Another 'sun in my eyes' Death Acquittal

[albion]

The Highway Code (rule 237) seems to have been ignored in this case. The code is clear that drivers must slow down ‘if you are dazzled by bright sunlight’ or stop ‘if necessary’.

https://www.alsterskelley.com/sunglasses-when-driving/

So manslaughter at a minimum. Disgusting.

 

[Alex321]

So manslaughter at a minimum. Disgusting.

Manslaughter has hardly ever been used for motoring cases (I never understood why).

That is why the offences of causing death by Dangerous driving, and later Causing death by Careless driving were introduced.

I really cannot understand why the jury found him not guilty in this case though.

 

[albion]

Could be stupid use of different terminology.

Why deviate from a manslaughter charge anyway? That lessens it right at the start. Manslaughter also gives the judge discretion on sentencing.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

How can a jury fall for this defence, time and time again?

Juries are filled with people who are drivers, or have been front seat passengers, who have experienced blinding sun and continued driving without adjustment. The same people will drive in fog at speeds only suitable for good visibility.

The questions for these drivers that the jury should consider are; how far ahead could you clearly see to be unobstructed, and what adjustments did you make to accommodate the conditions?

Colliding with anything while driving towards a blinding, low sun should result in a conviction every time.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

I remember an icident - many years ago - when we were driving from Liverpool to Scotland on holiday

I was a teenager and the route went through Liverpool and along the East Lancs road to the M6 (the East Lancs is a Fast dual carriageway)
i.e. directly East
It was early in the morning and the sun was just rising - so my Dad could hardly see ahead
so - sensibly - he slowed right down and was driving in the left lane were there was occasional shade from trees
there were a lot of trees in the same predicament and doing the same thing
so fats dual carriageway -but a lot of cars in the inside lane doing about 20

a few times another car would pass us in the other lane doing up to 70

there is no way they could see the road ahead - no matter what kind of glasses they were wearing

 

[mjr]

Colliding with anything while driving towards a blinding, low sun should result in a conviction every time.

Almost every time. Let's not forget the likes of that MTB rider on a video who catapulted themselves over a hedge out of a car park and onto a car bonnet. That would be a collision at any speed.

 

[the snail]

Could be stupid use of different terminology.

Why deviate from a manslaughter charge anyway? That lessens it right at the start. Manslaughter also gives the judge discretion on sentencing.

Because a jury would be even less likely to convict on a manslaughter charge. cf the Charlie Alliston case. In practice you can get a similar sentence on a dangerous/careless driving charge.

 

[Alex321]

Could be stupid use of different terminology.

Why deviate from a manslaughter charge anyway? That lessens it right at the start. Manslaughter also gives the judge discretion on sentencing.

Juries seemed to rarely convict on manslaughter charges for motorists before the causing Death by Dangerous Driving offence came in.

And that offence has a similar range of sentencing options as manslaughter would, anything from a year to life imprisonment, depending on culpability, with a starting range of 2-18 years.

The offence of cauing death by careless driving has much lower range, but is similar to the lowest level of death by dangerous driving or manslaughter.

 

[albion]

Because a jury would be even less likely to convict on a manslaughter charge. cf the Charlie Alliston case. In practice you can get a similar sentence on a dangerous/careless driving charge.

A drivers Union thing I expect. With climate change, driving should be more minority than norm.

 

[Drago]

I'm not quite sure why killing someone with a vehicle requires a different charge. Its almost as if society doesn't thinkmits quite so bad as killing someone else unintentially using another method.

 

[albion]

'Not guilty' as it might happen to them too. Sad as it simply encourages more speeding and/or more careless driving.

 

[markemark]

The worst part in my mind is that the sun played no part in this. The car driver wasn’t paying attention and killed a cyclist. The lawyers then work out time of day, direction of travel and weather conditions that day. Probably 20% of such incidents will be clear days driving towards the sun.

The lawyers then ask a few leading questions to their client if they may have been dazzled. Then the defence strategy is complete.

It’s, literally, a get out of jail free defence.

 

[Alex321]

I'm not quite sure why killing someone with a vehicle requires a different charge. Its almost as if society doesn't thinkmits quite so bad as killing someone else unintentially using another method.

I never understood that either, but it seemed to be the way it was.

At least having the separate charges does make it easier to get a conviction.

 

[the snail]

I never understood that either, but it seemed to be the way it was.

At least having the separate charges does make it easier to get a conviction.

Because as I posted above, juries think that manslaughter is too serious a charge and are unwilling to convict. After all any of us might find ourselves in that position if we accidentally completely ignored commonsense, the highway code and the law, and by some bizzare act of god killed someone

 

[Mr Celine]

Why deviate from a manslaughter charge anyway?

Because there is no such offence in Scotland.