Lorry driver jailed for A34 horror

[Antman]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37823457

A lorry driver who killed a mother and three children while distracted by his phone has been jailed for 10 years.

Tracy Houghton, 45, died instantly along with her sons Ethan, 13, and Joshua, 11, and her partner's daughter Aimee Goldsmith, also 11, when Tomasz Kroker smashed into stationary traffic.

Judge Maura McGowan said his attention had been so poor he "might as well have had his eyes closed".

Kroker, 30, was scrolling through music selections at the time of the crash.

'Sudden horror'

The court heard he had been so distracted he barely looked at the road for almost a kilometre. The judge described the case as the most horrific she had ever seen.


Kate Goldsmith, whose daughter Aimee died in the crash on the A34 near Newbury in Berkshire, said Kroker had turned his lorry into a "lethal weapon" by using his phone while driving at 50mph, and she made a plea to all road users to learn the lessons from the case.


"We urge you to make a personal commitment to stop using mobile phones while driving and make our roads safer for everyone," she said.


Speaking outside Reading Crown Court, she said: "The 10-year sentence will not ease our pain and suffering, nor do we believe it will send a strong enough message to those who lack the self-restraint to not use a mobile phone when driving."
.

 

[ExRes]

At last we're beginning to see more realistic sentences handed out, still nowhere near long enough in my opinion for taking four lives though

Will this sort of sentence make drivers think twice about using phones? some may but overall I doubt it

 

[Harbornite]

Not a nice piece of work, hopefully no one will have him behind the wheel of a HGV again after he's released.

 

[GB]

While I fully understand that no amount of time will help the family, 2.5 years per life lost does not at all seem reasonable in my (non legal) opinion.

 

[RichmondCommu]

In my opinion the only deterrent that will ever work would be to treat motorists using their phone whilst driving in the same way that drink drivers are dealt with.

 

[507021]

While I fully understand that no amount of time will help the family, 2.5 years per life lost does not at all seem reasonable in my (non legal) opinion.

Completely agree.

In my opinion the only deterrent that will ever work would be to treat motorists using their phone whilst driving in the same way that drink drivers are dealt with.

Completely agree with this too.

 

[Antman]

While I fully understand that no amount of time will help the family, 2.5 years per life lost does not at all seem reasonable in my (non legal) opinion.

All things considered I think that the sentence is about right and he's got to live with what he's done every day for the rest of his life. There is no excuse whatever for his gross stupidity but obviously he didn't intend to kill anybody and how he must be wishing he could turn the clock back, when he is released I wouldn't think he'll be able to look at another lorry let alone think about driving one.

If any good can come out of this tragedy it will be to highlight the possible repercussions of using a phone when driving, there is no excuse whatsoever and hopefully it will soon be just as socially unacceptable as drink driving.

 

[Cowley]

In my opinion the only deterrent that will ever work would be to treat motorists using their phone whilst driving in the same way that drink drivers are dealt with.

Absolutely right RichmondC.

 

[Senex]

While I fully understand that no amount of time will help the family, 2.5 years per life lost does not at all seem reasonable in my (non legal) opinion.

Since he'll serve only five years if he behaves, it's only 15 months per life lost, which is pathetic for a crime as deliberate as his. Isn't it time that lawyers and reporters described sentences more honestly?

 

[ainsworth74]

Since he'll serve only five years if he behaves, it's only 15 months per life lost, which is pathetic for a crime as deliberate as his. Isn't it time that lawyers and reporters described sentences more honestly?

If it was deliberate should he not have been charged with murder?

 

[J-2739]

I'm guessing he was charged with manslaughter?

 

[Antman]

I'm guessing he was charged with manslaughter?

Causing death by dangerous driving.

 

[507021]

I'm guessing he was charged with manslaughter?

The article says he pleaded guilty four counts of causing death by dangerous driving.

 

[Antman]

Since he'll serve only five years if he behaves, it's only 15 months per life lost, which is pathetic for a crime as deliberate as his. Isn't it time that lawyers and reporters described sentences more honestly?

I'm in no way defending him but I struggle to see what purpose a longer sentence would serve.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

All things considered I think that the sentence is about right and he's got to live with what he's done every day for the rest of his life. There is no excuse whatever for his gross stupidity but obviously he didn't intend to kill anybody and how he must be wishing he could turn the clock back, when he is released I wouldn't think he'll be able to look at another lorry let alone think about driving one.

If any good can come out of this tragedy it will be to highlight the possible repercussions of using a phone when driving, there is no excuse whatsoever and hopefully it will soon be just as socially unacceptable as drink driving.

If he is a decent human being, then the weight of the results of his actions will be far more of a punishment than any sentence that could be handed down by the court.

