Family ‘can move on’ after death crash driver is jailed

Daniel Fallaw was sentenced to nine months yesterday

Daniel Fallaw was sentenced to nine months yesterday

First published in News Bicester Advertiser: Photograph of the Author by , Senior reporter. Call me on (01865) 425373

THE mother of a prison worker killed in a road accident said her family can now move on after the driver responsible for her son's death, was jailed.

Daniel Fallaw, of Peregrine Way, Bicester, sat shaking in the dock yesterday at Oxford Crown Court as a judge sentenced him to nine months in prison.

The 36-year-old was convicted after a trial of causing the death of cyclist David Parris through his careless driving on December 4, 2012.

Michael Roques, prosecuting, said Fallaw’s Ford Escort collided with Mr Parris on a Bicester roundabout following “a sustained course of bad driving”.

The crash happened at about 6pm as the HMP Bullingdon employee, wearing a helmet, reflective jacket and with lights on his bike, was crossing Neunkirchen Way next to the roundabout with the A41.

Judge Gordon Risius said Mr Parris suffered a serious brain injury when he hit his head on the car windscreen.

He died in the ambulance on the way to Oxford’s John Radcliffe Hospital.

Bicester Advertiser:

  • Cyclist David Parris was killed

Fallaw was unanimously found guilty in less than two hours after a four-day trial in which his driving was repeatedly described as “impatient”.

When the sentence was read out Christine Parris, 73, from Chigwell in Essex, who was watching the hearing with her family, had tears in her eyes.

After the hearing she said: “We are really relieved; we really are.

“We would have liked to have seen him get longer, but he is going away and has lost his licence for a couple of years, so that will make things a bit harder for him.

“We are just so relieved he’s not got off scott free. If he had been given community service I would have gone berserk.

“Sitting though the trial was hard but this is the right ending. We can now move on, we have got what we were hoping for.”

Andrew Hobson, defending, said his client will have to live with what he has done for the rest of his life.

He said: “Whatever happened on that day Mr Fallaw did not set out to harm David Parris or anybody else.”

Fallaw was banned from driving for two years.

Judge Risius said after reading the statements of Mr Parris’s family it was clear his death had left “a large void in their lives which can never be filled”.

He added: “No sentence a judge can pass can ever restore human life. Nor can the value of a human life be measured by the length of sentence given by a criminal court.”

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:28am Fri 28 Feb 14

Madi50n says...

Pretty much predicted this.

Judge Risius said "...Nor can the value of a human life be measured by the length of sentence given by a criminal court.”

Yes it can. 9 months in jail and 2 year ban from driving for killing another person means you measure the victim's life as pretty much worthless and the killer's life as worth a lot more.

This country is backwards!
Pretty much predicted this. Judge Risius said "...Nor can the value of a human life be measured by the length of sentence given by a criminal court.” Yes it can. 9 months in jail and 2 year ban from driving for killing another person means you measure the victim's life as pretty much worthless and the killer's life as worth a lot more. This country is backwards! Madi50n
  • Score: 9

12:24pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Severian says...

He'd have got a longer sentence if he'd just stolen the Nan's bike.

It's a disgrace that killing someone because of appalling driving is considered to be so inconsequential.

My heart goes out to the poor family of the victim.
He'd have got a longer sentence if he'd just stolen the Nan's bike. It's a disgrace that killing someone because of appalling driving is considered to be so inconsequential. My heart goes out to the poor family of the victim. Severian
  • Score: 9

1:15pm Fri 28 Feb 14

bicester246 says...

If I could play Devil's Advocate for a moment...I wonder if your views on the length of this sentence would be the same if it was your grandmother/grandfat
her/mother/father/so
n/daughter/aunt/uncl
e/cousin or friend was the Defendant in this case? With the 'boot on the other foot', as it were, could you, hand on heart say that your son etc etc would deserve a longer sentence than that given to the Defendant in this case?
If I could play Devil's Advocate for a moment...I wonder if your views on the length of this sentence would be the same if it was your grandmother/grandfat her/mother/father/so n/daughter/aunt/uncl e/cousin or friend was the Defendant in this case? With the 'boot on the other foot', as it were, could you, hand on heart say that your son etc etc would deserve a longer sentence than that given to the Defendant in this case? bicester246
  • Score: -2

2:17pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Madi50n says...

