The lorry driver involved in a fatal collision with Jane Greaves in Denbighshire last November has had his five-year driving ban reduced to 15 months, reports the Daily Post. Judge David Hale, sitting at an appeal at Mold Crown Court, said it was clear that magistrates had got the sentence wrong.
John Dedman hit Greaves at a crossroads on the B5428 near Trefnant, at a notorious accident blackspot. After pleading guilty to causing death by careless driving, he was initially handed a five-year driving ban and placed on a community order for three months.
However, Judge Hale said that the magistrates had not worked according to sentencing guidelines. He added that the devastation for the family was the same whether it was someone drunk driving at 90mph in a stolen car or an accident where no one was at fault. He therefore said that a victim impact statement from Greaves’ sister could have no bearing on the ban, which he reduced to 15 months. Further penalties for Dedman – a community order in which he is to be electronically tagged for a 7pm-7am curfew and £145 costs – will remain in place.
The court had heard how Dedman’s lorry approached the crossroads at 3mph before hitting Greaves at about 11mph. A van driver is said to have heard Greaves shout, “Hey, hey,” as the lorry began to cross her path. It is said that she applied her brakes to try and avoid the collision, but the position of the lorry left her with no room to manoeuvre and she later died in hospital in Stoke on Trent.
Over a thousand people have signed a petition calling for safety improvements to be made to the junction where Greaves was killed. Jonathan Walker, who posted the petition, says that particular attention is required to significantly slow traffic on the Lower Denbigh Road and ensure that traffic entering the junction from the B5428 is brought to a stop.
Add new comment
17 comments
I furvently hope that Judge David Hale is removed from office and that the family of the victim have his decision reversed.
Quote, Judge Hale said that the magistrates had not worked according to sentencing guidelines. He added that the devastation for the family was the same whether it was someone drunk driving at 90mph in a stolen car or an accident where no one was at fault. Therefore implying that the lorry driver was not at fault even though the driver admitted his guilt about not looking where he was going.
When are people going to realise Accidents do not HAPPEN, they are CAUSED.
I'm puzzled by the comment about the victim impact statement.
I don't know anything about victim impact statements, other than they appeared in trials a few years back, and Googling reveals that they are supposed to be:
"a practical way of ensuring that the sentencing court will consider, (in accordance with s.143 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003), "any harm which the offence caused"."
But by the judge's logic, surely, a murder has the same impact as someone dying of natural causes. So what's the point of a victim impact statement at all, for any offense?
It seems the judge is saying he already knows what the impact is (as all deaths have exactly the same effect, no matter the cause, and he already knows everything there is to know about experiencing such events what with being such a wise fellow).
I just don't understand how to square the judge's remarks with what the point of victim impact statements is supposed to be.
So, yeah, a five-year driving ban does seem a bit wrong. Little more than a token effort. Reducing it by 70% to 18 months is so much more than just an insult to Mrs Greaves life', or her grieving family. It's a flaming chainsaw to the face of justice.
Justice would be not letting him be in a position of being able to do that again. Ever. Sorry if that impacts on his livelihood, or his life in general. He screwed up, someone died.
"He added that the devastation for the family was the same whether it was someone drunk driving at 90mph in a stolen car or an accident where no one was at fault."
Correct. So the sentence should stand as it was originally decided - oh, and a lack of victim statements shouldn't provide the guilty party with a reduced sentence.
What a misguided little moron this David Hale is.
It's that situation we all know so well as you approach a vehicle in a left hand side road. They look at you and think 'bike'. They then look the other way and then just pull out. They are then suprised to find you were travelling fast and are now right up to them.
I'm always thinking "come on.. Look right again. LOOK RIGHT AGAIN!!'
I know that scenario all too well. I also suspect there are plenty of motorists who think, "If I pull out now the cyclist will have plenty of time to slow up for me. He's only on a bike so it's no great inconvenience."
How can you be in the blind spot of a lorry if you are approaching it at a cross roads? You would need to be below the line of sight of the passenger door, which would put you right next to the lorry when it pulled out.
"He added that the devastation for the family was the same whether it was someone drunk driving at 90mph in a stolen car or an accident where no one was at fault". I'm sorry judge but you're completely unqualified to make this statement.
"He added that the devastation for the family was the same whether it was someone drunk driving at 90mph in a stolen car or an accident where no one was at fault."
Memo to self on eve of career in murder and mayhem: by ensuring that I never out-kill the most destructive accident imaginable, I can safely do a lot of unimpeded killing.
I thought judges weren't supposed to be tossers, but sadly this case confirms otherwise. The driver should have got 5 years in prison not a piss poor insulting sentence of a 15 month driving ban. If judge Hale has any kids I hope they are slaughtered just like Jane Greaves was run down by this maniac truck driver John Dedman. The sentence Hale has imposed is an affront to any normal reasonable person. Brings the justice system into disrepute. Failing victims and dead cyclists time and time and time and time again. An absolute fucking disgrace.
What is it about cycling that evidently reduces the worth of human being to the level of a varmint?
It's the ludicrous presumption that we are foolishly taking our lives into our hands by riding on the roads. We choose to ride in hostile conditions so we have to accept some responsibility if we end up dead. It's bullshit.
http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/crime/bus-driver-spared-jail-after-ki...
And it goes on and on.....
I hope the judge losses somebody important to them in similar circumstances, that might give them some prospective.
WTF!
admitted "death by careless driving", but just 15 months ban?? Outrageous, should be 15 months in jail at least. The law seems not helpful in these situations, when are the judges gonna wake up? (answer - when one of their kids is killed by a careless idiot)
Cunts
Cunts