Victimless death by dangerous driving

[benborp]

Can anyone here offer an explanation as to how all the contradictory elements of this news story (as it's reported) came about? Is there some quirk of the Scottish legal system that has confounded my understanding of the various decisions of the jury and the judge? Should I be reading between the lines of the statement of the Advocate Depute? Or should I just be depressed?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-11489626

[simonp]

On the face of it, it seems strange.  Maybe the jury thought she should have got out of the way quicker.

[corshamjim]

Depression wins it. 

[Feline]

They seem to be saying that although he hit her because his driving was dangerous, the accident wasn't the actual cause of her death. Sounds bonkers to me but without seeing all the evidence hard to comment on the accuracy of this.

[PhilO]

They seem to be saying that although he hit her because his driving was dangerous, the accident wasn't the actual cause of her death. Sounds bonkers to me but without seeing all the evidence hard to comment on the accuracy of this.

That's how the contradiction has to be interpretted from a legal point of view, but I suspect that the jury's reasoning was probably simpler:

"Death by Dangerous driving? But that's practically Manslaughter! We can't possibly convict him of that, because there but for the grace of God, etc... Now, what's the next lower charge?"

 

[Eccentrica Gallumbits]

It seems that the jury have ignored the fact she died from her injuries, and decided that being hit by a car wasn't what killed her, therefore it's not death by dangerous driving. Which seems bizarre, given she died from her injuries.

[EdinburghFixed]

This is the problem with letting juries decide.

Since the facts are often clear-cut, it should be a simple and straightforward case of finding that the accused was driving the car at the time, or wasn't. Judges then take forward the sentence based on the consequences (i.e. nothing happened, or 20 people died - whole different ballgames). It frankly shouldn't be possible for people to evade sentencing on causing a death when it's a simple fact that a death was caused.

Even the vision problems of the accused are not relevant to the jury - that's just an example of an aggravating/mitigating factor for the judge to use in sentencing (in this case, the former).

It should be a simple case of saying "ok, there has been a crash and somebody is dead. The Crown say that the driver of the vehicle was Mr Bloggs - proven or not proven".

You wouldn't get the stupid situation where the defence say "would you really want my client, of previous good character, to go to jail? I ask you to find that he was not driving his car and the identical-looking chap caught getting out of it on CCTV was actually someone else".

Then the judges could get on with sentencing according to a much wider range of parameters - in this case, causing a death (maximum seriousness) and driving when blind (also maximum seriousness).

That doesn't mean actually that I think it's appropriate to send the driver in this case, a septagenarian, to the slammer for the rest of his natural. Instead, removal of the driving licence and some sort of community service would seem fine. If you want to punish anyone, those who tested his eyesight and did not contact the DVLA on his behalf to have his licence revoked should be hit with big fines.

[Speshact]

If you want to punish anyone, those who tested his eyesight and did not contact the DVLA on his behalf to have his licence revoked should be hit with big fines.

This could be reasonable if the onus is on the optician to inform the DVLA - is it though?

Making opticians and doctors inform DVLA could remove problem of reluctance of close relatives to stop their parents etc. driving. On the other hand it may stop people going to opticians/doctors if they think the professional will dib them in.

[bikesdontfloat]

Can the judge not set aside the Jury's decision as it is clearly at odds with the law, as set out to them in his summing up?  Why was the jury even offered the option of selecting another charge that could only be chosen by ignoring the facts and all logic?

[Zoidburg]

He could be blind by now.

Perhaps the Judge directed them to choose the lesser so he would not have to jail him.

Do they have places for blind prisoners?

I am guessing no.

[citoyen]

If you want to punish anyone, those who tested his eyesight and did not contact the DVLA on his behalf to have his licence revoked should be hit with big fines.

This could be reasonable if the onus is on the optician to inform the DVLA - is it though?

My ex-girlfriend's mum did volunteer work for the RNIB. She knew loads of people who'd had their driving licence taken away because they were "legally blind" but they would still have no qualms about getting behind the wheel of their car.

I don't know the circumstances of this case, but taking his licence away might not have made any difference.

Tbh, based on what my ex's mum told me, I'm surprised cases like this aren't a lot more common.

And I'm not entirely surprised he wasn't convicted. It's like those cases of lorry drivers who would "lose their livelihood" so get let off. The "right" to drive a motor vehicle has become so deeply ingrained in folk morality that it outweighs the value of life.

d.

[Steve Kish]

... and of course. being 89 years old, Mrs Findlay was well past her 'sell by' date, so it's possible that she died of natural causes 3 seconds before the incident!

[Gattopardo]

wow still got away with it.

Makes me think that you can kill as a many people as you want as long as you don't break a speed limit.

[Gattopardo]

... and of course. being 89 years old, Mrs Findlay was well past her 'sell by' date, so it's possible that she died of natural causes 3 seconds before the incident!

Natural causes a blind person behind the wheel?

[EdinburghFixed]

My ex-girlfriend's mum did volunteer work for the RNIB. She knew loads of people who'd had their driving licence taken away because they were "legally blind" but they would still have no qualms about getting behind the wheel of their car.

I don't know the circumstances of this case, but taking his licence away might not have made any difference.

Yep - it pretty much goes without saying that in any reform of the law, driving while banned or with licence removed would become one of the most serious offences - that's the only way that it could work.