 

[Antman]

If he is a decent human being, then the weight of the results of his actions will be far more of a punishment than any sentence that could be handed down by the court.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Senex]

If it was deliberate should he not have been charged with murder?

The deliberate crime was using the mobile phone, fully aware -- how could anyone not be by now -- that this is illegal precisely because it diverts the attention of the driver and can lead to the sort of consequences we saw. The deaths are manslaughter, but we insist on softening them to death by dangerous driving. What's the betting that if any of us went out waving a shotgun around and it went off and killed someone "by accident", we'd be dealt with far more severly than this driver. Yet just as with the gun, he was in charge of a potentially lethal instrument.

 

[MarkMayf]

Videos like this should be played during primetime ad breaks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9swS1Vl6Ok

 

[Senex]

I'm in no way defending him but I struggle to see what purpose a longer sentence would serve.

You're probably right -- I often wonder how much good imprisonment does in many cases where there isn't a need on safety grounds to keep someone out of circulation. How about much greater use of punishment in the community and of sanctions related to the crime? So in this case, for example, the punishment might have included confiscation of the lorry (deodand) and a lifetime ban on driving, amongst other things.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Videos like this should be played during primetime ad breaks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9swS1Vl6Ok

Indeed they should!

 

[RichmondCommu]

I'm in no way defending him but I struggle to see what purpose a longer sentence would serve.

Apart from helping to deter others. Three points on your licence is nothing like good enough and nor is a fine.

 

[ExRes]

You're probably right -- I often wonder how much good imprisonment does in many cases where there isn't a need on safety grounds to keep someone out of circulation. How about much greater use of punishment in the community and of sanctions related to the crime? So in this case, for example, the punishment might have included confiscation of the lorry (deodand) and a lifetime ban on driving, amongst other things.

I'm sure you are right in some situations, but I have to ask what sort of punishment confiscation of a vehicle belonging to someone else would have on this driver, it also seems that, from various media reports of repeat offenders, that many people will drive whether they have a licence or insurance, if this particular person was of that view then he would continue to put other people at risk. He is reported to have signed a document with his employer regarding the use of phones while driving and, obviously, took no notice of that whatsoever, it could be argued that he is a perfect example of someone who most certainly does need to be kept out of circulation

 

[Antman]

Apart from helping to deter others. Three points on your licence is nothing like good enough and nor is a fine.

No but I think a 10 year prison sentence is?

 

[RichmondCommu]

No but I think a 10 year prison sentence is?

However there is every chance that after five years he will be a free man but those poor families will still be grieving.

 

[AlterEgo]

However there is every chance that after five years he will be a free man but those poor families will still be grieving.

They'll be grieving for life but that's no justification for giving someone a life sentence.

 

[ainsworth74]

I suppose it depends on whether you think our justice system should be about revenge or rehabilitation? If revenge then a life sentence for taking a life would seem equitable (though surely the death penalty would be best?) whilst if its rehabilitation then the sentence actually handed down seems like it might be about right.

 

[RichmondCommu]

They'll be grieving for life but that's no justification for giving someone a life sentence.

I concur but it should be ten years full stop plus a driving ban.

This Government and indeed previous Governments have put very little if indeed any thought into the issues / consequences of people driving on our roads whilst having access to their phones.

 

[ExRes]

I suppose it depends on whether you think our justice system should be about revenge or rehabilitation? If revenge then a life sentence for taking a life would seem equitable (though surely the death penalty would be best?) whilst if its rehabilitation then the sentence actually handed down seems like it might be about right.

Assuming, of course, that the offender has any intention of allowing themselves to be 'rehabilitated'

 

[RichmondCommu]

I suppose it depends on whether you think our justice system should be about revenge or rehabilitation? If revenge then a life sentence for taking a life would seem equitable (though surely the death penalty would be best?) whilst if its rehabilitation then the sentence actually handed down seems like it might be about right.

I don't think anyone of sane mind would ever suggest that the lorry driver should face the death penalty, even if the death penalty in this country still existed.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I suppose it depends on whether you think our justice system should be about revenge or rehabilitation? If revenge then a life sentence for taking a life would seem equitable (though surely the death penalty would be best?) whilst if its rehabilitation then the sentence actually handed down seems like it might be about right.

How does locking someone up in prison rehabilitate them? Punish them, deter them from reoffending, deter others... I can see how it might do any of those things, but rehabilitate???

 

[tony_mac]

Apart from helping to deter others. Three points on your licence is nothing like good enough and nor is a fine.

They would be, if there was a reasonable chance of getting caught. Enforcement is down almost 90% over the last 5 years, but the rate of offending is not decreasing.

My (very) rough calculations, based on various statistics, is that one motorist is caught for every 10,000 hours of offending.

(In this case, it's not actually important that it was a mobile phone - it could potentially have been an ipod, or even an in-car entertainment system, with the same result.)