Whitland Train Crash: Lorry Driver gets suspended jail term

[fsmr]

I think this quote is paramount:

"You were driving a truck and trailer carrying hay towards a sign telling drivers they must stop and phone to obtain permission to cross the line.

"You did not obey the sign."

If this is in fact true this is gross neglegence no matter what anyone says and should be treated as so! As for the sentance that is the law but I feel that compensation should be paid by the guilty party in the sum of what it cost the train company if his insurance company has not paid. That would be justice in my book!

Apart from the fact that there were contributing factors by NWR and the highways in this LC design.
NWR contractors parked on the access to the LC approaches forcing the lorry onto the wrong side and it being so designed that large vehicles could not manoeuvre without being on the wrong side exiting the LC, hence the reason the half barrier ended up coming down in front his cab
This wasn't a slow moving vehicle, it was only driving slowly due to the narrow approach caused by parked vehicles

Are you serious that every vehicle slowing to 5 mph cross an uneven or narrow AHB such as cars with loaded trailers have to stop and phone for permission?
The length of the trailer was a technical irrelevance as it was the front cab that was stopped by the opposite AHB after he had crossed the track.

We discussed this before but if he had carried on driving through the AHB,or been on the LH side, the truck would have cleared the LC. He assumed it was the NR contractors working on the track that had tripped the LC and stopped to check. If you are going to take safety decisions away from the railway and give them to road users, expect mistakes.
You know my opinions on AHBs convert them to CCTV No safety critical decision then for the road users to make. get stuck or break down on the track and a professional railwayman can see before clearing his signals and stop the job till its sorted. although of course we all know that even they make mistakes operating LCs don't they

 

[Zoidberg]

... what was the actual charge does anyone know?

...

According to this BBC report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-19786487

he

pleaded guilty to endangering the lives of passengers

so I imagine, but do not know, that that was the offence with which he was charged.

EDIT: It's mentioned here http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/C...tory-16712778-detail/story.html#axzz2LkKsFlXa that he

appeared before magistrates in Swansea today charged with endangering the safety of persons using the railway

 

[Tomnick]

Are you serious that every vehicle slowing to 5 mph cross an uneven or narrow AHB such as cars with loaded trailers have to stop and phone for permission?
The length of the trailer was a technical irrelevance as it was the front cab that was stopped by the opposite AHB after he had crossed the track.

Did the (over-)length of the vehicle make it more difficult to negotiate the crossing though? Long or slow vehicles are equally capable of failing to get across in time, hence the requirement to telephone for permission to cross. Better safe than sorry? I don't know, without looking at the report, whether the front barrier descended in front of his cab, but if so, the train would have been rather close by the time the trailer had cleared if he had kept going.

You know my opinions on AHBs convert them to CCTV No safety critical decision then for the road users to make. get stuck or break down on the track and a professional railwayman can see before clearing his signals and stop the job till its sorted. although of course we all know that even they make mistakes operating LCs don't they

As always, it comes down to money - both the initial investment and the ongoing operating costs. The new Obstacle Detection technology might help your cause, but there's still a hefty chunk of money required initially.

As for your last comment - everyone makes mistakes, unfortunately, but happily it's fairly rare in this case!

 

[Clip]

According to this BBC report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-19786487

he so I imagine, but do not know, that that was the offence with which he was charged.

EDIT: It's mentioned here http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/C...tory-16712778-detail/story.html#axzz2LkKsFlXa that he

And with that charge comes a sentencing guideline which I'm sure the judge applied.

RailUK Forums barrack room lawyers know best though.

 

[DarloRich]

Once again many people on this forum show a shocking ignorance when it comes to the criminal justice system, the work of the police, the CPS, the court service, the system of sentencing and sentencing guidelines in this country.

Although i am sure it is easier for your brains just to write hanging is to good for them.

