A van driver has been locked up for knocking over and killing someone who was walking on the motorway.
The driver was convicted of the unusual offence of 'causing death while driving when disqualified'.
His standard of driving is not criticised, yet he's starting an 18-month stretch tonight.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-12054084
|
he should of had 4.5 years inside! that would stop him from driving whilst disqualified.
About time they get tough with disqual drivers.
|
|
I would have thought that driving while disqualified involved an elment of "Fault". He shouldn't have been behind the wheel of a vehicle in any event.
|
...I would have thought that driving while disqualified involved an elment of "Fault"...
Quite so, it's only not his fault in the sense he was driving safely at the time, albeit he had no valid licence.
|
|
To quote Monty Python "Harsh but fair"
|
A similar case, I believe. The judges seem to accept that nothing about the fact of being disqualified could have caused the accident, but seem to make it clear that they find the intention of the relevant act unambiguous.
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2010/2552.html
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Tue 21 Dec 10 at 18:24
|
We had this discussion before, about a strikingly similar case. The naming of the offence is clearly the issue here, as in this case he didn't "cause" the death - as per the other case.
Now I don't see, whereby a driver is blameless in causing the accident, how he should be penalised higher, than a standard disqual driver. The offence is driving while disqualified.
If you want to prevent the offence of driving while disqualified, you send all of them to jail for 4 years. What the hell does a non fault accident have to do with it.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 21 Dec 10 at 18:34
|
|
The problem is that we're excessively lenient most of the time, but excessively harsh if the unfortunate happens.
|
|
Surely must be an incorrect sentence.
|
>>If you want to prevent the offence of driving while disqualified, you send all of them to jail for 4 years. What the hell does a non fault accident have to do with it
The fact that there is presumably no evidence of poor driving doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that the accident was unrelated to the fact that he should not have been driving, but he was.
Was he uninsured also? Another category whose feet shouldn't touch.
I take your point, but I'd rather expend my sympathy elsewhere.
|
|
No sympathy, just exasperation at the extreme soft / harsh sentences we have as pointed out above.
|
|
..it was also his second offence.
|
|
Manatee -you cannot be insured when disqualified.
|
|
SFAIK one is not insured for one's own loss/damage but the insurer has to meet the claims of 3rd parties.
Last edited by: Perky Penguin (p) on Wed 22 Dec 10 at 13:51
|
|
No, they don't. It's a specific exclusion on every insurance policy. Completely invalid, including third party risks. Every disqualified driver is also charged with 'no insurance' as a matter of routine.
|
...Completely invalid, including third party risks...
A third party in this situation may be able to claim from the Motor Insurers' Bureau under the uninsured drivers agreement.
www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/miud/uninsureddriversagreement?page=5
|
>> His standard of driving is not criticised, yet he's starting an 18-month stretch tonight.
>>
There appears to be no suggestion that the pedestrian ran into the road, just that he was walking south.
Hitting a pedestrian on a notorway, no obstructions, clear sight lines etc means there was something at fault with your driving.
What happened to Rule 126 of the highway code.
"126 Stopping Distances
Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear."
|
...means there was something at fault with your driving...
No fault according to his advocate, the judge and presumably, no fault by the 'other motorists and lorry drivers' who hit the victim, because they were not charged.
Quoting from the story:
His advocate, Frances Connor, said: "It is clear from evidence that his driving was not at fault and was not to blame for the tragedy that happened that night.
"His culpability was that he was on the road at all."
Other motorists and lorry drivers in evidence described how they too hit an "object" on the road.
Sheriff George Jamieson said he acknowledged that the standard of Rai's driving could not be said to be the cause of death.
That is the interesting point about this offence, and it applies to no insurance as well.
So you or I could forget to renew, be involved in a no-fault fatal crash a few days later and be looking at a stretch inside.
Last edited by: Iffy on Thu 23 Dec 10 at 09:55
|
>> That is the interesting point about this offence, and it applies to no insurance as
>> well.
>>
>> So you or I could forget to renew, be involved in a no-fault fatal crash
>> a few days later and be looking at a stretch inside.
>>
Yes, that's quite correct.
Presumably though, if you'd genuinely forgotten to insure your car, had a valid reason why that was so, had not done it before, were otherwise roadworthy and a good citizen, you'd still be Guilty of the offence, but would not be doing 18 months at Her Majesty's pleasure.
This fellow had been done for disqual driving before...he was a recidivist...he'd stuck two fingers up to the law... and society...then committed the offence.
No doubt as well... someone committing Option 1 would plead Guilty...matey boy pleaded Not Guilty. That affects your 'tariff' as well.
|
...Presumably though, if you'd genuinely forgotten to insure your car you would not be doing 18 months at Her Majesty's pleasure...
Yes, that would be my interpretation.
The law is aimed at those who repeatedly disregard orders of the court.
This guy had only one previous conviction for driving while disqualified.
In the similar case which I've posted about previously, the defendant has something like 40 previous convictions for driving while disqualified.
That one is due for sentence in January.
I think there are a few other cases around the country which were waiting for the Appeal Court judgment posted by Steel Spark earlier in this thread.
|
The curious thing about English law apparently therefore seems to be that two separate transgressions can produce a combined sentence that is greater than the sum of the parts.
1) driving while disqualified
2) being involved in an accident that was not your fault
Usually sentences are strictly additive, aren't they? Or even concurrent?
|
I still don't sdee how anyone can say there was nothing wrong with his driving . . . .
I know what his advocate says but he would wouldn't he.
|
>> I still don't sdee how anyone can say there was nothing wrong with his driving
>> . . . .
>>
>> I know what his advocate says but he would wouldn't he.
But had it been bad, the prosecuting council would have said so wouldn't they.
They didn't.
|
The evidence strongly suggests the victim wandered onto the carriageway.
Perhaps he was trying to cross the road.
The judge's remarks are telling.
If the judge thought the driver were to blame, he would have done so, but he didn't.
The judge went further than that, he absolved the driver of any blame.
|
|
What's your point Iffy? He was banned by a court and chose to ignore that. For the second time. It matters not that his driving was up to standard, he had no entitlement to drive. This offence caters for this circumstance.
|
...What's your point Iffy?...
I was replying to an earlier poster who questioned the standard of the guy's driving.
I'm well aware the standard of his driving is irrelevant to this offence.
That is what makes it such an interesting case.
|
It's the old "being there with an unlicencensed gun in your pocket" scenario. Any offence you commit in those circumstances appears to attract a higher sentence.
Curious.
|
|
The creation of the offence itself was presumably to increase sentencing powers for those involved in an accident whilst disqualified. If this offence hadn't been created we'd have the situation where all he could be done for is driving whilst disqualified. Having said that, I haven't looked up the max penalty for both in order to compare them.
|
...Having said that, I haven't looked up the max penalty for both in order to compare them...
Max for causing death while driving when disqualified is five years.
Isn't 'ordinary' driving while disqualified summary only?
In which case, it's six months.
|
"No fault" death crash driver jailed - Injection Doc
