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.

In my line of work I meet many older people that are quite frankly unsafe to drive but are in denial. The usual response when questioned about it is ' I only drive in the local area'. It's totally irresponsible and putting other people at risk. Unfortunately the way things currently stand in this country it's very difficult to get them off the roads.

The problem with this sort of sentence is that we dont know if that's true. At all.

Well, we do really. The victim and victims family have said that he provided no apology or acknowledgment of the pain he had caused. He provided none in court. It would be typical for someone who was remorseful to provide a statement when they pled guilty saying how upset they were at what had occurred and sorry he was for the pain and anguish he had caused, but nope. So, I guess maybe he was really remorseful but just couldn’t bother to vocalise it to anyone.

Or Hopping, it could be that if either wasnt reported or we've only seen poor reports. I know of a other case where they said the person wasnt remorseful, when they absolutely were. A report of apology and remorse was read out in court, the person went to church regularly to pray for the victims and was absolutely horrified by what had happened. It wasnt reported like that.
Another example is Anne Sacoolas, it was reported she wasnt remorseful and had fled the scene, when it turned out later that she had stayed with the victim for some time, holding him, talking to him and saying sorry over and over. She was terribly sorry and in shock and has given apologies and remorse, none of which was reported at the time, because she left the country and that became the story. I just think it's so easy for journalists to hype up a story by saying there was no remorse etc and how awful the person was, when in fact, that might not be true.

We have a system whereby a Dr has to sign to say they feel someone is suitable to have an unrestricted license just before they turn 75yo. The Dr then has to reassess yearly and the form submitted each year. There is also an option for the Dr to send this directly to the road authority rather than giving it back to the patient to take in.

When a person is 85yo as well as having the yearly driving assessment by the Dr, they also have to undertake a practical test with an assessor. All of this is funded by the person, not the state.

There is also the option of a modified license, which I’ve never understood. It’s worked out on how far they need to drive to get to the local Dr, pharmacy and shop and they are allowed to/restricted to drive that distance only. I don’t understand where the line is though regarding not being deemed safe enough to be able drive unrestricted vs obviously not considered safe enough to drive unrestricted but allowed to drive a short distance. No idea how an assessor works that out, I would think if you are unsafe then you don’t drive full stop as surely killing or maiming someone close to home is no better than further away.

Or Hopping, it could be that if either wasnt reported or we've only seen poor reports.

So, you’re saying the victims are lying when they have stated in the press that there was never any apology made or acknowledge of the damage inflicted on persons? Or are you saying they stated that this did happen but then the press reported it incorrectly? I think you are grasping at straws here. Sure, maybe he went to church and expressed his remorse to God, but surely a person may have thought it appropriate to share the sentiment with the victims families and the court?

It's been well reported that he did not show ANY remorse or apologise to the families. He did express remorse to the probation officer - well you would wouldn't you if you need to "look" sorry.

I'm sad he died. But more sad for his victims.
The issue is he chose to get back in the car after an initial prang when his wife was available to drive. He confirmed to police officers he was angry when he drove - the aggravating factor that impacted on the sentence.

Hopping...I'm saying I literally dont know if he did or he didnt and neither does anyone, really. Dont think anybody us know if he was remorseful or not. I'm thinking he probably was because it's a natural reaction to be sorry something like this happened. Things are often reported wrongly. It was reported that the person I heard about showed no remorse as they sat quietly stoney faced in court. They were in complete shock and the time hadnt come in court yet for the personal statements to be read out. When the personal statements were read out, only one paper reported the truth. The others omitted to report if and one paper lied and said the person wasnt remorseful at all.

Hopping I'm saying I literally dont know if he did or he didnt and neither does anyone, really

They do know, don't they? There was a period after the crash before the court case, then there was the court case. The Judge and the families knew that he did not write or vocalise an apology.

But, you're right, maybe he was just thinking it to himself.

I'm thinking he probably was because it's a natural reaction to be sorry something like this happened. Things are often reported wrongly.

Again, it matters not a jot what you or I think. You are now saying that the victims are lying when they state they have never received any acknowledgment or apology? You are saying that the reporters have incorrectly reported the judges words when they stated the offender showed no remorse? I don’t understand this because the judges comments are on public record, so you are saying this was incorrectly transcribed and the press also lied? Okey dokey.

I agree, @HoppingPavlova 👏👏👏

There are some posters who defend him based on what they "think" he was thinking, ignoring the formal documented public record. Anyone can change the narrative and ignore facts to defend their argument but it's not right.

