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.

Is the old man your dad, OP? I can't think of any other reason why you would continue to bleat on about his killing and maiming of innocent people and subsequent refusal to aknowledge/apologise as being nothing more than "a tragic accident". You know you are wrong - have the grace to accept it. He deserved to go to prison even if he was your dad.

Some people appear to have this idea that a defendant's age should be taken into account. The OP seems to think that because this man was old, he shouldn't have been given a custodial sentence. Which is ridiculous. When Nazi war criminals were brought to justice in the 1990s, they were in their 80s and 90s. Same with paedophiles facing historical abuse charges.

If your actions cause the death or serious injury/trauma to another person in such a way that a reasonable person should be able to foresee, then a custodial sentence is the appropriate penalty whatever their age.

Lack of remorse is also an aggravating factor, as has been said numerous times. This man didn't care that his actions caused the death of one lady and life changing injuries to another. Don't you think they deserve justice, OP? How would you feel if one of the ladies was your mum:sister?

I think it’s very likely that the Op is related to or close to the driver. And so I do feel a bit sorry for her as it’s hard to be rational when your heart is involved

The main thing that's wrong with the law regarding driving convictions is that it is unduly lenient in sentencing. It is also notoriously difficult for juries to convict - I think with dangerous driving it is something that people can imagine happening to themselves so jurors often seem to be sympathetic to the driver.

Excellent post from DeRigueurMortis at 19.06

@Sootyandsweep2019 you state you have plenty of compassion for any victims of car injuries. However your posts seem to minorities the actual victims of this thread. Even I your response you seem annoyed. I think this is what many respond to. It most certainly was what made me ask the question to Sally as neither of you seem to show much compassion to the actual victims of this. The two women their families and I will go as far as stating the dad who managed to pull his children out of the way and likely witnessed it all. I so not feel the man who was charged and found guilty was a victim. You do.. we disagree there.

@Sparklybaublefest you can show remorse without "admitting guilt " examples would be to state." I am sorry that this happened"
" I feel terrible for the victims and their families over this horrible event"

This shows remorse and it shows compassion the driver did not appear to feel any of this was necessary. Personally I feel all the compassion should go towards those who were affected by this and yes that includes the driver and his family. However I still believe the sentence was fair and just.

He pleaded guilty and was convicted of death by dangerous driving, not careless, there was enough evidence for a dangerous driving conviction which he agreed and pleased guilty to. He didn't intend to kill (or he would have been charged with murder), but his direct dangerous actions resulted in a death.

It is sad he died behind bars, but death by dangerous driving deserves a custodial sentence and age is irrelevant.

Why are you minimising his actions? At 87, chances are that his driving skills were deteriorating and were a contributing factor to this incident. Why did a 87 year old’s desire to drive/be independent trump the safety needs of all other road users? It’s quite concerning.

if he felt comfortable enough to be behind a wheel, he needs to also be comfortable with the same punishment as other offenders regardless of his age. That’s the responsibility you accept as a driver.

OP - YABVVU.
UK life expectancy for a male is c80yrs.
The judge did not knowingly sentence this man to death.

The man did, however, get into the car knowing he was enraged following an incident in the car park.

His decision, his actions. Most accidents have unintended consequences - whatever your age you must accept them. I do feel a separate prison for these type if offences would be beneficial but a sentence was necessary - he caused a death and life changing injuries.

Had he chosen NOT to get back into the car then he would have knowingly remained safe and got his wife to drive home - but he did not.

At 87 he had already lived more years than average- something his victim duc not achieve. At 87 he could have died at any time - his choices determined his place of death - not the judge.

He must have been fairly badly impaired by one or all of rage, age or general incompetence.
Compare it to being impaired by alcohol consumption alone- how drunk would you have to be to hit a bollard AND then select reverse instead of drive AND the accelerator instead of the brake AND not react by taking your foot off the pedal when your car shoots backwards at 20mph for 30 metres, one of your wing mirrors has a man desparately hauling a child out of your path and your rearview/wing mirror probably has your two victims in it that you hit and drag, not stopping till your car is physically stopped by the second bollard?

That's the kind of story that usually has the driver blowing some horrific alcohol reading. Watching some of those police bodycam footage shows, when drivers who are erratic but not quite as bad as that, a lot of them are absolutely hanging with booze or drugs and can't utter a coherent sentence.

If he was young, fit, and non-angry at the time of the accident, but absolutely shitfaced drunk and did not apologise to the families at any point, he would have gone to jail, probably even if he had developed a heart condition between the accident and the trial.

You have expressed my thoughts exactly and with great clarity, @powershowerforanhour.

Judges have to follow sentencing guidelines. The Judge didn’t ‘kill’ the old man but the old man certainly killed someone 😔

This was local to me
Apparently he had already hit something forwards and was in a temper when he then reversed

However you look at it, this man shouldn't have been driving. How can he be competent to drive if he goes into reverse by mistake and then doesn't stop immediately? He then should have got out of the car and asked his wife to drive instead. You have no business driving a car if you don't have the awareness to know when you're not in a fit state to drive (e.g. you're over the limit, doped up on pain killers).

