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.

The arrogance I have seen personally of some (SOME) older men who feel they should be allowed to drive forever when they are clearly not fit for the road is appalling. People need to be made to actively consider the decision to stop driving when they aren’t competent any more as essential - maybe this sad story will encourage others to hang up their car keys.

I honestly believe driving offences that result in injury/death are so leniently punished as to be offensive.

A car is a deadly weapon if handled incorrectly/dangerously. People are so blasé about it now. Someone was slain down going about their day to day life at the actions of this person.

I agree that a lot of people shouldn’t be in prison, white collar crime/fraud doesn’t require a prison sentence, it requires full repayment of anything that was stolen.

It wasn’t a momentary lapse in concentration. He travelled 100 fr over 4/5 seconds.

Oh and what a surprise, he hadn’t apologised to the victim’s family.

After a quick google

He had already hit a bollard
He then reversed at 19mph and nearly hit a man and child who luckily managed to get out of the way, he continued reversing and hit the two women and dragging them with his car. He reversed at 19mph for 100 feet. The lady who survived suffered life changing injuries.

If it takes you 100 feet to move your foot from the accelerator to the brake at 19mph then you should not be driving. This man had made no attempt to brake as the bollard eventually stopped him.

I don’t agree. Why does he deserve sympathy when his actions have killed someone, and he showed no remorse and fought the case to trial.

Old people commit crimes too. Should we let off war criminals? Sex offenders? You've done the crime, you do the time. Period.

My friend was killed by a 74yr old driving a HGV. The AA representative at the trial stated that while his manoeuvre was not illegal it was quite clearly dangerous and posed a threat to pedestrians. The difference is that man was devastated, and living with the consequences of his bad decision was obviously a significant punishment and the reason I'm glad he wasn't given a custodial sentence.

In this case it appears the man in question had already had an accident with a bollard, and then, in an angry mood, got back into his car and nearly caused the death of a child (whose father fortunately pulled away in time), before killing one woman and maiming another. That goes beyond a hapless accident. He sounds like an absolute menace on the road, and if he showed no remorse, then yes, he did deserve a custodial sentence.

Cars have the potential to be deadly weapons. People should absolutely bear responsibility for "accidents" that ensue if they are unable to control a car safely. Do you honestly think at 87 he was safe to be driving?

The poor victims and their families.

Wish the person that knocked down and killed my cousin was locked up, instead of the 12 month "un-paid work" order and 3 year ban he was given.

He deserved prison, he knowingly got behind the wheel angry, he mistook both the gear and the pedal so he clearly wasn't in a fit state to drive, whether this was because of anger or because he was just no longer fit to drive I don't know.

He killed one person and seriously injured another, he almost hit a father with his children too.

At what point do you say killing people with a dangerous weapon doesn't deserve prison, what are the boundaries? Would you imprison a 19 year old who was about to start a medical degree and had a lifetime of potential, or a 30 yr old mother of 3 who was needed to care for her children, or a father of 5 who was the main earner???

Also judges have sentencing guidelines to follow. They don’t just make up the sentences.

He absolutely was a danger to the public.

It’s tragic for all concerned really.

YABU.

27 months is a pittance for killing someone through dangerous driving, and yes, he was driving angry, after having just hit a bollard and was going over the speed limit.

Similar just happened at my children's school but it was a 4 year old killed by a distracted mum who accidentally hit reverse. I guarantee you she will get more than 27 months.

I totally disagree. If you choose to continue to drive at that age, you need to accept the same consequences than anyone else.

I expect the judge wanted to make an example of him and rightly so. Treating him differently would have been agist. You can't complain to being discriminated because of age when it suits but then expect to be when if it can keep you out of jail.

@sootyandsweep2019

So sickened by my YABU vote. Here's all the reason I need the that - www.northdevongazette.co.uk/news/family-pay-tribute-to-mobility-scooter-crash-victim-1-3226379

My grandad, died scared and in pain because a poor old man didn't want to surrender his driving license. No reason why killers should be allowed to continue their lives unaffected. I hope his experience convinces at least one person who should no longer be driving they should give up their license rather than face killing someone and dying in prison.

