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.

@Somemore. I would rather reduce the incidence of accidents in the first place by having stiffer penalties for the offending action regardless of the driver being lucky and hurting nobody (ignoring red lights, say), so that there are fewer innocent victims like your daughter in the first place. I am so sorry that happened And hope she is getting better. The same thing happened to my cousin, who eventually died of his injuries after years of being disabled as a result of the car hitting him travelling through a red pedestrian light, so I do empathise.

@tistheseason17. I know more about this case than you might realise. Mandatory sentencing is an issue in which I take a particular interest and am heavily involved. If you had driven your car into a concrete bollard, wouldn’t you get out, inspect the damage and then reverse off the bollard? What would you have done? Or, say, your father? Leave their car there for how long? That’s a serious question. The outcome was horrific but it was not intentional. We should look at getting older drivers, Being most prone to making these mistakes, off the road but to randomly effectively sentence to death someone who by all accounts was a thoroughly decent chap all his life for an error with his feet when 85 years old (the case took a long time to get to court) is nothing short of cruel and pointless.

He didn't go out that day with the intention of killing somebody and I can imagine the fact that he did weighed heavily on him

Well you can imagine that, but I could imagine it hasn't weighed on his mind at all, and imagine he was not sorry or beloved he was at fault.

The fact he lied to police, the details of the incident where he had a bump, was angry, got in the car again so didn't stop to calm down at this point, missed a parent and child very narrowly, didn't stop at this point, then reversed at high speed, hit the two ladies, didn't stop at this point but continued to reverse and drag them along,
he has never apologised to the victims or their families, directly or indirectly, publicly or privately, with a partner who didn't believe he should have been jailed, sharing the lack of horror at the devastation he caused, means your imagination is likely well off the mark.

I made sure that my FIL couldn't drive once his particular illness got worse in his late 70's. I insisted on taking away the keys and it was the right decision even though I was roundly cursed for doing so. DH couldn't have done it as he struggled to stand up to his (bullying) father.

Two weeks later a friend of FIL, similar age with the same condition (they had met at a hospital outpatients) drove across a dual carriage way into traffic, into a barrier and turned over his car. Luckily no-one was injured. However, it did mean that no one argued with me again about giving the car keys back!

I honestly can't understand how people can let their friends and relatives drive when they are unsafe, it's supremely selfish.

@JoyceDivision
I'm with you.
Can't believe the excuses Sally is making for him. If he was so poorly he shouldn't have gone to prison, then he was clearly too unwell to have driven a car and yet he made that informed choice in advance - so yes, it weas avoidable. You can't have it both ways. No excuses.

@BlaueLaguna. I am not sure I agree. The main justifications for punishment are public protection, deterrence, rehabilitation and retribution (and the Victorians would have added in atonement). Public protection, deterrence and rehabilitation do not apply to those making innocent mistakes (having no ill intention). Retribution is rather unedifying but I accept some people seek it; the idea to me of wanting revenge on someone who has made an unintentional mistake seems odd although in the aftermath of a loved one being hurt or killed I can see revenge is a human instinct. Whilst I don’t judge it, and might well feel the same way if someone touched a hair on the head of my DDs, that doesn’t mean it is right. In terms of public protection and safety, we need to focus on the actions not the outcomes even though, obviously, the outcome is what really matters in ways other than sentencing.

It's not an innocent mistake if at age 87 you are incompetent to drive a car and yet you still do.

@tisthesesson. Agreed, but did he know he was incompetent? If this was the latest in a series of accidents, then I would agree with you that he was culpable.

Sigh, it’s not easy. It is a tragedy all round.

If he wasn't convicted and sentenced appropriately, it would give out a message that as long as you are elderly you can put people's lives at risk with impunity. My young DD and dog were near;y hit by a older driver who was clearly not able to drive properly and went through a red light. I was fuming. I couldn't get his number unfortunately. If he'd killed my DD I'd definitely want him t pay the full penalty possible. And if it was an elderly relative of mine who'd killed someone - well, I hope I'd have the moral courage to support the family of the person whose lives have been ruined.

Glad that justice was carried out. Too many arrogant and selfish old codgers represent an absolute menace on the road. My grandfather was like that. We reported him as unfit for driving. Nothing happened, so my father went over there at night and disabled the engine.

A deterrent absolutely does help with even "mistakes" because it has the potential to reduce the number of mistakes by making an issue front of mind and reminding people to think twice.

Due to this case and the debate it has sparked regarding accountability and sentencing, some families will now address the issue with elderly relatives.

Sally - In using his health as a defence to not go to prison then he was aware of his health issues in advance. If he was this frail and could drop dead at any time then he should not have been in a car - this he would have been aware of. He was just selfish and wanted to drive his car hoping he would not cause an impact on anyone. Lots of dribk drivers behave like this, too - should we let them off as they were only going round the corner for 2 mins? Never done it before?

