To think this is unreasonable and this judge knowingly scentenced this man to death

[Sootyandsweep2019]

Just read a heartbreaking story in the paper about an 87 year old man, who given a 27 month prison sentence after he killed someone in a car accident. The judge was warned at the time by the man's doctors that this was highly likely to lead to his death; but went ahead and did it anyway. As predicted, he died nine days later. This was not murder, this was not malicious; it was a complete, tragic accident.

By all means ban him from driving if he was a danger, look at tightening the driving regulations around older drivers.

But our obsession with "making people pay," for genuine accidents has led to this utter tragedy .

The poor man must have been terrified. I really think this particular judge/ case needs urgent investigation; and we need a wider look at whether prison is always an appropriate response to car accident s like this.

Sadly I don't expect the judge/ CPS/ solicitors etc. Feel guilty at all.

Horrible situation all round.

My Dad is in his 70s and has mixed dementia. He’s still driving but he’s tested for driving ability every year which involves cognitive testing and a driving assessment too. The DVLA then reissue his licence for 12 months. In addition we (his children) have suggested keeps to certain rules such as only driving in daylight hours, no long journeys and not driving if he feels tired. He tends to go to Tesco or into town but nowhere else. He’s due to retest again in May and once they say “no longer safe” he will give up his keys.

I really do think many elderly people need to be assessing driving and to be honest with themselves.

Does it serve any purpose for this man to be in prison (and yes I know he did indeed die) ? Personally if it was a member of my family I think I’d want to see some jail time. Too many people are driving when they shouldn’t be.

It sounds like Janette Newman’s husband didn’t expect the man to be jailed but said that at least there is some justice for his partner.

How awful for everyone.

It does raise questions about the ability of some older drivers who shouldn’t be on the road. Problem is that their co tribute on to the accident stats are likely to be minuscule compared with younger drivers which probably removes the impetus to tackle it,

We watch my Dad very carefully. At present he’s deemed safe to drive and our experience is that he drives carefully. We will be advising him to stop though if he starts making errors before his next assessment,

And it's not about his age; I feel it's really tragic when drivers of any age who have had a tragic accident

This wasn't a tragic accident; it was entirely avoidable. He was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, not a lesser crime. He was jailed because of that.

You're entire narrative seems to be that he made one mistake and should have had his license rescinded but nothing else. He angrily got in a car after having one accident and drove so dangerously that he dragged people for 100ft. It wasn't a minor error.

Duckwillow the assessments are made by a gp
Tbh I think the assessment should be made by an independent adjudicator from 70 years old onwards biannually until 80 years when they become annual tests and they should be paid for by the driver

gypsywater 28% don’t think so

Oh that's so so sad

@ivykaty44 my Dad has assessments done by an independent company who the DVLA approach. I’ve been with him to one in Maidstone called Driveability. They assess people with a variety of health issues and then say whether or not the individual is safe to continue driving or not. They send a report to the DVLA.
My Dad has passed the last two assessments ..he has cognitive testing done and then they accompany him on a 40 minute drive to assess his driving skill and road reading etc.

He’s due the next one in May...12 months after the last one.

Tbh I think many people over a certain age (not sure where that would be) could do with such testing. Certainly I think it should be compulsory to inform the DVLA of any health condition which would impact on driving and I don’t think you can leave that to individuals to do...some won’t.
My Dad informed DVLA straight away when he was diagnosed with dementia. They in turn arranged the assessment of his driving.

I wouldn’t leave it to the GP as they have a specific role with patients which is already in depth. My Dad’s GP does talk about driving every time Dad visits though...does he still feel safe to drive etc.

Putting such an elderly man in gaol didn't bring the dead person back, there was absolutely no point in that sentence

By this logic we shouldn’t put murderers in jail either.

It’s not about bringing the person back or undoing what they’ve done, as neither is possible. For some acts of criminality deprivation of liberty is the only appropriate punishment.

YADBU are you saying that due to the age of a person if they kill someone they shouldn't be imprisoned? What if he was 25 years old would you have the same view then? There should be no preferential treatment in the judicial system due to age or any other factor.

If a ten-year-old can be tried for murder, then surely an 87-year-old man can.

Usually elderly people lose their licence after an accident and that's it.

There was obviously a lot more to this - the judge would not have sentenced him to a jail sentence lightly.

Putting such an elderly man in gaol didn't bring the dead person back, there was absolutely no point in that sentence

You might as well say that putting Peter Sutcliffe in prison didn't bring back the dead people, there was absolutely no point in that sentence. After all he had a mental health condition so perhaps deserved leniency in the same way that you think this elderly man deserved leniency?

Your argument is ridiculous, why should people be beyond justice because of their age.

I think it is two seperate issues: how severely people should be punished when they did not intend to injure someone and whether old people should get special concessions.

Intentions are important. It is not really fair that if someone accidently kills someone drink driving they are punished much more than someone who drank the same amount but there wasn't somebody walking where they crashed. However, most people think if someone dies, someone should pay for it and if you don't want to pay, don't drink drive.

I don't think old people should be excluded from prison because they are old. If prisons are killing people, we should look to make them safer.

