Park Royal car accident - driver charged

[Killingworth]

Don’t really see why it should be. Frankly, it serves the guy right, any thoughts should be to the other people who were killed, injured or endangered by this utter weapon.

This wasn’t a mistake, or even a momentary error, both the accident and it’s consequences should have been entirely forseeable to anyone with a driving licence.

The justice and punishment system has several aims but primarily to punish, to protect the public and to rehabilitate offenders.

In some countries the aggrieved have a big say in the punishment. In this case protection of the public is probably less necessary than many others. I'll avoid the rehabilitation element as that seems to have very little positive effect and is largely irrelevant for this case.

However the justice system needs a separate thread as it's not essentially a railway matter.

 

[Merle Haggard]

But if causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence the same as manslaughter (which it does) what would be achieved by charging such cases as manslaughter rather than a specific charge for the purpose?

What puzzles me is that, if someone driving a car kills someone it's 'death by dangerous/careless driving'. But other causes of death are not identified by method. You don't have 'causing death by dangerous stabbing' or 'causing death by dangerous shooting' for example.

 

[AndrewE]

There was the case of an American, in the UK on business, who went straight from a transatlantic flight to Newcastle airport, having not slept, picked up a hire car late at night, went the wrong way round a roundabout and along a dual carriageway, hit a car and killed 2. He got one year in prison. 6 months per life, with time off for good behaviour. Not much if you ask me.

Has anyone else been reminded by this of the (failure to / contrast with) hold Sacoolas to account? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-63891657 says

A US citizen responsible for the death of teenage motorcyclist Harry Dunn has been sentenced to eight months in prison, suspended for a year.
Anne Sacoolas was driving on the wrong side of the road when she hit the 19-year-old outside a US military base in Northamptonshire in 2019....
Following the crash, Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity asserted on her behalf by the US administration and left the country 19 days later. She never returned to the UK.
Sacoolas, who admitted earlier this year to causing death by careless driving, appeared at London's Old Bailey via video-link after her employer, the US government, advised her not to travel to the UK to attend in person.
Mrs Charles said the 45-year-old's failure to attend was "despicable", adding she was "absolutely disgusted" at the actions of the US.

I am convinced that people in cars think they are invincible and think they have greater rights than any other road users - but I'm absolutely certain that they (i.e. all of us drivers) should be subject to re-testing every few years.
A Speed Awareness course was an eye-opener for me (especially as it was the result of a most unusual event) and by coincidence after that a defensive / winter driving session was equally valuable.

I'm looking forward to not driving when the green agenda means that public transport gets so good that I don't need to...

 

[Bertie the bus]

What puzzles me is that, if someone driving a car kills someone it's 'death by dangerous/careless driving'. But other causes of death are not identified by method. You don't have 'causing death by dangerous stabbing' or 'causing death by dangerous shooting' for example.

Because quite clearly if you stab or shoot someone you intend to seriously injure or kill them. Therefore if you kill them it is either murder or manslaughter if there are mitigating circumstances. Very, very few people who are convicted of causing death by dangerous driving had any intention of harming anybody, they just did by their reckless actions.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Because quite clearly if you stab or shoot someone you intend to seriously injure or kill them. Therefore if you kill them it is either murder or manslaughter if there are mitigating circumstances. Very, very few people who are convicted of causing death by dangerous driving had any intention of harming anybody, they just did by their reckless actions.

Indeed in cases where they did "intend to kill or cause serious harm", the charge of murder or manslaughter is available. One example being that Welsh bloke who drove a van into a group of worshippers leaving a North London mosque a few years ago.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Because quite clearly if you stab or shoot someone you intend to seriously injure or kill them. Therefore if you kill them it is either murder or manslaughter if there are mitigating circumstances. Very, very few people who are convicted of causing death by dangerous driving had any intention of harming anybody, they just did by their reckless actions.

Your logical argument hinges on intent, which exists only in the mind of the perpetrator; no one else can be sure. In my opinion, the question of 'What is the likely outcome of an action?' as seen by a reasonable observer is more relevant. Evidence for the latter is much clearer than for the former.

Firing a gun towards someone does not inevitably kill or seriously injure the victim. The motive may be only to frighten and miss deliberately , they may be a poor shot and miss, or they may hit but inflict injuries that are not life threatening. However, a reasonable person may say that there is a possibility that that action will result in death.

Similarly (and hypothetically - I don't know the exact circumstances of the thread subject), a reasonable person may say that there's a possibility that driving a large, heavy car under the influence of drugs at very high speed in an urban area may also result in death.

