# Lady Justice Rafferty, Mr Justice MacKay and Judge Nicholas Loraine-Smith



## Dags11 (13 Oct 2011)

Jeez, these 3 should hang their heads in shame............

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-15296091


----------



## kishin (13 Oct 2011)

Dags11 said:


> Jeez, these 3 should hang their heads in shame............
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk...-wales-15296091


Should they?


----------



## upsidedown (13 Oct 2011)

The old " momentary inattention" line was rolled out in the original hearing. 
It's now so familiar an excuse as to be accepted without question. Depressing and tragic, and the sad part is it's getting worse not better.


----------



## Smokin Joe (13 Oct 2011)

We're all capable of a momentary lack of concentration, there isn't a driver going who hasn't had hundreds. Most are without incident thankfully, but a small number will always end in tragedy. 

A prison sentence is not appropriate for human error.


----------



## upsidedown (13 Oct 2011)

Well now you put it like that ......


----------



## ohnovino (13 Oct 2011)

But it was a suspended sentence anyway.

So he killed someone, was allowed to walk free from court and _still_ chose to appeal.


----------



## upsidedown (13 Oct 2011)

ohnovino said:


> But it was a suspended sentence anyway.
> 
> So he killed someone, was allowed to walk free from court and still chose to appeal.


Yep. Obviously felt he'd been wronged.


----------



## Dan B (13 Oct 2011)

If the defendant had been piloting a plane and the same momentary inattention had led to the plane crashing, it would not be dismissed as "shoot happens". 

I can't blame the judges for sentencing the driver in accordance with what society expects, but there is clearly something wrong with society if this is what it expects


----------



## 400bhp (13 Oct 2011)

Dan B said:


> If the defendant had been piloting a plane and the same momentary inattention had led to the plane crashing, it would not be dismissed as "shoot happens".



How do you know?


----------



## growingvegetables (13 Oct 2011)

Smokin Joe said:


> A prison sentence is not appropriate for human error.


But it wasn't error was it - the guy *chose* to concentrate on fiddling with heating controls, and *watched* his fingers twiddling the knobs, instead of the road.


----------



## Hip Priest (13 Oct 2011)

I guess it depends on what you think the purpose of prison is. 

It is clear that this bloke doesn't require rehabilitation. 
It is clear that the public does not require protection from him. 

So the only reason for putting him inside would be punishment.


----------



## Dags11 (13 Oct 2011)

"HipPriest - I guess it depends on what you think the purpose of prison is".

Shot in the dark - He was a father of four killed by a driver looking at a heater!!!!!???


----------



## RedRider (13 Oct 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> I guess it depends on what you think the purpose of prison is.
> 
> It is clear that this bloke doesn't require rehabilitation.
> It is clear that the public does not require protection from him.
> ...



Or deterrent.

Not sure what I think about the judges' decision. Stuff needs to be weighed.


----------



## Smokin Joe (13 Oct 2011)

RedRider said:


> Or deterrent.
> 
> Not sure what I think about the judges' decision. Stuff needs to be weighed.


A deterrent stops people from taking deliberate course of action. You can never prevent simple human error which we are all guilty of.


----------



## Dags11 (13 Oct 2011)

"Joe
You can never prevent simple human error which we are all guilty of."


Propose a facebook meeting for a 'kickabout' during the summer riots = 4 years clink

Kill a father of 4 and a suspended 2yr sentence overturned = scott free



Joe, which do you propose is the simple error??


----------



## RedRider (13 Oct 2011)

> A deterrent stops people from taking deliberate course of action. You can never prevent simple human error which we are all guilty of.



Well a harsher sentence in this case could in theory deter by encouraging people to be more alert when driving.

I agree 'to err is human' though. It's a tough one and I'm glad I'm not a judge.

It's not good tho' when something like this gets turned on appeal. It could even have the opposite effect of a deterrent by encouraging people that they can get away with driving without care.


----------



## Bromptonaut (13 Oct 2011)

One is a bad sentence for a motoring offence the other may also be overturned on appeal - so far as I can find out the Cof A has yet to deliver a verdict.


----------



## steve52 (13 Oct 2011)

we cant prevent human error but that dose not mean we should except it, lets drive standards and expectaions up, not down


----------



## upsidedown (13 Oct 2011)

A deterrent in this case is something that says "when you're in charge of a ton and a half of motorised metal, you might want to, you know, keep your eye on the road in case anything unexpected happens and you have to slow it down. If you can't manage that maybe you shouldn't be on the roads. "


----------



## Grizzly (13 Oct 2011)

Firstly I knew a guy who failed his driving test for taking his eyes off the road to fiddle with his demister, examiner says he should have been familiar enough with the vehicle to perform this action without putting others at risk. Sounds fair to me.
Secondly the argument of what prison is for is a separate discussion and not relevant here. I remember an outcry a few years ago because a nutter killed someone, he got locked up in a nut hut due to his mental condition and was then released as the medical facility could do nothing for his mental condition. 
I work in aviation and trust me, if a pilot killed someone because he could not perform all the actions that would be expected of a reasonable pilot there would not have an "ah bless, shoot happens" approach. What this appeal is saying is that it is OK to take your eyes off the road to operate vehicle controls, and its OK to do so for long enough so as to cause a fatal accident.


----------



## Keith Oates (13 Oct 2011)

I don't think the prison sentence is applicable in this case but a life time driving ban should make sure he doesn't do it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## slowmotion (13 Oct 2011)

It was a tragic accident. If you take the "facts" at face value, that really all it is. People get killed and injured on the roads. Even the most saintly driver might kill someone by making an error, a simple mistake. We could all be that person. Reinstating capital punishment for causing death on the roads isn't going to stop fatal accidents. Bad stuff *does* just happen, doesn't it?


----------



## Andy_R (14 Oct 2011)

Isn't a prison term supposed to be about rehabilitation and not punishment? Otherwise we would still have a system of breaking rocks and digging holes. As for capital punishment...well...come on, we're all grown ups here, not americans!


----------



## Hip Priest (14 Oct 2011)

Dags11 said:


> Shot in the dark - He was a father of four killed by a driver looking at a heater!!!!!???



I don't understand. Would your view of the sentence be different if he was a single, childless man killed by a driver looking at a heater?


----------



## Simba (14 Oct 2011)

Well, if you ever want to kill someone just get in a car and mow them down. Likely just get a slap on the wrist and/or a fine.


----------



## Banjo (14 Oct 2011)

It must be great to be the perfect driver. Never distracted by anything even for a few seconds.Constantly 100 % alert.Never tired . 

Unfortunately that driver doesnt exist. I have been driving for over 30 years without hurting anyone but accept I am only an average driver and a certain amount of good luck has got me to where I am now.

How many of those who think this guy should be imprisoned can put their hands on their hearts and say they have never once made even a tiny mistake or had a momentary lack of concentration on the road ,if you dont drive then same question applies to when your cycling.


----------



## 2Loose (14 Oct 2011)

200 hours of unpaid work, banned from driving for 12 months and told to pay £1,200 costs.

That is still a greater punishment than some cases where the driver was known to cause death by recklessly driving.

I can see where the judges were coming from, depite personally thinking the sentence is not enough.


----------



## abo (14 Oct 2011)

growingvegetables said:


> But it wasn't error was it - the guy *chose* to concentrate on fiddling with heating controls, and *watched* his fingers twiddling the knobs, instead of the road.



I'll go along with you on this. When I'm driving I'm capable of operating all the controls within my reach without taking my eyes off the road. If they're out of reach then they don't get fiddled with while I'm driving.

It's not a hard concept, I don't understand why so many people do it...


----------



## clarion (14 Oct 2011)

Appalling.


----------



## jdtate101 (14 Oct 2011)

Whilst this was an accident, lets not forget he killed some guy and destroyed a family through his carelessness and incapability to drive with due care and attention.IMHO he should serve at least 2yrs inside as a punishment for this. The poor kids and the wife have a life sentence and this has got to be a huge slap in the face for them.

Causing the death of someone else, whatever the circumstances must come with some sort of penalty.


----------



## psmiffy (14 Oct 2011)

I agree with some of the posters that a jail sentence would be inapproriate - however there should be a significant deterrent - "I took my eyes off the road for a moment to do this that or the other should be no excuse" - A non-negotiable 10year ban for people who admit this should be mandatory - people who plead not-guilty and are subsequently convicted should be banned for life with possibly a custodial sentence on top of that - If you are a driver it is a no-brainer that you should be looking where you are going at all times - drivers should be aware that there will be significant consequences and made to think about what they are doing


----------



## sheddy (14 Oct 2011)

OT, but do we know of any drivers who have been sentenced for texting in the UK ?

I see this activity every day, it can only be a matter of time before there is a fatality. 
I guess unless the text has actually been sent there will be nothing on the phone record.


----------



## growingvegetables (15 Oct 2011)

Back to the report in the OP.

The guy wasn't sentenced to prison. He was given a sentence, of 30 weeks jail *suspended* for two years. Not exactly a punishment - just a (pretty stern) warning to be bloody careful. Rehabilitation? Maybe a chance for him show that he's rehabilitated himself.


----------



## apollo179 (15 Oct 2011)

The driver admitted causing Russell Green's death by careless driving. 
1 year ban and £1200 fine dosnt seem much of a punishment.


----------



## CopperCyclist (15 Oct 2011)

psmiffy said:


> I agree with some of the posters that a jail sentence would be inapproriate - however there should be a significant deterrent - "I took my eyes off the road for a moment to do this that or the other should be no excuse" - A non-negotiable 10year ban for people who admit this should be mandatory - people who plead not-guilty and are subsequently convicted should be banned for life with possibly a custodial sentence on top of that - If you are a driver it is a no-brainer that you should be looking where you are going at all times - drivers should be aware that there will be significant consequences and made to think about what they are doing



I'm in favour of a reworking of the system. A one year ban, and then an extended requirement (5 years perhaps) to drive the rest of your life with a red 'P' plate which has the same restrict nets as an L-Plate (I.e. you need a competent driver with you), although you're allowed on motorways.


----------



## Norm (15 Oct 2011)

A jail sentence would, IMO, be entirely appropriate for doing something other than concentrating when operating 1.5 tonnes of lethal machinery.

I believe that anyone doing anything else which had such inherent dangers would be jailed immediately if they decided to do something other than concentrating which took the life of an innocent third party.

The important thing for me is that it was the driver's choice to do something else, it wasn't a distraction, it wasn't (IMO) a lapse in concentration, it was a conscious decision to play with the heater controls rather than drive.



Banjo said:


> It must be great to be the perfect driver. Never distracted by anything even for a few seconds.Constantly 100 % alert.Never tired .
> 
> Unfortunately that driver doesnt exist. I have been driving for over 30 years without hurting anyone but accept I am only an average driver and a certain amount of good luck has got me to where I am now.
> 
> How many of those who think this guy should be imprisoned can put their hands on their hearts and say they have never once made even a tiny mistake or had a momentary lack of concentration on the road ,if you dont drive then same question applies to when your cycling.


 If I had a lapse in concentration (which this wasn't, it was a decision to avert his attention) which resulted in the death of a third party, then I don't think I would try to appease my own conscience with a "shoot happens" clause.

Fortunately, most people check there is little danger before they decide to change their focus.

Bottom line, for me, is that the driver decided to do something other than focus on the road and, as a direct result of that decision, someone died. That should be manslaughter, at the very least. 

Jail would be a significant deterrent to the driver in this case, and would start to sent out a message that those who operate lethal weapons should operate them appropriately and not consider them to be an extension of their sitting rooms.


----------



## rowan 46 (15 Oct 2011)

I don't necessarily have a problem with the guy not going to prison. As has been said by others we have all had lapses when on the road. But a couple of things this wasn't an accident in the sense of it was unpreventable or unforeseeable. It was negligence he chose to concentrate on his heater rather than his driving and it's not unreasonable to suggest that is not what you should be doing whilst driving. we have probably all twiddled whist cycling or driving and 99% of the time nothing happens but this time something did. The original court told him it was his fault and instead of facing up to his responsibility he went and appealed the case. He wasn't given a custodial sentence it was suspended he would have done no time if he kept his nose clean instead he showed no remorse and got the suspension quashed. I would have been so remorseful I would have taken the original sentence as my just deserts. It may be that the law got the sentence wrong, certainly the appeal judges thought so. however in my eyes it says something about the man that he appealed the case in the first place.


----------



## CopperCyclist (15 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I would have been so remorseful I would have taken the original sentence as my just deserts. It may be that the law got the sentence wrong, certainly the appeal judges thought so. however in my eyes it says something about the man that he appealed the case in the first place.



+1


----------



## Fiona N (15 Oct 2011)

400bhp said:


> How do you know?



Because pilot error is just that - an error for which the pilot has to take responsibility. Difficult if he's killed himself with a 'momentary lapse of concentration' but then that's one of the things which concentrates a pilot's mind. 

Somehow drivers seem to have a get-out-of -jail-free card because 'everyone has done it' but not everyone kills another person in the process possibly because they fiddle with the heater/radio/phone when there isn't other traffic around in implicit recognition that doing it while there is other traffic is endangering other people. If you don't want to take responsibility for not killing and injuring other people wjile driving - don't drive


----------



## Fiona N (15 Oct 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> I guess it depends on what you think the purpose of prison is.
> 
> ....
> *It is clear that the public does not require protection from him. *
> ...



?????


He's killed one person and feels victimised by his suspended sentence - he probably expected to get his license back too - so do you really think he won't risk doing the same thing again as soon as he's back driving. I don't.


----------



## Hip Priest (15 Oct 2011)

Fiona N said:


> ?????
> 
> 
> He's killed one person and feels victimised by his suspended sentence - he probably expected to get his license back too - so do you really think he won't risk doing the same thing again as soon as he's back driving. I don't.



I didn't read any of that in the report. I think you're just filling in the gaps with conjecture.


----------



## 400bhp (16 Oct 2011)

Fiona N said:


> Because pilot error is just that - an error for which the pilot has to take responsibility. Difficult if he's killed himself with a 'momentary lapse of concentration' but then that's one of the things which concentrates a pilot's mind.



You've missed my point-has he some evidence that the courts wouldn't look at it as shoot happens.


----------



## 400bhp (16 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I would have been so remorseful I would have taken the original sentence as my just deserts. It may be that the law got the sentence wrong, certainly the appeal judges thought so. however in my eyes it says something about the man that he appealed the case in the first place.



That's easy to say sat behind a computer.

In reality, if we look deep enough into our souls, there are very very few who would take this stance.

Kudos if you do - you are a leader amongst men.


----------



## lukesdad (17 Oct 2011)

I do wonder if it had been a husband wife or child convicted the sentiment of some posters would change. The only way to stop this sort of thing is to stop everybody driving, thats EVERYBODY including YOU !


----------



## growingvegetables (17 Oct 2011)

400bhp said:


> rowan 46 said:
> 
> 
> > I would have been so remorseful I would have taken the original sentence as my just deserts. It may be that the law got the sentence wrong, certainly the appeal judges thought so. however in my eyes it says something about the man that he appealed the case in the first place.
> ...



What a desperately sad and scary comment. Common decency is now only easy behind a computer keyboard.


----------



## rowan 46 (17 Oct 2011)

it does not seem to me that a suspended sentence is particularly onerous to a person who is normally law abiding. If they can keep their nose clean for the required period no further action is taken. What's the problem with that? The guy after all killed a father of 4 and a husband albeit accidentally then turned round and said being good for 2 years is too high a price to pay for that. If anybody really believes that a life isn't worth 2 years good behaviour then that really is sad.


----------



## 400bhp (17 Oct 2011)

growingvegetables said:


> What a desperately sad and scary comment. Common decency is now only easy behind a computer keyboard.



Meanwhile, back in reality...


----------



## Livefast123 (17 Oct 2011)

Sounds to me that he had a clever legal representative  He pleaded guilty to the offence to appease the court and get the statutory reduction in sentence for a guilty plea. Then when he had been given the mickey mouse sentence for pleading guilty he appealed the already reduced punishment......clever.

I see road death a few times a week and 99.9 % are not unavoidable accidents, they are collisions caused by somebody not paying attention to their driving or driving far beyond their level of skill. Looking down at the heater controls for long enough not to notice a stopped vehicle is far more than a momentary lapse.....

He chose to divert his attention so he should be man enough to take the concequences after ruining a whole families life.


----------



## 400bhp (17 Oct 2011)

Livefast123 said:


> I see road death a few times a week



So, more than 150 per year.  

Almost 7% of total UK road deaths.


----------



## lukesdad (17 Oct 2011)

Livefast123 said:


> Sounds to me that he had a clever legal representative  He pleaded guilty to the offence to appease the court and get the statutory reduction in sentence for a guilty plea. Then when he had been given the mickey mouse sentence for pleading guilty he appealed the already reduced punishment......clever.
> 
> I see road death a few times a week and 99.9 % are not unavoidable accidents, they are collisions caused by somebody not paying attention to their driving or driving far beyond their level of skill. Looking down at the heater controls for long enough not to notice a stopped vehicle is far more than a momentary lapse.....
> 
> He chose to divert his attention so he should be man enough to take the concequences after ruining a whole families life.




Sentence on appeal can be increased too dont forget.


----------



## CopperCyclist (18 Oct 2011)

400bhp said:


> So, more than 150 per year.
> 
> Almost 7% of total UK road deaths.



Yeah I was going to say that - where the bloody hell do you live/work? I live in a large city, and off the top of my head would think we get about five to six fatals a year, and of them I'll see perhaps one?


----------



## apollo179 (19 Oct 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> it does not seem to me that a suspended sentence is particularly onerous to a person who is normally law abiding. If they can keep their nose clean for the required period no further action is taken. What's the problem with that? The guy after all killed a father of 4 and a husband albeit accidentally then turned round and said being good for 2 years is too high a price to pay for that. If anybody really believes that a life isn't worth 2 years good behaviour then that really is sad.



But the main point is that if you kill someone even by accident due to your own avoidable selfish stupidity then you should be appropriately punished. Not rehabilitated , punished.
Id let a few rioters jailed for stealing trainers out and jail this driver for 2 years.
(i think this agrees with you rowan)


----------



## totallyfixed (19 Oct 2011)

I guess from the courts point of view it comes down to whether the driver was intentionally  driving recklessly. Hard to comment on this one because I know I have been guilty over the years of having momentary lapses of concentration, certainly on my bike resulting in injuries to myself. Much easier these days to lose concentration in a car with the multitude of distractions they are equipped with. Seems to me at least there is one such device that encourages your concentration to be elsewhere, SatNav.


----------



## mr_cellophane (19 Oct 2011)

Livefast123 said:


> Looking down at the heater controls for long enough not to notice a stopped vehicle is far more than a momentary lapse.....



+1
It only needs a fraction of a second glance to coordinate hand/knob (oh err). Then eyes back on the road while you adjust the controls. Too often see people who are turning their heads to look at something inside the car.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Oct 2011)

totallyfixed said:


> I guess from the courts point of view it comes down to whether the driver was intentionally  driving recklessly. Hard to comment on this one because I know I have been guilty over the years of having momentary lapses of concentration, certainly on my bike resulting in injuries to myself. Much easier these days to lose concentration in a car with the multitude of distractions they are equipped with. Seems to me at least there is one such device that encourages your concentration to be elsewhere, SatNav.


Hey were all guilty of momentary lapses of concentration and 99.9% of the time its harmless but when you take that chance and it results in consequences then you are responsible. If you run into the back of the car in front you are responsible for his/her repair bill. If you kill somebody you are responsible for the death of that individual.
The defence here that it was just bad luck and could happen to anyone dosnt cut it for me - yes it could happen to anybody and when it does happen the unlucky individual (not as unlucky as the dead individual) should be made to take responsibility and be punished. And 2 years is nothing.


----------



## upsidedown (21 Oct 2011)

Another one:

A tired Brierley Hill driver who caused a crash which killed a motorcyclist has been jailed. 
Xxx's barrister claimed her client momentarily lost concentration before his X type Jaguar drifted onto the wrong side of Portway Road and hit xxx head on. 
Xxx drove off in "panic" and was only found after police launched an appeal to find the damaged car. 
He admitted after his arrest he had downed two bottles of Jamaican stout prior to the fatal smash. 
As he caged xxx for two years the judge said "I have come to the conclusion you drove the way you did because you were too tired. the fact is you should not have driven in that state." 

Stourbridge News 20th October. 


So another momentary lapse of concentration. Two years prison. Do you reckon it's the first time he'd driven in that state and was unlucky enough to kill somebody ?


----------



## apollo179 (22 Oct 2011)

upsidedown said:


> Another one:
> 
> A tired Brierley Hill driver who caused a crash which killed a motorcyclist has been jailed.
> Xxx's barrister claimed her client momentarily lost concentration before his X type Jaguar drifted onto the wrong side of Portway Road and hit xxx head on.
> ...



The understanding being that he fled the scene because he was drunk. Tired ?
Would he have got more than 2 years if he had been confirmed drunk at the scene - if so in only sentencing to 2 years it is encouraging other drunk drivers to scarper and surface when sobered up.


----------

