|
Both drivers have been jailed - no surprise there. No doubt the driver of the parked lorry will have got the harsher sentence - he would have got a slightly shorter sentence if he'd pleaded guilty of course.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 24 Mar 18 at 20:35
|
Driver of parked lorry got 14 years after which he'll be deported. Banned for 17.
Once FedEx driver was acquitted of death by dangerous and get's discount for guilty plea to lesser offence, previous good character etc he was never going to get a long stretch.
Given max is 5 I'd not be too surprised to see sentence appealed.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 23 Mar 18 at 16:50
|
If I was him I'd quit while I'm winning.
Pat
|
I don't think Bromptonaut meant the driver appealing.
I am surprised how lightly he got off. But pleading guilty to the lesser charge saved him a lot of time in jail.
|
>>
>>
>> I am surprised how lightly he got off. But pleading guilty to the lesser charge
>> saved him a lot of time in jail.
>>
Three years in the slammer would mean little to a career criminal, but to an ordinary Joe it will seem like ten lifetimes.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Fri 23 Mar 18 at 17:28
|
|
As Robin says. Plus never working in the industry again, horrendous if not possible to get insurance.
|
He will only do half of that time and let's face it...do we really want him working in the industry again?
Would you feel safe at 3 am with him behind you?
Pat
|
Half that time is still one year and eight months, with the rest out on licence and subject to recall. He won't be driving a truck again and is unlikely to repeat his error unless he is a complete idiot. I don't know the man's circumstances, but if he has a house on mortgage he is likely to lose that and if married that may not survive. Any decent job will probably be out of the question for a long time to come so you can hardly say he has suffered a trivial punishment.
The sentence should reflect the criminal as much as it does the crime, and for someone not of that world time in a prison system where violence is out of control and assault a constant threat will be a living hell.
|
I agree. But I wish his sentence included some for of giving back to society.
I'd like to see that being an automatic part of people's punishment - litter picking, graffiti cleaning, helping old or needy folk, or some other way of paying back, not just sitting in a cell costing us money to punish.
|
>> I agree. But I wish his sentence included some for of giving back to society.
>>
>> I'd like to see that being an automatic part of people's punishment - litter picking,
>> graffiti cleaning, helping old or needy folk, or some other way of paying back, not
>> just sitting in a cell costing us money to punish.
>>
I would too. Eighteen months assisting at a busy casualty department on weekends would bring the error of their ways home to drunken and dangerous drivers.
|
>> I would too. Eighteen months assisting at a busy casualty department on weekends would bring
>> the error of their ways home to drunken and dangerous drivers.
He was neither, nor would I like a lorry driver working at my local A&E thanks, nurses and doctors will do me.
Looking at the vid, I was surprised how busy the motorway was.
|
>> Half that time is still one year and eight months,
>>
Less than I did as National Service. And I hadn't committed a crime.
|
>> I don't think Bromptonaut meant the driver appealing.
No, driver's appeal was exactly what I had in mind. Though actually it may be more about the lack of logic around offence of death by careless driving.
Dangerous Driving requires 'mens rea' - an element of planning or choice.That's not case with careless which is about being inattentive.
If inattentive rather than deliberate then why is consequence - a lot of people dead - an aggravating factor?
|
|
Then I am with Pat - quit whilst he's ahead.
|
Would you be able to get a link to the transcript of the case please Bromp?
There are so many *unconfirmed* facts being bandied about it would be good to hear what was actually said.
Pat
|
>> Would you be able to get a link to the transcript of the case please
>> Bromp?
All that will be publicly available will be the judges sentencing remarks if they're put on the judiciary website. Whether that happens seems to be bit of a lottery.
|
It would appear from some of the replies that some posters think I’m being unduly harsh in thinking the sentencing of the Fedex driver was a light one.
As seems to be the norm on here, I will now attempt to justify why I think that.
Before I start let me say I agree totally with the AIM driver’s sentence. I also think, had the driver of the minibus not died, he should/would have been in court as well.
The AIM driver stopped in a live lane of a motorway for almost 15 minutes, the minibus stopped behind him and at this point everyone was still alive and well.
During that time numerous cars and lorries (according to witness statements) managed to see the obstruction and avoid it.
The Fedex driver was travelling behind another lorry, which indicated to pull out and pass the obstruction but still that didn’t alert him to any danger ahead.
