Easingwold School bus flood rescue: Driver jailed

[yorkie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-38264461

A school bus driver whose vehicle became stranded in floodwater with 23 pupils on board has been jailed for a year.

Graham Jones, 53, had driven past two road closed signs ahead of the incident between Newton-on-Ouse and Tollerton, near York, on 5 January.

He denied dangerous driving but was convicted following a trial.

Jones, of Linton Woods Lane, Linton-on-Ouse, was also handed a 36-month driving ban at York Crown Court.

Judge Paul Batty QC told Jones he had shown "vaunted arrogance" during his evidence and did not understand why he had not pleaded guilty given the evidence against him.

The bus was transporting the pupils on an eight-mile (12km) journey to Easingwold School on the first day of school following the Christmas holiday.

Jones had driven through one stretch of water without incident but got stuck when he attempted to drive through a second stretch, the court heard.

Prosecutors said he had driven past two road closed signs....

This incident only got a brief mention on the forum in the Buses in the floods thread last December, but was quite a big news story in this area at the time.

I would have been happier with a shorter jail time but a longer driving ban, as that would seem to make more sense to me.

 

[the101]

I can't see the point of jailing him either, although had he done the sensible thing and pleaded guilty he may have avoided it. It's absurd that he went not guilty.

 

[daikilo]

I can't see the point of jailing him either, although had he done the sensible thing and pleaded guilty he may have avoided it. It's absurd that he went not guilty.

I presume you mean "went FOR not guilty".

Yes indeed, and I assume he did not request legal help either; if he did either they were a poor choice or he presumably did not adequately listen or weigh advice. School bus drivers must understand that you never take a driving risk, never pass a road closed sign, never put a child at a safety risk. In my opinion, courts pay particular attention when children are involved.

I am not in favour of prison sentences either in such a case, but I would have considered a life-time ban on school transport.

 

[Busaholic]

Like others, I consider it a rather harsh sentence - if a prison sentence was to be handed out, I'm surprised it wasn't suspended. If a deterrent sentence was looked for, then even a suspended sentence would have done the trick imo. It seems particularly harsh when a driver on a mobile phone can kill somebody by their inattention and not get jailed (certainly at least one recent example of that). Driving bans are not nearly long enough, and in the case of PCVs and HGVs should be for life in the worst cases imo.

 

[plarailfan]

A few years ago, I was driving an empty artic tipper along the A656 in heavy rain towards castleford, when I happened upon a flood right across the road. With great difficulty, I reversed quite some distance, then, turned my truck around to go via an alternative route, which involved quite a long detour and considerable extra journey time. I expect the driver of the Easingwold school bus would have been rather concerned about his passengers being delayed and probably decided to take the risk of going along the usual route, if possible. Clearly the water became too deep and his luck ran out before he could recover the situation !
Looking at the footage on the BBC news, it appeared as though the bus might have been a write off, due to the water ingress alone, without taking into account probable mechanical and structural issues that may have occurred during the mishap.
The driver of this car, close to my home last year, persisted in driving down a steep slope, into deep floodwater until it was too late to take avoiding action and the vehicle became completely submerged..... https://www.flickr.com/photos/41294...uu6-Cqgq6V-Cqgrhc-BZ4d2M-CxyBpK-AtbVeP-B89w6K

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Yet people will still wonder why the prison system is bursting at the seams... because we keep filling it with people who may have made bad judgements but would be unlikely to repeat them, given the consequences. It does seem odd that he chose to plead not guilty, but if that's the only reason he's been given a custodial sentence it seems harsh to say the least.

 

[Statto]

I can see why he's been jailed, pleading not guilty when overwhelming evidence says otherwise, he should have a longer driving ban & permanent revocation of his PSV licence, it's irritating when you see jail sentence given for this yet those getting a slap on the wrist when they should be jailed for more serious offences.

 

[AlterEgo]

Don't forget the judge said the defendant showed "vaunted arrogance" when giving evidence. The defendant also showed little sign of appreciating how serious his transgression was. He was hardly contrite!

Prison is appropriate. What an idiot.

 

[Steelwheels]

The bus was a write off and the driver was duly dismissed from the company for gross misconduct.

This prosecution was brought by the police and I would assume the now the driver has a criminal conviction he will have appear before the northeast traffic commissioner to get his PCV entitlement approved once his driving ban is lifted.

So in essence he is still not out of the woods being able to drive for his livelyhood once he is free to apply.

 

[Flying Snail]

Don't forget the judge said the defendant showed "vaunted arrogance" when giving evidence. The defendant also showed little sign of appreciating how serious his transgression was. He was hardly contrite!

That explains it, he didn't grovel to hizzonor in the wig. :roll:

Prison is appropriate. What an idiot.

No it isn't. It was an unbelievably stupid thing to do and I would have no problem with a long driving ban, heavy fine and bar on ever driving a PSV again. But it wasn't a deliberate criminal act, he didn't set out to cause harm nor did he neck a dozen beers and crash the bus.

Every day hundreds of people are let off with non custodial sentences for deliberate criminal acts with the clear intent to injure people or property. Putting them in jail will more often than not stop further crimes being committed, putting this man in jail won't.

It seems like punishment for not knowing how to play the system more than anything else, as you say an idiot, a colossal one by the sounds of it but nobody will benefit from locking him up.

 

[carlberry]

That explains it, he didn't grovel to hizzonor in the wig. :roll:



No it isn't. It was an unbelievably stupid thing to do and I would have no problem with a long driving ban, heavy fine and bar on ever driving a PSV again. But it wasn't a deliberate criminal act, he didn't set out to cause harm nor did he neck a dozen beers and crash the bus.

Every day hundreds of people are let off with non custodial sentences for deliberate criminal acts with the clear intent to injure people or property. Putting them in jail will more often than not stop further crimes being committed, putting this man in jail won't.

It seems like punishment for not knowing how to play the system more than anything else, as you say an idiot, a colossal one by the sounds of it but nobody will benefit from locking him up.

I would go alone with that:
Is he a danger to bus passengers: Yes, stop him driving PCVs
Is he a danger to other road users : Yes, like a large number of other car licence holders.
Is he a danger to society (to the extent that locking him up will be worthwhile) : No
Could he afford a wonderful defence lawyer: No

If he was a premier league footballer he'd more likely have got compensation for the inconvenience!

 

[Temple Meads]

No it isn't. It was an unbelievably stupid thing to do and I would have no problem with a long driving ban, heavy fine and bar on ever driving a PSV again. But it wasn't a deliberate criminal act, he didn't set out to cause harm nor did he neck a dozen beers and crash the bus.

Every day hundreds of people are let off with non custodial sentences for deliberate criminal acts with the clear intent to injure people or property. Putting them in jail will more often than not stop further crimes being committed, putting this man in jail won't.

It seems like punishment for not knowing how to play the system more than anything else, as you say an idiot, a colossal one by the sounds of it but nobody will benefit from locking him up.

An excellent post - I couldn't agree more.

 

[philthetube]

Three reasons for imprisonment,

1) to prevent re offending
2) as a deterrent to others
3) as a punishment.

one and two are irrelevant in this case for obvious reasons ans surely he is receiving adequate punishment in any case with a driving ban, and I cannot imagine he will ever drive a bus again.

 

[Busaholic]

If he has grounds for appeal, and exercises those rights, then the sentence might be altered: however, by then he could have served his sentence, so any gain for him would be theoretical.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That explains it, he didn't grovel to hizzonor in the wig. :roll:

I see it is Judge Batty who sent him down for a year. Had the pleasure of many a case with him in Carlisle when I was clerking there. The guy will make an example out of people he considers stupid because, well, he's a bit of an arse to be honest.

It's a tough one, though, because I feel you should be punished by how bad your driving is, not by how unfortunate the consequences are. If any of those kids had suffered life-changing injuries then we wouldn't be arguing about a jail sentence, and it's only through pure luck that they didn't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If any of those kids had suffered life-changing injuries then we wouldn't be arguing about a jail sentence, and it's only through pure luck that they didn't.

Not sure I agree with this, though I do agree with your principle that it's the act that needs punishing rather than the actual (rather than potential) consequences - it was a mind-blowingly stupid act, but it didn't strike me as one that was likely to cause life-changing injuries/deaths any more than any other common piece of road-based stupidity. He is not the first idiot to drive into a flood and require rescue, nor will he be the last.

I'm with those who say he should receive a medium-sized fine (a few thousand perhaps), a long general driving ban (at least 5 years, with a requirement to re-take his test at the end of it, possibly an enhanced test as I believe exists for such circumstances) and a permanent ban from holding a PCV licence (and possibly also an HGV one). Jail time would not seem to me to be a good use of public money.

If possible, also a ban on holding a taxi or private hire licence for at least 5 years if not permanent, as otherwise that'd be a workaround to get him driving people around again.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Not sure I agree - it was a mind-blowingly stupid act, but it didn't strike me as one that was likely to cause life-changing injuries/deaths any more than any piece of road-based stupidity.

Have you seen the pictures of the bus? The kids were standing in waist-deep flood water waiting to be rescued. It wouldn't have taken much to be different to have been fishing bodies out of that bus, if the bus had tipped over goodness only knows what could have happened. And I'm not using hyperbole: it was a mind-blowingly stupid and mind-blowingly dangerous thing to do.

Luckily nobody was seriously hurt, but it was only luck. I don't agree with jailing him, really, but it is a tough one because I do think people should be punished according to their actions and not based on how unfortunate they are.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just looked and it wasn't the incident I thought it was, the bus does seem to have partly tipped over on the side of the road.

However I still wouldn't propose jail time, I would just propose a hefty fine and keeping him off the road for a good period, and off driving the public for any reason (bus or taxi) permanently.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't agree with jailing him, really, but it is a tough one because I do think people should be punished according to their actions and not based on how unfortunate they are.

I do agree strongly with this, FWIW. More generally I think murder should be punished the same as attempted murder, for example, and setting a bomb the same whether it went off or not, because the bad thing is that the perpetrator took an action *intending* to kill people or with reasonable expectation that he would - that he was too incompetent to actually pull it off is neither here nor there.

With regard to this, I wouldn't go for jail time because it was just utter, gross incompetence (the wilful act being the incompetent acts of passing the sign and entering the water - no intention to kill or maim). If it had been found he did it with the intention or genuine expectation of killing one or more passengers, that would be very different.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

That explains it, he didn't grovel to hizzonor in the wig. :roll:



No it isn't. It was an unbelievably stupid thing to do and I would have no problem with a long driving ban, heavy fine and bar on ever driving a PSV again. But it wasn't a deliberate criminal act, he didn't set out to cause harm nor did he neck a dozen beers and crash the bus.

Every day hundreds of people are let off with non custodial sentences for deliberate criminal acts with the clear intent to injure people or property. Putting them in jail will more often than not stop further crimes being committed, putting this man in jail won't.

It seems like punishment for not knowing how to play the system more than anything else, as you say an idiot, a colossal one by the sounds of it but nobody will benefit from locking him up.

not only did the driver demonstrate the mens rea at the time of the actus reus ... he appears to have little understanding or insight into why the prosecution was made , actions whether regulatory, civil court or criminal do tend to look for evidence that the individual / organisatiosn involved demonstrates understanding and insight and has taken steps to remediate.

(stands back and waits for the management to put down their weak lemon drink and claim i'm being nasty to the crayonistas)