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.

A few years ago DH and I were watching some (real life) police program on TV. A man had been found dead by the side of the road, he'd been knocked off his pushbike and whoever had hit him had simply driven away. It was discovered that a young woman had hit him, his body had almost obliterated the front end of her car and windscreen. She assumed she had hit a deer but she didn't even stop to check, she just carried on driving until she got home.

She got charged with leaving the scene of an accident

My Grandparents are in their 70s. They no longer drive long distances as it’s too tiring for them. Neither have anything wrong with them but they acknowledge they’re getting older and aren’t alert enough to drive safely for more than an hour.

Accountability.

It is very very sad.

But what did you want exactly - he should have expressed remorse, admitted everything, and perhaps he might have had a non-custodial sentence.

Judges see a lot of GP letters saying people aren't fit for custodial sentences.

But the reality is that there are a lot of elderly people in prison, and there are an increasing amount of terminally ill people in prison, who will die in prison, having all their healthcare in prison. So being ill or frail isn't in itself a reason to get out of going to prison.

I've just reported my 87 year old neighbor to the dvla. He's a very dangerous driver and an arrogant sod, had a mini stroke on Christmas Day yet got in his car yesterday morning.

The op seems to have a very romanticised view of the elderly and of dangerous drivers.

I'm not Anne Sacoolas's lawyer, but I don't believe she should return to the u.k and I'm glad the chances of her being .are to return is small.

LOLOL. No surprises there. 🙄

a momentary lapse in concentration

If you read the account given in court then it is clear that it wasn’t ‘a momentary lapse.’

He had lost his temper because he had already hit a bollard, got back into the car slamming the door and was reversing away from the bollard, realised that he needed to brake and slammed his foot on the accelerator instead of the brake. If he had been driving safely his foot would not have hit the accelerator pedal so hard - hence the dangerous driving.

Being old should not give anyone a free pass.

The expert said in court it was a classic case of pedal confusion. In my mind an elderly person with pedal confusion is an accident/careless driving rather than dangerous driving. But obviously I’m not the expert.

IMHO if someone causes an accident by drink driving, reckless overtaking, speeding and cause an accident by all means throw the book at them. I always feel sorry for drivers like this....and obviously the victims.

I agree that this is a systems error where as a society we haven’t learned from previous similar incidents and brought in some form of mandatory testing at a certain age.

he was in Wormwood Scrubs, that is a high security prison

No, it's a category B prison, and he'd only have been there temporarily before being allocated to a lower category.

He may not have intended to cause any harm but he behaved recklessly. No one should get behind a wheel when they’re angry or wound up. He also reversed at speed for a fair distance so clearly his reactions were slow.

I trust the judge (who knows all the details of the case) to have made a better judgement than the OP frankly. Hopefully this will also act as a warning to others

Sentencing guidelines (they are available on line) would indicate that the judge had limited scope. There were aggravating factors (one person died and one was seriously injured). The sentence imposed was at the lower end of the range.

You're objectively wrong about the facts OP. And making a fool of yourself because of that.

I feel it's really tragic when drivers of any age who have had a tragic accident, ( I'm not talking downing a bottle of vodka and joyriding)are imprisoned

He knowingly got behind the wheel while unable to properly concentrate on what he was doing. His judgement and focus were impaired.

This is the point right here at which he could have prevented the accident. He could have taken 5-10 minutes breathing space to calm himself and regain control so that he could properly concentrate. If he had taken that time, he wouldn't have had the entirely preventable accident that he then had.

He then reversed at speed, 19mph. Reverse is a powerful gear, that car must have shot backwards.

He almost hit a child and failed to stop. Here he missed another opportunity to prevent the accident as he could have braked but he didn't. Either because he didn't care and was still angrily intent on getting the car into the parking space or because he didn't notice the child or because did notice the child but was unable to move his foot from the accelerate to the brake due to slowed reactions.

He then hit the victims.

He did not brake.

He did not attempt to lift his foot from the accelerator to slow the vehicle.

He continued to reverse at speed, dragging the women with the vehicle.

He only stopped when the car collided with a bollard and was brought to a forcible stop.

What part of any of this is an accident? He had multiple opportunities to prevent it and failed to do so.

It’s a tough call for sure. It is a very serious offence and will always attract a prison sentence. His age is a tough factor, but can you let people off just because of their age? He shouldn’t have been driving and killed someone when he was angry. You can say it’s an accident, but he is culpable. People are punished for reckless offences all the time. It looks like he had a letter from his GP saying prison will make him ill but the judge may have not taken it too seriously. There are many people of all ages sent to prison with ill health and similar letters.

If he wasn’t sent to prison what punishment would you have given him? Can’t make him do unpaid work, I doubt a curfew would impact on his life at his age. It isn’t an easy process. Having said that, now the man died, I am sure the judge is having second thoughts and wishes he had given him a suspended sentence after all.

Cars are not a right. They have the potential to be very dangerous. If you're not able to use one safely you shouldn't be allowed to use one. Hardly controversial stuff. And if you use a car despite not being able to do so safely and kill somebody, it's your fault. Not an accident.

The op seems to have a very romanticised view of the elderly and of dangerous drivers.

Unfair. She has an equal fondness for 40-something women who kill teenagers on the road, flee the country under “diplomatic immunity” and refuse to come back to face the music.

And keep driving.

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.

Do you honestly believe that even with the mitigating circumstances a PP outlined as above that this was a genuine accident that doesn't deserve some justice for the victim's family.

Imagine how devastated you'd be if you were him - any right thinking person would be devastated and apologetic etc.

He drove in anger and didn't even say sorry. Can you imagine not saying sorry in this case?

You say imagine if it was our grandad / another elderly relative. Any of mine would be absolutely devastated at having caused such injuries, whether accidental or not, and would never refuse to apologise to the victims. So it's not a fair comparison you're offering.

Nobody is saying it isn't sad in principle if an old man has to die in jail, they're saying that his original behaviour and subsequent behaviour gave the justice system no choice really.

He received a sentence in suitable accordance to the charge he was found guilty of. He’d shown no remorse and wouldn’t apologise to either of the victims families.

I find it more sickening that the OP would expect the judge to feel any guilt about it.

No winners here - I read that the victims partner was surprised that he was sentenced to jail time.

I know that I’d be wanting punishment if that was my friend or relative but jail for an frail elderly man? What did the judge think this would achieve and as others have pointed out, people have walked away with a slap on the wrist for far worse crimes.

The reason he was driving at 19mph in reverse was due to the pedal confusion. He was pressing his foot down on the “brake” trying to stop the car but was actually pressing the accelerator.

There was a very similar accident outside my house a few years ago where a retired Teacher killed a pedestrian. Started the car, went into reverse accidently, tried to brake but accelerated instead. They didn’t go to prison. Think they were charged with causing death by careless driving rather than dangerous driving. And the sentencing for the two crimes is quite different.

If he was too old to take responsibility for his actions then he was too old to be driving. Many accidents caused by older drivers are sadly just as predictable as those caused by people "downing a bottle of vodka and joyriding". Driving is a privilege not a right and we all have a responsibility to consider whether we are able to safely control our vehicle.

Other than one case involving a bus driver a quick google on cases involving pedal confusion fatalities brings up cases where the drivers were all pensioners, @IHateBlueLights

Taking anything to court is a bit of a gamble.

Being 87 is a daily gamble too.

He lost twice in a row: it happens.

Oh dear op you've over egged it with the Harry Dunn's killer reference, this thread will rightly disappear very soon and you'll have to go and bleat on Reddit darling

Sentencing guidelines (they are available on line) would indicate that the judge had limited scope.

That isn’t necessarily true, they are just guidelines. In exceptional circumstances they can go outside them, their hands aren’t tied. The judge made it clear he didn’t consider the GP letter to constitute exceptional circumstances that would warrant departure from the guidelines.

Well this is the first time I have come across someone who is pro-manslaughter.

We have to assume that OP would happily murder someone with their car and wouldn’t at all mind if someone murdered a member of their own family as long as the weapon used was a car.