Sorry Bicester, but that's not how it works. If you commit a crime you should be punished accordingly. The punishment should act as a deterrent to others, and reflect the seriousness of the consequences of the crime.

People who kill others when driving consistently get lenient sentences. There is no deterrent to drivers, this killer will get out of jail before Christmas this year, back in a car by 2016.

He got in a car, drove it in a dangerous way, killed another human being & his punishment is less than some people get for petty crimes.

To be honest, if any of my friends or family were so stupid and arrogant as to drive in a way that killed someone, then I'd be disgusted with them & this sentence if that was all they received.
Sorry Bicester, but that's not how it works. If you commit a crime you should be punished accordingly. The punishment should act as a deterrent to others, and reflect the seriousness of the consequences of the crime. People who kill others when driving consistently get lenient sentences. There is no deterrent to drivers, this killer will get out of jail before Christmas this year, back in a car by 2016. He got in a car, drove it in a dangerous way, killed another human being & his punishment is less than some people get for petty crimes. To be honest, if any of my friends or family were so stupid and arrogant as to drive in a way that killed someone, then I'd be disgusted with them & this sentence if that was all they received. Madi50n
  • Score: 6

2:28pm Fri 28 Feb 14

bicester246 says...

According to the Police and CPS this driver was not driving dangerously...the crime he was answering to was careless driving.
According to the Police and CPS this driver was not driving dangerously...the crime he was answering to was careless driving. bicester246
  • Score: 1

4:37pm Fri 28 Feb 14

snert says...

Ultimately, pretty much no sentence handed down would have been long enough. If he'd have got 4 years, people would have cried for 5.

The man didn't set out to do what he did. Impatient driving, poor judgement, and complete carelessness has lead to an innocent man dying and a family losing a loved one.

Mr Fallaw's family are also victims of a sorts in this. They have to live with what he has done, as does he. They will get snide comments made about them and general hostility from many people and it isn't any fault of theirs, such is the way of these things. I'm not in any way justifying his actions. He deserves punishment and I do believe he should have got more, especially as he didn't admit any form of guilt throughout, and this is a vain attempt to try and get out of it.

Sad all round, in particular for the family of Mr Pariss. I drove around the roundabout myself shortly after he was transferred to hospital and I knew that someone must have been killed or seriously injured.
Ultimately, pretty much no sentence handed down would have been long enough. If he'd have got 4 years, people would have cried for 5. The man didn't set out to do what he did. Impatient driving, poor judgement, and complete carelessness has lead to an innocent man dying and a family losing a loved one. Mr Fallaw's family are also victims of a sorts in this. They have to live with what he has done, as does he. They will get snide comments made about them and general hostility from many people and it isn't any fault of theirs, such is the way of these things. I'm not in any way justifying his actions. He deserves punishment and I do believe he should have got more, especially as he didn't admit any form of guilt throughout, and this is a vain attempt to try and get out of it. Sad all round, in particular for the family of Mr Pariss. I drove around the roundabout myself shortly after he was transferred to hospital and I knew that someone must have been killed or seriously injured. snert
  • Score: 8

5:24pm Fri 28 Feb 14

bicester246 says...

Well said Snert.
Well said Snert. bicester246
  • Score: 1

6:26pm Fri 28 Feb 14

caversfield says...

first mention of him wearing a helmet and hi viz in three articles about the accident. Nice to know my hi viz and helmet are useless when there's an idiot behind the wheel. Really is no need to race on public roads, plenty of tracks around that allow for it.
first mention of him wearing a helmet and hi viz in three articles about the accident. Nice to know my hi viz and helmet are useless when there's an idiot behind the wheel. Really is no need to race on public roads, plenty of tracks around that allow for it. caversfield
  • Score: 6

7:09pm Fri 28 Feb 14

King Joke says...

bicester246 wrote:
According to the Police and CPS this driver was not driving dangerously...the crime he was answering to was careless driving.
Careless driving is wilful negligence. If you think it's acceptable to get behind the wheel while preoccupied with another problem, while dog-tired or in such a rush as to be tempted to take risks, you shouldn't have a licence.

