Fines to fit the OFFENCE?!
Discussion
First published on Tuesday 01 October 2002:
Fines to fit the offence
A man dies in a car accident. The driver involved is fined £100 for careless driving. That is the price of human life under our absurd motoring laws.
Brighton magistrates imposed the pitifully low fine on Leighton Long, from Woodingdean, who admitted a charge of careless driving. They were unable to send him to prison for this offence.
Long's car crashed into a parked truck last year, killing his front seat passenger, Michael Tugwell, instantly.
Long had been drinking and had owned the car only a week. He was not insured and witnesses gained the impression he was travelling fast.
A woman has been widowed and three young children have to grow up without a father.
Magistrates' hands were tied by the careless driving offence. Surely the prosecution could have brought a more serious charge against Long?
But this case once again shows how pitifully inept the motoring laws are at dealing with accidents in which people are killed.
Ever since the death of PC Jeff Tooley at Shoreham, The Argus has been campaigning for action. Yet nothing is ever done.
The Government urgently needs to introduce a new driving offence so that in these cases the punishment can fit the crime.
Otherwise there will be more cases like this one where the driver of a car involved in a fatal crash is given a ludicrously small fine.
First published on Tuesday 01 October 2002:
£100 fine for fatal crash
by our news team
The family of a father of three killed in a car crash has criticised the driver's £100 fine.
Leighton Long, 21, was fined by Brighton magistrates yesterday after admitting careless driving.
Front seat passenger Michael Tugwell, 25, was killed instantly when Long's Rover crashed into a tow truck parked in Cowley Drive, Woodingdean, Brighton, in October last year.
Mr Tugwell's widow, Jo, who had known her husband since she was a teenager, said: "It is not justice. My children have got to grow up without a father."
Her children are aged five, four and 18 months.
Mr Tugwell's father, Alan, said: "I was not surprised at the sentence. But I find it hard as a parent that my son's life was valued at £100.
"My son died as a result of an accident but the sentence seems grossly inappropriate."
He said it was ironic that defendants could be jailed for driving while disqualified but Long would be allowed to pay off his fine at £15 a week.
Offenders cannot be jailed for careless driving but can be fined up to £2,500.
Long, formerly of Aldwick Crescent, Findon Valley, Worthing, and now living at Netherfield Green, Woodingdean, also admitted driving without insurance or a test certificate and breaching provisional licence rules by driving without L-plates.
He was fined £100 for careless driving plus a further £200 for the other offences and ordered to pay £250 costs.
Long was also banned from driving for 12 months and ordered to take a test before he drives again.
Libby Clarke, prosecuting, said witnesses told police they got the impression Long's Rover was travelling fast before the crash, which happened when he attempted to manoeuvre around the truck.
After the accident Long, who had only owned the car a week, got out and was sitting on the pavement. He had been drinking but a blood test concluded he was unlikely to have been over the legal limit at the time of the collision.
Ms Clarke said: "The manoeuvre was clearly misjudged and he lost control of the car with tragic consequences."
Long later told police during an interview: "I am sorry for everything that has happened. I didn't mean for anything to happen and I have got to live with it for the rest of my life."
Richard Brown, defending Long, who has no previous convictions, said: "He bitterly regrets what happened and wishes to extend his sympathy to Mr Tugwell's family.
"Since that evening he has done nothing but think about it."
He said Long could not remember much about the accident but he admitted he was at fault.
Mr Brown said Long had been treated for depression and has seen a therapist every week since the crash. He has been diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
Relatives and friends of bricklayer Mr Tugwell, formerly of Cowley Drive, Woodingdean, attended the hearing and left the court distressed at the sentence.
Mr Tugwell said as far as the family was aware his son and Long had met for the first time that night. They were driving to visit a friend when the crash happened.
A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service explained why a charge of careless driving was laid and not a more serious offence, such as causing death by dangerous driving.
He said: "We looked at the evidence presented to us and considered careless driving the most appropriate charge."
edited to add part 2
>>> Edited by Marcos Maniac on Wednesday 2nd October 09:36
Fines to fit the offence
A man dies in a car accident. The driver involved is fined £100 for careless driving. That is the price of human life under our absurd motoring laws.
