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.

Intent matters even in criminal proceedings so not sure what you’re crowing about here. It was still considered an accident as has been documented in articles on the case.

So you are saying he didn't actually commit a crime, it was "just an accident"? It is "well-documented" that he was convicted of the criminal offence of causing death by dangerous driving.

Yes, the mens rea here is different from murder or manslaughter. And so, accordingly is the sentence. Are you saying that death by dangerous driving should not be a crime at all? It's just an accident?

Fine drivers a thousand pounds for using there mobiles - drivers spend £2.2 billion in fines each year so it’s not a deterrent

Perhaps a month ban for first offence & a two month ban for 2 offence and when they get to 3 offences and the claim they can’t live without their licence they get an Uber account for a year

Many drivers never learn by points on the licence means it could be taken away

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

I was thinking about my DF, and that he did drive into his 80s, an automatic, and have a walking frame. I would think it was the correct sentence if the circumstances were the same.

Even though it is a mistake and not a deliberate act. This man did not “choose” to drive dangerously, unlike someone who chooses to speed, or drive after a drink, or texts at the wheel (?how many of you have done that?).

He drove in a rage which constitutes road rage which becomes a crime as he cause a woman’s death

Condemning him to a cruel and dreadful end

Trust me, there are a lot more cruel and dreadful ends than dying suddenly of a heart attack aged 87.

This man did not “choose” to drive dangerously, unlike someone who chooses to speed, or drive after a drink, or texts at the wheel (?how many of you have done that?)
He did. For one, it is almost established that he didn't have the faculties to drive, ie. his mental and physical reaction times meant he was a danger to other drivers.

For two, he did chose to get back in the car after he had just, not a day before, not a week before, a year before, but MINUTES before had an accident because of the above.

He failed to acknowledge that he was indeed not in a fit state to drive safely, but still chose to drive assuming he would be fine. This to me is no different at all to someone who is just over the limit, suspect that they are, but still opt to get in the car and drive dangerously.

As for the meaningfulness of punishment, well, that a philosophical matter. If your kid decides to colour all your walls because it makes them prettier, do you not punish them because the walls are already damage, and punishing them is not going to take that away?

*to the accusations about ageism
"Treat older people the same as you would young people"

Elderly man commits heinous crime and is given custodial sentence like anyone else would be (and possibly much lighter sentence due to his advanced age)

Cries of "No, you are being unfair, give him a lighter sentence" or "Disregard his crime completely because he is an elderly man"

Pick one, special treatment due to age or not.
Surely not being ageist means the man gets a sentence similar to what a 25 year old man should get- which in that case he certainly did get off lightly*

100% Agree. You can't cry ageism and then change your mind when it suits you to get out of a prison sentence. Either people are treated fairly or they aren't.

For any other piece of dangerous equipment people have to be tested and then regularly be retested via health and safety rules etc

How come I took a test to drive a machine that can kill & will never be observed driving again, never enforced to read the Highway Code or tested on it (and it’s changed since I took my test)

70 years driving for any person of 87 and yet no retest?

That’s where you’d make people safer, by retesting. Especially if they’ve got points and you’d make people drive better for fear of the retest if caught driving badly

YABU. The man was convicted of a crime and received the correct sentence. It was unfortunate that he died a few days afterwards, but that wasn't the judge's responsibility.

didn’t do a single thing to ameliorate the suffering of those he (accidentally) ran over, and their families.

Have they (the survivor and bereaved relatives) said so?

Otherwise, how do you know? Maybe they felt immensely cheered by it.

how would you feel if this was your elderly parents/ grandparent My Dad is 87 years old - it's a bloody miracle that he has never killed anyone and if he does he should face the law like anyone else - my feelings would not be relevant - he continues to drive but he really shouldn't. It's time the DVLA insisted on retests for the elderly.

It was not “an accident”. He was to blame. True “accidents” ie where no one is at fault are very rare.

As for “intent” ie mens rea I am very familiar with this. It is not the same for all offences. He had a lawyer and pled guilty to the offence. Whilst the advice he received is of course legally privileged it would be reasonable to assume he pled that way upon receiving legal advice.

The law is the law. He broke it and rightly faced the consequences. You kill someone by an act of criminality, you should go to jail. It’s the ultimate crime, it should have the most serious sanction. If you don’t like it, lobby your MP to have road traffic offences removed from the statute book. If they are only “accidents” after all. It’s a stupid argument.

OP you are ridiculously over invested in this. 87 year old man dies, big bloody wow. You have not expressed one word indicating any sorrow or even acknowledgement at the utter devastation and ruination that this man left in his wake when he made a choice to drive his car knowing he was not fit to do so and then drove in an appalling way. There’s only one callous person I see on the thread and it’s you.

