“Ridiculous” jail sentence of drunk driver who killed cyclist to be reviewed

alexb wrote:

I simply don't understand the logic in the charging process.

In any other safety critical evaluation, you start with the worst case: "What is the worst thing that could happen?" If in this case the answer is: "Someone could die", then the risk assessment marks the activity as "Dangerous". If the answer is "Someone could be hurt", then it's marked as "Hazardous".

It seems self-evident to me, with no other mitigating circumstances, that if someone kills someone else, then their actions must have been dangerous.

They are therefore guilty (the individual died) and it's then up to their barrister to prove that their actions were not dangerous. 

But in these cases, the assumption of "Innocent until proven guilty" makes no sense.

They were definitely driving.

They were definitely drunk.

Someone died.

Their actions leading up to the point where they killed the other party are completeley irrelevant.

He died, they drove, whilst drunk = Dangerous driving QED surely?

 

It does seem like QED but, there's a lot to consider.

The CPS is bound by its charging standards and the code for crown prosecutors. Clearly this one passes the public interest test. But they also need to be reasonably sure of getting a conviction and sometimes that means changing the charge to one they can be reasonably sure of getting rather than one which could result, in theory, in an acquittal.

Remember that here DD is 14 years max and CD with drink is also 14 years. So, in theory, it doesn't actually matter which one is charged as both have the same potential max offence.

What's absent in this report, and indeed in all the others I've looked at is any comment on the evidence of the driving itself. The CPS guide is that "The clear difference between this offence and an offence of causing death by dangerous driving is the standard of driving. For causing death by dangerous driving, the standard of driving must fall far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver; whereas for this offence the standard of driving must merely fall below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver." The manner of the driving must be considered and, of course, that does depend on all the circumstances. It is conceivable that a driver could be drunk, drive carelessly but not dangerously, even if that is an affront to common sense. That's based on, evidentially, what can be proven or not. 

And the answer here, is unclear. We know he was in no fit state but, unless someone can point to the evidence heard in relation to the manner of the driving, it's hard to comment on whether CD with drink was the correct choice. Notwithstanding that offence still has the same potential max, as stated above, the entry point is determined in relation to actions just short of dangerous, so that requirement for some sort of evidence is needed in relation to sentence. But the standard for that is less than that required to secure the conviction in the first place. 

I hope that's some context. It's imperfect still. But what the evidence is will always be relevant to the charging standard. 

alexb wrote:

I simply don't understand the logic in the charging process.

In any other safety critical evaluation, you start with the worst case: "What is the worst thing that could happen?" If in this case the answer is: "Someone could die", then the risk assessment marks the activity as "Dangerous". If the answer is "Someone could be hurt", then it's marked as "Hazardous".

It seems self-evident to me, with no other mitigating circumstances, that if someone kills someone else, then their actions must have been dangerous.

They are therefore guilty (the individual died) and it's then up to their barrister to prove that their actions were not dangerous. 

But in these cases, the assumption of "Innocent until proven guilty" makes no sense.

They were definitely driving.

They were definitely drunk.

Someone died.

Their actions leading up to the point where they killed the other party are completeley irrelevant.

He died, they drove, whilst drunk = Dangerous driving QED surely?

I'm not sure that works though.

Any journey in a car could kill someone, so does that mean driving in itself is dangerous?

The other thing to say is there was an item here about a month ago where an L driver cut the corner, (wrong side of the road) carried a cyclist along for 60 or 70m on the bonnet and dumped him in a hedge. Careless driving!

I asked some bloke in Legal why it wasn't dangerous driving. I'd didn't follow the answer given as to why it hard to prove 'dangerous' but I could see that the legal bod was clear in his mind is to the distinction and why it it was careless (or easy to convict careless). Basically, it comes down to evidence and how to prove 'dangerous' or 'careless'. Legal bod is also a keen cyclist, so I don't think he was biased against the cyclist !

alexb wrote:

He died, they drove, whilst drunk = Dangerous driving QED surely?

In any sensible universe, yes.  In any society not obsessed with cars, yes.  In any society where human life was valued more than the right to drive, yes.

Why do the normal values of humanity not apply to driving?

Flâneur wrote:

Should have been charged with causing death by dangerous driving in the first place.

Should have been charged with manslaughter and had it reduced to Dangerous as a last resort.

Lowering the bar as CPS and the justice system did because of lack of convictions in the past has not worked, it was never going to work and that could be explained through simple/basic human psychology alone.

Never mind the inherent bias in the system of judging whether someone is guilty/not guilty and indeed those handing out the sentences/directing jury's themselves also have an inherent bias too whether people want to accept that or not. What should have happened is look as to why there was a lack of convictions and remedy that in a way which didn't allow heinous crimes and criminals who harm others to have lighter charges applied as the starting point for the same crimes that would/should have got a more serious charge (and higher starting tarif if found guilty) which were actually in line with the crime alleged.

Flâneur wrote:

Should have been charged with causing death by dangerous driving in the first place.

Yes. Though without a proper file of papers it's impossible to be sure about why it was not. In theory it could be charged as manslaughter and a plea taken in relation to causing death by X. But the better method would be to charge them in the alternative. Manslaughter is generally an alternative charge to murder but I've never seen it as an alternative to DD. It would never be pleaded in the alternative to careless driving.

One of the problem issues in that area is evidence. It seems clear that someone as drunk as this should be considered to be a dangerous driver and convicted as such. But the issue with much of these offences is that they still require proof. So, if there's no evidence other than 'he was drunk' then it's difficult to prove, on the standard of proof required, that dangerous driving has occurred. If that's the case, then it's almost impossible to demonstrate gross negligence manslaughter either.

Oddly, the offence of causing death by DD and causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence have exactly the same max sentence, 14 years. I'm working on the assumption here of some mis-reporting, this isn't a case of causing death simply by careless driving because the maximum sentence for that has been exceeded.

So charging careless makes it much easier to convict if the proof of being drunk is a given. The issue then becomes sentence because the issue of proof becomes relevant to sentence, see here https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/web_causing_deat...

As you'll see, to get the 'max' you need to demonstrate that the offence falls just short of dangerous. Being able to prove that is difficult, in the absence of actual evidence, so you fall back to the other categories which are easier to take as given. If you could prove that it was dangerous, you'd charge that instead. So there's definitely an imperfection here. 

How much of that imperfection would be solved if we removed fixed sentences and said 'life' we don't know but there would stil be credit, aggravating and mitigating factors etc. And we don't know how the legislation and subsequent sentencing guidelines would deal with the new offences.
 

bendertherobot wrote:

Flâneur wrote:

Should have been charged with causing death by dangerous driving in the first place.

So, if there's no evidence other than 'he was drunk' then it's difficult to prove, on the standard of proof required, that dangerous driving has occurred. If that's the case, then it's almost impossible to demonstrate gross negligence manslaughter either.

 

Surely the fact that he was very nearly twice the legal blood-alcohol level makes his driving dangerous even if there's no physical evidence of the standard of his driving. To get behind the wheel of a car with that much alcohol in your system constitutes a dangerous act not merely a careless one.

Mark.

Sub4 wrote:

14 year sentence has NEVER been handed down. Makes a mockery of measures to increase the maximum sentence. Futile politics.

Getting the max sentence for any sentence is always tricky because it's the max and, in each case, there will be sufficient mitigatory factors set out in the sentencing guidelines to reduce it. There are certainly cases like these where the max would seem to be appropriate but, given the very stringent sentencing guidelines that exist, any Judge throwing the book would be appealed. In theory the max has been handed out in some. The chap who killed the cyclists in Purley got 10yrs 4 months on an early guilty plea so, in theory, that is a 14 year sentence less that credit. What's unclear is how 14 less 33 got to 10 yrs and 5 given the concurrent nature of the sentence. It seems like a case where the early guilty plea tariff was applied at 25% hence the 10 yrs 4 months. 

What I would like to see is the CPS charge such clear cases as manslaughter with the alternative of death by dangerous to test the waters. I suspect a jury would convict but it's not clear. That's why the charge was brought in.

But, arguably, this shouldn't matter too much now IF the life sentence for death by dangerous is brought in.

StraelGuy wrote:

The CPS need to take a long, hard look at themselves. They're so poor at making proper, robust decisions in cases like this that they've even been questioned about it on Radio 4 before.

But if performance and bonuses are based on securing convictions, why not go for the easier to prove accusation?

Think of the money - sod the idea of serving the public a service that it rightfully deserves.

StraelGuy wrote:

The CPS need to take a long, hard look at themselves. They're so poor at making proper, robust decisions in cases like this that they've even been questioned about it on Radio 4 before.

What did the CPS do wrong in relation to the sentence? Or are you referring to their ULS referral?

hirsute wrote:

Seems if you kill someone with a car it isn't that serious. Local story here

http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/16055928.Pensioner_driver_jailed_for_...

How is "the collision was caused by Williams, who had driven his Range Rover on the wrong side of the road when overtaking a car and a school minibus on a left hand bend on the B1115. "  and

"Williams attempted to perform a manoeuvre which was completely unsuited to the section of road he was travelling on with a bend approaching and on the crest of a hill."

not dangerous driving ?

 

Also, originally claiming he had swerved to avoid an animal.

hirsute wrote:

Seems if you kill someone with a car it isn't that serious. Local story here

http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/16055928.Pensioner_driver_jailed_for_...

How is "the collision was caused by Williams, who had driven his Range Rover on the wrong side of the road when overtaking a car and a school minibus on a left hand bend on the B1115. "  and

"Williams attempted to perform a manoeuvre which was completely unsuited to the section of road he was travelling on with a bend approaching and on the crest of a hill."

not dangerous driving ?

 

Simple. Young(ish) person - dangerous. Old person "where did I put my slippers Doreen?" - careless. Old people are always benign to the law when it comes to driving. Some old twat drove their car through a shop window in my town once and got away with basically nothing even though it could have been totally horrendous. She also said it hadn't put her off driving. That was good to know. 

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Seems if you kill someone with a car it isn't that serious. Local story here

http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/16055928.Pensioner_driver_jailed_for_...

How is "the collision was caused by Williams, who had driven his Range Rover on the wrong side of the road when overtaking a car and a school minibus on a left hand bend on the B1115. "  and

"Williams attempted to perform a manoeuvre which was completely unsuited to the section of road he was travelling on with a bend approaching and on the crest of a hill."

not dangerous driving ?

 

Simple. Young(ish) person - dangerous. Old person "where did I put my slippers Doreen?" - careless. Old people are always benign to the law when it comes to driving. Some old twat drove their car through a shop window in my town once and got away with basically nothing even though it could have been totally horrendous. She also said it hadn't put her off driving. That was good to know. 

You omitted the “recently passed my test and bought a car I couldn’t control” group...