Brighton magistrates imposed the pitifully low fine on Leighton Long, from Woodingdean, who admitted a charge of careless driving. They were unable to send him to prison for this offence.
Long's car crashed into a parked truck last year, killing his front seat passenger, Michael Tugwell, instantly.
Long had been drinking and had owned the car only a week. He was not insured and witnesses gained the impression he was travelling fast.
A woman has been widowed and three young children have to grow up without a father.
Magistrates' hands were tied by the careless driving offence. Surely the prosecution could have brought a more serious charge against Long?
But this case once again shows how pitifully inept the motoring laws are at dealing with accidents in which people are killed.
Ever since the death of PC Jeff Tooley at Shoreham, The Argus has been campaigning for action. Yet nothing is ever done.
The Government urgently needs to introduce a new driving offence so that in these cases the punishment can fit the crime.
Otherwise there will be more cases like this one where the driver of a car involved in a fatal crash is given a ludicrously small fine.
First published on Tuesday 01 October 2002:
£100 fine for fatal crash
by our news team
The family of a father of three killed in a car crash has criticised the driver's £100 fine.
Leighton Long, 21, was fined by Brighton magistrates yesterday after admitting careless driving.
Front seat passenger Michael Tugwell, 25, was killed instantly when Long's Rover crashed into a tow truck parked in Cowley Drive, Woodingdean, Brighton, in October last year.
Mr Tugwell's widow, Jo, who had known her husband since she was a teenager, said: "It is not justice. My children have got to grow up without a father."
Her children are aged five, four and 18 months.
Mr Tugwell's father, Alan, said: "I was not surprised at the sentence. But I find it hard as a parent that my son's life was valued at £100.
"My son died as a result of an accident but the sentence seems grossly inappropriate."
He said it was ironic that defendants could be jailed for driving while disqualified but Long would be allowed to pay off his fine at £15 a week.
Offenders cannot be jailed for careless driving but can be fined up to £2,500.
Long, formerly of Aldwick Crescent, Findon Valley, Worthing, and now living at Netherfield Green, Woodingdean, also admitted driving without insurance or a test certificate and breaching provisional licence rules by driving without L-plates.
He was fined £100 for careless driving plus a further £200 for the other offences and ordered to pay £250 costs.
Long was also banned from driving for 12 months and ordered to take a test before he drives again.
Libby Clarke, prosecuting, said witnesses told police they got the impression Long's Rover was travelling fast before the crash, which happened when he attempted to manoeuvre around the truck.
After the accident Long, who had only owned the car a week, got out and was sitting on the pavement. He had been drinking but a blood test concluded he was unlikely to have been over the legal limit at the time of the collision.
Ms Clarke said: "The manoeuvre was clearly misjudged and he lost control of the car with tragic consequences."
Long later told police during an interview: "I am sorry for everything that has happened. I didn't mean for anything to happen and I have got to live with it for the rest of my life."
Richard Brown, defending Long, who has no previous convictions, said: "He bitterly regrets what happened and wishes to extend his sympathy to Mr Tugwell's family.
"Since that evening he has done nothing but think about it."
He said Long could not remember much about the accident but he admitted he was at fault.
Mr Brown said Long had been treated for depression and has seen a therapist every week since the crash. He has been diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
Relatives and friends of bricklayer Mr Tugwell, formerly of Cowley Drive, Woodingdean, attended the hearing and left the court distressed at the sentence.
Mr Tugwell said as far as the family was aware his son and Long had met for the first time that night. They were driving to visit a friend when the crash happened.
A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service explained why a charge of careless driving was laid and not a more serious offence, such as causing death by dangerous driving.
He said: "We looked at the evidence presented to us and considered careless driving the most appropriate charge."
edited to add part 2
>>> Edited by Marcos Maniac on Wednesday 2nd October 09:36
quote:
It may only be a small fine, but the person in question has to live with the fact that they killed someone.
Surely that is penalty enough? (uh-oh, controversial)
Nope - because not everyone puts the same value on human life as we do......... Its a civilisation thing, and as a country we're losing it rapidly. Just look at Barrymore et al.
Wasn't there a case a few months back where some guy was pissed up completely, killed someone whilst driving and came out of court smiling, showing no remorse at all?
And when you consider what you get for simply speeding, then this type of "punishment" is ludicrously low. Murder it aint, but manslaughter is probably getting close to what it should be classed as. And then you open a real can of worms, cause how do you differentiate between a lapse of concentration and drivin like a twat. Tis a tough thing to ponder on and would make interesting case law methinks.
The whole justice system needs sorting out so that it is seen to be fair. A "friend" of mine was caught driving a defective vehicle (knackered sierra with shagged tyres brakes etc) with no MOT, no Tax and no Insurance. Result of our harsh judicial system - £50 fine and 3 points (yes that does say fifty !)
The result of this - he is currently driving an untaxed and uninsured vehicle again as he thinks it's cheaper to risk it and get caught and pay the fine that to bother with tax insurance etc.
sparkey
The result of this - he is currently driving an untaxed and uninsured vehicle again as he thinks it's cheaper to risk it and get caught and pay the fine that to bother with tax insurance etc.
sparkey
This is obviously an emotive subject, but the point being missed is that the sentence matches the offence committed ie careless driving and not the result of committing the offence.
Sad as it may seem, the law is righ here imho. Take two people driving the same car in the same place, both in the same condition. One crashes and kills his passenger and one crashes and both survive. Both drivers committed the same offence and should be sentenced the same, even though the result of the accidents differed.
For those of us who drive beyond the limits, and are caught without having caused an accident, do we think we should be punished as if an accident had occured simply because there could have been?
Sad as it may seem, the law is righ here imho. Take two people driving the same car in the same place, both in the same condition. One crashes and kills his passenger and one crashes and both survive. Both drivers committed the same offence and should be sentenced the same, even though the result of the accidents differed.
For those of us who drive beyond the limits, and are caught without having caused an accident, do we think we should be punished as if an accident had occured simply because there could have been?
so the driver wasn't drunk, but had a pint or so. No insurance, no tax. Well, tax is a rip off, but everyone else is insured - so why not him.
As to careless driving. Subjective ain't it. How many of us have had a near miss at one time or other?
Don't think the sentance was unfair, to be honest. Wasn't like the driver tried to kill someone deliberately.. and in this country intent=murder, and an "accident" is still an accident.
Feel sorry for the families though, all of 'em.
rgds.
As to careless driving. Subjective ain't it. How many of us have had a near miss at one time or other?
Don't think the sentance was unfair, to be honest. Wasn't like the driver tried to kill someone deliberately.. and in this country intent=murder, and an "accident" is still an accident.
Feel sorry for the families though, all of 'em.
rgds.
I agree with s willy that the punishment should reflect the crime and not the result of the crime, but in this case it seems that there was no-one else involved to contribute to the cause of the crash, he had been drinking (albiet not beyond legal limits) and he had no insurance (so I would have thought that the dead bloke's family will get no compensation). I would have though that these circumstances would have lead the judge to have led the judge to use the maximum punishment for careless driving, whereas he seemed to give the minimum. Nothing more than a token jesture !
Something else to consider:
Why did the victim get into the car if the driver had been drinking and was uninsured etc.? He must have been aware of the risk he was taking at the time. If it was a third party not in the same car then the result MAY have been different.
Edited to add: Father of three at 21
perhaps he was a low-life as well? As usual the report only deals with the sensational bits of the story, for all we know the children may be fostered and the mother may be a teenage mum.
>> Edited by kevinday on Thursday 3rd October 07:00
Why did the victim get into the car if the driver had been drinking and was uninsured etc.? He must have been aware of the risk he was taking at the time. If it was a third party not in the same car then the result MAY have been different.
Edited to add: Father of three at 21
perhaps he was a low-life as well? As usual the report only deals with the sensational bits of the story, for all we know the children may be fostered and the mother may be a teenage mum. >> Edited by kevinday on Thursday 3rd October 07:00
quote:
quote:
Edited to add: Father of three at 21
Bit of a sweeping statement isn't it?
it is, but wanna make a sportsmans bet on the facts? I feel he could be onto something...
C
quote:
Sad as it may seem, the law is righ here imho. Take two people driving the same car in the same place, both in the same condition. One crashes and kills his passenger and one crashes and both survive. Both drivers committed the same offence and should be sentenced the same, even though the result of the accidents differed.
A couple of points.
Firstly, as soon as you get behind the wheel, you take responsibility for your actions, regardless of your intentions. Even though you obviously don't intend to go out and prang, you have to accept that its a possibility, especially if you lapse concentration, and you have to accept that the consequences are your fault.
Secondly, if you're going to say 'fine the offense, not the consequences', then this should be across the board, so those who then say you shouldn't be fined for speeding bacause there is no 'victim' are showing a touch of hypocrisy...
OTOH, if you only penalise on the basis of outcome, then speeding per se wouldn't be an offense, and a lot more poeple would do it - so the number of occassions when a bad outcome occured would increase.
I think there has to be a combination of offense and outcome refected in a penalty.
The insurance and licence offences have no bearing on the 'accident'. You could probably even go as far as to say that had no-one been killed or seriously hurt then there would be no careless driving charge.
The death pressured the police to at least lay some sort of charge.
To compare the consequence of speeding in a similar way is both right and wrong. The difference is that speeding is sometimes worthy of strong punishment regardless of whether it has a consequence, (Hooning past a school for example) and at other times it should be entirely relaxed...95 on a clear Motorway etc...
The problem with the current system is that it has no regard for discretion, it simply punishes equally in all cirumstances with a blind robotic passion that leaves motorists understandably frustrated.
The death pressured the police to at least lay some sort of charge.
To compare the consequence of speeding in a similar way is both right and wrong. The difference is that speeding is sometimes worthy of strong punishment regardless of whether it has a consequence, (Hooning past a school for example) and at other times it should be entirely relaxed...95 on a clear Motorway etc...
The problem with the current system is that it has no regard for discretion, it simply punishes equally in all cirumstances with a blind robotic passion that leaves motorists understandably frustrated.
Fines imposed are also means tested. There would be no point fining someone who is already at the bottom of the earnings pile or on benefits the maximum for each and every offence. Careless driving has a maximum of £1000 penalty. To someone who is in a poor state of financial circumstances, it would never be paid and the recipient would more than likely end up in prison for non payment.
Many warrants that I used to receive to execute on fine defaulters were for paultry fines which were allowed to build up after multiple appearances at court for seperate offences. If those at the lower end of the earnings scale cannot or will not pay the small fines levied against them, then how on earth would larger penalties be recovered.
I was assaulted 2 years ago by a burglar that I caught after a ram raid. I was awarded £250 compensation from the court for the injury he caused me.
To date I have not received a penny from him and no explanation from the court that awarded the compenstaion as to why.
The reason is that he is a crack head. All his available benefit goes on supplying his habit.
Prison is a place he spends a lot of time in but for short periods and when he comes out, continues late night shopping in someone elses car.
I hold little hope that I will ever receive anything from this person in recompense for his assault on me. I can only hope that I catch him again soon ( the chances of that are quite high) and then maybe I will get to *ask* him why he still owes me £250 + interest
>> Edited by madcop on Saturday 5th October 09:45
Many warrants that I used to receive to execute on fine defaulters were for paultry fines which were allowed to build up after multiple appearances at court for seperate offences. If those at the lower end of the earnings scale cannot or will not pay the small fines levied against them, then how on earth would larger penalties be recovered.
I was assaulted 2 years ago by a burglar that I caught after a ram raid. I was awarded £250 compensation from the court for the injury he caused me.
To date I have not received a penny from him and no explanation from the court that awarded the compenstaion as to why.
The reason is that he is a crack head. All his available benefit goes on supplying his habit.
Prison is a place he spends a lot of time in but for short periods and when he comes out, continues late night shopping in someone elses car.
I hold little hope that I will ever receive anything from this person in recompense for his assault on me. I can only hope that I catch him again soon ( the chances of that are quite high) and then maybe I will get to *ask* him why he still owes me £250 + interest
>> Edited by madcop on Saturday 5th October 09:45
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff