[Closed] Two cyclists killed nr High Wycombe

Lesser sentance because they clearly died instantly !!
WTAF . Sorry Mr Judge , You werent there . How do know this . Its not a proven point . even if it were , they are still dead . Its ok your Honor , i killed them really quick so they didn't really suffer .
NO mention of phone use , or checking the use off .
I was just driving home from work , not really paying much attention and these cyclists , well they were in the road and I hit them , just a momentary lapse of concentration. Im ok , not hurt at all . They however are smashed to bits but they are just cyclists , no harm really ,so a nice light suspended sentance and home for tea.
Somebody needs to review this . Staggering.

Post deleted. Its the wrong place to discuss the pros and cons of the current laws

A tragic loss for 2 families. My heart goes out to them

That's shit.

This, particularly.

“Mr Coles and Mr Natale were riding perfectly properly. They were not riding abreast of each other, blocking one of the two carriageways of that road. One was slightly ahead of the other, leaving plenty of room to pass and there was no reason at all that Mr Rennie should not have seen them and this accident should not have taken place."

And why the judge handed the sentence he did

Thanks, I hadn't seen that, not sure I fully agree with the judge though, even 6 months in jail (they are horrible places to be) & let out after 3 would have given the driver a proper time to reflect.

Whereas this guy got 3 1/2 years inside ( sentanced ) for just injuring 3 people by hitting a staionary vehicle, plus driving like a moron whilst being recorded on cctv.
But the 3 are all still alive , able to see their kids and grandkids , kiss their wives , speak with their brother and sisters etc

https://www.sussexlive.co.uk/news/sussex-news/shocking-video-shows-texting-lorry-5706977

This is Horrible. Hope the Driver Clifford Rennie & the Crap Judge get their comeuppance.

Condolences to the families of the cyclists

B

I know a lot are aiming it at the judge, but it's the prosecution that have accepted the lesser sentence, and then put the judge in the situation of having to go by the sentencing guidelines and character references in front of him, which was for a 60 year old company director with no criminal or driving convictions, so always going to be a positive for sentencing.

I look at this scenario and on a straight road, cyclists cycling two abreast on a clear day i struggle to see how they came up with the 'few seconds' of inattentive driving, or the rest was proven, i.e. speed, no distractions, etc, but the prosecution accepted all of these arguments, which moved it away from death by dangerous driving to careless driving.

As I understand it, anyone can appeal a sentence on the basis that is too lenient*.

I'm loathe to jump on court decisions based on press releases without checking the actual court reports, because the press reports are usually rubbish, whether on your side or against you. The Police, the CPS and the jury have the full evidence and we don't.

But seems to me on the face of it that British Cycling and Cycling UK should be all over this, and if they aren't, then they aren't doing their job representing the interests of cyclists (yes, I know CUK have run a campaign recently on road laws but this is a huge, real world example of why things need to change). All of us who are members should be asking them what they are doing about this kind of sentencing.

All of us need to be harassing our MPs to get the laws and sentencing guidelines updated and toughened up. The car centric worldview has to change, but preaching to the choir in our bike centric echo chambers won't achieve that

*Damnit, checked and it's only certain offences
https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review

Seems to me that unless the police can PROVE an aggravating factor such as being on the phone, drunk or on drugs, you always get a lesser careless driving charge with no jail time.

You'd think driving dangerously and killing someone would be treated the same regardless of any underlying factors.

From the judge:

"Just as Mr Coles and Mr Natale went out for a perfectly normal evening ride this defendant left work that night simply to drive home and spend that evening at home of a pleasant summer’s night. He did not go out to kill anybody. His driving was not dangerous, his inattention that lead to the deaths of these two men was to be counted in seconds. "

WTAF???

