Sentencing of Car Driver Who Caused Motorcycle Death

[Nomisf]

Hi All,

I was reading the website for my local nonsense paper this morning, and came across the final court result for a SMIDSY that occurred last year. See below:

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/bracknell-woman-spared-jail-one-10684607

The family of a young motorcyclist killed by a woman driver fled a court in shock to as they saw her walk free after being spared jail.

Victim Kane Murphy suffered a massive head injury following the crash which happened when a car pulled into the path of his motorcycle after turning right at at junction on December 19, 2014.

The 22-year-old rider was taken to hospital and his parents spent an agonising 11 days over the Christmas period at his bedside as the young man was kept alive on life support machines in the hope he would show signs of recovery. However on December 30 the family had to make the heart-wrenching decision to switch off the machine keeping their son alive and he died in hospital .

Danielle Atterton, of Barn Close, Bullbrook , admitted one count of causing death by careless driving and was banned from driving for 12 months and given a 12-month community service order when she appeared at Reading Crown Court on Monday, December 4.

The court heard she had been approaching a large sweeping t-junction and claimed she looked left and right three times before making the turn - and ploughing into the side of 22-year-old motorcyclist Kane.

Its a tragic story for the gent on the bike and his family, and no doubt for the lady who hit him also - but it got me wondering about the sentencing.

I personally agree with not locking her up long term, but the driving ban seems ludicrously short. The article makes a big deal that she knew she was wrong, and "honestly" didn't see him - but I am wondering why that should be any form of defense ?

At the end of the day, someone is dead because of her standard of driving. The biker in me wants her licence torn up, and a token 8-12 week sentence to wake her up. The lefty in me knows she is already in her own world of hurt knowing she killed a man, and a few years ban would be best ?

Opinions on a postcard ?

 

[edscdk]

seems fair, she just made a mistake, everyone makes mistakes just usually it does not kill someone... id probably have a different view if he was my brother / father though

 

[tom_e]

Checking both ways 3 times and still not seeing him when visibility was good, he wasn't speeding and had his lights on, then hitting the accelerator instead of the brake.

While I accept she's going to be going through a lot, I had a friend who had a biker go straight into the back of them and kill himself and they still suffer mentally even though it was in no way their fault. I feel 12 months is a very light ban.

 

[Rroff]

Without proof she wasn't paying sufficient attention i.e. was on her phone while driving or something like that there isn't grounds to jail her - the ban seems a bit short given that the judge conceded some aspects without proof otherwise but held up other aspects that were critical of her standard of driving.

 

[FrenchTart]

Killing people in a vehicle often seems to attract a bizarrely light punishment.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Without proof she wasn't paying sufficient attention i.e. was on her phone while driving or something like that

She admitted causing death by careless driving

But yeah, as FT says, you can kill people in a car and all you need to do is whinge about how you need a car to get to work and you'll get off.

 

[Stringy]

A criminal record, a driving ban and the weight on someone's life on her conscience. I'd say the punishment is just.

seems fair, she just made a mistake, everyone makes mistakes just usually it does not kill someone... id probably have a different view if he was my brother / father though

This. The punishment should not be outcome based as we all make mistakes and most of them don't end in death but for an extremely unlucky few they do.

Someone is speeding and loses control of their car, knocking over a lampost which hits no one. The person is charged with dangerous driving, speeding, whatever and given a punishment. A different person has the same accident but this time the lampost kills someone as it falls. Should their punishment be different?

 

[Glaucus]

Killing people in a vehicle often seems to attract a bizarrely light punishment.

I feel the opposite, it nearly always attracts an over the top reaction and punishment, because someone is dead, rather than what the defendant actually did.

Feel like so many more cases should go this way,


As for this one, sounds fair, I don't believe her, but I feel strongly about the state having to prove beyond reasonable doubt, something that in some cases on face value seems to go out of the window. Rather some people get off, than state relaxing the standards that should be being applied.

This. The punishment should not be outcome based as we all make mistakes and most of them don't end in death but for an extremely unlucky few they do.

Someone is speeding and loses control of their car, knocking over a lampost which hits no one. The person is charged with dangerous driving, speeding, whatever and given a punishment. A different person has the same accident but this time the lampost kills someone as it falls. Should their punishment be different?

Unfortunately on this forum and in society, people think you are crazy suggesting that. I've said it before on here and well, hell broke lose. But I absolutely agree. Punishment for actions, not on outcome.

 

[wazza300]

A lifetime driving ban should be more just

Whether it was accidental or on purpose,maybe that will sharpen up peoples driving/alert fullness

 

[Vonhelmet]

Unfortunately on this forum and in society, people think you are crazy suggesting that. I've said it before on here and well, hell broke lose. But I absolutely agree. Punishment for actions, not on outcome.

How far do you dial it back, though? Dropping concrete breeze blocks off a motorway bridge in rush hour is a lot more dangerous than dropping them at 3 in the morning. What is the criminal action in this case? Dropping the bricks or dropping them on cars?

In the instant case, the driver was charged with causing death by careless driving. This is not an issue of comparing her offence of "not paying attention" with offences of "not paying attention" in circumstances that didn't cause death. The death has happened. The charge reflects that.

 

[misterjingo]

Personally, I think outcome should be considered in sentencing. Outside of driving, there are many examples of manslaughter charges being held against defendants who accidentally killed someone. I don't see why those who caused death through dangerous driving should be immune.