Sadly this kind of hiss-take lenient sentence reinforces the idea that it's acceptable to drive in a state and with an attitude which is no way commensurate with the risk to the lives of others. It also reinforces the idea that these are unfortunate 'accidents' rather than the negligent incidents they actually are.

My thoughts as ever to the victim's family at this sad time.
[quote][p][bold]bicester246[/bold] wrote: According to the Police and CPS this driver was not driving dangerously...the crime he was answering to was careless driving.[/p][/quote]Careless driving is wilful negligence. If you think it's acceptable to get behind the wheel while preoccupied with another problem, while dog-tired or in such a rush as to be tempted to take risks, you shouldn't have a licence. Sadly this kind of hiss-take lenient sentence reinforces the idea that it's acceptable to drive in a state and with an attitude which is no way commensurate with the risk to the lives of others. It also reinforces the idea that these are unfortunate 'accidents' rather than the negligent incidents they actually are. My thoughts as ever to the victim's family at this sad time. King Joke
  • Score: 6

7:23pm Fri 28 Feb 14

bicester246 says...

Steady on King Joke...This man was tried for Careless Driving, not Dangerous Driving, Reckless Driving....the definitions of these offences were not relevant to my comment. Madi50n referred to the defendant's driving as dangerous, as it clearly wasn't or he would have been charged accordingly.
Steady on King Joke...This man was tried for Careless Driving, not Dangerous Driving, Reckless Driving....the definitions of these offences were not relevant to my comment. Madi50n referred to the defendant's driving as dangerous, as it clearly wasn't or he would have been charged accordingly. bicester246
  • Score: 0

7:26pm Fri 28 Feb 14

King Joke says...

THat's just the attitude that has to change B246 - being 'careless' just isn't good enough when people's lives are at stake. Our pathetic legal system is far too lenient on drivers and it sends the message out that it's OK to carry on as you are, driving as if it were like walking down the road. It isn't, people die, and this should not be acceptable.
THat's just the attitude that has to change B246 - being 'careless' just isn't good enough when people's lives are at stake. Our pathetic legal system is far too lenient on drivers and it sends the message out that it's OK to carry on as you are, driving as if it were like walking down the road. It isn't, people die, and this should not be acceptable. King Joke
  • Score: 3

7:28pm Fri 28 Feb 14

bicester246 says...

If you think it's acceptable to get behind the wheel while preoccupied with another problem, while dog-tired or in such a rush as to be tempted to take risks, you shouldn't have a licence.

If this was put into practice there would be only a couple of vicars with driving licences, and they wouldn't drive on Sundays or Christian holidays.
If you think it's acceptable to get behind the wheel while preoccupied with another problem, while dog-tired or in such a rush as to be tempted to take risks, you shouldn't have a licence. If this was put into practice there would be only a couple of vicars with driving licences, and they wouldn't drive on Sundays or Christian holidays. bicester246
  • Score: 1

7:32pm Fri 28 Feb 14

bicester246 says...

THat's just the attitude that has to change B246 - being 'careless' just isn't good enough when people's lives are at stake. Our pathetic legal system is far too lenient on drivers and it sends the message out that it's OK to carry on as you are, driving as if it were like walking down the road. It isn't, people die, and this should not be acceptable

I have no attitude. Charges and relevant sentences need to be changed by the powers that be.
THat's just the attitude that has to change B246 - being 'careless' just isn't good enough when people's lives are at stake. Our pathetic legal system is far too lenient on drivers and it sends the message out that it's OK to carry on as you are, driving as if it were like walking down the road. It isn't, people die, and this should not be acceptable I have no attitude. Charges and relevant sentences need to be changed by the powers that be. bicester246
  • Score: -4

7:32pm Fri 28 Feb 14

King Joke says...

bicester246 wrote:
If you think it's acceptable to get behind the wheel while preoccupied with another problem, while dog-tired or in such a rush as to be tempted to take risks, you shouldn't have a licence.

