CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Death Crash Driver Sentenced

(17 posts)
  • Started 8 years ago by Wilmington's Cow
  • Latest reply from Vez

No tags yet.


  1. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Community Service, and a four year ban after killing a motorcyclist. Partly down to going for a guilty plea to drop the charge from 'dangerous' to careless'.

    One of the judge's closing comments is telling, "This was not a deliberate course of bad driving, but negligence and momentary inattention on your part"

    Now granted in the next story the person didn't negotiate down to 'careless', but 6 days ago another driver was sentenced after he crashed into a house, injuring people, but not killing anyone. 18 months in prison (don't know how long he's been banned for).

    There may also be some history/previous convictions etc. I suppose.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  2. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    And another driver sentenced today for dangerous driving.

    She claimed a siezure, which the court presumably didn't accept given the verdict.

    Results in... Community service and a lifetime driving ban!

    Posted 8 years ago #

  3. dougal
    Member

    Partly down to going for a guilty plea to drop the charge from 'dangerous' to 'careless'.

    Can someone explain how that works exactly? I can understand the reasoning behind being more lenient in sentencing if the person fesses up rather than fights it the whole way. But charging them with something different?

    Posted 8 years ago #

  4. gibbo
    Member

    The underlying message is that any driver can make a mistake that kills someone.

    Whether that's true or not should, IMO, be a subject for debate.

    Based on my experience as a cyclist, I'd guess there are characteristics that make one driver far more likely to kill than another driver.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  5. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    @dougal

    Careless driving is a statutory alternative charge to dangerous driving in the entire UK, I believe (including the 'causing death by' variants). Causes problems IMV in terms of juries copping out to the lower charge or as in the motorcyclist case above, prosecutors unwilling to push for conviction on the more serious charge.

    Interesting sentencing today, especially in terms of the rare use of a lifetime driving ban in the Huntly case. At least a conviction was sought and obtained in an automatism defence case, juries perhaps wising up post-Glasgow (although it appears the individual made some efforts to address their condition). Sheriff perhaps not trusting the DVLA to do their job (and who could blame him). Be interesting to see if the ban stands on appeal, if there is one.

    Relatively speaking, and on the summary of the cases I've been able to find, I find it hard to conclude justice has been done across both cases.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  6. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "... prosecutors unwilling to push for conviction on the more serious charge"

    Sometimes unwilling for the simple reason they are less likely to succeed with the more serious charge, and it would be preferable to get a conviction for 'careless' than an acquittal on 'dangerous'.

    Though in many cases you do wonder if it's a way of saving the court time and effort.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  7. gembo
    Member

    @dougal - I think the charge can be plea bargained too as well as the sentence reduced by a guilty plea. Police / prosecution usually go for as high a charge as evidence allows knowing there is always the chance for this.

    As Murun Buchstansang says the lifetime ban may be appealed. In which case I would hope for a custodial sentnce (but then it probably doesn't work that way)

    Posted 8 years ago #

  8. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    @WC

    An acquittal on dangerous doesn't preclude the same jury convicting on careless, and the sheriff will direct the jury accordingly prior to them going out - that's the meaning of statutory alternative - so I tend towards your latter thesis.

    Any driving rubbish enough to make it through the police/PF evidence hurdles for a charge of dangerous is almost a nailed on careless conviction, I would have thought.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  9. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "Any driving rubbish enough to make it through the police/PF evidence hurdles for a charge of dangerous is almost a nailed on careless conviction, I would have thought"

    You'd think, but not necessarily (wife is a former PF, though of many years ago).

    Posted 8 years ago #

  10. Min
    Member

    This driver has been convicted of dangerous driving and is expected to get a custodial. He did kill a police officer though.

    He had been using his mobile phone and the "defence" - get this - was that was asleep instead.

    This is mentioned at the end of the article but I had already diagnosed him with sleep apnoea just from the photo.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  11. stiltskin
    Member

    This is mentioned at the end of the article but I had already diagnosed him with sleep apnoea just from the photo.
    I just thought he was a Vogon

    Posted 8 years ago #

  12. fimm
    Member

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-36963572

    Driver gave 10 adults and 2 children a nasty fright but no one was hurt (although they might have been). Initially charged with Dangerous, convicted of Careless. Fined £2,000, nine points on his licence. Caught my eye because of the "no one was hurt" angle that gets pulled out on close passes and the like.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  13. Frenchy
    Member

    Caught my eye because of the "no one was hurt" angle that gets pulled out on close passes and the like.

    One of the factors the police consider when deciding whether to send the matter to the procurator fiscal is whether "The incident involves a PCV which is carrying passengers, particularly school buses."

    Another is a rather vague "The degree of carelessness is on the upper end of the scale."

    I'd argue that this incident ticked both boxes.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  14. Min
    Member

    The lorry driver I mentioned above has been sentenced to 6 years prison and a 10 year ban.

    The court heard the delivery firm driver had numerous previous convictions including speeding and using a mobile phone while driving. In 2015, Warby was banned for a year for drink-driving.

    And yet he was still allowed to drive a lorry that day.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  15. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    Most other news outlets have his drink driving conviction as 2011.

    http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/driver-danny-warby-who-caused-crash-which-killed-cambridgeshire-police-officer-jailed-for-six-years/story-29707594-detail/story.html

    He has previous speeding convictions, driving without insurance, driving while not wearing a seatbelt, driving while using a mobile phone, careless driving and Warby was also disqualified from driving for a year for driving with excess alcohol in his system in 2011.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  16. Min
    Member

    Oopsy BBC. Although my comment still stands as it is still outrageous that he can have that many convictions and still be allowed to drive a lorry.

    10 years driving ban is still way too short.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  17. Vez
    Member

    Serious question - why is it not a lifetime driving ban for a driver who's killed someone? Presumably someone with a shotgun licence who accidentally shoots someone doesn't get their shotgun licence back?

    Posted 8 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin