Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to think someone who has killed while drink driving should be tried for murder/manslaughter?

117 replies

ihatesoftplay · 16/06/2015 15:10

My friend was killed by a drink driver just over 18 months ago and he (the driver) was sentenced to 6.5 years in jail and banned from driving for 10 yesterday. "Driving dangerously at excessive speed and causing death."

He murdered her, using his car as a weapon. I cannot see the justice in this sentence.

I appreciate my emotions may be clouding my view, so I probably am BU, but I'm interested in your thoughts...

OP posts:
IKnowIAmButWhatAreYou · 17/06/2015 16:52

I don't see what prosecuting them would add, if they survive.

OK, so how about a pissed driver that hits a lamp post & breaks a few ribs??

My point is that it's not just damage to the car - it's the poor sod of a driver who has to live with hitting them, and who will be accused of being in the wrong until it's conclusively proven that the other party was at fault.

Saying "Aww, poor cyclist" (I cycle, easiest example to use - not having a dig) doesn't excuse the fact that they caused an accident.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 17/06/2015 17:03

The point I was making was about relative risk of harm. If a pedestrian or cyclist causes an accident with a car then the likelihood is that they will suffer most because of it. What would purpose of prosecution be?

  1. Teaching them a lesson?
  2. Retribution?
LurkingHusband · 17/06/2015 17:06

"What if jurors find that draconian, and refuse to find guilty ?"

Apart from a knee-jerk "shame on them if they do"? If I'm really honest with you, I don't know Lurking. I'd like the country to be given the opportunity to find out if this would happen. If it did we'd need to reconsider the law I suppose. As it stands I feel that the law is in serious need of an overhaul.

Why shame on them ? They have heard the evidence. They will have to live with their decision.

If you want pre-pack law, with everything done by rote, then you have no need for juries. Or indeed judges.

One unique aspect of our legal system, is it allows us all, as jurors, to judge the law. In my case, there are certain situations where I would acquit, irrespective of what the law says (it's called jury nullification - it's how Clive Ponting went free). If I knew a guilty verdict would impose a draconian sentence (i.e a mandatory life sentence), then I wouldn't vote guilty.

As always, it's swings and roundabouts. The downside of such a system is it occasionally throws up unpalatable verdicts. The real question is how many innocent people is it acceptable to jail, before a guilty one goes free ?

GymBum · 17/06/2015 17:14

Op. Yes they should be charged with murder. In fact they should be charged with premeditated murder because if you get in a vehicle after drinking then you knowingly increase the risk of hitting or crashing into someone.

AyeAmarok · 17/06/2015 18:06

Removing the licence forever seems fair (along with jail time) for Drink Driving.

If they then drive again without a licence: jail for longer, as they obviously haven't learned and are a danger to society.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 17/06/2015 18:10

GymBum
It's not murder because they don't get into the car with the intention of killing a person or causing them GBH (that is the intent needed for murder). They get into a car believing they will drive home safely.

However, it may be manslaughter but it is complex
CPS guidelines are:-
"If the vehicle was intentionally used as a weapon to kill or commit grievous bodily harm, a charge of murder may be considered. If the killing was involuntary, that is to say, where it was not intended, manslaughter may be considered. Manslaughter may arise as unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter. In addition, the charge of corporate manslaughter is also available.

Manslaughter is an obligatorily disqualifiable offence - Part II of Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (RTOA 1988). An extended retest is also mandatory (section 36 of the RTOA 1988).

Manslaughter should also be considered where the driving has occurred "off road" i.e. other than on a road or other public place, or when the vehicle driven was not mechanically propelled, and death has been caused. In these cases the statutory offences such as causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving do not apply.

Prosecutors should also see the chapter on Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter in our Legal Guidance.
Unlawful act manslaughter

It must be proved that:
The suspects act caused the death of another;
The suspects act constituted a criminal offence in itself;
The suspect had the mens rea appropriate to the unlawful act which caused the death of another; and
The suspects unlawful act is objectively recognised as subjecting another to the risk of some physical harm, albeit not necessarily serious harm.

Unlawful act manslaughter will be the most appropriate charge when there is evidence that a vehicle was used as an instrument of attack or to cause fright, (but where the necessary intent for murder is absent), and death occurs as a result.

In the context of driving offences, it is important to remember that there is a difference between cases where there is a specific unlawful act which relates to the manner and standard of the driving, and those where a death has occurred as a result of driving that is unlawful only because of the negligent manner of its performance.

Driving carelessly or driving dangerously do not, on their own, amount to unlawful acts for the purpose of unlawful act manslaughter. Andrews v DPP [1937] A.C. 576

Unlawful act manslaughter should, therefore, only be charged instead of causing death by dangerous driving where there is evidence that the driver either intended to cause injury to the victim or was reckless as to whether injury would be caused. "
www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/

Imustgodowntotheseaagain · 17/06/2015 18:10

Sorry, late return to the thread. Very few accidents are really and truly "a momentary lapse of concentration." The PP who thinks its OK to kill someone if the sun dazzles you - the position of the sun is not a surprise when you set out on your journey. It is not an excuse.

Driving is a complex task and you should be concentrating on it all the time. Not chatting on the phone, reading the kids homework, shaving or eating cereal, all of which I've seen.

I'm not a saint. I've made the classic mistake of pulling out of a junction without looking both ways, in front of a car. And yes, had it been a biker, they wouod probably have ben dead. And I would have handed in my licence and never ever driven again,

I would put you in prison even if it was an 'innocent mistake.' Not for very long, but I truly believe we take Death By motor Vehicle too casually in this country and a day, a week or a month in prison would change that.

Imustgodowntotheseaagain · 17/06/2015 18:14

Lurking doesn't that disaualify you from jury service? I thought you had to agree that you were wiling to find the accused guilty if that's what the evidence persuaded you. If you're going into the jury room with your mind made up to acquit, you aren't fulfilling that.

SaulGood · 17/06/2015 19:25

Imustgodown, at no point did I say it is OK to kill someone if the sun dazzles you. Please do not imply I said such a callous and terrible thing. I was responding to the statement a previous poster made about everybody suffering from momentary distractions at some point whilst driving. Everybody goes through it because we are only in control of the car, none of the permutations outside it. I wasn't talking about excuses, I was talking about peculiarities of individual journeys and human fallability.

Imprisoning every single car driver who is involved in a fatal accident cannot act as a deterrent. Not when genuine accidents happen. Thankfully, the law is made outside of emotion. It's a difficult thing to process through the filter of loss.

partialderivative · 17/06/2015 19:28

most people drive like cunts

Where the hell did you pluck that from?

Actually, UK drivers are amongst the safest in the world (some of the Scandanavian countries come out better).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

TTWK · 17/06/2015 20:34

I'm not a saint. I've made the classic mistake of pulling out of a junction without looking both ways, in front of a car. And yes, had it been a biker, they wouod probably have ben dead. And I would have handed in my licence and never ever driven again,

Why don't you hand it in anyway? The mistake you made was no less careless just because you didn't happen to kill someone. It was only luck that stopped you from killing anyone. Surely, feeling the way you do, you don't want to push your luck and risk it happening again.

I would put you in prison even if it was an 'innocent mistake.' Not for very long,

If I went to prison for a day, I could not continue to do my job. You cannot do my job if you have a prison record. I wonder, when all these people are on the dole because of their prison record, who is going to be the teachers, doctors, bank clerks, and all the other occupations where a prison record is a no no.

And who is going to pay for all the new prisons to house everyone.

TTWK · 17/06/2015 20:42

Imustgodown, at no point did I say it is OK to kill someone if the sun dazzles you. Please do not imply I said such a callous and terrible thing.

Saulgood, everyone who has read the thread knows you said absolutely nothing of the kind.

Imustgodown, how about prison for people who lie about what others have said on t'internet?

Mommyusedtobecool · 17/06/2015 20:55

I think this is so sad. I'm Sorry for your loss. IMO if you look at it objectively it's reckless, selfish behaviour that unintentionally lead to a tragic death.
But then if anyone looks at it as if it was their family member that was the victim. It's unforgivable.
But no amount of time locked up will ever bring that person back, Sad and one would hope that person is also traumatised by what they've done and perhaps their life will never be the same again.
Either way I don't think there's a straight forward answer. I really pray that you can find peace.

IKnowIAmButWhatAreYou · 17/06/2015 21:30

If a pedestrian or cyclist causes an accident with a car then the likelihood is that they will suffer most because of it. What would purpose of prosecution be

To uphold the law.

We still prosecute burglars that injure themselves during the burglary, your logic is missing flawed...

hibbledibble · 17/06/2015 21:52

Sorry for your loss.

I agree in a case like yours, where someone has been intentionally reckless. Drink driving, driving at a manifestly excessive speed, racing etc all come under this. Death by dangerous driving is effectively murder.

Death by careless driving I don't think is the same thing however. If a person has a momentary lapse of concentration which results in someone's death l, it is terrible but nothing like murder or manslaughter.

TTWK · 17/06/2015 22:05

Death by dangerous driving is effectively murder.

Only if you don't know what murder is.

If you charge someone with murder for accidentally killing someone because they were driving very recklessly, or even drunk, then how would you deal with someone who deliberately murdered someone by driving a car at them? Surely there has to be a difference between accidentally killing someone, no matter how carelessly you behaved, and actually setting out to deliberately kill someone.

You would need a new offence of supermurder?

hibbledibble · 17/06/2015 22:17

Ttwk to me that difference would come in at sentencing, where the gravity of the crime and mitigating factors etc can be assessed.

Anyone driving drunk knows they can kill someone.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 17/06/2015 22:58

I know
There is a serious jurisprudential debate about the purpose of punishment. Is it intended to be retribution or rehabilitation. A person can cause an accident without breaking any law. Even if they are to blame, if they have been left paraplegic when the car driver had no injuries, would society really demand further punishment? The argument is far more nuanced than you seem to appreciate. If prosecution is something that serves a function in maintaining social norms, which is what laws are on one level, then the application those laws doesn't exist in a vacuum but may be tempered with compassion and common sense.

hibbledibble · 17/06/2015 23:41

chasz I'm not sure if that is directed at me. Sentencing is designed to be both a deterrent and an attempt at correction.

As I said earlier, the nature and circumstance if the crime influences the sentence imposed, which of course involves compassion and common sense.

For example it is possible, and has happened many times, for a person to be convicted and given an absolute discharge.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 17/06/2015 23:50

It was directed at IknowIam who told me I lacked logic when I asked what the purpose of prosecution was.
hibble I accept the point that sentencing can be a method of bring balance. However, that does bring the problem of certain elements of the media howling about light sentences without having all the facts.

sashh · 18/06/2015 07:40

I think the problem with a manslaughter charge is that a jury might not convict. There will be someone on the jury who has driven after a drink and thinks it's just bad luck to have killed someone.

There is a charge of manslaughter by motor vehicle, and I know this is no consolation, but the sentence might be as light, or even lighter.

TTWK · 18/06/2015 08:54

Anyone driving drunk knows they can kill someone.

Anyone doing 32 mph in a 30 limit knows they can kill someone. That's an entirely different thing from actually setting out to deliberately kill someone.

No matter how reckless and irresponsibly someone might behave, killing someone accidentally whilst acting like a twat is a different offence to killing someone deliberately.

treaclesoda · 18/06/2015 08:59

I agree with the permanent loss of licence if you are convicted of a serious motoring offence. But tbh even that is only a punishment 'on paper'. My local newspaper is full of court reports week after week, where you see the same names coming up over and over again as being in court for 'driving whilst banned' or whatever the correct term is. Sometimes these people have hundreds of driving convictions and have been banned for years, but still, out they go, into a car, no insurance, banned from driving and there is no way to stop them. If they get caught, their ban is extended. The ban that they are ignoring anyway. It is laughable, but yet I have no idea what can be done about it.

TTWK · 18/06/2015 09:33

It is laughable, but yet I have no idea what can be done about it.

Prison!

Those are the types of people who should be in jail, not, as suggested by some on here, anyone involved in a fatal accident.

IceBeing · 18/06/2015 09:36

If you make killing/injuring someone while drink driving the serious crime then people will continue to drink drive, because actually killing someone is rare.

IF you make driving while drunk the serious crime then people will stop doing it.

Hence everyone caught in a state likely to seriously increase the risk of causing death should get the same large sentence.

Swipe left for the next trending thread