So, in both cases, regardless of intent, a reasonable view is that each has a likelihood of harm as an outcome. In the second case, you say that very very few people driving dangerously intend to harm someone; again, aside from the fact that only the perpetrator knows their own intent, as I said above, isn't it the case that a reasonable person would think that would be a possible outcome? In the first case, how is someone's intention to seriously injure or kill quite clear to you? Is it not possible that the intention of someone firing a gun at, for example, retreating intruders is only intending to frighten them? The outcome of injury or death might be a strong possibility to a reasonable person, but no more so than the other case.

It's also a puzzle to me how views toward people who cause harm are condemnatory unless the medium used is a road vehicle, in which case it's always very conciliatory...

 

[adamedwards]

I read something ages ago that one issue with driving offences is much of the law comes from pre-world war 2 and there was concern that it shouldn't be too hard on the great and good who were at the time the only people able to afford to drive. That sadly sounds only too likely given the way the UK is governed.

 

[SynthD]

Given how much better the world would be if some criminals spent more, or even any time in jail

Studies suggest the world wouldn’t be better off, but would be poorer.

My understanding (and for what it's worth, Wikipedia says so) is that the 'causing death by dangerous driving' offence was created in the 1950s because juries were seen as being reluctant to convict car drivers of manslaughter.

I fear that reluctance has spread to prosecutors and the new offence.

If you intended to use a chainsaw for gardening and hurt someone are you treated the same as if you intended to use the car for driving and hurt someone? I don’t think so. I hope for more liability put on those who stepped inside the two ton vehicle and accepted the terms of the licence. I wish that an unnecessarily large vehicle could be a factor in sentencing and guilty plea offers.

 

[Enthusiast]

He'll probably get a 6 month driving ban.

The minimum disqualification period is two years, followed by a mandatory extended re-test.

 

[the sniper]

Studies suggest the world wouldn’t be better off, but would be poorer.

Tell that to the family of Zara Aleena and many others.

 

[JamesT]

Your logical argument hinges on intent, which exists only in the mind of the perpetrator; no one else can be sure. In my opinion, the question of 'What is the likely outcome of an action?' as seen by a reasonable observer is more relevant. Evidence for the latter is much clearer than for the former.

Firing a gun towards someone does not inevitably kill or seriously injure the victim. The motive may be only to frighten and miss deliberately , they may be a poor shot and miss, or they may hit but inflict injuries that are not life threatening. However, a reasonable person may say that there is a possibility that that action will result in death.

Similarly (and hypothetically - I don't know the exact circumstances of the thread subject), a reasonable person may say that there's a possibility that driving a large, heavy car under the influence of drugs at very high speed in an urban area may also result in death.

So, in both cases, regardless of intent, a reasonable view is that each has a likelihood of harm as an outcome. In the second case, you say that very very few people driving dangerously intend to harm someone; again, aside from the fact that only the perpetrator knows their own intent, as I said above, isn't it the case that a reasonable person would think that would be a possible outcome? In the first case, how is someone's intention to seriously injure or kill quite clear to you? Is it not possible that the intention of someone firing a gun at, for example, retreating intruders is only intending to frighten them? The outcome of injury or death might be a strong possibility to a reasonable person, but no more so than the other case.

It's also a puzzle to me how views toward people who cause harm are condemnatory unless the medium used is a road vehicle, in which case it's always very conciliatory...

My understanding is that are various strands of manslaughter, the first division is between voluntary (where the offender has intended to kill or cause serious harm), and involuntary. Involuntary is then split into unlawful act and gross negligence.
It seems unlikely in most cases (though at least one has been mentioned previously) that a driver is going out to kill or maim someone deliberately (and intent has to be proven), so we shall dismiss that for the moment.
For unlawful act manslaughter, the act itself has to be intrinsically dangerous. For example, dropping concrete off a bridge onto a motorway, you may not intend to cause harm, but it is very likely to do so. shooting a gun at someone is also going to be in that category. Most people would agree that merely driving a car is not intrinsically a dangerous activity, if you’re paying attention and driving with care.
So now we’re looking at gross negligence, where a person’s conduct falls seriously below what a normal person would do and their acts could reasonably be foreseen to be likely to cause a serious risk of death. Speeding along in a heavy SUV whilst high probably fits that criteria, so it does seem lenient that the Park Royal case hasn’t been charged as such. But in many other cases where it’s less clear-cut, juries have been seen to be less willing to convict. It’s usually thought this is because they put themselves in the accused shoes and consider whether it’s a mistake they might make themselves. So reaching that bar of serious negligence is quite hard. Consider that often injuries involving a car are described as an ‘accident’.
Hence the introduction of the death by careless/negligent driving offences which have a much lower standard to meet and therefore the chance of getting a conviction is that much higher.