 

[yorksrob]

Apart from the fact that there were contributing factors by NWR and the highways in this LC design.
NWR contractors parked on the access to the LC approaches forcing the lorry onto the wrong side and it being so designed that large vehicles could not manoeuvre without being on the wrong side exiting the LC, hence the reason the half barrier ended up coming down in front his cab
This wasn't a slow moving vehicle, it was only driving slowly due to the narrow approach caused by parked vehicles

Are you serious that every vehicle slowing to 5 mph cross an uneven or narrow AHB such as cars with loaded trailers have to stop and phone for permission?
The length of the trailer was a technical irrelevance as it was the front cab that was stopped by the opposite AHB after he had crossed the track.

We discussed this before but if he had carried on driving through the AHB,or been on the LH side, the truck would have cleared the LC. He assumed it was the NR contractors working on the track that had tripped the LC and stopped to check. If you are going to take safety decisions away from the railway and give them to road users, expect mistakes.
You know my opinions on AHBs convert them to CCTV No safety critical decision then for the road users to make. get stuck or break down on the track and a professional railwayman can see before clearing his signals and stop the job till its sorted. although of course we all know that even they make mistakes operating LCs don't they

Sorry, but if the sign says you are supposed to stop and phone, then you are supposed to stop and phone.

Fair point though. Convert all AHB's to CCTV controlled crossings. Just make sure the staffing costs come out of the road budget, not the railway budget.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Once again many people on this forum show a shocking ignorance when it comes to the criminal justice system, the work of the police, the CPS, the court service, the system of sentencing and sentencing guidelines in this country.

Although i am sure it is easier for your brains just to write hanging is to good for them.

I don't believe anybody has suggested capital punishment for this offence. Perhaps you feel that the justice system should be allowed to continue on its way without any public scrutiny or indeed comment from those who have to live beneath it ?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm not fully aware of the details of this case, but I know of one crossing I never felt would be safe to cross even in a Ford Escort at above 5mph- namely Bradford(-on-Tone) Crossing between Taunton and Wellington.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't believe anybody has suggested capital punishment for this offence. Perhaps you feel that the justice system should be allowed to continue on its way without any public scrutiny or indeed comment from those who have to live beneath it ?

that would be a frankly preposterous suggestion and smacks of some sort of tin pot African country! I WOULD like some informed debate & considered scrutiny.

Take a few moments to understand the charge, how that charge comes to court, what happens at court, how evidence is presented to and assessed by the judge and/or jury, how the judge is obliged to sentence, what factors he must take into account to determine the sentence, what could be presented as mitigation . Finally, consider what you would instruct your legal team to do in similar circumstances then scrutinse the process!

 

[martybabes]

And if the Crown Prosecution Service felt the Judge had been unduly lenient when sentencing, it could (or another interested party) invite the Attorney General to consider a reference to the Court of Appeal.

Unless we hear otherwise, we can presume the CPS were satisfied with the sentence the learned Judge handed down.

 

[soil]

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=He...=T9yHZHi-qlw1ltNQrYz4OA&cbp=12,325.55,,2,5.82

 

[yorksrob]

that would be a frankly preposterous suggestion and smacks of some sort of tin pot African country! I WOULD like some informed debate & considered scrutiny.

Take a few moments to understand the charge, how that charge comes to court, what happens at court, how evidence is presented to and assessed by the judge and/or jury, how the judge is obliged to sentence, what factors he must take into account to determine the sentence, what could be presented as mitigation . Finally, consider what you would instruct your legal team to do in similar circumstances then scrutinse the process!

The fact remains that this was not a one off momentary lapse, but a habitual action by the lorry driver. We all end up paying when one of these instances goes tragically wrong and the general public goes into one of its customary spasms of health and safety hysteria over level crossings.

I find the suggestion that everyone who maybe questions whether the sentence handed down doesn't reflect the seriousness of such a situation is somehow a frothing hang'em/flogg'em nut job, frankly ludicrous.

 

[PauloDavesi]

An interesting contract of opinions here, compared to when the Mersey rail operative, was quite rightly, found guilty of, the much more serious, offence of manslaughter after he was found responsible for the death of an innocent passenger.

The judge has issued the sentence based on all the evidence presented, including the significant contributory factor of network rail vehicles obstructing the approached to the crossing.

 

[DarloRich]

The fact remains that this was not a one off momentary lapse, but a habitual action by the lorry driver. We all end up paying when one of these instances goes tragically wrong and the general public goes into one of its customary spasms of health and safety hysteria over level crossings.

I find the suggestion that everyone who maybe questions whether the sentence handed down doesn't reflect the seriousness of such a situation is somehow a frothing hang'em/flogg'em nut job, frankly ludicrous.

Do you understand the charge and the system of sentencing guidelines? For me the sentence is commensurate with the offense for whch the driver was charged. The questions, for me are:

1) Why the CPS presented that particular offense, rather than a more serious one. Not the offense you think occurred but the offense for which the defendant was convicted.
2) Do the sentencing guidelines adequately reflect the seriousness of the offense. Once again, not the offense you think occurred but the offense the defendant was convicted of.
3) What mitigation was presented by the defense team that earned the defendant the sentence passed down.

My view is that the CPS went for a conviction they thought they could win more easily. The conviction is for a lower order offense and so the sentence reflects that.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_transport_offences/#offences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offenc...carriages_injuring_persons_by_furious_driving

 

[yorksrob]

I don't really see what your issue is.

People on this thread are pointing out that they feel that the sentence handed down does not reflect the seriousness of habitually misusing a level crossing.

That could be because the sentencing guidelines don't allow anything different, or that the CPS decided to go for an easier conviction on a lesser charge or that there isn't an adequate law on the statute book to reflect the seriousness misusing the crossing.

It could be any of these things, however it still doesn't alter the fact that some people feel that the sentence handed down does not reflect the seriousness of habitually misusing a level crossing.

 

[DarloRich]

My point is that there is a complete lack of understanding as to how the whole sentencing "system " works.

With a little understanding the criticism holds much more weight. At present it is often rather like flailing around and lashing out at shadows. Target your criticism where it will bring the best results.

Question why the CPS went with that particular offense, rather than a more serious one. In fact you could question why they often go for the less serious option in many road traffic related trials. This reduces the length and impact of the sentences available to the judge.

The crux of the issue is that the sentence itself should not be the main area of complaint, rather that the offence offered for trial was not serious enough in the first place.

 

[merlodlliw]

Do you understand the charge and the system of sentencing guidelines? For me the sentence is commensurate with the offense for whch the driver was charged. The questions, for me are:

1) Why the CPS presented that particular offense, rather than a more serious one. Not the offense you think occurred but the offense for which the defendant was convicted.
2) Do the sentencing guidelines adequately reflect the seriousness of the offense. Once again, not the offense you think occurred but the offense the defendant was convicted of.
3) What mitigation was presented by the defense team that earned the defendant the sentence passed down.

My view is that the CPS went for a conviction they thought they could win more easily. The conviction is for a lower order offense and so the sentence reflects that.

well put,I fully agree,it is a pity,a few on RF can not accept the judgement,the man was given a years custodial sentence,suspended.This will in effect remain on his record & and will have knock on effects on his character.

 

[yorksrob]

The crux of the issue is that the sentence itself should not be the main area of complaint, rather that the offence offered for trial was not serious enough in the first place.

An observation not without merit, however this is somewhat somewhat more considered and nuanced than the point you seemed to be making in post 35.

 

[martybabes]

An observation not without merit, however this is somewhat somewhat more considered and nuanced than the point you seemed to be making in post 35.

When, up until recently, I was prosecuting criminal offences, it was critical (and good practice) to bring the appropriate charge against an offender in relation to to the criminal act he has committed rather than bringing a (lesser) charge that would elicit a quick guilty plea. To do otherwise is a dis-service to the public, but allows a box-ticking exercise to provide artificially inflated scores.

In relation to a lot of the comment herein, to offer a lesser charge also provides a defendant with a significantly more lenient penalty (and hampers the sentencing panel with their only being able to sentence for the charge to which a plea has been offered). One can see how this could be attractive to both the prosecution and the defence.

I hope this clears up a few doubts, uncertainties and misconceptions that abound.