If this was put into practice there would be only a couple of vicars with driving licences, and they wouldn't drive on Sundays or Christian holidays.
No - there would be almost as many drivers as there were now, but they would be jolly careful about it when they got behind the wheel. It's about time we pruned off the 10% of fools out there who really shouldn't have licences, and make the rest of us wake up to the risks.
[quote][p][bold]bicester246[/bold] wrote: If you think it's acceptable to get behind the wheel while preoccupied with another problem, while dog-tired or in such a rush as to be tempted to take risks, you shouldn't have a licence. If this was put into practice there would be only a couple of vicars with driving licences, and they wouldn't drive on Sundays or Christian holidays.[/p][/quote]No - there would be almost as many drivers as there were now, but they would be jolly careful about it when they got behind the wheel. It's about time we pruned off the 10% of fools out there who really shouldn't have licences, and make the rest of us wake up to the risks. King Joke
  • Score: 5

7:49pm Fri 28 Feb 14

bicester246 says...

If you think it's acceptable to get behind the wheel while preoccupied with another problem, while dog-tired or in such a rush as to be tempted to take risks, you shouldn't have a licence


So you shouldn't have a licence if for instance if you are thinking about the first job you need to do when you get to work, or that you hope your child has a better day at school.....
If you think it's acceptable to get behind the wheel while preoccupied with another problem, while dog-tired or in such a rush as to be tempted to take risks, you shouldn't have a licence So you shouldn't have a licence if for instance if you are thinking about the first job you need to do when you get to work, or that you hope your child has a better day at school..... bicester246
  • Score: 3

7:54pm Fri 28 Feb 14

King Joke says...

Not if it means you are not fit to drive the vehicle, no. Under normal conditions these things are not preoccupations; a preoccupation as the name suggests is at the front of your mind. You wouldn't be happy with an airline pilot or rail signalller working with preoccupied stress levels. People likely to have these things affect their work are weeded out, which is one of the reasons these industries are incredibly safe, statistically speaking. Using the roads should be this safe, but it is not, partly due to the dissmissive attitude to road safety which pervades many in society, the judiciary included as illustrated in this case.
Not if it means you are not fit to drive the vehicle, no. Under normal conditions these things are not preoccupations; a preoccupation as the name suggests is at the front of your mind. You wouldn't be happy with an airline pilot or rail signalller working with preoccupied stress levels. People likely to have these things affect their work are weeded out, which is one of the reasons these industries are incredibly safe, statistically speaking. Using the roads should be this safe, but it is not, partly due to the dissmissive attitude to road safety which pervades many in society, the judiciary included as illustrated in this case. King Joke
  • Score: 4

8:07pm Fri 28 Feb 14

bicester246 says...

King Joke wrote:
Not if it means you are not fit to drive the vehicle, no. Under normal conditions these things are not preoccupations; a preoccupation as the name suggests is at the front of your mind. You wouldn't be happy with an airline pilot or rail signalller working with preoccupied stress levels. People likely to have these things affect their work are weeded out, which is one of the reasons these industries are incredibly safe, statistically speaking. Using the roads should be this safe, but it is not, partly due to the dissmissive attitude to road safety which pervades many in society, the judiciary included as illustrated in this case.
You wouldn't be happy with an airline pilot or rail signalller working with preoccupied stress levels. People likely to have these things affect their work are weeded out, which is one of the reasons these industries are incredibly safe, statistically speaking.

Not relevant, this case was about one man in a Ford Escort, tried for Careless Driving, found guilty and given a sentence.
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: Not if it means you are not fit to drive the vehicle, no. Under normal conditions these things are not preoccupations; a preoccupation as the name suggests is at the front of your mind. You wouldn't be happy with an airline pilot or rail signalller working with preoccupied stress levels. People likely to have these things affect their work are weeded out, which is one of the reasons these industries are incredibly safe, statistically speaking. Using the roads should be this safe, but it is not, partly due to the dissmissive attitude to road safety which pervades many in society, the judiciary included as illustrated in this case.[/p][/quote]You wouldn't be happy with an airline pilot or rail signalller working with preoccupied stress levels. People likely to have these things affect their work are weeded out, which is one of the reasons these industries are incredibly safe, statistically speaking. Not relevant, this case was about one man in a Ford Escort, tried for Careless Driving, found guilty and given a sentence. bicester246
  • Score: 0

9:32pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Madi50n says...