When I was hit from behind (broken spine and stuff, but hey, I survived) the driver was dazzled by the sun. It was a straight road for quite a way before he hit me, and the police investigating did their sums and showed that he should have been able to see me for many seconds, or else was blinded for many seconds and chose to carry on. The police officer investigating was great - he directed me to the definitions of careless vs dangerous driving, and openly said that whilst most normal people would interpret 'continuing to drive on whilst blinded' as qualifying for the higher charge, there was absolutely no way that it would get anywhere. I absolutely believe him, but that is bonkers, and is quite literally a reflection of the standards of driving and decision making that 'we' consider reasonable.

People hear of cases like this and think 'yeah, I guess I could accidentally do that if I was unlucky one day, so let's not be too hard on him' rather than 'holy crap, I think I could possibly do that if I'm not careful, I need to seriously up my game!'. Humans can be really rubbish. BAH!

Since the prosecution accepted the charge, and the sentence was prescribed, with mitigation for the guilty plea at the earliest opportunity, the real question is should the defendant have gone to prison. I’m of the opinion that a short sentence with opportunity for early release would have been more appropriate.

My great uncle killed a motorcyclist through no fault of his own in an RTA. It destroyed him. In the same position as the dependent, it would do the same to most of us.

I am not sure the judge made the wrong decision.

Not one of us can claim to have paid 100% of attention, 100% of the time as road users - no matter the mode.

We are human and we make mistakes, get distracted, have performance impaired for multiple reasons. Luckily most of us do not pay the price for someone else’s error or indeed our own.

This is a dreadful, dreadful event but what good would imprisonment do? It wouldn’t be a deterrent for careless driving - because that by its nature isn’t pre-meditated, and it won’t deter purposely dangerous drivers. I can understand why the grieving families may want it - but that to me that feels more like revenge than justice.

I think the issue is that if we all drive around thinking that if we hit something it’s an “accident” and there is no recourse we just carry on driving like dicks and not paying full attention.

If however we think that any lapse in concentration that causes an accident might be penalised then we more than likely treat driving with a bit more respect and pay attention, slow down and give everyone else time and space.

There is a sort of attitude that a car is like some sort of armour or survival suit. We can do what we want in it as long as we don’t get caught speeding or picking our nose at the lights.

The only reason not to suspend the sentence would be for retribution.

The other objectives of sentencing are not affected:

- protection of the public (achieved with a five year ban)
- rehabilitation (won’t be achieved in jail, arguably is achieved through the extended retest)
- deterrence to others (not likely, the next person to do the same will also be completely oblivious to their inattentiveness and believe they are good drivers: nobody plans to crash, nobody expects to kill someone, therefore nobody is even considering the jail time if they do).

The judge saw the man, read the statements and character references and decided he would suffer anyway so what good would jail do. I understand why people are annoyed at that - so does the judge but I’m doubt it would be overturned on appeal.

I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again - if you want to make our roads safer don’t worry about the sentencing for the unlucky cases where someone dies, focus on the cases where the driver got lucky and the person walked away, or managed to avoid them or even when nobody was there to see it.

Seems to me that unless the police can PROVE an aggravating factor such as being on the phone, drunk or on drugs, you always get a lesser careless driving charge with no jail time.

You’d think driving dangerously and killing someone would be treated the same regardless of any underlying factors.

Really they should rename the offences to help the public understand the difference. In common parlance of course if you killed someone your driving was dangerous but in court it has to fall FAR below the standard of a careful and competent driver AND be obvious that it would be dangerous. It’s quite tough to prove.

@sonic_groove

This is Horrible. Hope the Driver Clifford Rennie & the Crap Judge get their comeuppance.

Wishing harm to the Judge is rather extreme (might even be contempt of court?). It’s the sort of thing I’ve come to expect since the media started labelling judges as enemies of the people. He’s doing a job, following the law set be parliament, and sentencing guidelines which have been through extensive consultation. He’s gone to the effort of explaining the reasoning and the Oxford Express should be commended for seemingly quoting him in full rather than just throwing in some snippets for people here to quote out of context. His decision can be appealed by the crown if they believe it was unduly lenient. I doubt they will, but all Judges can make mistakes they are after all only human. The outcomes of his drive home were tragic but I don’t see how it would be better if he’d spent the next 12 months in a crappy prison cell trying to avoid the psychos and the dealers?

As for the man himself he’s seen leaving the court carrying a hold-all - he was clearly told to expect a prison sentence by his lawyer. He’s not outside the court cheering or smirking and he’s put his hands up early and admitted it unlike many how force the families to sit through a jury trial listening to the details. He’s probably gone home mighty relieved but unlike you he’s not actually wished harm on anyone albeit he accidentally caused tragic deaths.

What poly said.

Not one of us can claim to have paid 100% of attention, 100% of the time as road users – no matter the mode.

Exactly. In this case the lack of attention killed two people, on another day a lack of attention may have meant he drove straight into a deep pothole, hit a kerb, bumped into someone on a roundabout or anything else.

The difficulty is judging on the outcome (accidentally, not deliberately, killing two people) rather than the act (not paying enough attention)

deterrence to others (not likely, the next person to do the same will also be completely oblivious to their inattentiveness and believe they are good drivers: nobody plans to crash, nobody expects to kill someone, therefore nobody is even considering the jail time if they do).

I really don't agree with this. Its pretty well known that if you drive carelessly there will be minimal legal consequences. OK, one tougher sentence won't change it but tougher sentencing in general will act as a deterrent, especially for the average inattentive driver. Driving habits can and do change.

Also what is the point of suspending his 2 year sentence for two years? If he does something similar then it might kick in, but he's banned from driving for 5 years!

damascus, that is an excellent video find.

Another nice post from poly up there. While I accept and understand the reasoning why imprisonment may not be the right option, I do worry that punishments like this are not meeting the "deterrent" part of sentencing hence my previous post.

But on the other hand, sticking someone in prison for 12 months, costing the tax payer £30k plus, along with potentially leaving a family on benefits with no income and potentially homeless, for a one off first offence, full contrition and remorse, for a tragic lapse of judgement, I wonder where the benefit lies.

And I'm saying this having lost two cycling friends in RTAs over the space of 30 years.

The main issue, of course, is the lack of enforcement of traffic laws punishing and educating bad drivers before they get to a severe incident like this.

The main issue, of course, is the lack of enforcement of traffic laws punishing and educating bad drivers before they get to a severe incident like this.

This is crucial. The standard of driving is atrocious- where people are wilfully driving recklessly and dangerously without care or consideration for others.

The standard of driving is atrocious- where people are wilfully driving recklessly and dangerously without care or consideration for others.

Yep, on pretty much every ride I do at least one driver will do something dangerous (main one is overtaking on blind bends)

The standard of driving is atrocious- where people are wilfully driving recklessly and dangerously without care or consideration for others.

Yep. There is a blatant disregard for the safety of others. Driving is treated as a right. It's also treated as something so easy and inconsequential that you need a whole load of other stimuli when doing it. There are people that even save up phone calls to specifically make them while driving, and probably a host of other activities. How little regard must you have for piloting a car that you treat it as downtime?

I do think some of you are pretty naive on the deterrent front.

Stiffer sentences have never proven to be an effective deterrent in almost all crime.

And I doubt anyone who drives like a turd drives around thinking about what could happen if they get it wrong. That level of awareness is lacking in the first place, before you even ask them to consider the fallout of their shithousery.

Van drove into me last week, I was stationary as he had lurched out of a side road and I stopped to avoid the collision, he stopped then just kept going. On another planet.

I'd be inclined to look at re-tests at predetermined points in your driving life, also a speed awareness course as part of the initial and subsequent re-tests.

Rather than a one off, it's a competency based qualification.

And I doubt anyone drives around thinking about what could happen if they get it wrong.

But a lot of people drive around not really caring about the consequences of their poor driving

Totally agree about retesting though. It should occur regularly and every time you commit an offence

I added a little more nick, for context.

Those who treat is as a bit of sport don't tend to thi k of the consequences until someone has slid across their bonnet.

And even then it's probably more around how they can get out of it with minimal punishment.

Seems to be the way of humans these days.

I’d be inclined to look at re-tests at predetermined points in your driving life, also a speed awareness course as part of the initial and subsequent re-tests.

Rather than a one off, it’s a competency based qualification.

Absolutely this. If only a government came along with the balls to do it. Speaking as someone who gas had his own driving standards very much questioned this year when my lad was learning to drive. Pretty sure I'd fail a retest without the reminders that gave me

Should also be mandated by law to continue insurance after an incident. The fella who hit me was in his council van, as part of their insurance policy requirements he will have to undergo a driving assessment.

If insurance companies mandated that then there's another sense-check for those who have minor infractions.

It may not stop the throbbed, but those who are in the fence of complacency, it.might be enough to bring them back to a side that reduces tragedies like this. Maybe.

"Wishing harm to the Judge is rather extreme -- unlike you he’s not actually wished harm on anyone"

Depends on your warped idea of "Harm"

I do worry that punishments like this are not meeting the “deterrent” part of sentencing hence my previous post.

I've done a lot of dumb shit in my life, all the usual minor stuff that young people do, we used to drive like utter ****s when we were young. At no time did we ever sit down and weigh up the punishment that awaited us if we got caught. We just went for it on the assumption that we would never get caught. Which I never did, apart from some trips to the hospital.

Yep, on pretty much every ride I do at least one driver will do something dangerous (main one is overtaking on blind bends)

This absolutely my experience. Almost every ride and the most frequent silliness is overtaking (me) into oncoming traffic. I'm waiting for the ACME steamroller to be coming round the corner for the full on comedic Roadrunneresque crash...

I think driving has become such a low level activity akin to loading the dishwasher or mowing the lawn, people want to get it over with as soon as possible with minimal intervention. Anything in the road that interferes with that is seen as a buggeration. That plus being insulated from the driving environment with all the auto bells and whistles we have now means people are just not engaged with the process.

It used to be a skill held in high regard and you were proud to be 'a good driver' - not any more.

That plus being insulated from the driving environment with all the auto bells and whistles we have now means people are just not engaged with the process.

It used to be a skill held in high regard and you were proud to be ‘a good driver’ – not any more.

This 👍🏼

I really don’t agree with this. Its pretty well known that if you drive carelessly there will be minimal legal consequences. OK, one tougher sentence won’t change it but tougher sentencing in general will act as a deterrent, especially for the average inattentive driver. Driving habits can and do change.

Ok, so let’s assume we change the law to say that anyone who causes a fatal accident on our roads, through their bad driving gets a minimum 2 yr jail sentence. No ifs, no buts, no suspensions - just do not pass go, do not collect 200, go for jail as soon as convicted. What is the impact on the vast majority of people driving? NOTHING, because at no time when you get in the car and turn the ignition are you thinking - id better be extra careful in case I kill someone.

I’ve strongly argued on here many times that for deterrence it’s not the drivers who actually kill somebody that need harsh penalties it’s the people who weren’t paying attention and didn’t actually do any harm. That’s an offence with 3-9pts and a fine of up to £2500. In reality most minor accidents arise from this sort of thing but never get to court as a prosecution. If you’ve EVER crashed your car through your own fault you’ve made the same mistake as the driver in the article - you’ve just likely been lucky that there wasn’t a bike in your path at the time or the internet would be vying for your blood. If you’ve EVER pulled out on someone in a way that made them do an emergency stop or swerve around you you’ve committed the same offence but just got lucky that they were paying enough attention themselves to avoid you (and they weren’t a police car). Now how many times have you made the same mistakes but actually been even luckier that there was no car there to hit/take avoiding action. If you want to make the roads safer you need to 1. Prosecute many more of the minor incidents - so there is an incentive to avoid the behaviour not the very rare consequence of death; 2. Ensure there are enough traffic officers (or indeed all cops are sufficiently instructed to deal with even minor RT matters) that you have a high liklihood of being caught for the minor not paying attention.

If you know anyone who would change their driving behaviour because the sentence for death by driving offences was tougher - I’d stop getting in a car with them and avoid being on the roads near them - they obviously expect one day to kill someone.

Also what is the point of suspending his 2 year sentence for two years? If he does something similar then it might kick in, but he’s banned from driving for 5 years!

What is the point in suspending any sentence? It’s not something that happens in Scotland and it often seems an anomaly to me. It certainly gives the public the impression that he got off. The judge can only use the tools he’s given; I’m sure in cases like this judges wish there was a better option. Oddly ankle tags and unpaid work / community payback might have been a better starting point but then I’m sure people here would be up in arms that the sentencing guidelines say it should be jail.

A 60 year old man with no previous convictions doesn’t sound like the sort to get in a car and drive whilst disqualified but he wouldn’t be the first, and this is a proper noose around his neck if he was to do that (if he does it after the suspended sentence is up he might get a community order or short prison sentence - but nothing like 2 yrs). In that sense the suspension is a real deterrent for him personally. And it’s not just driving offences if he’s down the pub, someone spills his pint and he gets in a heated argument and a few pushes are exchanged - he’s looking at jail, when you or I would probably get a caution or small fine. If he’s out on his bike (because he can’t drive) and someone close passes him and he catches the driver at the light and threatens to kill him - he’s looking at jail time. Essentially it’s saying to him: the court thinks you are capable of punishing yourself and learning your lesson for this but if you prove the court wrong by not being a model citizen for the next two years we will do what we originally would have done if we knew you were going to be a dick. It will also need to be declared on Visa applications, any insurance (not just driving), job applications that ask for it etc until it is spent (6 yrs IIRC for this). That’s not exactly the end of the world to a comfortably well off 60 yr old but is worth keeping in mind for the next case.

being insulated from the driving environment with all the auto bells and whistles we have now means people are just not engaged with the process.

Whilst I’m inclined to agree those “in the industry” of teaching drivers say that the test has continuously got tougher, and driving standard has not been relaxed despite being more traffic etc on the roads.

It used to be a skill held in high regard and you were proud to be ‘a good driver’ – not any more.

You don’t think maybe you are just becoming a grumpy old man? Who remembers things through rose tinted glasses? Because the population and number of cars on the road has increased but the number of fatalities is generally on a (slow) downward trend.

Intuitively I am in agreement with the idea of retests at regular intervals. But I’m not aware of any other country doing this. Does that mean that research suggests it’s probably not likely to be effective? I guess a simple “test” of the idea would be - are drivers who take a course for work (my wife has done various both theory and practical things to be allowed to drive company vehicles) or who have sat an additional test (minibus, trailer etc) are statistically less likely to be involved in accidents or convicted of road traffic offences? Or do they change their driving for a few hours to pass the assessment then revert back or improve for a couple of months and then the bad habits creep in?

Out of interest do those who advocate it go and book themselves in with a driving instructor every 5/10 years for a few hours to polish up their driving? If not why not?

Ok, so let’s assume we change the law to say that anyone who causes a fatal accident on our roads, through their bad driving gets a minimum 2 yr jail sentence. No ifs, no buts, no suspensions – just do not pass go, do not collect 200, go for jail as soon as convicted. What is the impact on the vast majority of people driving? NOTHING,

And of course what happens in these circumstance is people are more likely to try and defend a charge so put victims families and other witnesses through the trauma of a trial. Inevitably juries will be conscious they are sending someone to jail and even less likely to convict if they perceive that as excessive for the particular circumstances and as soon as that starts to happen defence lawyers will inevitably encourage even more clients to test the evidence.

i take issue with:

he’s put his hands up early and admitted it

some lessons in dealing with this type of situation as a driver, from this case:

On the scene say "I dont know"
I dont know how it happened, I dont know how i didnt see them, I dont know, idontknow
In the interview say "no comment" and rely on your lawyer to say that you were in shock and acting under advice so that your refusal to engage cant be used against you.
Then do nothing, absolutely nothing, at no time admit anything at all, the burden is entirely on the police to find evidence to provide to the CPS
When the case is built, take advice on the evidence against you and where there is no doubt, go "guilty" early

Soobalias - not sure which part of that you actually have an objection to. Do you expect him to:

1. At the scene say “shit I never saw them, I guess I must have been driving like a dick, throw the book at me”. If so I guess you’ve never spoken to anyone immediately after an incident - because unless they’ve knowingly done something wrong his response was pretty much what you’d expect from someone who didn’t see someone and hit them. He should have seen them but criticising someone who didn’t see something for being surprised is niave.

2.under caution, having never been in a police interview room, knowing you’ve just killed two people ignore the advice of the professional solicitor allocated to you. Anyone who says they would never give a no comment interview is either an idiot or has no appreciation of the terror of that situation. going nocomment then making a statement once calmed down is perfectly normal legal practice and he shouldn’t be criticised for it - to suggest otherwise is going to coerce people to incriminate themselves which is against the fundamental right to silence enshrined in almost every global legal system.

3. Throw away his fundamental right to be innocent till proven guilty before the police/prosecution have even considered other factors. As far as the court is concerned the “discount” for pleading guilty early comes when charges are formally laid at court and he’s asked to plead at court. He can’t formally plead guilty until that point. If it’s taken a year to get there it will almost certainly not be his fault.

Haven’t read the full story, but what did he plead guilty to? Death by dangerous driving?

if so, wouldn’t he’d be convicted and sentenced for the same? He really should be.

If his guilty plea was to the lesser offence then surely he would only have had the option of pleading guilty to that during the court case, so hardly ‘early’.

I’d be iterested to see what the victim’s families think of the sentence.

If they took the empathetic view that enough lives had been ruined, and didn’t want a severe sentence, then should be respected.

If, on the other hand, they wanted some retribution (one of the key aims of the criminal justice system), then hope they don’t feel let down by this. That would be a further kick in the teeth.

IMO, the root cause of this collision is buried deep in the system of driving that we consider "acceptable".

The fundamental reason the driver "failed to see" the two men he killed is actually simply because he failed to look properly. Unfortunately the incredibly low standard of driving tuition and skills we currrent consider acceptable in order to gain a licence to drive a device that can kill is, imo, far too low, and as a result, drivers "fail to look" and "fail to see" and then kill other people.

This is a technically easy problem to pretty much fix. So called "advanced" driving systems already have fixed this problem simply by teaching drivers to look properly using a system of driving specifically designed to allow for, and to minimise issues as a result of poor observation.

The social problem is that no politician could ever champion any law that would increase the difficulty of gaining a driving licence, because killing people with your car is such a minority event.

It is more license acquisition than any embedding of long lasting skills and knowledge.

Lets replace cyclists with ' children'. So the headline now reads, 2 children who were walking in the road were hit by a driver who, for whatever reason, stopped looking at where he was going.
They were both killed instantly, but didnt suffer.
Camt see the Faily Dail letting that go.
Is it (poly) like the usa where if you prosecute on a dangerous driving charge, and the judge disagrees, they get off scott free?
Sorry if I feel strongly about this. I do more hours on the road than mtb now . Am of a similar age and whilst i accept that it could happen, really hope it wont.

Company director eh? Good character references eh?

That speaks volumes of what's wrong with the criminal justice system...

If 99.99% of poor driving has no consequence, and at random .01% has extreme consequence that we consider intolerable, then clearly it is poor driving we need to stop tolerating instead of demanding extreme sentences for those who are simply unlucky in a system which supports poor driving.

