Suspended sentence for 95 year old driver who killed a man.

[The Surveyor]

http://www.windsorobserver.co.uk/news/15807905.Dri...95who_killed_cemetery_worker_avoids_prison/

This was reported on the radio news earlier today. The 95 year old driver who pressed the accelerator rather than the brake and ran through a hedge in a cemetery and killed a man has received a 16 month suspended sentence for causing death by dangerous driving. Small fine along with a lifetime (!) ban.

A sad case all-round but for me the sentence has been suspended because of her age as anybody else doing the same whilst impaired for any other reason than being a bit old and confused would be locked up. If she was still fit to be driving, she is still fit to spend time in prison.

[The Surveyor]

TooMany2cvs said:

What possible benefit to anybody is there in her spending her last few days in prison, ffs?

BTW, it'll probably outrage you even more that there was no fine at all.

Apologies on the fine / costs error, I read the £535 figure as a fine rather than costs. I'm not outraged, just confused by the sentence being suspended. I'll leave the outrage for the widow who reportedly left the court devastated.

As for what possible benefit there would be for sending her to prison, you could equally argue there is no benefit sending anybody to prison for a driving error. The benefit is punishment, deterrent, and justice.

The reality is that as a society, we have accepted that you face a custodial sentence for causing death due to dangerous driving. You're more likely to be banged up if that death is due to the driver being impaired by drink or drugs, which again is something everybody accepts.

This lady's driving was impaired due to her age which resulted in her not just briefly confusing the accelerator for the brake, but resulted in her keeping her foot on the wrong pedal whilst the car hit a verge when she steered around a parked lorry, crashed through a hedge and careering across a car park, all before hitting and killing the guy in the cemetery.

I'd hazard a guess that if a younger person had done the same because they were drunk, they quite rightly wouldn't be walking free from the court, because she is impaired by her old age she's free to go. Disappointing inconsistency IMHO.

[The Surveyor]

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?

[The Surveyor]

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.

There are a lot of elderly drivers who drive less and less as they lose their confidence and as their reactions slow down. For the ones I know it is a battle between confidence and keeping their independence, a judgement that becomes more clouded as they get older. Clouded judgement that often leads them to just use their cars for short local trips on roads they know, much like the guy who's driving home from his local on 3 pints... because it'll be alright!

The fear of ending up in prison 'may' help them focus on the danger rather that their stubborn independence.

[The Surveyor]

julian64 said:

Bit of a daft thread this.

The op seems to be imply that 92 = impaired driving. With no other evidence than the age of the driver. He doesn't know her medical history, driving history or really anything at all apart from her age.

Imagine it had been a 30 year old mum of two children who had accidently pressed the accelerator instead of the brake. What sort of prison sentence would be appropriate then? What would the prison sentence achieve?
.
.
.
.

I would suggest the sentence should be similar for both if it was a genuine mistake, with an apologetic defendant, and no contributory negligence.
The OP is simply ageist IMHO and looking for a story to confirm his prejudice.

The point I was making by opening this thread was that 'IF' this incident had been caused by a younger driver, apologetic or not the sentencing guidelines would imply some time behind bars. The likelihood of time behind bars would rise if the accident was due to the driver being impaired by drink or drugs. Given that this wasn't just a 'oops' moment, but a driver who pressed the accelerator in error, but pressed it and didn't have the thought to take her foot off when it shot forward, but who kept pressing, and pressing, and pressing until the car covered a considerable distance and came to a stop through a hedge and over the guy she killed, I'm making the assumption (yes an assumption based on the reports only) that she didn't react like anybody else would because she was somewhat confused. You can make up your own mind on why she was so 'confused' as to not even try and brake, but looking at pictures of the lady and the wealth of statistical analysis that shows reactions times slow with age, I'm fairly comfortable that a normal reasonable driver would have braked much sooner in this situation.

I'm not ageist as I'm old enough to hope that I'll live to a similar age, but I do regard driving as a privilege not a right. I'm not advocating a cut-off age, or compulsory re-tests, but by effectively letting off this old lady the courts are sending out the wrong message IMHO.

[The Surveyor]

julian64 said:

......

But the op isn't saying that. he just says old = impaired which is a logic fail.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying in this sad incident this particular lady made a huge error which killed a man, and from the (albeit limited) details which have been made known an error which is due to the driver completely forgetting what pedal does what and who's reactions to her confusion were impaired due to her age.

What I'm saying is 'old and impaired = dangerous'.

Are you actually suggesting that drivers who kill somebody due to their own foreseeable negligence should not face a prison sentence?

[The Surveyor]

CABC said:

Sad case.

However, the intent and consequential loss are relatively light compared to many other actions on the road.

..........

I'm sure the widow and family don't see it that way!

[The Surveyor]

InitialDave said:

What would putting her in prison achieve? It won't make the roads safer, she's already stopped driving.

If it's to punish her, the question is whether it would do that any more than the guilt etc already does. Not something you can make a blanket decision on.

If the argument is it'll discourage other drivers who should have already stopped driving, fine. Support this hypothesis with something.

Are you suggesting the courts take a 'don't lock up a killer if they're sorry and promise not to do it again' policy?

[The Surveyor]

InitialDave said:

lyonspride said:

I don't buy that, being overtaken constantly, horn usage, general impatience around you, suggests your doing something wrong. Failure to see this is simply not possible, therefore continuing to drive is pure arrogance, something many elderly have by the bucket load...... As being elderly in this country seems to be a licence to do whatever the fk you like..

And someone else being put in prison will cause them to consider their situation? I doubt it. Far more likely to view it as "wouldn't happen to me, I'm a careful driver" *Trundles through 30-20-30-50-60 sequence of limits at 38mph*

It's the 'wouldn't happen to me' drink drivers who used to drive home after a skin-full a few decades ago who now get a taxi, that's a message that's come from a combination of potential punishment and drink-driving no longer being socially acceptable. The stubborn elderly who really shouldn't be driving, and who's family and friends all know shouldn't be driving need a similar deterrent and letting this lady off (effectively) is putting out the total opposite message.

All drivers should face the same punishment if their negligent driving causes somebodies death, they certainly shouldn't receive more lenient treatment when their negligence is due to them being old.

[The Surveyor]

vonhosen said:

The Surveyor said:

All drivers should face the same punishment if their negligent driving causes somebodies death, they certainly shouldn't receive more lenient treatment when their negligence is due to them being old.

I disagree, otherwise (for instance) someone who has done so for the 5th time (with a long history of offending) & a high degree of culpability receives the same punishment as someone who has for the 1st time with a low degree of culpability (& of previous good character).
Each case should be dealt with according to the individual circumstances of that case & with consistency in reference to the sentencing guidelines.

I was meaning within the sentencing guidelines, and for a similar offence. Multiple offending being very different to a single offence.

Are you comfortable that this lady walked free for this offence?

[The Surveyor]

captain_cynic said:

The Surveyor said:

A sad case all-round but for me the sentence has been suspended because of her age as anybody else doing the same whilst impaired for any other reason than being a bit old and confused would be locked up. If she was still fit to be driving, she is still fit to spend time in prison.

1. The suspended sentence was because the death was not intentional.

2. The fact that she has now been banned permanently says she is not fit to be driving. I'd suggest that maybe we need mandatory re-testing of elderly drivers but that would be suicide for any politician who suggested it.

3. Also it costs £65,000 per year to lock someone up... For a 95 yr old I imagine it would be more expensive.

Imagine how much it would cost if we actually locked up everyone the average Daily Mail reader wanted to lock up, we may as well rename ourselves the Prison of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I think you are being over cynical Captain, I'm certainly not suggesting we take a tougher approach as I think the existing sentencing guidelines are a logical balance, its the lack of balance in their application.

My issue here is that on the face of it, this lady caused a death due to her failure to react normally to a normal small error, on the basis of her age. Like most Death by Dangerous Driving cases the driver didn't intend to kill but she did and that was totally due to her negligence, but here the courts then decide to impose a more lenient sentence on the basis that she's apologetic and old.

[The Surveyor]

vonhosen said:

I'm comfortable to leave it to the courts to look at each individual case on it's merits & sentence as per the guidelines.
There is an appeal process also available should the sentencing be out of kilter.

Why do we need an appeal process if we're comfortable that the courts look at each individual cases on their merit?

[The Surveyor]

heebeegeetee said:

......, but what if the next day one of them (perhaps while distracted by this case) goes on to make an innocent mistake and ends up killing someone .........

Understood and I largely agree, the only thing here is I just don't see what this lady did as being as trivial as an 'innocent mistake'. We all know as you get old, there are things you can no longer do, and things which become more difficult. Eye-sight and reactions times diminish and 'IF' there is any suspicion that this lady knew she shouldn't be driving, it was worse than just an innocent mistake. For me, it's more like somebody who knows you shouldn't drive after a few beers, but who still does and then kills somebody.

Her acceptance of the dangerous driving (rather than careless driving) charge would suggest she knew she shouldn't have been behind the wheel.

[The Surveyor]

Andehh said:

Everyone debating punishing her, does need to remember she was an innocent old lady who just killed someone. She needs to now live with that & know the shame it brings on her, her family and her entire 'social' life. Her punishment will be severe & the strain of it will likely kill her earlier.

Brilliant, you should have been Harold Shipmans barrister with an argument like that.

[The Surveyor]

vonhosen said:

As a quality assurance measure to ensure that the law/guidelines are being applied correctly.
The appeal courts are an integral part of that justice system.

I very much appreciate that, it was just a comment to highlight that the courts judgement on sentencing isn't beyond challenge.

[The Surveyor]

As a thread resurrection, this case was reported locally and had many similarities with the original one I posted :- http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/northd...

In this instance, the driver also mistook the brake for the accelerator, this 42 year old didn't kill anybody like the original case (thankfully), but did cause life-changing injuries, the driver was impaired due to tiredness due to fasting, was guilty of 2 counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving and has been jailed for 16 months and has got a 2 year ban.

As a comparable, it highlights to me that the suspended sentence given to the elderly driver who killed that cemetery worker was unreasonably lenient and too much allowance was given to it being a 'sad case' because of her age.

The driver in Newcastle made a very similar error, with less serious consequences, but who is today waking up in prison.

[The Surveyor]

vonhosen said:

I don't see them as analogous.
Sleep driving is more like drunk driving.
She also purposely mounted the kerb onto the grass where people were & did it in to a crowd, so there was always likely to be somebody in her path (in fact seven were) & lucky she didn't hit more, as opposed to somebody who wasn't trying to mount the kerb towards pedestrians & was unlucky to hit the single worker down a bank.
We also don't know if there was anything else different about this person relevant for sentencing (ie previous offending etc).

Of course there were differences, cases are very rarely the same.

I'm looking at the similarities, both drivers making the same error of judgement mistaking the accelerator for the brake during low-speed manoeuvres, both drivers being impaired one through age and one through fasting (neither being medically proven or measurable), and both colliding with innocent bystanders.

The driver who's actions resulted in a death gets a lighter non-custodial sentence to the one who caused serious injury. Very unfair.

[The Surveyor]

heebeegeetee said:

........

I think this just shows that sentencing is a lottery, irrespective of age.

This one looks much more like a 'normal' pedestrian impact, albeit with tragic consequences, a lack of observation at low speed whilst parking rather than loosing control of the car like the original incidents. Still, I'm starting to think you're right, it's just a pure lottery underlined by the remorse of the driver.

As soon as the court decides it's a 'sad and tragic case', the perpetrator gets to walk free.