Longer than I thought...
Massive respect to his exgf.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
East Preston Street (and other serious incidents involving bicycle riders)
(347 posts)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Not sure about the 5-odd years for the one who wasn't driving. Given the circumstances I would've thought a sentence not far off that of his brother would be appropriate
Posted 1 year ago # -
True
Posted 1 year ago # -
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/edinburgh-driver-stoned-cannabis-caused-27681871
Turning right across someone in a flatbed truck while stoned, killing them in the process, is "driving without due care and attention" apparently. No shit! Looks every bit as much the waster his 30 year drug habit would have you believe.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I'm not proud of it, but I wish bad things for these people. COPFS didn't bottle it for once. And the judge remanded the driver pending sentencing, which is unusual these days.
Thoughts for James' family at what must be a further difficult time.
"Toshack, of Kelty, Fife, stood trial on a charge of causing Mr Harrison’s death by dangerous driving. But on Friday afternoon, jurors found Toshack guilty of an alternative charge of causing Mr Harrison’s death by driving without ‘due care and attention’."
Posted 1 year ago # -
I was on the jury for a 'causing death by...' case earlier this year. We were presented with the option of finding the defendant guilty of causing death by dangerous driving or of death by careless driving. I think the logic is that if a majority of jurors aren't convinced that the driving falls far below the standard of a careful and competent driver, it's better to get the driver for something rather than acquit them. We found the driver guilty of the more serious charge, and they were remanded in custody before sentencing too.
It's a matter of public record that we took 45 minutes (so not long) to reach a majority verdict, from which you can make your own inferences about how the discussion went (and which I obviously can't disclose!).
A relevant consideration for regular readers of this forum might be that, if you are called to sit on a jury and you hear that the charge is 'causing death by...' you might seek the specifics from the Clerk before considering whether you should be excused. While I am confident that I was able to try this case fairly, I'm not confident that I would be able to do so for a case involving death of someone on a bicycle. Justice must be done and must be seen to be done, after all.
Posted 1 year ago # -
That's interesting GR - if I'd hypothetically been on that jury and as a frequent-ish user of the road in question (Gilmerton) I'd probably have had to recuse myself if I was being totally honest.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The proliferation of "causing X by Y driving" is really frustrating to me. There was a case (forget specifics) where the jury acquitted of "causing death by dangerous driving" but convicted of "dangerous driving" as though somehow there was no victim.
Imagine how many offences you'd need to have if every mitigating and aggravating factor was a separate offence. Instead, the jury should be asked to convict on culpability for the death (is it proven beyond doubt that the flatbed driver's actions caused the death?)
Then the judge and sentencing experts can treat the drug use, degree of how bad the driving was etc as factors in sentencing and those would be subject to appeal on either side if flawed in law
Posted 1 year ago # -
On juries, I would carefully consider my own competence, then I would carefully consider whether anyone who drives a car would give the tiniest little hoot about their ability to impartially judge the facts of a case involving dangerous driving and march right in to make sure at least one person there wasn't thinking "there but for the grace of god..." when deciding the verdict.
Road violence trials should feature an extended impartial but factual training session for the jury before the trial to try and tamp down the clear and ongoing bias on show with most such cases(why are the polis and PF so reluctant to even try for Dangerous in a lot of cases if not because they believe most juries are full of car-brains who wouldn't convict?), until then any cyclists or pedestrians who might be doubting their impartiality should reassure themselves that they're simply helping to balance the scales of an extant and ongoing injustice.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Are the juries in such trials even asked about having driving convictions? Would we allow a convicted shoplifter to be on the jury of a robbery case?
But of course driving is special.
Posted 1 year ago # -
@acsimpson
“ You are disqualified from jury service if you are currently on bail in criminal proceedings.
You are also disqualified from jury service if, in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, or if in relation to a service offence under the Armed Forces Act 2006 anywhere in the world:
You have ever been sentenced to:
imprisonment, or a term of detention, of 5 years or more;
imprisonment for public protection or detention for public protection;
imprisonment, custody or detention for life;
an extended sentence under either of sections 226A, 226B, 227 or 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, (including a sentence imposed as a result of section 219A, 220, 221A or 222 of the Armed Forces Act 2006) or section 210A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995;
detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure or during the pleasure of the Secretary of State
You have in the last 10 years:served any part of a sentence of imprisonment or detention;
received a suspended sentence of imprisonment or a suspended order for detention.
You are also disqualified if in the last 10 years in England and Wales you have been subject to a community order (including a community rehabilitation order, community punishment order, community punishment and rehabilitation order, drug treatment and testing order, or a drug abstinence order).You will also be disqualified if you have in the last 10 years been subject to any equivalent order under the law of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, any of the Channel Islands, or a community or overseas community order under the Armed Forces Act 2006.”
Basically very unlikely to be disqualified for anything but the most serious driving offences. I imagine most shoplifters get a community order.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The points by @edinburgh87 and @Yodhrin are both interesting. Is it better to recuse oneself, so avoiding any doubt that the trial was 'fair', or to stay involved and make the case against 'there but for the grace of god' that will otherwise happen?
Food for thought. Particularly for me, as I'm obviously on some list, having been in two High Court juries in the past three years...
Posted 1 year ago # -
IMO the "there but for the grace of god" attitude is encouraged by the criteria which are supposed to be applied for careless driving and dangerous driving, which both use the IMO dangerously subjective term "the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver". Multiple studies have shown that the vast majority of drivers regard themselves as being competent - but experience of road traffic in real life would suggest that all too many have also probably had near misses in the past. It would be no surprise if the combination of those two factors caused some jurors, consciously or unconsciously, to apply a lower standard than the law really expects.
I still don't understand why we have separate offences for killing people with a motor vehicle vs killing people by other means. Why can't a driver who kills someone simply be prosecuted for manslaughter? The Wiki article on manslaughter seems to be quite useful in this respect. AFAICS most "causing death by... driving" cases could be tried as "unlawful act" manslaughter (involuntary killing as a result of a criminal act e.g. running a red light) or gross negligence manslaughter/culpable homicide (involuntary killing as a result of gross negligence or recklessness).
What is "special" about driving that it has separate laws for offences which seem, ultimately, to boil down to the same thing?
Posted 1 year ago # -
I have been wondering for quite a long time what had happened to James Harrison's killer (remember I knew James slightly, and my husband knew him better). So I am relieved that the driver hasn't been sent away with a slap on the wrist or a No Further Action, which I half expected to have happened.
Posted 1 year ago # -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-67018362
A drug-driver who killed a nurse who was cycling to work in the intensive care unit of Edinburgh Royal Infirmary has been jailed for two years.
Douglas Toshack was more than two times over the legal limit for driving with cannabis when he hit James Harrison with his flatbed truck in June 2020.Posted 1 year ago # -
Scottish judge calls for compulsory tests for over-80 drivers after fatal crash.
Edith Duncan, who was 91 and had dementia, held full licence at time of Edinburgh crash that killed three-year-oldIt would be a start, but why limit compulsory cognitive and medical tests to the over 80s? Every driver should be made to regularly take them
Posted 1 month ago # -
How old was the judge? 75?
Posted 1 month ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