And if he was sorry for his actions surely he would have pled guilty in the first place, so the surviving victim and both their families wouldn’t have gone through the ordeal of a trial.

It took two years to get to court. I think he had plenty of time to recover from the shock and get someone to draft a letter of apology for him to sign.

Strike that. It was a mere 18 months. Accident happened in May 2018.

Hopping, have you actually seen the transcription from the court? I'd love to see it. Because what you and I (Joe Public) usually get to see is what the press want us to see. As in the case I knew of. The family was filmed coming out of the court saying how they felt there was no remorse etc, but the the personal statements hadnt been read out yet, so they werent aware of it yet. So as Ive seen cases get mixed up like this before, I tend to take comments in the press saying there was no remorse with a pinch of salt.

Can I ask, Hopping, are you in America? Only on a previous note you said the person pays for a retest, not the state?

"And if he was sorry for his actions surely he would have pled guilty in the first place, so the surviving victim and both their families wouldn’t have gone through the ordeal of a trial."

You see, this isn't true. In cases of death, there is always a trial, whether the person pleads guilty for not.

And Hopping, of course it matters not a jot what I think, but I do like to find out the full facts about a case before I make my mind up about things, not just believe what the local rag reports about it, because experience tells me this is rarely true.

Just read another article on this and in one place it says the vehicle moved 100 metres, in another it says the judge said the incidentctoom 4 to 5 seconds and moved 15 metres. That's the Daily Fail. It also states he did plead guilty.

but I do like to find out the full facts about a case before I make my mind up about things

So, have you read the court transcript for this case as you gave made your mind up haven't you? What are the missing transcripts comments that would change my mind? Please share.

I have based my view on the judge's documented public comments and not made up stuff or suspected thoughts on how someone may feel.

Happy to change my view if the transcript produces key wording the judge has ignored.

"So, have you read the court transcript for this case as you gave made your mind up haven't you? What are the missing transcripts comments that would change my mind? Please share."
No I havent, I dont think they are available are they? Id love to read them. I think what people have said on here is what they have got from the papers, which I've pointed out is often runreliable. A lot of what people have said on here seems to be untrue. One person said he hadnt plead guilty, when he had. Same person said if he had of plead guilty the family wouldnt have had to go through a court case, which again, isn't true. Another person said the expert said the distance travelled was too far to be pedal confusion. He didnt say that .
Have you seen the judges documented comments or just what has been put in the papers?
I havent made my mind up at all, and would hesitate to really as I wasnt in court and havent seen or heard the full story. I do think when it is manslaughter, a prison sentence is inevitable though. Having said that, I am aware of cases where this didnt happen, for extenuating circumstances.

Tabby
I've based opinion on the confirmed facts only.
He had an initial minor accident and became angry which is documented as fact by the police statement.
Instead of calming down and asking his wife to drive home, he drove whilst angry which the expert witness confirmed was an additional aggravating factor with the pedal confusion.
The judge deliberated considerably and sentenced on the facts presented to her.
If there is an appeal which proves him innocent then I will accept that. But, at present the evidence is his guilt which i have to trust in or the entire justice system is wrong - I understand there are errors which is why there is an appeals process.

Facts confirmed by who though?

"Instead of calming down and asking his wife to drive home"
The daily Fail reported he had just dropped off his wife at the shop and he was trying to park. They werent at the point of driving home, his Wife had just gone in.

Having read the details of this 'accident' its pretty fucking goady to ask for sympathy for the murderer. 'Tragic accident' O_o.

I don't read Daily Fail.
When a newspaper uses " " these are direct quotes and not made up newspaper speak. I read direct quotes only.

I'm a police officer now and have prosecuted similar cases to this one albeit no death .

Before I joined police I was an optician.

I once watched a man who passed his eye test get into a car a drive off A he had Parkinson's and I watched his brake lights flicker on and off because it was clear his foot was not steady in the pedal. He then mounted the kerb for around 10 meters before he got back in the road and drove at around 15 miles per hour. I rang the dvla and reported him. I have no regrets.

I've seen similar old men and women cause accidents as a police officer. One man hit a car and claimed not to have known . An elderly woman I stopped had hit several cars and a hedge and carried in regardless. This is dangerous. They need to be off the roads and I feel no guilt on my part for getting them off the roads and making it safer for others .