Also, please read @JoyceDivision post. He lied and expressed anger - no remorse, no apology.
The judge had the full facts - more than you or I and I trust their decision

@BlaueLagune

I remember that. If I recall, he wasn’t sorry because he didn’t kill people when he crashed his car. It was the train hitting his car that did that.

Nothing to do with him allegedly being too tired to drive.

People need to take responsibility for their actions. It may not be what they intended but their action or inaction caused it.

Responding to incidents like that are bad enough - reading afterwards that they are not sorry for their part in the devastation? It sickens me.

Retribution is rather unedifying but I accept some people seek it; the idea to me of wanting revenge on someone who has made an unintentional mistake seems odd although in the aftermath of a loved one being hurt or killed I can see revenge is a human instinct

Retribution is absolutely one of the factors that are taken into account by the judiciary in sentencing. I read a lot of sentencing statements and it comes up a lot that the judges say their sentence requires to meet the joint requirements of retribution and deterrence. I’m not sure it’s about vengeance for the wronged family though given crimes are prosecuted in the public interest but rather that society at large demands it

He posed no threat to society if his licence was revoked.
Absolutely disgracful but unsuprising.
A paedophile would get community service.
Typical British justice system

A momentary lapse in concentration can rob a family of millions of moments with their loved one. That deserves consequences. You've got to consider the victim who has lost their life and the friends and family who have been left in tatters.

Doctors must have verified that he had capacity. The old man might have received a more lenient punishment if he had shown remorse.

OP by your logic then someone who commits manslaughter (e.g. elderly person is having an argument and pushes someone 'accidentally' and that person hits their head and dies). It was an accident AND they are old so we should let them walk free.

Bizarre

It is not the chap being old that makes me object to the sentence; It is the fact that mistaking the accelerator for the brake has been legally determined to be dangerous driving, falling as it does “well below” the standard expected. Fair enough. The fact that then demands a prison spell is the problem. Depressing the wrong pedal is indeed well below the competent standard of driving but it is a mistake nonetheless and shouldn’t warrant a mandatory custodial sentence. If we don’t think over 80’s should be driving then we should legislate for that, not randomly condemn someone to a humiliating and degrading end after a blameless life and a tragic error. That’s why I also support Ann Seculas not returning voluntarily to the UK to be sent to jail for what was also obviously a mistake that is nonetheless categorised as dangerous driving - it is clearly well below any competent standard of driving to be on the wrong side of the road but what good will imprisoning her do anyone, awful as the consequences were, for a mistake? And to be practical, would the £20,000 or so per year spent on keeping people like this in prison not be better spent on road safety measures to help others to live?

Just read a heartbreaking story in the paper about a 64 year old lady killed by an angry unfit driver, she had an awful death being dragged along the tarmac at speed by this fuckwits out of control car while her poor 53 year old friend suffered horrendous life changing injurys. Her family are left grieving for her. They had just popped to the shops and poor Jeanette never came home.
Then I come on here and read a thread someone put up sympathising with the killer with not one mention of the actual victim! She and her friend must have been terrified and the perpetrator didn't seem to feel guilty at all and showed zero remorse.

"He posed no threat to society if his licence was revoked."

Some people will still get behind the wheel of a car even if their licence has been revoked you know.
Death by dangerous driving should carry a custodial sentence. He himself obviously didn't think he was too old to drive so therefore he shouldn't have felt he was too old to face the consequences of his actions.

He was a danger to the public though. Just because he didn't intentionally kill, the fact is, he did. He almost hit other members of the public while driving dangerously after previously hitting his vehicle and getting angry about the situation. He showed zero remorse for his actions, even refusing to apologise to the victim's family. He wasn't as innocent as you're making him out to be.
For once, I think the judge made a fair decision.

Absolutely agree with @Poetnojo, of course some people will continue to drive if their licence is revoked- and given this man has expressed no remorse for his actions, is there a slight chance he would disagree with the revoking?

Supportingsally
Perhaps you don’t have a problem with people killing your loved ones by mistake, those mistakes you talk about are though decisions that drivers have made and yes they judged incorrectly. They did though take a test to drive and have a book which sets out how to behave and what judgements to make. This is to ensure they are safe & don’t kill others.

In one case it had been found that those factors weren’t followed, therefore not a mistake. The other case is still to be heard

I don't see how this is even a topic for debate. If I happen to be using my chainsaw for its intended purpose, but get angry and accidentally kill someone, I'd be charged with manslaughter.

All the gang knife crimes, the court's don't say 'ah yes, it was only a kitchen knife being used by someone in a bad mood, and if we send a youth to prison it will completely ruin their whole life'

Quite rightly, in those scenarios the harmless piece of equipment is viewed as a deadly weapon, and it's about time using a shit ton of fast moving metal in a dangerous way is treated in the same light.

It's sad he died, but unless you believe manslaughter with any weapon should be treated leniently beyond a certain age, then I don't understand why his age comes into it.

Some people are being ridiculous. Even if it was not intentional, he killed someone. I highly doubt people would be so flippant “oh it was an accident, terrible and tragic but not intentional” if it were someone they loved.