 

[Chris M]

It's also worth noting that sentencing guidelines are exactly that - guidelines. A judge needs to have a good reason to deviate from them, but where a good reason does exist then judges can and do give more (or less) stringent sentences than laid down in the guidelines. Such sentences are more likely to be appealed of course, but appeals are not always upheld.
The law having been changed to increase the maximum penalty since the the sentencing guidelines were written would be a reason why a judge might consider deviating from the guidelines to impose a harsher sentence - although this is only likely if they deem the offence to be in the most serious category (which based on what I've seen in reliable sources seems plausible)

 

[Tetchytyke]

Has anyone else been reminded by this of the (failure to / contrast with) hold Sacoolas to account?

The problem with many driving offences is that they are momentary lapses of concentration. The evidence is that Sacoolas came out of the air base and momentarily drove on the right, as she would back home, and unfortunately hit the poor lad on his bike. She was not the first to do this, nor will she be the last. No intent, just a mistake with a tragic consequence.

The anger towards her was because she got on a plane and went home without "facing justice". But when some nana drives the wrong way down the A1 and wipes out a family nobody has this reaction.

I've long being of the opinion driving offences should really be prosecuted based on actions not outcome. Dangerous driving is dangerous driving and the penalties should be based on how dangerous the driving was, regardless of whether they killed anyone or not.

And clearly this bloke at Park Royal should be prosecuted based on his driving.

 

[SynthD]

I've long being of the opinion driving offences should really be prosecuted based on actions not outcome. Dangerous driving is dangerous driving and the penalties should be based on how dangerous the driving was, regardless of whether they killed anyone or not.

Is that softer or harsher than the current practise? The eggshell theory of law (if you push someone and they break their eggshell-thin skull it’s your fault all the way up to murder) requires outcome to matter.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Is that softer or harsher than the current practise?

Probably both.

If you drive dangerously but miraculously don't hit anyone then a sentence will rarely be particularly high. I'd make those higher. Its mad to think that if his passenger hadn't died, this driver would be facing a lesser charge.

If you pull out on someone by mistake and do hit someone, then these will be lower.

But I'd agree, we can't completely get rid of the eggshell principle.

 

[greatkingrat]

I've long being of the opinion driving offences should really be prosecuted based on actions not outcome. Dangerous driving is dangerous driving and the penalties should be based on how dangerous the driving was, regardless of whether they killed anyone or not.

And clearly this bloke at Park Royal should be prosecuted based on his driving.

Does that apply to all offences? Should someone convicted of attempted murder receive the same sentence as someone convicted of murder?

 

[Flying Snail]

The problem with many driving offences is that they are momentary lapses of concentration. The evidence is that Sacoolas came out of the air base and momentarily drove on the right, as she would back home, and unfortunately hit the poor lad on his bike. She was not the first to do this, nor will she be the last. No intent, just a mistake with a tragic consequence.

The anger towards her was because she got on a plane and went home without "facing justice". But when some nana drives the wrong way down the A1 and wipes out a family nobody has this reaction.

I've long being of the opinion driving offences should really be prosecuted based on actions not outcome. Dangerous driving is dangerous driving and the penalties should be based on how dangerous the driving was, regardless of whether they killed anyone or not.

And clearly this bloke at Park Royal should be prosecuted based on his driving.

The outcomes matter to the innocent victims and their families who have to live (or not) with it. The system already treats victims despicably in so many ways and you want their trauma and loss to be treated as completely irrelevant, where is the justice in that?

The fact that Sacoolas did everything possible to dodge responsibility and the extra pain and suffering it caused her victim's family should have been more than enough to warrant a harsher punishment than she got in her showtrial. Had she co-operated and accepted the consequences then yes, the circumstances being an understandable lapse should have been grounds for more lenient treatment.

Park Royal guy should get the max based on both the outcome and the utter contempt for everyone else he displayed by his actions.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Does that apply to all offences? Should someone convicted of attempted murder receive the same sentence as someone convicted of murder?

If person X attempts to kill person Y, but fails in their endeavour, they still fulfil both the mens rea (guilty mind) and actus reus (guilty action) for murder- it is only the outcome of that intention and action that's different. There's certainly an argument that the sentence should be the same regardless of outcome, but to do so could be seen as devaluing the life taken in a "successful" (for want of a better word) killing. That's also why sentencing guidelines exist: no two murders (or attempted murders) are exactly the same, so it's only right that judges have some degree of discretion. AIUI both offences have a mandatory "life" sentence, so any difference will be what "life" means in terms of tariff.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Should someone convicted of attempted murder receive the same sentence as someone convicted of murder?