And I’m in full agreement with you @DuckWillow
As I said assessments for everyone at 70

Tbh willow I’m surprised your dads still got a licence, I’ve meet many who’ve had them removed without any assessment

There is a list of medical reasons you need to inform DVLA but how many people know about the lust, how many don’t report and therefore are driving without valid insurance www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving

Wine bottle

You don’t accidentally kill someone drink driving... it’s driving with intent as you know your likely to hurt someone when driving drunk

how would you feel if this was your elderly parents/ grandparent?

Probably guilty and partially to blame as I highly doubt he’d been an impeccable driver until this very moment.

I’ve heard a few people over the years referring to their aged relative who’s still driving despite refusing to wear their glasses/driving far too slowly/having had 3 minor crashes this year already.

People grin bashfully and fail to take action when they know this elderly person is potentially dangerous because they ‘need their independence’. It’s bloody shameful.

I'm pretty sickened by the number of people who think the OP isn't unreasonable.

I have a very black and white view on this - every time you get in a car you are taking responsibility for what that car does - just as you would if you picked up a loaded gun. I pass out occasionally and it can sometimes be a reaction to shock/emotion/stress. I therefore don't drive for the simple reason that there is a possibility that I would pass out. If I did pass out at the wheel it might well be treated as an accident. However, I know that a sudden surprise might trigger a blackout when in charge of a tonne of metal so I don't ever put myself in that position - that way no one gets hurt or killed. It is a massive PITA not to be able to drive when I have children (and large musical instruments to lug around). But it is a responsible decision to make - just as previous PPs have said they don't drive as medication slows their reactions down. This guy chose to get back into a car when in a fit of temper and to continue to drive in a totally reckless manner when he nearly ran someone over. That was his irresponsible choice and he deserved to suffer the full consequences of the law for it.

My thoughts are with those who will now suffer a life time of grief for the loss of a friend/relative and even more so for the poor woman whose life has been changed so dramatically by her injuries - a life time of incontinence and PTSD in front of her - horrific.

The one positive I can take from this thread is that next time DH moans that he has to do all the driving I can remind myself that my decision never to drive is the right one.

There is a reason the Police don’t refer to such things as accidents any more. They are ‘incidents’ or ‘collisions’ etc.
The reason being that there is ALWAYS a cause for what happened.

The bloke should not have been driving.

People should be punished for what they intend to do, and not the random outcome. Anyone getting behind the wheel when drunk/ not insured/ intending to make phone calls or text, or who speeds, or tailgates, should have the book thrown at them. Whether or not they kill anyone is a matter of luck. At the same time, random (heartbreaking) outcomes from genuine human lapses should not be punished with prison sentences. This man should not have gone to prison. The American driver who drove on the RHS of the road killing a British teenager going to prison will similarly not stop a single driver from driving on the wrong side of the road BY MISTAKE. There is no deterrent value in imprisoning people for mistakes rather than deliberate harm, and no element of pubic protection (if you take away their licences). Having read the reports, the 87 yo in this case mistook the accelerator for the pedal. In law, that is dangerous driving and carries a mandatory prison term. In reality, his blame stops pretty much there - he made a mistake. As an aside, we need to address the whole issue of older drivers (and Americans driving on the wrong side of the road near military bases - I understand there are now a lot more signs up which should have been done years ago). Both cases are heartbreaking for all concerned. Sending someone who has made a tragic mistake to prison simply increases the harm done.

@SupportingSally

You may not have read the full case. This was not a random outcome. He had already crashed and then got back in the car to drive again and then killed the lady and gave the other lady life changing injuries. He is unlikely to have intended the outcome - but he had just crashed and got back in the car and carried on. He also just missed 2 other people. This outcome could have been avoided if he had not got back in the car after the first accident.

I don't feel this was injustice at all. My daughter was knocked down by a car when someone went through a red light one day. He drove away but did later turn himself in. My daughter was okay luckily but I'll never forget the horror I felt as I saw what happened. Anyway as far as I know the man responsible got no punishment at all, it didn't even get to court... So anyway I may not be very impartial but I think there should be stiffer sentences personally!

Surely as I said it will act as a deterrent in that families and caregivers will talk to their elderly relatives about their suitability to continue driving and how to accept when its time to surrender a license

Pointing out that someone may be killed by their irresponsibility would have more impact than your might go to prison'. If they are not deterred by the first point, they certainly won't by the second!.

He killed one person and left another terribly injured.

Pointing out that someone may be killed by their irresponsibility would have more impact than your might go to prison'. If they are not deterred by the first point, they certainly won't by the second!

Have to agree to disagree with this one I guess. But I think a lot of people on this thread do which is heartening.

Intentions are important

Yes but often outcomes are more important.

So if I go out tired and drive into a tree, I'll get done for careless driving at worst.

But if I go out tired, drive onto a railway track, a train hits me and 5 people are killed, I'll have the book thrown at me (anyone remember that case, it was around the time of the Potters Bar incident and I think the powers that be were massively relieved to be able to blame an individual rather than the rail industry but I was uncomfortable with sentencing because of outcome, rather than intent).