Why can't some people grasp the basic facts of this case? He got into the car in a rage after hitting a bollard just minutes earlier. He admitted that to the police. He said he felt like a "bloody fool."

He should have took a few minutes to have calmed down, or not driven at all, especially as the CCTV had shown his wife had driven the car to Sainsbury's in the first place so there was no need for him to drive at all.

No one would defend a young lad if they had done this, and rightly so, so stop defending this man just because he's 87.

Because we typically make a distinction between accidents and criminal activity? Punishing genuine accidents serves no purpose

Yes correct we do make that distinction. This man was imprisoned as a punishment because he’d (by his own admission) engaged in criminal activity, being the offence established under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act of causing death by dangerous driving and section 1A of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.

Dangerous driving is defined in the road traffic act as the way someone drives falling far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver that would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

This old man admitted that and he had a lawyer who presumably advised him. He drove dangerously and caused death. Nothing “ accidental” about it. Of course it’s not the same as if he had decided to use his car as a murder weapon and deliberately set out to mow someone down and kill them. Which is why he got 27 months instead of a life sentence for murder.

All you apologists for killers like this man don’t seem to get the purpose of prison either. It’s not just for rehabilitation as dreamt up in your own heads. It’s also because the public interest requires that people be punished for serious crimes and that in the most serious ones the appropriate punishment is the deprivation of liberty.

I don't feel particularly sorry for the man and I haven't rtft.

The judge even stated that she did not take the sentencing lightly however all manner of factors came in to play.
The man crashed just minutes before, at slow speed, in a car park and still continued to drive.
According to experts the man's view as to what happened in the car was not true, he was lying to make it seem worse. His mental faculties were impaired to the point that he confused the pedals and direction of travel for the car.
He went from not moving to travelling 19mph in reverse over 15 meters. That is ridiculous.

And most significantly he hit the women in reverse and then dragged them until he hit another bollard. Imagine that bollard was not there. How many other victims would there be? He almost hit a father and his young children but the father got them out the way.
And most telling he didn't once apologise. Not once. If he felt sorry or felt it was an accident why did he not?

Yes a family lost their father/grandfather/possibly great grandfather but the damage to the deceased woman's family, the injured woman's family and the woman living with her injuries is far worse.

Where is everyone’s logic and humanity? Condemning him to a cruel and dreadful end

He’s not a Dickensian orphan sent to the workhouse, for Christ’s sake. He died of a heart attack aged 87 - millions DO. My definition of ‘a cruel and dreadful end’ has far more in common with being mowed down in a car park.

He was definitely a danger to the public. I know plenty of people who have up driving due to their age on their own accord. He lived in Ruislip which has lots of transport links and would have been entitled to a freedom pass so he did not need to drive to maintain independence. It's not the poor woman who died fault that he did not realise he was no longer capable and do the right thing. Yes it's tragic that this is how he spent the end of his life but the death was avoidable. I'm sure he didn't want to kill anyone but he's actions means that someone did die. If age is an issue why aren't we letting off young joy riders because they have their whole lives in front of them or drunk drivers COs it might ruin their careers? I'm sure they are not going out with the intention of killing anyone but their careless actions are a danger.

I haven't RTFT, but would like to say that it would be really helpful to take steps to ensure that much older drivers are safe. I knew of one, and have heard of more, where there was dementia involved, and the driver was allowed to carry on driving regardless. Their own family was appalled, but couldn't prevent it. Right across country, too.

I’m so glad that my Grandad has finally given up driving.

It was a lenient enough sentence. He was convicted of a crime. How could the sentence have been worse than knowing he'd taken someone's life? He died of old age.
My heart bleeds for victims.

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

Absolutely ashamed of them and supportive of the judicial system.
My sympathies would lie with those that have lost someone that had had their life ended prematurely.

Just as it did when my brother killed someone in a car accident. He did time, a lot of time, he deserved it, the person that died didn't.

Condemning him to a cruel and dreadful end

I'd be prepared to bet he was put in the hospital wing when he went into prison, he may even have been taken to a civilian hospital before he died. I can think of worse ways to die.

No sympathy here.

I had the horrible experience of being there when a 16 year old girl was pinned against a wall and died a fucking horrible death because some pigheaded old man refused to give up his licence when he had an accident not a week earlier. It was traumatic for everyone who witnessed it. And horrendous for the family who never got any justice as he never recovered from the accident and wasn’t prosecuted.

Retest at 70!!!!

Condemning him to a cruel and dreadful end

In a hospital bed, the same as many countless other 87 year olds, not trapped under the wheels of a car in a cap park...now THAT'S a "cruel and dreadful end.

• car not cap