Heagren, who was 86 at the time of the fatal collision, then took to the wheel to move the vehicle but collided with a bollard at slow speed.

He was seen in an angry state looking at the damage to the front bumper before getting back into the car and slamming the door shut.

He then reversed the automatic vehicle at maximum reverse speed narrowly missing a father who had to pull his children out of harm.

He continued reversing until his car struck Ms Newman and Ms Taylor carrying them towards a bollard which stopped the car in its tracks after travelling around 100ft.

That's what I read. He didn't just bump into the women. One died and the other has life changing injuries. He should never have been behind the wheel in the first place but as he was he needed to be punished in exactly the same way as any other driver.

If he's too old to be prosecuted then he's too old to be getting behind the wheel - he made the decision to drive when clearly incapable of doing so. Are we supposed to believe that he didn't know he wasn't capable of driving properly?

I thought the same until I read the details of what actually happened in, and it is more than just a concentration wobble. The car travelled 100 feet at 20mph in a car park, while the was angry; he made some irresponsible decisions, and it is for that that he was punished. Drivers sometimes accidentally kill pedestrians and are not imprisoned, but in circumstances where they did not make reckless and dangerous choices.

He had a minor accident, got back into his car angry, put it into the wrong gear, and hit the accelerator hard; having narrowly missed a father and children, he didn't stop; having hit two women and carrying them on the rear of the car, he didn't stop till a bollard hit the car. He then didn't apologise. I don't see how the judge could possibly have justified a non-custodial sentence.

I genuinely question the public interest in imprisoning first time offenders, ( of any age), for a momentary lapse in concentration.

It wasn't a momentary lapse in concentration. He had a minor accident, hitting a bollard, then immediately got back behind the wheel whilst still angry and flustered. This led to him selecting the wrong gear (reverse) and then pressing the accelerator when he meant to press the brake. He went backwards at speed and almost hit a father and child then hit the two women. He continued to reverse after hitting them, dragging them with the vehicle, and was only brought to a stop when the rear of the car collided with a bollard.

That is not a momentary lapse of concentration, he was a dangerous driver the moment he got behind the wheel while in a heightened emotional state as it meant he was unable to drive safely and unable to react appropriately. He killed a woman and permanently altered the life of another all because he couldn't/wouldn't wait 5-10 minutes to get himself under control before getting back behind the wheel.

The judge did say in her closing remarks that she knew it wasn't malicious but that this didn't excuse the seriousness if the incident and she felt a custodial sentence was needed however it was a minimal sentence.

Why was it ‘inevitable’ that the sentence would lead to his death? If he didn’t receive adequate care in prison that’s a different issue.

Jesus, those poor women.

That mans anger was taken out on them, and he only got 27 months for it.

This has made me really angry.

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

Quite honestly, I would feel the judge had no option. My 84 year old grandad kept driving until a couple of years before he died.

This was despite having had mini strokes and blackouts. I always told him that if he continued to drive and killed someone, I would find it incredibly hard to forgive, much as I loved him. And yes, I would have thought prison was appropriate as part of the sentencing remit is to have sentences serve as a deterrent to others. Taking away the license of someone who probably knows that they shouldn't be driving anyway, isn't exactly a deterrent.

He clearly wasn't competent to drive. He had just crashed his car already then got back into it and did this. People have to understand that it's not ok to carry on driving when you are no longer fit to do so. He made a decision that directly led to a death and a serious injury and narrowly missed other people too.

If he was unfit to drive because he was drunk but drove anyway would you still be full of sympathy when he killed someone?

There are issues about older drivers switching to automatics after decades of driving manuals; it isn't a good idea to make that change. If a driver is not longer capable of managing the clutch, giving up driving altogether is probably necessary.