IIRC both carry a mandatory life sentence, it's just the "tariff" that differs. And yes, in many cases it should be treated with similar severity, as the intent is there (NB you can commit murder without intending to kill- intent to commit GBH and going too far is still murder).

The outcomes matter to the innocent victims and their families who have to live (or not) with it. The system already treats victims despicably in so many ways and you want their trauma and loss to be treated as completely irrelevant, where is the justice in that?

Taking the emotion out of it, in many cases yes.

A small driving error shouldn't be punished according to whether someone was unlucky. Deliberate dangerous driving shouldn't be punished according to whether someone was lucky.

I'm not saying we should be soft though. If this clown at Park Royal had merely left his passenger with life-changing injuries he'd be facing a lesser charge and a lesser punishment. That's wrong too.

 

[AlterEgo]

A small driving error shouldn't be punished according to whether someone was unlucky. Deliberate dangerous driving shouldn't be punished according to whether someone was lucky.

I can understand this logic. How many of us have accidentally jumped a red, for example? In 15 years of driving I think I've done it two or three times. Fortunately without consequence.

 

[JohnMcL7]

Taking the emotion out of it, in many cases yes.

A small driving error shouldn't be punished according to whether someone was unlucky. Deliberate dangerous driving shouldn't be punished according to whether someone was lucky.

I'm not saying we should be soft though. If this clown at Park Royal had merely left his passenger with life-changing injuries he'd be facing a lesser charge and a lesser punishment. That's wrong too.

I've had similar thoughts when looking at death by dangerous driving cases where there's been a much more severe sentence despite the fact from a driving point of view, they've done exactly the same as many others but tragically they hit someone. There was a case where an older lady had been jailed for death by dangerous driving as she was distracted by her phone she was using while driving, people were criticising the light sentence and she should have been jailed for longer since she killed someone. If she hadn't hit the person if she'd done exactly the same driving slightly later or earlier and missed the person then she'd have likely been facing a ban at most if convicted of dangerous driving or possibly even three points for mobile phone use as it was at the time. Unfortunately many people use mobile phones handheld every day and in the unlikely scenario they're caught, it's six points and not even a ban but the day they kill someone with the same behaviour then it's treated very differently.

 

[lachlan]

I've had similar thoughts when looking at death by dangerous driving cases where there's been a much more severe sentence despite the fact from a driving point of view, they've done exactly the same as many others but tragically they hit someone. There was a case where an older lady had been jailed for death by dangerous driving as she was distracted by her phone she was using while driving, people were criticising the light sentence and she should have been jailed for longer since she killed someone. If she hadn't hit the person if she'd done exactly the same driving slightly later or earlier and missed the person then she'd have likely been facing a ban at most if convicted of dangerous driving or possibly even three points for mobile phone use as it was at the time. Unfortunately many people use mobile phones handheld every day and in the unlikely scenario they're caught, it's six points and not even a ban but the day they kill someone with the same behaviour then it's treated very differently.

There should be harsher penalties on using a phone while driving (though not as harsh as for hitting someone!)

 

[AM9]

There should be harsher penalties on using a phone while driving (though not as harsh as for hitting someone!)

These posts are airing the view that driving offence sentencing should be divided (and justified) in two parts:

1) as a punishment for the hazardous behaviour of the driver and hopefuly, a deterrent to others and of a repeat by the offender​

2) as compensation (actual or moral) for the injured party​

There a few offences that merit quite severe measures on 1) above - e.g. alcohol/drug use and using an electronic device (phone) but seem to be treated as 'victimless crimes'.* When they are contributory to injury, the public, egged on by the media, suddenly rush into moral panic, but there is no admission that the real cause is the lack of dealing with the 'no consequences events'.