You see King, this is the problem with driving. It's perceived as a right, not a privilege. People are willing to put up with the thousands of deaths & serious injuries a year and the lenient sentences that come with them, because it means that the careless attitude they take to driving can me maintained.

They can continue to drive whilst tired, talking on phones, do 30 in a 20 zone, 40 in a 30 zone, speed up at amber lights instead of slowing down, eat, drink, do thier hair, generally do careless things that would see them fail a test, and that can ultimately kill innocent people, because that's acceptable, it's just careless to do those things, not dangerous. "I didn't mean to smash into the man at high speed, it was an accident, I wasn't paying attention, honestly, I'm a good person."

If you argue that it's not acceptable to do those things in a tonne or more of body mangling metal and that people who think it is acceptable are wrong, you get the standard, " well nobody would be able to drive then." If that's true then fine, I'd rather save thousands of lives than allow people to do something they are incapable of doing. We did pretty well without cars until about 80 years ago.

I, like you, believe otherwise though, we'd have about 10 or 20 percent fewer drivers on the road and all off them would be the ones incapable of doing it safely or responsibly.

Unfortunately, they car is king, and the prevailing belief is that it's a right, & that even though driving carelessly kills people, we can still do it and not really get punished, because driving carelessly isn't dangerous, it's inevitable and we shouldn't do anything to prevent it from happening.
You see King, this is the problem with driving. It's perceived as a right, not a privilege. People are willing to put up with the thousands of deaths & serious injuries a year and the lenient sentences that come with them, because it means that the careless attitude they take to driving can me maintained. They can continue to drive whilst tired, talking on phones, do 30 in a 20 zone, 40 in a 30 zone, speed up at amber lights instead of slowing down, eat, drink, do thier hair, generally do careless things that would see them fail a test, and that can ultimately kill innocent people, because that's acceptable, it's just careless to do those things, not dangerous. "I didn't mean to smash into the man at high speed, it was an accident, I wasn't paying attention, honestly, I'm a good person." If you argue that it's not acceptable to do those things in a tonne or more of body mangling metal and that people who think it is acceptable are wrong, you get the standard, " well nobody would be able to drive then." If that's true then fine, I'd rather save thousands of lives than allow people to do something they are incapable of doing. We did pretty well without cars until about 80 years ago. I, like you, believe otherwise though, we'd have about 10 or 20 percent fewer drivers on the road and all off them would be the ones incapable of doing it safely or responsibly. Unfortunately, they car is king, and the prevailing belief is that it's a right, & that even though driving carelessly kills people, we can still do it and not really get punished, because driving carelessly isn't dangerous, it's inevitable and we shouldn't do anything to prevent it from happening. Madi50n
  • Score: 7

9:37pm Fri 28 Feb 14

bicester246 says...

I'm proud that I have no driving licence, have never learned to drive and have never had a desire to do so.
I'm proud that I have no driving licence, have never learned to drive and have never had a desire to do so. bicester246
  • Score: 2

11:56pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Feelingsmatter says...

Why are you proud, bicester? This suggests that you are contemptuous of all drivers.
Why are you proud, bicester? This suggests that you are contemptuous of all drivers. Feelingsmatter
  • Score: 2

7:09am Sat 1 Mar 14

william12 says...

There are a lot more cyclists getting knocked off of bikes you read every week.I try not to cycle on the road unless i have to. I also drive a car.For some reason a lot of car drivers dont give a **** about cyclists, i have experienced this drivers pulling across a drop in the kerb to stop you crossing a road. Knocked off the bike because a motorist cant wait to overtake .If drivers are careless when driving they should not have a licence , in my view it is no different to dangerous as this victims family have suffered the results are usually the same . Unless drivers found guilty are handed out longer sentences this will continue to get worse.
There are a lot more cyclists getting knocked off of bikes you read every week.I try not to cycle on the road unless i have to. I also drive a car.For some reason a lot of car drivers dont give a **** about cyclists, i have experienced this drivers pulling across a drop in the kerb to stop you crossing a road. Knocked off the bike because a motorist cant wait to overtake .If drivers are careless when driving they should not have a licence , in my view it is no different to dangerous as this victims family have suffered the results are usually the same . Unless drivers found guilty are handed out longer sentences this will continue to get worse. william12
  • Score: 6

11:12am Sat 1 Mar 14

bicester246 says...

Feelingsmatter wrote:
Why are you proud, bicester? This suggests that you are contemptuous of all drivers.
I don't understand, why this would make me contemptuous of any driver?
[quote][p][bold]Feelingsmatter[/bold] wrote: Why are you proud, bicester? This suggests that you are contemptuous of all drivers.[/p][/quote]I don't understand, why this would make me contemptuous of any driver? bicester246
  • Score: 0

5:18pm Sat 1 Mar 14

seamusl says...

The reason most people in this position are prosecuted for careless driving not dangerous driving is that dangerous driving is all but impossible to prove, my personal belief is careless driving should (in this sort of case) be replaced by manslaughter and dangerous by murder ie: if someone has drunk and driven they have made a conscious decision before the first drink to take a mind altering substance and drive, if they kill someone a deliberate decision had been made in the beginning to be irresponsible with a potentially lethal weapon. With all due respect his driving was described as repeatedly impatient, we have all been "impatient" to be repeatedly so is a tad more than careless. A human being has died, the driver could have prevented it by moderating his behaviour, a life ban for this offence should be mandatory. Life (or a death in this case) unfortunately has become of no consequence, if this driver had swerved to avoid a child and caused this terrible accident maybe some sympathy could be due (the driving test has an awareness of hazards part in it does it not) but it was a repeated action that led to this. It is not for me to judge this person but the law should be carefully re assessed in relation to life shattering offences like this
The reason most people in this position are prosecuted for careless driving not dangerous driving is that dangerous driving is all but impossible to prove, my personal belief is careless driving should (in this sort of case) be replaced by manslaughter and dangerous by murder ie: if someone has drunk and driven they have made a conscious decision before the first drink to take a mind altering substance and drive, if they kill someone a deliberate decision had been made in the beginning to be irresponsible with a potentially lethal weapon. With all due respect his driving was described as repeatedly impatient, we have all been "impatient" to be repeatedly so is a tad more than careless. A human being has died, the driver could have prevented it by moderating his behaviour, a life ban for this offence should be mandatory. Life (or a death in this case) unfortunately has become of no consequence, if this driver had swerved to avoid a child and caused this terrible accident maybe some sympathy could be due (the driving test has an awareness of hazards part in it does it not) but it was a repeated action that led to this. It is not for me to judge this person but the law should be carefully re assessed in relation to life shattering offences like this seamusl
  • Score: 5

3:55am Sun 2 Mar 14

The New Private Eye says...

King Joke wrote:
bicester246 wrote:
If you think it's acceptable to get behind the wheel while preoccupied with another problem, while dog-tired or in such a rush as to be tempted to take risks, you shouldn't have a licence.

If this was put into practice there would be only a couple of vicars with driving licences, and they wouldn't drive on Sundays or Christian holidays.
No - there would be almost as many drivers as there were now, but they would be jolly careful about it when they got behind the wheel. It's about time we pruned off the 10% of fools out there who really shouldn't have licences, and make the rest of us wake up to the risks.
If we pruned off the 10% of fools as you say, who would be driving the buses in our fair city?
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bicester246[/bold] wrote: If you think it's acceptable to get behind the wheel while preoccupied with another problem, while dog-tired or in such a rush as to be tempted to take risks, you shouldn't have a licence. If this was put into practice there would be only a couple of vicars with driving licences, and they wouldn't drive on Sundays or Christian holidays.[/p][/quote]No - there would be almost as many drivers as there were now, but they would be jolly careful about it when they got behind the wheel. It's about time we pruned off the 10% of fools out there who really shouldn't have licences, and make the rest of us wake up to the risks.[/p][/quote]If we pruned off the 10% of fools as you say, who would be driving the buses in our fair city? The New Private Eye
  • Score: 4

4:07am Sun 2 Mar 14

The New Private Eye says...

seamusl wrote:
The reason most people in this position are prosecuted for careless driving not dangerous driving is that dangerous driving is all but impossible to prove, my personal belief is careless driving should (in this sort of case) be replaced by manslaughter and dangerous by murder ie: if someone has drunk and driven they have made a conscious decision before the first drink to take a mind altering substance and drive, if they kill someone a deliberate decision had been made in the beginning to be irresponsible with a potentially lethal weapon. With all due respect his driving was described as repeatedly impatient, we have all been "impatient" to be repeatedly so is a tad more than careless. A human being has died, the driver could have prevented it by moderating his behaviour, a life ban for this offence should be mandatory. Life (or a death in this case) unfortunately has become of no consequence, if this driver had swerved to avoid a child and caused this terrible accident maybe some sympathy could be due (the driving test has an awareness of hazards part in it does it not) but it was a repeated action that led to this. It is not for me to judge this person but the law should be carefully re assessed in relation to life shattering offences like this
Sorry you are wrong. Do you really believe that a driver who makes an error and kills somebody (who in this case contributed to the collision) whether over an arbitrary limit should be treated the same as somebody who walks out of his house with a gun with the intention of shooting and killing the first person that he/she sees? Think about it,and the far reaching implications in law. As for your life ban, have you children? have you ever been drunk? If so do you agree with a life ban on having children and your children taken into care? We still live in a free world with all of its risks, if we went your way then people would no longer be free but controlled by the state. The court has handed down the punishment in accordance with the law of our free land laid down by our elected government. Nuff Said, unless you know better than Mr Cameron.
[quote][p][bold]seamusl[/bold] wrote: The reason most people in this position are prosecuted for careless driving not dangerous driving is that dangerous driving is all but impossible to prove, my personal belief is careless driving should (in this sort of case) be replaced by manslaughter and dangerous by murder ie: if someone has drunk and driven they have made a conscious decision before the first drink to take a mind altering substance and drive, if they kill someone a deliberate decision had been made in the beginning to be irresponsible with a potentially lethal weapon. With all due respect his driving was described as repeatedly impatient, we have all been "impatient" to be repeatedly so is a tad more than careless. A human being has died, the driver could have prevented it by moderating his behaviour, a life ban for this offence should be mandatory. Life (or a death in this case) unfortunately has become of no consequence, if this driver had swerved to avoid a child and caused this terrible accident maybe some sympathy could be due (the driving test has an awareness of hazards part in it does it not) but it was a repeated action that led to this. It is not for me to judge this person but the law should be carefully re assessed in relation to life shattering offences like this[/p][/quote]Sorry you are wrong. Do you really believe that a driver who makes an error and kills somebody (who in this case contributed to the collision) whether over an arbitrary limit should be treated the same as somebody who walks out of his house with a gun with the intention of shooting and killing the first person that he/she sees? Think about it,and the far reaching implications in law. As for your life ban, have you children? have you ever been drunk? If so do you agree with a life ban on having children and your children taken into care? We still live in a free world with all of its risks, if we went your way then people would no longer be free but controlled by the state. The court has handed down the punishment in accordance with the law of our free land laid down by our elected government. Nuff Said, unless you know better than Mr Cameron. The New Private Eye
  • Score: 1

8:51am Sun 2 Mar 14

JanetJ says...

Madi50n wrote:
Pretty much predicted this.

Judge Risius said "...Nor can the value of a human life be measured by the length of sentence given by a criminal court.”

Yes it can. 9 months in jail and 2 year ban from driving for killing another person means you measure the victim's life as pretty much worthless and the killer's life as worth a lot more.

This country is backwards!
That will be 4 and a half month then!
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: Pretty much predicted this. Judge Risius said "...Nor can the value of a human life be measured by the length of sentence given by a criminal court.” Yes it can. 9 months in jail and 2 year ban from driving for killing another person means you measure the victim's life as pretty much worthless and the killer's life as worth a lot more. This country is backwards![/p][/quote]That will be 4 and a half month then! JanetJ
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree