AlterEgo
Veteran Member
It is really galling that losing a leg acts as mitigation for causing an abhorrent car crash that deleted another person’s life. I wish eternal misery on him.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Park Royal car accident - driver charged
- Thread starter Taunton
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
bramling
Veteran Member
Agreed. I don’t really see the relevance. Likewise I don’t really see the relevance of intent lacking - the potential consequences of his actions were, in my view, reasonably foreseeable - both in terms of likelihood and severity.
Chris M
Member
Intent matters for the difference between causing death by dangerous driving/manslaughter and murder.
Personal injury matters because the intent of a criminal sentence is a combination of punishment, deterrent and (opportunity for) rehabilitation. Sentencing guidelines take that view that if you are seriously injured yourself then that is part of your punishment so you need less time in prison to receive the same amount of punishment.
To understand the philosophy behind this, assume that two people, A and B, committed identical crimes in identical circumstances. Person A is sentenced to 5 years in prison, while person B is sentenced to 5 years in prison and also to have part of their leg amputated (I am not suggesting we should do this). I think everyone would agree that person B is being punished more harshly than person A. If however the sentences were A: 5 years in prison. B: leg amputation and 2 years in prison; that would be closer to equal. punishment
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
But the leg being removed in this case was a consequence of him committing the same criminal act he was found guilty of, where he killed a woman by driving at 110mph.
What next, a murderer who, in the struggle with their victim, got their eye gouged out and gets a few years off their sentence?
It’s offensive.
I suppose it depends what you believe the point of the criminal justice system to be.
If you believe it is purely punitive then yes, self inflicted injuries probably don't come into it. But if you believe it should have some element of reformation or even compassion (it is important to act as you wish people to behave, not to sink to their level) then taking into account the fact that this person has lost a lombok and will have to carry that pain and daily reminder of their actions then it is not unreasonable to take it into account.
However in this specific case he appears to have shown no genuine remorse whatsoever so I'd have looked to throw the book at him.
Falcon1200
Established Member
Indeed, losing a leg was not part of his 'punishment', it was a direct consequence of his own deliberate and illegal actions and should form no part whatsoever of the judicial process.
greatkingrat
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2011
- Messages
- 2,784
Let's say the driver had ended up paralysed from the neck down - do you still think he should have gone to prison for 14 years?
The loss of his limb will make a difference to how 'hard' the sentence is when serving it - he will be more vulnerable than most prisoners and unable to take part in certain activities as well as requiring consideration for things like evacuation procedures. Is it totally unreasonable that this should be factored into his sentence? As I've mentioned, it can be offset by other things like how much remorse he has shown.
Yes, that should be irrelevant.
Zero in this case, according to this report [ Evening Standard ] in which he is reported as even showing arrogance. Fits with everything else we know about him, the man is a public danger.
bramling
Veteran Member
Yes. The whole thing was reasonably foreseeable. He should have thought about all this before being a fool.
The Tesla driver was *very* lucky not to have been killed, as were other motorists, or anyone working in the station where the car landed.
This idiot needs to be out of circulation for as long as possible.
Yes, and as I mentioned earlier I would consider that in my judgement and throw the book at him.
Purple Train
Established Member
I believe your first point was that raised by the judge in their sentencing remarks.
Vespa
Established Member
I agree, the guilty plea in the face of overwhelming evidence is only a ploy reduce the sentence, if the evidence was weaker and the greater possibility of getting away with it, I have no doubt he would have fought it all the way.
I agree. It is important to maintain proportionality and a scale of punishment in the justice system. There should be a clear difference between the sentence passed for murder and that for theft. It is all too tempting to continually ratchet the tariff upwards, which if nothing else is extremely expensive in the country with the highest incarnation rate per capita in Europe.
The lack of remorse has been taken into account as an aggravating factor. The law provides a discount on the tariff for those who plead guilty before trial (sliding % downward scale from first appearance).
As a general point, it's also important to avoid 'double counting' - ie. punishing someone twice for the same misdeed. Particularly when there are multiple counts on the indictment.
Whilst I'm understand there has been a lack of remorse shown at trial, the idea is that the withdrawal of personal liberty will (amongst other things) provide an opportunity for reflection, and hopefully remorse will be demonstrated further down the line. It is not uncommon.
I'm afraid I am not persuaded that those convicted are automatically irredeemable, no matter how foreseeable or contemptible the crime, and I do believe it is important that we provide an opportunity for rehabilitation. Whether or not it is taken up reflects on the individual.
Lastly, if members feel so strongly that the sentence is unduly lenient, they may write to the Attorney General and ask that leave is sought for an appeal.
It's not a "ploy", it's an entirely deliberate feature of the justice system to avoid the expense, inconvenience and pain for victims & witnesses, of a jury trial.
Otherwise there would be no advantage for anyone to plead guilty before trial, regardless of the strength of evidence or the likelihood of their defence succeeding.
Last edited:
Eyersey468
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 2,172
I have zero sympathy for him either
Vespa
Established Member
Hope you told him to hop it
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
If you don’t have a discount for a guilty plea then what is the point of pleading guilty? You may as well take it to trial and see what happens, the CPS may mess up or the jury may make an “interesting” decision and you might even get acquitted.
With a discount for a guilty plea you’d be gambling an extra three or four years inside, so if the evidence is overwhelming you wouldn’t take the gamble, you’d plead guilty. Without a discount for a guilty plea this becomes a risk-free gamble so you may as well crack on.
Foreseeable, perhaps, perhaps not. That’s the thing with reckless driving, sometimes you’ll have a huge accident and sometimes you won’t. Reading the sentencing remarks it appears the Range Rover understeered and into the near side kerb. On a different day it doesn’t and none of the above happens.
I think we should generally aim to punish people based on what they intend to do not what happens. I do think the punishments for dangerous driving are too lenient where someone is lucky and doesn’t hit anyone/anything. And that leads into situations like this where a driver keeps getting away with small sentences for dangerous driving until his luck runs out.
Last edited:
It is very foreseeable to anybody who has driven a car that the risk of understeering increases with speed. The risk rises dramatically with excessive speed. The fact that you might get away with it at other times does not mean the risk is any less foreseeable.
Tend to agree.
Ultimately it was an accident, albeit one which was a result of extraordinary negligence. This is (AIUI) an exceptionally long sentence for the crime committed, reflecting the high level of culpability.
Locking him up for twice as long isn’t going to bring the deceased back.
I gree with the sentiment here but (fortunately or otherwise) the law has to accommodate fooles and their actions when considering intent. The real issue is the legislation to address the potential of hazardous/wreckless/dangerous actions with appropriate tariffs. In this case, the perpetrator of absolutely lethal behaviour was (AFAIK) a licensed driver who at some point had been assessed as suitable for being in charge of a motor vehicle. The driver would be acutely aware of the danger of driving at anywhere near that speed, and therefore was culpabe of all the consequences of his action.
The problem here is that driving like that with no consequences is treated as 'lucky' for the driver with maybe a slap on the wrist. So such a minor penalty is taken as a right place/right time situation, and even with otherwise normal people, worth the gamble.
Falcon1200
Established Member
Yes, it is IMHO totally unreasonable! And has he actually shown any remorse? Plus his previous conduct shows that he does not give a toss for the safety of others on the road, or his passengers (although they did have some choice in the matter).
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
True - but it would, however, double the amount of time for which it would be absolutely impossible for him to get anywhere near a vehicle.
if he had lost the leg in a completely unrelated incident, would it still be unreasonable? The law should be consistent if itnis to be just.
As I mentioned, the fact he showed zero remorse means I'd throw the book at him, regardless of his leg.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Was the extent of this impact foreseeable though? I mean beyond the obvious that a crash at 110mph is going to be bigger than a crash at 40mph. The scale of this crash is something I’ve not seen or heard of before, and it’s been newsworthy because of just how dramatic it was.
That’s not to say I don’t think this bloke is not a dangerous fool and rightly jailed.
But I’d say the sentence was about right, a brief Google search shows countless examples of people driving as fast and killing people and not getting anywhere near as long.
It is reasonably foreseeable that if you are going too fast, you will understeer, and that if you understeer and you will likely hit the curb. If you hit the curb, there is a reasonably foreseeable chance that you will roll the car, and if you roll the car you've got every chance of somebody suffering a lethal injury. The incident took place on a concrete flyover, therefore it was also reasonably foreseeable that if something did happen, the consequences were going to trend toward the more serious end of the scale.
It was not necessarily foreseeable that things would happen precisely as they did, specifically landing on the rail tracks. However it was reasonably foreseeable that driving at ludicrous speed was going to have a better than even chance of killing somebody.
CharlieSpotted
Member
- Joined
- 21 May 2014
- Messages
- 734
Was the scale of the crash so much greater because of the size and weight of the vehicle involved? There are questions to be asked about whether car makers should be able to sell cars capable of excessive speed for use on the roads at all, but to sell a car capable of such speeds and with such outrageous size and weight seems utterly, utterly irresponsible.
Killingworth
Established Member
Range Rovers are some of the safest on the road -especially if belted inside. Lethal for other road users of all types when driven by wannabe racing drivers with more money than brains. Logic says all vehicles should have speed limitation technology, but it's like gun control in the USA. we know it makes sense but the car's not dangerous, it's the driver.
For those inside them. However the high driving position and natural power, weight and shape of such beasts mean that it doesn't take a big hit to send somebody to A&E in an induced coma.
You're right that it's the driver first and foremost. But you can't claim that the same driver would be as dangerous in a Mini as in a Range Rover. Just as the same person isn't as dangerous with no gun as they are with a semi-automatic assault rifle.
To put it in context, this guy has got a longer sentence than the Gary Hart did for causing the Great Heck train crash which killed ten people. He wasn’t drunk, but was driving when dangerously fatigued.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Lots of people drive at 100mph+ and don’t crash and don’t kill anybody. I’d go so far as to say most people who drive on the roads at 100mph+ don’t crash and don’t kill anybody.
People drive at those speeds all the time, yet this accident is particularly noteworthy because of its scale.
And for all the drama of the crash, if the victim had been wearing a seatbelt (which is her responsibility, not the driver’s), then there’s a good chances she’d not have died either, thanks to the brilliance of Range Rover’s engineering and not thanks to the dangerous imbecile behind the wheel.
Driving like that is reckless, but I don’t like the idea of attributing malice or even intent to such recklessness. Can’t it be enough to punish recklessness?
Bigger vehicles obviously have more kinetic energy. I’d say the size and weight of the vehicle made it travel further and remain intact. A smaller car would probably have been obliterated much sooner in the crash, which would have been less spectacular but more fatal for the occupants.
Course they would. Driving at 100mph is recklessly dangerous regardless of what you’re driving. And, in this case, there’s a good chance the passenger wouldn’t have walked away if they’d been in a much smaller and lighter car.
As for other road users, bizarrely a Range Rover scores better than a Mini in EuroNCAP crash tests for vulnerable road users.
- Status