* I would also add bald tyres, faulty brakes/steering, failed lighting and various other faults known to the driver at the time of an incident

 

[Graham H]

One issue is that the same offence can lead to various outcomes. The driver of an Eastern European artic pulled out to overtake on a 2 lane motorway, hit my parents car, pushed them into the central reservation from which they rebounded across both lanes and ended up on the embankment facing the wrong way. He stopped and his words were 'its OK, nobody hurt, I can go now'. A UK driver restrained him from leaving but despite shock (80 year olds) and a written off car nothing was ever done by the police who attended. Clearly he was driving without due care and attention and that same offence could result in nothing (if my father had braked), written off car and shock as did happen or quite possibly both could have been killed. A sudden moment of forgetfulness or a simple mistake can have so many outcomes. As with the Harry Dunn case a moments mistake led to a death but I bet lots of Brits abroad may also have forgotten for a second without consequence as nobody was coming the other way. Of course in this case the driver of the Rangerover deserves whatever he gets

 

[E27007]

I read something ages ago that one issue with driving offences is much of the law comes from pre-world war 2 and there was concern that it shouldn't be too hard on the great and good who were at the time the only people able to afford to drive. That sadly sounds only too likely given the way the UK is governed.

Some of the pre-WW2 thinking regarding motoring is quite bizarre, a husband was accountable for the actions of his wife, Colonel Fell (he of the Fell loco and DHP1 Super Clayton) received a licence suspension of 6 months, not of his own doing, but from his car driving wife commiting a string of serious driving offences

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jan 2023 ==

One issue is that the same offence can lead to various outcomes. The driver of an Eastern European artic pulled out to overtake on a 2 lane motorway, hit my parents car, pushed them into the central reservation from which they rebounded across both lanes and ended up on the embankment facing the wrong way. He stopped and his words were 'its OK, nobody hurt, I can go now'. A UK driver restrained him from leaving but despite shock (80 year olds) and a written off car nothing was ever done by the police who attended. Clearly he was driving without due care and attention and that same offence could result in nothing (if my father had braked), written off car and shock as did happen or quite possibly both could have been killed. A sudden moment of forgetfulness or a simple mistake can have so many outcomes. As with the Harry Dunn case a moments mistake led to a death but I bet lots of Brits abroad may also have forgotten for a second without consequence as nobody was coming the other way. Of course in this case the driver of the Rangerover deserves whatever he gets

The rights of foreign visitors to drive in the UK, simply because they hold a licence from another country is bizarre, at work, we a had a man who drove on his foreign licence, he took the UK driving test three times and failed every one. He was still driving on his foreign licence even after failing the UK driving tests.
He was driving on UK roads on the competence of a foreign driving licence, yet three UK driving test examiners had formally examined his driving skills and assessed his driving as not competent and issued documents "the fail sheet" recording the verdict.
Competent / Not competent, Insured / not insured when driving. What is the legal opinion in such a matter?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The overseas driving licence holder would only ever get a maximum 12 months in the UK before the overseas licence then became considered as no longer valid, yes?

After that, believe they'd just be considered as someone needing to apply to be a provisional UK licence holder.

 

[greatkingrat]

The overseas driving licence holder would only ever get a maximum 12 months in the UK before the overseas licence then became considered as no longer valid, yes?

After that, believe they'd just be considered as someone needing to apply to be a provisional UK licence holder.

The problem is the 12 months limit is in practice unenforceable, as there is no way of knowing how long the licence has been used in the UK.

 

[MotCO]

The rights of foreign visitors to drive in the UK, simply because they hold a licence from another country is bizarre, at work, we a had a man who drove on his foreign licence, he took the UK driving test three times and failed every one. He was still driving on his foreign licence even after failing the UK driving tests.

He was driving on UK roads on the competence of a foreign driving licence, yet three UK driving test examiners had formally examined his driving skills and assessed his driving as not competent and issued documents "the fail sheet" recording the verdict.

In a similar vein, I've often wondered whether all foreign registered vehicles are 'visitors', or if they are more permanent, whether they have to have MOTs, insurance etc

 

[JamesT]

The overseas driving licence holder would only ever get a maximum 12 months in the UK before the overseas licence then became considered as no longer valid, yes?

After that, believe they'd just be considered as someone needing to apply to be a provisional UK licence holder.

Depends where overseas. I believe EU/EEA licences are recognised until they expire. Though those are also countries whose licences can be exchanged for a UK licence by paying a fee, without taking a test.
But if the person in question is sitting UK tests, that does imply their licence isn't recognised of being of such a standard so the 12-month limit would kick in.

 

[Mojo]

The problem is the 12 months limit is in practice unenforceable, as there is no way of knowing how long the licence has been used in the UK.

Indeed - a man on my street has a car with a German number plate and has had it for the 4 years I’ve lived in the house and based upon Streetview images has had it for at least 8 years, despite you only being allowed a foreign registered car for 6 months unless you meet a limited criteria which includes normally living outside the UK. What’s even more suspicious is the steering wheel is on the normal side for UK vehicles (the country it is registered for drives on the other side to the UK).

He’s even somehow got a residents parking permit for it.