middle lane is so tedious) but they would never, ever speed at 120...
leighz said:
I'm just questioning the sanity of a sentencing regime that will lock up a biker for riding irresponsibly (repeatedly) but with no ill effect to anyone but would not jail a lorry driver who killed someone.
Perhaps you missed that they were charged with VERY different offences?The biker pleaded guilty to four counts of dangerous driving.
The truck driver pleaded guilty to one count of careless driving. But a death had resulted, so it was death by careless.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff