Motorist jailed for causing death of passenger

[mat205125]

Couldn't see this story already hear, however my nomex suit is on in preparation of the REPOST fairies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire...

Whilst I support the sentence received by the driver given the "facts" of the case, I can't help thinking his solicitor did a pretty half baked job of defending him. From the way the "evidence" is described it seems that the conviction was based primarily on the reliability of eye witness testimony.

IMO, it really is about time that this sort of crime received a punishment that is as severe as the crimes impact to the family of the victims.

[jagdpanther]

In all fairness, a couple of workmates have just been telling me about a similar situation that one of their friends was in.

A young lad was on his way back from a cruise (typical I know) and heading up Wakefield Road in huddersfield when he overtook a chap...nothing wrong in that, but the chap who he overtook decided he didnt like it and tried to race the young lad who was now 3-4 car lengths in front. The driver at the back pushed too hard, hit a traffic island, flipped the car into a field and died

When it came to court, the lad that overtook him and was well on his way, was found guilty of death by dangerous driving, even though, technically he was nothing to do with the accident and his actions were merely a catalyst

4 years inside and he was nowhere near, nor responsible for what happened

[bob1179]

jagdpanther said:

In all fairness, a couple of workmates have just been telling me about a similar situation that one of their friends was in.

A young lad was on his way back from a cruise (typical I know) and heading up Wakefield Road in huddersfield when he overtook a chap...nothing wrong in that, but the chap who he overtook decided he didnt like it and tried to race the young lad who was now 3-4 car lengths in front. The driver at the back pushed too hard, hit a traffic island, flipped the car into a field and died

When it came to court, the lad that overtook him and was well on his way, was found guilty of death by dangerous driving, even though, technically he was nothing to do with the accident and his actions were merely a catalyst

4 years inside and he was nowhere near, nor responsible for what happened

This wasn't the incident that happened a few years ago was it?

When I was at uni in Huddersfield, I worked at Sainsburys at Shorehead and worked with a guy who was killed in similar circumstances. He was just engaged and was heading off to Canada the next day with his missus. His best friend came to pick him up in his dads new Audi, I can't remember the exact details but he ended up going head on into a guy in an Escort, it happened on Manchester Road on the way to Meltham. The driver (his best mate) was fine, walked away from the accident, as did the driver of the other car, but the passenger was killed instantly as he broke his neck.

His mate ended up doing time for reckless driving. The terrible thing was that they were best mates and he has to live with his actions for the rest of his life, which to me, would be far worse than any prison sentnce.

[mat205125]

jagdpanther said:

In all fairness, a couple of workmates have just been telling me about a similar situation that one of their friends was in.

A young lad was on his way back from a cruise (typical I know) and heading up Wakefield Road in huddersfield when he overtook a chap...nothing wrong in that, but the chap who he overtook decided he didnt like it and tried to race the young lad who was now 3-4 car lengths in front. The driver at the back pushed too hard, hit a traffic island, flipped the car into a field and died

When it came to court, the lad that overtook him and was well on his way, was found guilty of death by dangerous driving, even though, technically he was nothing to do with the accident and his actions were merely a catalyst

4 years inside and he was nowhere near, nor responsible for what happened

Once again, as above, these guys must either have completely incompetent defence councils, or there is a real (yet never ever admitted) mission for every crusty funny-hand-shaking magistrate in the land to hammer the max sentence possible if presented with a younger driver. Really telling me that if the person, who overtook and was the car infront, was a 40 something in a family saloon he would have even been brought to court?

Sounds in this case that the young lad was really unfortunate to have been convicted.

[shadowninja]

jagdpanther said:

In all fairness, a couple of workmates have just been telling me about a similar situation that one of their friends was in.

A young lad was on his way back from a cruise (typical I know) and heading up Wakefield Road in huddersfield when he overtook a chap...nothing wrong in that, but the chap who he overtook decided he didnt like it and tried to race the young lad who was now 3-4 car lengths in front. The driver at the back pushed too hard, hit a traffic island, flipped the car into a field and died

When it came to court, the lad that overtook him and was well on his way, was found guilty of death by dangerous driving, even though, technically he was nothing to do with the accident and his actions were merely a catalyst

4 years inside and he was nowhere near, nor responsible for what happened

That is moronic. I can't think of anything else worth saying... it's that moronic.

He just overtook and the guy he overtook s up. Great.

[jev]

If he got 4 years, the case will have been heard by a jury & the sentence passed by a judge.

Presumably the jury did not believe that he just overtook someone.

Not sure how the legal system can be blamed for this one.

[mat205125]

Shouldn't a trial by jury prove beyond reasonable doubt that the man was guilty? Raising that doubt should have been a piece of pish

[Engineer1]

OR there is the classic case of it broke in my hand... the story told by one side is less than accurate and a few key facts may be missing

[gilberninvader]

Another recent case where an inexperienced boy who gave 4 teenage girls a lift and ending up losing control, rolling the car and throwing the girls up to 50 feet from the wreckage and killing them all, just walked free from court with only a slapped wrist....

The legal system in this country doesn't make any sense to me at all at the moment. It appears to rely heavily on the discretion/whim of the Judge you have on the day.

Common sense in one case like your post is ignored. Maybe the judge wanted to give the 4 year sentence to be some sort of example to others, a sort of deterent to other drivers to get them to all drive around at 29mph everywhere and never overtake anything anywhere anytime!!!

In the case i mentioned however the youngster who was possibly showing off to the girls only gets a 2 year driving ban, and will have to resit his test( big deal!) The judicial system is just too inconsistent!
The biggest injustice of all i think was he survived AND got off scott free!!!

Edited by gilberninvader on Friday 12th October 00:53

[gilberninvader]

I've now found a link to the case read it for yourselves to consider.
The boy was 17 when he crashed and had only passed his driving test 3 days before the crash. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/702417...

[tigger1]

bbc site said:

"Police officers calculated Grimes' speed as between 68 and 71mph but witnesses described the car as travelling at up to 100mph. The speed limit on the road is 60mph."

Amazing the difference between eye-witness reports and police experts, and just goes to show how little we should really rely on the public to provide evidence of speed, when their opinion is swayed by so much - the "body language" of a car can hugely influence what speed people believe it to be travelling at.

The tragic crash in Wales (reported on BBC on 2nd October) was one that involved a car carrying 6 people, 4 of them unrestrained 15/16 year old girls in the back seat. This fact in itself should be enough to have the driver convicted of "causing death by careless driving"...IMHO. Driving at a speed above 0mph with more unrestrained passengers (in a car with belts) than you have seats is bloody careless.

There are some horrendous tales about people who had accidents where passengers died, and who ended up in prison, but I don't really see why losing a friend / relative is a good reason to escape a punishment that would otherwise be deemed suitable for the offence.

[Heebeegeetee]

gilberninvader said:

I've now found a link to the case read it for yourselves to consider.
The boy was 17 when he crashed and had only passed his driving test 3 days before the crash.

I have to say, i thought the right verdict was found in this case. The boy was inexperienced, and everyone knows inexperienced people make mistakes, and i can't see the point in sending to prison people who make mistakes.

The girls knew they weren't belted and thus knew they shouldn't have been doing what they were doing, and so as sad as the case is, they have to share culpability.

Its another case of young people sadly dying through their own actions, be it in car crashes, or traveling on gap years, or indulging in any risky activity that we all wanted to try when we were young. Its up to us adults to do our best to try to protect them from themselves, and when we fail to do so i can't see the point in sending one of the young people to prison.

I have concerns over this new law which i believe is coming in, 'death through careless driving'. It doesn't address the question of intent, and i think it just allows the law to jail people who never intended to do anyone any harm but who made a mistake.

[Deva Link]

tigger1 said:

bbc site said:

"Police officers calculated Grimes' speed as between 68 and 71mph but witnesses described the car as travelling at up to 100mph. The speed limit on the road is 60mph."

Amazing the difference between eye-witness reports and police experts, and just goes to show how little we should really rely on the public to provide evidence of speed, when their opinion is swayed by so much - the "body language" of a car can hugely influence what speed people believe it to be travelling at.

When studies have been done, the statistics for eye-witness evidence inaccuracy are horrendous.

[waremark]

Heebeegeetee said:

I have concerns over this new law which i believe is coming in, 'death through careless driving'. It doesn't address the question of intent, and i think it just allows the law to jail people who never intended to do anyone any harm but who made a mistake.

I agree. I think that if the driving (or the recklessness preceeding the incident) was not bad enough to make a 'death by dangerous' charge stick then prison is too strong a punishment. We all make driving mistakes sometimes. What this means is that a mistake with no element of intention or moral culpability could result in you going to prison if someone dies as a consequence.

Strange but welcome that it is taking so long to introduce this offence after the law was passed.

BTW, in relation to the girls thrown out of the back seat, I read that the driver had been reluctant to take them all but they had persuaded him. Just think how he must feel now. I am nearly as sorry for him (he will find this pretty hard to live with) as for the girls families.

[Heebeegeetee]

Guam said:

Heebeegeetee said:

gilberninvader said:

I've now found a link to the case read it for yourselves to consider.
The boy was 17 when he crashed and had only passed his driving test 3 days before the crash.

I have to say, i thought the right verdict was found in this case. The boy was inexperienced, and everyone knows inexperienced people make mistakes, and i can't see the point in sending to prison people who make mistakes.

The girls knew they weren't belted and thus knew they shouldn't have been doing what they were doing, and so as sad as the case is, they have to share culpability.

Its another case of young people sadly dying through their own actions, be it in car crashes, or traveling on gap years, or indulging in any risky activity that we all wanted to try when we were young. Its up to us adults to do our best to try to protect them from themselves, and when we fail to do so i can't see the point in sending one of the young people to prison.

I have concerns over this new law which i believe is coming in, 'death through careless driving'. It doesn't address the question of intent, and i think it just allows the law to jail people who never intended to do anyone any harm but who made a mistake.

Although instinctively sympathetic to this view, surely killing someone unintentionally with a vehicle is no different to any other walk of life and if we kill someone unintentionally we can be prosecuted for manslaughter (however unfortunate that might be)!Why should it be any different here?

Cheers

Tom

Because we're not talking the same thing. Firstly, we don't all get prosecuted for manslaughter for making mistakes. Businesses do, but the purpose of a business is to make money, and so if they kill someone whilst making that money its not unreasonable for them to be called to account. Councils and schools and such public bodies are often prosecuted, but rarely because of someone 'making a mistake', usually its because of some failing or oversight that should not have occured.

If a motorist is driving along a road at the speed limit or below, and a child runs out unseen, how far do you go with the manslaughter charge? Do you imprison him becaiuse he failed to cadence brake? Do you imprison him because he chose to drive a car that doesn't have abs? Or how about a motorist who is drivng along a very busy london street, with traffic coming at all angles and peds trying to cross the road, etc. If a law abiding house wife ends up killing someone because she is inexperienced at dealing with such heavy traffic, do you try to get the traffic more organised to try to prevent it happening again, or do you just imprison the driver, who can't explain how the deceased ended up in front of her car, and then allow the traffic to continue to as it did?

Many of the drivers who end up in trouble did not leave their homes that day intending to do anyone any harm. However, they made a mistake one time and now society wants to charge them with manslaughter. What will it achieve? You won't stop people making mistakes, because making mistakes is a function of a human being.

[gilberninvader]

Heebeegeetee said:

gilberninvader said:

I've now found a link to the case read it for yourselves to consider.
The boy was 17 when he crashed and had only passed his driving test 3 days before the crash.

I have to say, i thought the right verdict was found in this case. The boy was inexperienced, and everyone knows inexperienced people make mistakes, and i can't see the point in sending to prison people who make mistakes.

The girls knew they weren't belted and thus knew they shouldn't have been doing what they were doing, and so as sad as the case is, they have to share culpability.

Its another case of young people sadly dying through their own actions, be it in car crashes, or traveling on gap years, or indulging in any risky activity that we all wanted to try when we were young. Its up to us adults to do our best to try to protect them from themselves, and when we fail to do so i can't see the point in sending one of the young people to prison.

I have concerns over this new law which i believe is coming in, 'death through careless driving'. It doesn't address the question of intent, and i think it just allows the law to jail people who never intended to do anyone any harm but who made a mistake.

Your quite right he was very very inexperienced, probably so inexperienced that this might have been the very first time he had ever given anyone else a lift in the back seat of his 'borrowed' mothers car, apart from maybe a driving instructor.

It might also be the case that in future such inexperienced drivers are prohibited from giving lifts to more than say a single front seat passenger, until they ARE more experienced and can supervise their passengers and ensure they wear seatbelts etc etc.

I believe its still the law that its the drivers responsibility that their passengers have their seatbelts fitted isn't it? However 4 doesn't go into the 3 available belts in the rear of the car in this instance does it!

His mistake was that he took a huge gamble, a massive risk with other peoples lives, apart from his own.

Overloading the car in this case was not just a simple mistake, but against the law and resulted in the Tragic loss of life. This was totally forseable and could have been prevented by him. It was his decision to stop and pick up the girls and his decision to drive off with them at excessive speed. (The distance he came to rest from the edge of the road is clear indication that he was travelling over 40 mph.)

I think your confusing mistakes with accidents, as accidents will always happen though human error etc., mistakes can usually be avoided with care experience and caution etc.

To say this accident was just a mistake is boocks!

[Heebeegeetee]

gilberninvader said:

Your quite right he was very very inexperienced, probably so inexperienced that this might have been the very first time he had ever given anyone else a lift in the back seat of his 'borrowed' mothers car, apart from maybe a driving instructor.

It might also be the case that in future such inexperienced drivers are prohibited from giving lifts to more than say a single front seat passenger, until they ARE more experienced and can supervise their passengers and ensure they wear seatbelts etc etc.

I believe its still the law that its the drivers responsibility that their passengers have their seatbelts fitted isn't it? However 4 doesn't go into the 3 available belts in the rear of the car in this instance does it!

His mistake was that he took a huge gamble, a massive risk with other peoples lives, apart from his own.

Overloading the car in this case was not just a simple mistake, but against the law and resulted in the Tragic loss of life. This was totally forseable and could have been prevented by him. It was his decision to stop and pick up the girls and his decision to drive off with them at excessive speed. (The distance he came to rest from the edge of the road is clear indication that he was travelling over 40 mph.)

I think your confusing mistakes with accidents, as accidents will always happen though human error etc., mistakes can usually be avoided with care experience and caution etc.

To say this accident was just a mistake is boocks!

Yes, but this is all typical of how many young drivers behave, including meself when i was that age.

The girls knew they shouldn't have been doing what they were doing. The mother knew she shouldn't have let her son out loose 3 days after passing his test. Just pinning the responsibility on one person who legally was still a child won't prevent it happening again. Everybody needs to take their share of the blame, particularly the adults.

Somebody on this thread said the driver got off scot free. He's killed 4 people at the age of 17. I can't really imagine how he's going to get on with the rest of his life with that hanging over him, tbh. What on earth difference could prison possibly make? He's killed 4 people, ffs. His life is ed.

The law does need to be changed to a degree (though i'm not in favour of raising the age), or possibly society needs to get back to educating kids better, 'cos it does seem they come into the adult world totally unprepared.

But throw him in jail if you want, just don't imagine it will achieve anything.

[gilberninvader]

Please see attached further link to the Craig Grimshaw case for additional background:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/703005...

In the driver's statement to the police, he said he wanted to perform a 3-point turn on the mountain and drive back from the direction he came, he also states that the wheel locked at the back end and he skidded. Instead of his claimed 3 point turn, might he have been attempting a fast 'hand brake'turn, thus losing complete control over the car, in an attempt to copy some stunt or other he may have tried out a million times on a playstation etc!
What surprises me is the lack of forensic evidence to substantiate the 'true' speed he was driving at and how it happened, from I guess the length of skid marks, distances travelled after leaving highway etc etc.

As i said earlier his age, inexperience, immaturity and showing off in his 'borrowed' mothers car with a boom box fitted which was obviously for his mothers benefit-not!

I wonder if the insurance assessors in this instance believed the car was his or his mothers, and if she had allowed him to 'borrow' it or had he just taken it without consent.( was it his anyway...all but in name on log book) How many other parents in the uk are buying cars for their children which are of higher performance than they actually can handle, and insuring them under the parents name; as youngsters cannot afford the insurance premiums.

The mother might also have said she agreed she allowed him to borrow the car or the insurance may become void, and he could have ended up charged with 'twocing'on top of any other charge. It just makes you think what the story is behind the story!

and i stand by my earlier statement that i think the biggest injustice is he survived whilst the girls didn't, and the families of the girls are probably suffering their loss, 100 times more than he will ever suffer.