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.

Like a PP said, if let’s say a 22 year old lad (sober, no previous convictions, sensible person, not on drugs etc) accidentally hit a woman who happened to be a new mother, and killed her, would you want him locked up?

The baby would grow up without a mother and the 22 year old wouldn’t die in prison (not likely anyway) so because he’s younger and he circumstances are slightly different would this change your opinion?

Can’t believe this man is getting defended.

Have you ever had a relative or friend killed by someone in a car? I have and can tell you that despite the fact they didn’t set out that day to kill someone you still want them to be punished in some way for what has happened. My friend can never come back to their young family but the person who killed them is still walking around free while the court service decide on the best course of action. Is that fair? I think not.

He killed someone?! It wasn’t just a bit of speeding or running a red light. Being brutally honest his age says to me that he probably shouldn’t have been driving but that’s something he chose to do himself. No one made him. Why should he has special rules compared to everyone else? He might die in prison, he might not

If your plumber comes to check your boiler, and he has a lapse of attention when putting wires together, and as a result, there is an emission of toxic gas that kills your whole family, according to you, he shouldn't be sent to jail because he didn't mean the lapse of attention and the consequences that resulted from it?

Of course he shouldn't. Prevent him from working as a plumber again, by all means, but what purpose does it serve to lock him away?

The crime is alowing 87 year old people to drive without a re test at 70/80/90 etc.

Hear hear.

The stupid old git shouldn't have been driving and he deserved all he got.

The plumber thing is different as he or she would have professional responsibility and duty of care.

Bloody hell. The only thing I'm thinking reading this is that the OP should get run over.

I see the Mumsnet jurys are out in full force but the poor sod was an old white male (their least favourite demographic)

Aaah so old white people need to be allowed to run people over and kill them because how else can they live their lives in peace ? That's ageist in itself isnt it? Not holding them to the same standards as everyone else because if the fact they are old and white?

Hes 87 he could have used his bus pass for free. But hes too good for the bus clearly

I see the Mumsnet jurys are out in full force but the poor sod was an old white male (their least favourite demographic).

Disingenuous bullshit.

I see the Mumsnet jurys are out in full force but the poor sod was an old white male (their least favourite demographic).

Grow up!

Quite frankly I hope there’s plenty of people showing this article to their elderly relatives and saying “if you’re not going to stop driving because you might kill someone could you at least stop driving because you’ll get prison if you do!”

People are extremely reluctant to give up driving and vastly over estimate their skill (not just the elderly, people with deteriorating eye sight, taking medications etc). I really think everyone should be retested every 5 years. Properly not just signing a form saying that you think you’re fine.

That didn’t go well did it OP?

The man was 87. Let’s be honest here, it’s not a great leap to assume or predict that within the next 27 months he might die. Even if he hadn’t gone to prison, there’s a fairly good chance that he would die in the next two years by virtue of his being 87.

So any suggestion that two years in jail might lead to his death are completely disingenuous. 87 year olds die. All the time. From natural causes. Sometimes they go to bed and simply never wake up. Dying is an occupational hazard of reaching 87.

I agree that the only good thing that can come out of this is people being able to stop relatives driving when they are known to be dangerous. Whether that's drinkers, drugs, age or any other factor that can kill. I just hope this sorry story prevents a death. As to the decision, I'm not sure how I feel but the balance of this thread is great, it's really made me stop and think.

YABU, if he can easily mistake the accelerator and brake then he should not be driving. I am sure that he was probably well aware of his diminished driving ability.

There was something similar that happened in Australia not long ago where an old lady hit the accelerator and crushed a little girl between her car and a concrete pole. The little girl died, it was so very tragic.

Hopefully this kind of sentence will encourage families to realise the need to step in once they think their elderly relatives are no longer capable of being safe drivers. Mandatory age testing should be a thing, every 5 years from 60 - 75 maybe then yearly after that.

Death by dangerous driving. He killed someone because he wasn't driving safely.

If it was a 20 year old man you'd say his punishment wasn't long enough.

Have you read what happened

He had already reversed into a bollard, got back into his car reversed again at speed and had already narrowly missed someone before hitting the lady who died and her friend

Of course it wasn’t intentional but his dangerous driving has caused a death

It’s very sad he has died in jail but judges will often have to make difficult decisions when sentencing age being one of them. Where to we draw the line at sentencing an older person

Regardless of what we all think, the judge said she imposed the minimum possible sentence. She is tied to sentencing guidelines and he was found guilty of a crime.

On the question of whether he deserves punishment as he made a decision to drive, knowing that he probably shouldn’t... age clearly impaired his driving ability, is it possible it also impaired his ability to make a reasonable decision about whether he was fit to drive? And doesn’t that call into question how culpable he was?

Ultimately, DVLA rules need to be changed and some form of re-tests introduced for elderly people, in the way that they are for people with certain medical problems.

It was a form of road rage. He had already hit a bollard. Got out of his car and inspected the damage which according to the evidence at trial had left him raging at himself then got back in his car and in his temper put his car in reverse and hit two people. Killing one and leaving the other with life time injuries.

So yes he deserved a jail sentence immaterial of his age.

Still took a life. Shouldn't have been allowed to drive!!

This man had already driven into a bollard in the same car park minutes earlier and admits he was very angry about it.
He then reversed at speed and a father had to pull himself and his children out of his path. He did not stop.
He then hit the two women and did not stop.
He carried the lady he killed for 100 ft on the back of his car before slamming her and the car into another bollard which caused terrible head injuries to her and stopped the car. The other lady was seriously injured, suffered a stroke and life-changing injuries.

Of course it was his fault. He had choices to make.

1. He should not have got back into the car after the first incident.
2. He should not have driven while in a rage.
3. He should have taken his foot off the pedal not kept it on it.
4. He should have stopped when he hit the two ladies.

The fact is he did none of those things and his dangerous behaviour and bad choices resulted in one death and one case of life-changing injuries, as well as his own injuries. The father and children could also have been badly hurt or killed.
The judge made the right decision.

OP seems not to understand the word “accident”.

Just because someone didn’t purposely use a car to drive at and intentionally harm someone, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it was therefore a “tragic accident”. That’s why there are offences of death by careless driving or dangerous driving.

People need to be held responsible for their negligence when it has such devastating consequences.

Of course it wasn’t intentional but his dangerous driving has caused a death

Drivers are in charge of there actions & their actions regardless can cause death, more needs to be made of the two and that their intentions can cause death 😐

It is a tragic story all round, but it sounds like the man should not have been driving at all, but he chose to and in doing so was responsible for the death of another person. You can't get around the law because of your age.