It was completely irresponsible of him.

His “possible death” in the future will be much more comfortable and dignified than his victims. As he’s 87 years old, it’s not the judge’s fault if this offender dies whilst incarcerated. The judge did not sentence him to death. What a stupid argument.

I don’t think his age makes him deserve any leniency. Upon reading more about this case, he would certainly caused an accident at some point. He was not fit to drive as his reactions were very slow and he clearly lacked the capacity to make sound judgment considering his actions (anger, hitting bollard and continuing to drive, getting back into the car etc). There was absolutely no good reason for him to still be on the road prior to this incident, and now people have died as a result of his insistence to get behind the wheel.

The law is the law - it's not dependent on age I'm afraid . We can't just let people off because they are elderly- he was responsible for a death - he should not have been behind the wheel . What about personal responsibility? Age doesn't allow us to absolve yourself from responsibilities.

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

He didn’t drive there though, his wife asked him to park the car. So it doesn’t seem like he drove all the time? We really can’t conclude he’d hop back in.

.....she probably feels incredibly guilty.

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. So let's just get rid of all sentences/repercussions for criminals and just look at how we can 'do better' by analysing things? And this for the millionth time Sooty was not an 'accident' the first bollard he hit maybe, the rest of it?

instead of heaping cruelty upon the man in question,

FFS OP. You need to stop now.

It went to trial ergo he originally pleaded not guilty.
He was probably advised to go guilty when it started to look like the little frail man routine wasn't going to work.

It was reckless. He should have stopped when he nearly hit the children. At that point then maybe it would have been a tragic accident.

A tragic accident if he was going at the slow speed you should be using in a carpark.
Not a tragic accident when you are speeding at 19 mph.

The only accident was the first crash.

His reaction time had severely decreased to travel so long without braking. He should not have been behind the wheel and it's not like his reaction time would have suddenly decreased that much.

I cannot have sympathy for him. His victims and their families without a doubt. His family I have some sympathy for.

And it was in the public interests to lock him up. It also sends a message out to other elderly people and their families. If they aren't safe they will face prison time when they drive if they are no longer capable because that in itself is reckless driving. Doesn't matter if you've had one too many to drink, deterioration of health, medication etc, you get behind the wheel when you shouldn't then be prepared to go jail. And age is entirely irrelevant.

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.

OP, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

He's old enough to know better. Possibly too arrogant in his old age to act sensibly. Either way, he killed people.

At 87 he could have died at any time - his choices determined his place of death - not the judge

Exactly this!

Instead of sympathising with the driver, consider the message given to other incompetent and/or elderly drivers if the judge had taken pity on him and let him off with a non custodial sentence?

No matter what you do, how dangerous you are on the road, how many people you kill, if you are elderly your actions will be overlooked and you will suffer nothing more than a loss of money and license.

As it stands if it stops one elderly person from getting behind the wheel who is incompetent to drive, it will have been worth it.

As it stands if it stops one elderly person from getting behind the wheel who is incompetent to drive, it will have been worth it

Except as I’ve been saying all through the thread, harsh punishment does not prevent future accidents. This was a textbook case of pedal confusion (his foot was on the accelerator clearly he thought it was the brake) and his reaction time was much too slow to work out what was happening. I would guess it was an automatic car, but he was likely more used to a manual, where this wouldn’t happen.

Again, regular re-tests of drivers will prevent this. The victim’s partner said as much and wanted the laws/guidelines on elderly drivers to be changed. This failed, btw, (Boris Johnson apparently all but rejected it) yet it’s the only thing that could reliably prevent future loss of life!

This was a textbook case of pedal confusion

No it wasn't and that is the point.

He had already tried to park the car and crashed it into a bollard, leaving him (in his own words) angry.

That was an accident.

At this point, realising he couldn't drive the car safely he could have got his wife to park the car, or at the very least taken some time to calm down.

He did neither.

Instead, in an agitated state he chose to get back into the car and then in that state, confused the peddles.

I don't know what his motivation for doing so was and won't speculate, but it is possible to say that the safety of other people was not a factor in his decision making.

It was absolutely foreseeable that having caused one accident whilst "calm" he was at risk of causing another whilst angry.

It's that decision and the fact he had other choices at his disposal that's at the heart of his sentencing (plus a lack of remorse).

Sentencing does serve a purpose beyond being a deterrent. It gives victims and their families closure. A legal acknowledgement that what happened was unjust.

Using old age as a mitigation is a dangerous precedent. What crimes are still forgivable because someone is in their dotage?

I absolutely agree that there needs to be stricter controls on having a license. Tbh I'm not in favour of testing over 70 - I'd much rather see everyone take a new test/assessment every 5 years regardless of age.

Sorry just to add plus annual assessment over 70 years of age when the statistics show that rate of accidents rises highly disproportionately.