The Costa Concordia comes to mind. It was a terrible accident caused due to inattention, yet the captain had 10 years added to his sentence for manslaughter. If we follow the same logic as driving sentences, causing these deaths should be ignored as it was accidental and not intentional.

 

[Glaucus]

How far do you dial it back, though? Dropping concrete breeze blocks off a motorway bridge in rush hour is a lot more dangerous than dropping them at 3 in the morning. What is the criminal action in this case? Dropping the bricks or dropping them on cars?

In the instant case, the driver was charged with causing death by careless driving. This is not an issue of comparing her offence of "not paying attention" with offences of "not paying attention" in circumstances that didn't cause death. The death has happened. The charge reflects that.

You don't have to dial it back in that sense at all.
Actions + foreseeable consequences.

If someones dropping blocks off the motorway at rush hour and nothing happens, should they get the same punishment as someone who did the exact same thing, at same place and time and someone died? Why should he get punished more just because the outcome was different,

The charge reflects that but isn't what we are talking about. Both should be careless driving.

 

[Nomisf]

This. The punishment should not be outcome based as we all make mistakes and most of them don't end in death but for an extremely unlucky few they do.

Unfortunately on this forum and in society, people think you are crazy suggesting that. I've said it before on here and well, hell broke lose. But I absolutely agree. Punishment for actions, not on outcome.

I happen to quite like this idea in theory, but i think driving offences make it a lot harder to put into practice.

Example being, pulling out without looking is (while stupid) barely an offence, and certainly one that goes unpunished 99% of the time - because it has no consequence. It all changes however when something comes of it, and can be as minor as skidding and horns, or as major as a death.

Do we advocate hitting anyone who causes a minor bump with careless or dangerous driving, or let everyone who causes a death get away with a slap on the wrist ?

Genuinely curious how you would envisage making the distinctions

 

[Glaucus]

I happen to quite like this idea in theory, but i think driving offences make it a lot harder to put into practice.

Example being, pulling out without looking is (while stupid) barely an offence, and certainly one that goes unpunished 99% of the time - because it has no consequence. It all changes however when something comes of it, and can be as minor as skidding and horns, or as major as a death.

Do we advocate hitting anyone who causes a minor bump with careless or dangerous driving, or let everyone who causes a death get away with a slap on the wrist ?

Genuinely curious how you would envisage making the distinctions

Yes, and punishment could be based on risk. So in this case, a pretty low punishment,

Why should someone whose done exactly the same get 3+ years in prison, just because someone died. Their actions where no different to the 999 times people got away with it.

It's also the stupidity if murder/attempted murder cases. why are attempted murder sentences generally lower than murder. Jet because they were rubbish at killing, or ambulance crew happened to be round the corner etc. Should be one law, one sentence and outcome should make no difference to time served.

 

[Nomisf]

Yes, and punishment could be based on risk. So in this case, a pretty low punishment,

Why should someone whose done exactly the same get 3+ years in prison, just because someone died. Their actions where no different to the 999 times people got away with it.

It's also the stupidity if murder/attempted murder cases. why are attempted murder sentences generally lower than murder. Jet because they were rubbish at killing, or ambulance crew happened to be round the corner etc. Should be one law, one sentence and outcome should make no difference to time served.

It's a really rather interesting discussion

In the case of murder vs attempted murder, I think you are totally on point. Someone has made that decision, with intent - just because they failed doesn't mean they shouldn't be bang to rights for their intent.

For motoring, I think there is another angle though - based around that intent. I am sure nobody blindly pulls out with intent to harm someone, it is much more likely that they do so without being mindful of the possibility.

One of the bigger social outcomes of harsh sentencing in such cases is awareness, it may help to make people stop and think when pulling out that there could be grave consequences, and thus improve road safety a little. On the same though train, lower sentencing sends the message that people don't have to be as careful, because even if the worst happens - they get a slap on the wrist - which leads to bad times, especially for us two wheelers.

Maybe a little hyperbole to make my point, but a though none the less.

 

[Vonhelmet]

The charge reflects that but isn't what we are talking about. Both should be careless driving.

You'd like to abolish the charge of causing death by careless driving?

How about death by dangerous driving?

 

[Ryan-3]

Careless and dangerous aren't too different in my opinion. If you couldn't give two ***** while driving, then (depending on where you are, time, speed, etc...) you're potentially dangerous.

 

[Glaucus]

You'd like to abolish the charge of causing death by careless driving?

How about death by dangerous driving?

Yes.
What has the death got to do with it, other than emotive reasons. It makes absolutely zero sense.

 

[tom_e]

Because you've gone from just being a plank to ending someone else's life due to being a plank, yes there is a bit of wrong place wrong time but there is still a difference.

 

[Glaucus]

Because you've gone from just being a plank to ending someone else's life due to being a plank, yes there is a bit of wrong place wrong time but there is still a difference.

There is no difference, the offence in your case is being a plank. the fact one could be said to be lucky or the other unlucky. Dies not change the crime.
Your stance clearly is not logical nor is the law, it's easy to see it's made that way for emotive reasons.

Same as victim impact statements, they don't lead to a fair legal system and never can be. All they do is lead to an unfair system to please emotive reasons. How can a fair legal system take into account a victims feelings, when different people react differently. Just because one person assaults some one who handles it better, they should be sentenced less? That clearly is rubbish.