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.

I don't like anybody to needlessly suffer either, but that's what the family of the dead lady and the surviving lady have been condemned to ,THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. His actions alone resulted in him ending up in prison.

@nicknacky. She DIDN’T drive dangerously in the ordinary sense of the word. The evidence is that she obeyed all the rules of the road and drove cautiously. The other car slammed into her. But the mandatory sentencing kicked in because she was over the limit. Her friends were the ones who had begged her to drive as she had drunk the least. She had set out that evening with no intention of drink driving, with a designated driver who drank and so couldn’t drive. Yes, she has some culpability - the same (or slightly less) as anyone who gets behind the wheel knowing they have had a drink. We don’t send many of them to prison. To send you to prison only if someone drives into you as the distinguishing feature seems bizarre.

Many many more driving mobile users and drink drivers should be brought to justice and have their licences taken away (there is no excuse) but I wouldn’t support them all being sent to prison. Let’s get them off the roads before they hurt someone, and not wait until after.

The OP is not heartless. It is a given that someone being killed or maimed is horrendous and something that would cause all posters to be sympathetic and saddened unbelievably by - however, not baying for blood as part of a virtue signalling lynch mob is not the mark of a psychopath. Instead recognising that compounding the tragedy by sentencing someone else to death (and yes, it was that) is counter productive and deeply cruel makes the OP rather more empathetic than some posters. Who could wish that end on any human being who had not deliberately harmed anyone? That was the thrust of the post.

I think those of you who are unhappy about the elderly going to prison for causing death by dangerous driving need to decide what age you want to ban them from the road. I'm not having one law for me and another for them.

Sally You can only be convicted of dangerous driving if there is evidence of the offence. And being under the influence doesn’t necessarily constitute dangerous driving otherwise all people convicted of drink driving would also be convicted of dangerous driving. Face facts, her driving was dangerous hence why she was convicted of it.

And it’s a hard charge to prove.

And her friends begging her is utterly irrelevant and she is entirely culpable of her own actions and crime.

FGS. Noone is baying for blood. People are simply asking for justice and an appropriate sentence to match the crime. You cannot cry ageism in other areas and then ask for it to be reversed when it suits you. The judge had to follow rules and thats what he did. It was the right decision according to the law.

The problem here surely is surely people over a certain age should possibly have to take another test,or go on a assessment course to see if capable of driving,we all age at different rates.Sending a man of his age to prison served no useful purpose.

And im with mad cat lady why do people retire to the country where probably little public transport as these days there ofte n isnt.I used to live in a village but i moved to city where i worked and now retired im still here.I dont drive so i can walk into city,or get pretty frequent buses that run till 11 15 at night and a taxi costs £5 to £6,there are
supermarkets a short walk away and my doctors surgery is just a road away..If you cant drive then you shouldnt be living in middle of nowhere,i often watch Escape to country,people leaving a busy town or city with every amenity.moving to sticks and am yelling " noooo dont be so daft.

@beautifulstranger101 I agree with you. It's the lack of apology or remorse from the man that stands out for me, too. Surely any decent person would be devastated at causing death for one lady and life changing injury for another? That makes him appear to be a very unpleasant man at the very least.

@careofpunts. Causing death by dangerous driving was brought into the statute books precisely because juries were unwilling to convict for manslaughter where they were made to consider motive (mens rea, or guilty mind). Actually causing death by dd has the same elements to it as manslaughter but conviction rates leapt after its introduction because jurors stopped directing their minds to intent.

The actus reus is the act - depressing the wrong pedal - not the outcome. Actually this is why the punishments for attempted crimes are identical to those for completing them. For instance, firing a gun at someone (aiming to seriously injure them) and missing is the same actus reus as firing a gun and killing them. They are both punishable with a life sentence even though one is attempted murder and the other actual murder. So the actus reus and mens rea are identical for both the offence and the inchoate offence. It is the result that is different. That is similar to the mistake that so many on this thread are making - the outcome is not relevant to culpability, either legally or morally, but mandatory sentencing has effectively made it so, with cruel consequences.

Anyway, I’m out of this debate. I hope that none of you, or your children, ever makes a minor mistake (let’s face it, we all do from time to time) with a randomly major outcome, and then get sent away for it for the rest of your lives.

Let’s focus time and money instead on ways to make life easier for those without cars in order to reduce people’s dependence on them and minimise the number of road deaths, and accompanying heartbreak.

He drove in a heightened emotional state. That's what pushes it from tragic accident to dangerous driving and which thankfully involves a custodial sentence in this country. Drive in a heightened emotional state and you're as culpable as if you'd had a few glasses of wine.

That makes him appear to be a very unpleasant man at the very least

Right? I know words won't bring them back but surely a sincere apology would have been a very healing thing to hear for the relatives. But apparently, he didnt care...

Killing someone in a car park is not a fucking minor mistake.

@beautifulstranger101 yep, if someone took the life of my mum when I was a child, claimed it was an accident but didn't even show remorse, I would wish them locked up or dead, for sure.

But my final thing to say is honestly I don't feel prison is the answer. I have never been in trouble with the police before or after, and the guilt I battle every day is far far worse than any prison time. All prison did for me was allow me to mix with some very dangerous people and the amount of criminal activity that goes on in prison can be worse than on the streets. If I was impressionable it would of been very easy for my life to go down the wrong path in prison and I thank god I was strong enough to resist the drugs that were so easily available to me

I’ve bolded this section as it gets to the heart of the matter: prison does nothing to solve the problem of dangerous driving. We have to think of preventative measures instead (car lifestyles should be discouraged imo) People here talking about even stiffer penalties, even when they admit that it doesn’t do a damn thing to reduce dangerous driving on the roads.

How do we even know that he showed no remorse? The articles implied he was going through some sort of hip surgery so may not have even been able to meet with the family to show remorse. We just don’t know.

All it takes is a lapse in judgment at the wrong moment. Are all of you so sure it would never happen to you?

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.

I disagree. If someone knows they can steal and, even if they get caught, the very worst that'll happen to them is being made to give back what they took, then there's no deterrent against theft. Even community service wouldn't be much of a deterrent, given what they may stand to gain if they don't get caught.

No one can ever say we won’t have a lapse in concentration when driving and all of us will have done it at some point. However, if my actions were so reckless and dangerous as to take the life of another then I would fully expect to be imprisoned as a result.

Prison is also about punishment and justice.

This elderly man was not fit to be behind the wheel of a car. His actions were reckless. He didn't stop and calm down, but drove angrily at 19 mph in reverse in a bloody car park.

Sorry, zero sympathy for him and much sympathy for his victims.

It's time elderly drivers were assessed annually

@Sootyandsweep2019 Stop calling it an accident. And accident is no ones fault.

Being so elderly you mistake the accelerator for the brake means you are incompetent to drive that car. Mistaking the accelerator for the brake means you are a dangerous driver. Being a dangerous driver means you end up killing people. not and accident

87 year olds shouldn't be driving.

There needs to be a change in driving laws like mandatory eyesight tests every 5-10 years for everyone. They need to change the system from the right to drive indefinitely. There are too many people (usually old men) who believe that driving is a right but it's a privilege for the healthy. I understand that it's embarrassing not to be able to take care of yourself by driving but safety is more important.

He was blood incompetent. Surely after the car started reversing again he should have taken his foot off? Not fit to be on the road.

Car related crime tends to be too lenient imo. Watch an episode of those programmes where police chase people in cars. Every time I am shocked at how lenient the sentence is (plus they are out in half the time for good behaviour)

How do we even know that he showed no remorse?

The barrister admitted he had never apologised to the victim's families.

”Choosing to reverse for 100 feet at 19mph (top speed) is not an accident. I would be concerned if you drive as you are unable to identify very what dangerous driving is.”

I agree, @SimonJT - he was driving dangerously, with no awareness of his surroundings (the fact that he didn’t stop when a father had to pull his child out of his way suggests to me he didn’t notice the near miss).

@HelloToMyKitty

He pleaded innocent. If he admitted what he did and felt sorry he should have pleaded guilty, it wasn't debatable that he would be convicted. So clearly not sorry or taking responsibility

The more I read about this man the more angry I feel for the victims.

I can't believe that he pleaded innocent after his actions. Fucking hell. The arrogance of getting in the car raging and driving off is staggering. If there was any chance of leniency he should have pleaded guilty- he's ruined so many lives.

To reverse 100ft at 19mph takes more than a moment.

I dread to think how many more people would have been injured if the bollard wasn't there