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 can't believe that he pleaded innocent after his actions

I'm quite sure someone will rush to his defence again saying "his lawyer made him plead innocent- it wasnt his fault! he's 87, he didnt know what innocent really meant in legal terms!"

I'm finding the investment of some people in this thread in trying to prove him to be completely blameless utterly bizarre. I suspect they'll think of some innocent reason why he never apologised to the victim's families either- "he might have been struck mute by the stress of it all!".
eye roll

He killed someone. What about the victims family? If this were a 17 year old lad would people think he should be let off?

can a judge ever do right , i often read of people raging as another driver escapes jail, this one is jailed and people still moan.

It wasn't a tragic accident. The man was an incompetent idiot. He put the car into reverse instead of drive and then pressed his foot down on the accelerator and hit the women and dragged them for about 100ft, stopping only when he crashed into a bollard.

Anyone who has sympathy for him needs their head read. His selfishness (at remaining a driver when he really wasn't capable) has cost people their lives. Yes, lives plural, because one woman died and another one has suffered life changing injuries. Neither of them will ever have their lives back again, why should the idiot who denies responsibility and tries to build a false narrative around it be let off?!

@Lionsleepstonight I agree with retesting, but think it should be done yearly after the age of 70

I can't believe the number of people on here who are agreeing with the OP.

I think many have read the headlines but not the full report of his actions before the fatal accident that why they agree with the op

Here's a photo of just after the crash, look at the damage to that car.. that hit that.post going at some speed, not just a few mph too fast.

Doing 19 mph in a car park regardless of what direction you are going is dangerous. Any competent person would have slammed on the brakes not continue for 100 yards and nearly knocking down others in the process before hitting the two women.

Maybe if he was sorry for his actions the judge would have bailed him. If he’s not really sorry then what was to stop him getting behind the wheel again?

If he wanted to die at home or whatever then when he started speeding in that car park he should have stopped the car not carry on.

And come on you think you’ve got your foot on the break and the car moves you know something isn’t right.

I can't help thinking the OP is personally invested in this. Their posts seem so emotional and unable to accept others have very different views without them lacking compassion or critical thinking.

What are the person he killed or the person left with life changing injuries? Please show some compassion for them and their friends and families.

Oh for goodness sake, of course I have plenty of compassion for anybody killed or injured I'm a car accident; and their friends and fami. I would have thought for most sane, normal people that would go without saying, it would be so obvious

However, compassion isn't mutually exclusive. I can feel great sorrow for the woman involved; and still feel that sending an elderly man into a death sentence, ( and Sally has clarified better than me how grim and frightening Thale scrubs must have been for him), over what was a genuine and tragic mistake, was just adding cruelty and suffering in for cruelty and suffering's sake.

As Sally stated if all the money spent on locking up individual s, ( of any age) who had made a mistake; was better invested in actual road safety precautionary measures then we would likely be seeing far fewer road deaths.

If our inclination at this accident had been to analyse and bring in sharper legislation against elderly drivers, instead of heaping cruelty upon the man in question, we may have saved more lives. As it is, despite this man's horrible end, there is no real legislation in place to prevent elderly/confused drivers from taking to the wheel.

And no I'm not emotional ly invested in the case at all, have never, (thankfully), been involved in a car accident. I am also not the same poster who made abusive earls, ( now deleted), about Harry Dunn's family.

@Sooty

Just to clarify- you know this man would have been Very Unlikely to go to prison if he’d just said sorry and admitted he had driven in a dangerous way. Or having read the facts do you not think his driving was dangerous?

Also ... if I ever commit a crime I hope and pray @Sootyandsweep2019 is sitting on the jury 👌

OP here is the gist of the disagreement:

genuine and tragic mistake

Unlike you, many posters including myself and presumably the Judge don't class what transpired as a mistake.

Having already crashed his car and proving he was incapable of controlling it safely he continued to drive (by his own admission) in an angry state. The speed and distance he travelled was phenomenal and he was only stopped by a bollard. Who knows how much more carnage he could have caused if he had gone further because there is no indication that he was going to stop.

His wife was in the shop (having driven there). He had the choice after the crash to go and get her to park the car. He wasn't stranded, he had sensible options but chose not to action them.

He didn't apologise to the victim or families.

We see a litany here of poor decisions/actions that alone, never mind cumulatively cannot be considered a mistake.

I'm sorry his life ended in prison but the fact he was elderly wasn't, in this specific case enough to justify the level of leniency you think appropriate imho.

@DeRigueurMortis

I bet that the OP will not make any comment on your post . Let’s see if I’m right !

Just to clarify- you know this man would have been Very Unlikely to go to prison if he’d just said sorry and admitted he had driven in a dangerous way

They'll be some lame reason proffered why he didn't im sure. Minimising his actions by framing them as a "mistake" is already trying to remove him from his responsibility as a driver. Highly insidious.

As for "heaping cruelty" on the man- he's dead FFS. I'd like to ask the OP why HE "heaped cruelty" on the victims family by choosing not to plead guilty and not once offering an apology- if anyone has acted cruelly here- its HIM.

I imagine he was under the misguided belief that you shouldnt apologise for a driving offence, which you shouldnt

@Sparkly

That’s an insurance thing. Death by Dangerous Driving is a criminal offence. Prior to the trial he and his solicitors would have seen all the evidence. He would have read the statements from witnesses. Seen the cctv. Read the collision investigation report. Read the details of injuries cause . Read a statement describing the impact this had on the injured woman.

There were no surprises for him at that trial.

He took the decision to deny wrongdoing to avoid the consequences.

Possibly believed due To his age he’d get a suspended sentence on conviction.

For those who read the article , there was no trial as the man pleaded guilty. The DM article clearly reference s that his guilty pleas were taken into account; so I really don't know why people keep saying he insisted on a trial when the opposite was true. But, don't let the facts get in the way of your rant !!

The article references trial - and then goes on to say - guilty plea. It appears he changed his plea during the trial . You wouldn’t have a trial if he’d pleaded at the earliest opportunity

You wouldn’t have a trial if he’d pleaded at the earliest opportunity

This. There wouldn't have been a trial at all if he had pleaded guilty at the start so he must have changed his plea as it DID go to trial.

But dont let the facts get in the way of your rant!

and even if it hadnt gone to trial, he still never apologised for his actions.
What kind of person kills someone and disables another and never says sorry to the families? cruel and heartless.

I'm not a legal professional so hopefully someone else can clarify, but in fairness to the OP I am sure that even if you plead guilty (from the beginning) you would attend court for sentencing.

In the reporting I've read there is no mention of a trial, rather references to "at court".

As such partial justification for his sentence because he "forced" a trial are likely to be unfair.

That said OP - because I read the reports you will see in my post of 19.06 I did not include this issue whilst still coming to the conclusion that the sentence was just in the specific circumstances of this case.

I would feel differently if he'd got in the car and confused the pedals.

It's the choice he made to get back in the car, having already crashed and proven he was a danger, plus being angry (further compromising his ability) that differentiates this from a "tragic mistake" as you put it from being culpable of causing death/injury because of an irresponsible deliberate decision.

Then compounding that by failing to apologise to the victims and their families.

.Sootyandsweep2019 why are you consistently failing to acknowledge that his custodial sentence was most likely due to his complete callousness and failure to give a shit about his victims. Yes, it may have been considered an accident (although again we could debate that it was fairly foreseeable given his immediate history prior), but one of the factors in sentencing is remorse. His sentence reflected the fact he showed absolutely none and had no regard for the value of life of his victims. If he had of shown remorse, he likely would not have received a custodial sentence. It’s really his own doing.

I don't blame the judge for sending him straight to jail rather than bailing him pending appeal. He sounds that thran that there was a risk he would have just got back behind the wheel again despite a ban.