The Fedex driver travelled for 11 seconds with full vision of the road ahead, in which time he neither braked nor swerved at all.
That was some ‘error of judgement’!
Now, let’s look at this another way.
Had the obstruction been the last two vehicles in a line of traffic held up at an accident would any of you have excused him for not seeing it, and killing 8 people?
Lorry drivers, like the pilot in the Shoreham air disaster, are supposed to be professional at the job we do, even if in some people’s eyes lorry drivers are only seen to be professional when they have fallen below the standard.
This driver’s action not only fell below the standards it was an appalling lack of attention to the job he was being paid to do professionally.
I have quite a lot more information but it is as yet unconfirmed, so I have kept strictly to the facts above.
So, I repeat, in my opinion, he was very lucky to have got off so lightly and he knows that.
Pat
|
I wouldn't take issue with any of that Pat, except for the bit about the minibus driver.
He may have been deceived initially into thinking that the stationary lorry (in a live lane) was the back of a queue; and for that reason or another, ended up 'shut in' behind the lorry while waiting for a gap to pull out and go round it. One thing that struck me was how busy the motorway was in the early hours of the morning. Making a late lane change to pass a stationary vehicle, with faster traffic bearing down and while driving a fully laden minibus is not a smart thing to do either.
The fact is I wasn't there and I don't know how it looked to him - but it wasn't he who failed to see, and avoid hitting, an obstruction. Stopping should always be a legitimate option.
It's certainly a position I would try to avoid being in, but the cause of him being there was primarily the 'parking' of the lorry in a live lane.
|
>> The fact is I wasn't there and I don't know how it looked to him
>> - but it wasn't he who failed to see, and avoid hitting, an obstruction. Stopping
>> should always be a legitimate option.
>>
>> It's certainly a position I would try to avoid being in, but the cause of
>> him being there was primarily the 'parking' of the lorry in a live lane.
Agree 100%. It's very easy to say you'd have sussed situation and pulled out sooner. You weren't there with a minibus full of dozing people who'd be thrown about by any violent action on your part.
I've ended up stuck behind a stationery vehicle in similar circs where trying to move out into fast passing traffic - even in an unladen 90+ PS diesel - is a challenge.
DHL man should have been able to stop.
|
So, I repeat, in my opinion, he was very lucky to have got off so
>> lightly and he knows that.
>>
Having followed this, not massively but reasonably, I'm not sure he's thoughts right now are that he's got off lightly.
|
Pat,
I agree with most of your analysis though the clue of the other lorry pulling out is a bit of a red herring - he might have seen an ordinary lorry running slow (maybe adjusting to avoid early arrival at his drop) or an exceptional load. But let's agree DHL nan was careless
The bit that really bothers is the court's view of the fatalities as an aggravating factor. If in same circs he'd hit an empty minibus he'd have got a year's suspended?
General problem when sentence for an ordinary offence with unforeseeable consequences depends on consequence,
|
|
The traffic appeared not only to be busy for that time of the morning, it appeared to be moving with compressed clumps of traffic.
|
>> The bit that really bothers is the court's view of the fatalities as an aggravating
>> factor. If in same circs he'd hit an empty minibus he'd have got a year's
>> suspended?
Isn't death by careless a relatively new addition because of a few high profile cases?
|
|
Isn't sentence based upon the seriousness of the offence, rather than the consequences of the offence?
|
>> Isn't sentence based upon the seriousness of the offence, rather than the consequences of the
>> offence?
Not really, you just change the offence based on the consequences. Had no-one died, he would have been charged with a lesser offence carrying a lesser sentence,even tho his actions and intent would have been the same in both instances.
Uk law is littered with offences based on consequences alone.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 25 Mar 18 at 07:44
|
>> Isn't death by careless a relatively new addition because of a few high profile cases?
That's my recollection too.
|
Offence effective from Aug 2008.
Degree of harm is part of sentencing guideline with multiple deaths specifically mentioned:
www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/causing-death-by-careless-or-inconsiderate-driving/
Still doesn't feel right to me.
Zero's point about offence charged v seriousness is I think right. In this case the original charge was death by dangerous but jury acquitted.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 25 Mar 18 at 09:41
|
M1 fatal accident, J14/J15 - Pat