Every speeding ticket should come with a sufficient ban to deter. Every red light transgression. Every close pass of pedestrians or cyclists. Every wander across the lanes while distracted. Every instance of tailgating. Etc. We would rapidly see the mayhem reduce if we stopped casually tolerating the behaviour which leads to tragedy in a tiny fraction of instances.

Is it (poly) like the usa where if you prosecute on a dangerous driving charge, and the judge disagrees, they get off scott free?

The CPS decide which charges to bring. They can prosecute for Dangerous driving and fall back on an alternative change of Careless (same way as the Jury can be given the option of finding manslaughter instead of murder). The CPS policy is here: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-charging

The rules for no case to answer north and south of the border are rather different. A judge will only “throw out” a case completely if there’s no case to answer on all charges (including the alternative like Careless) which have been presented.

I guess the obvious question then is why not try dangerous for everyone and hope some more stick?

- would that be fair? the prosecutor has a duty that is not to seek a conviction at all costs, they should only pursue cases where they believe there is a reasonable prospect of conviction in a dangerous case that probably means having actual evidence of the manner of driving rather than just an inference that it must have been dangerous for there to be a collision
- is that an efficient use of everyone’s time - if most of those trials would result in at best a careless conviction then tying up police officers, other witnesses, the court, the jury, and the families of the victims for a case with almost no hope is not efficient
- the consequences of a dangerous conviction are inevitable higher so more likely the defence fight it rather than plead guilty - with the possibility of some technical **** up so the guilt walk free or a jury doing something unpredictable
- defence lawyers can make off the record suggestions that their client might be willing to plead guilty to careless rather than dangerous, or if some words in the charge are amended/removed. Prosecutors have guidance on when to accept those.

As well as avoiding the possibility that they might get off scot free it avoids witnesses having to give evidence, which particularly for any non police witnesses can be pretty stressful, and means family members won’t sit in court day after day hearing the details of how their loved one died. In a case that may be borderline dangerous that has some value although CPS guidance is clear if the Dangerous charge has proper merit it should be pursued.

Haven’t read the full story, but what did he plead guilty to? Death by dangerous driving?

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing just be reading the unusually detailed reporting in the local news link.

if so, wouldn’t he’d be convicted and sentenced for the same? He really should be.

He can ONLY be sentenced for what he was found or pled guilty to - in this case Cuasing Death by Careless Driving

If his guilty plea was to the lesser offence then surely he would only have had the option of pleading guilty to that during the court case, so hardly ‘early’.

I don’t think he was ever charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving? You can only plead guilt to any offence once the case is before the court. Even if charged with Dangerous you can offer to plead to Careless at the first court hearing. As far as the judge is concerned (and the sentencing guidelines) that is the earliest opportunity and therefore the defendant can expect the maximum one third discount on his sentence. There’s a whole other debate on the merits of sentence discounting but most people in the system do seem to accept that there should be a difference in the outcome for someone who forces a case to go all the way through trial and those who avoid that.

I’d be iterested to see what the victim’s families think of the sentence.

If they took the empathetic view that enough lives had been ruined, and didn’t want a severe sentence, then should be respected.

If, on the other hand, they wanted some retribution (one of the key aims of the criminal justice system), then hope they don’t feel let down by this. That would be a further kick in the teeth.

The judge heard victim impact statements from the families. We don’t know exactly what they said but the judge acknowledged that they weren’t going to be pleased with the outcome. However that’s why we have judges, rather than just asking victims/families what to do with offenders.

The parents of Ryan Saltern were on the news this morning, raising awareness of #ryanslaw.

He was a 31 year old, walking to a party late one night and was struck by a car in a hit and run. He sadly died, and the driver was given a four month suspended sentence - charged with careless driving.

The parents want hit and run, failure to call 999 and failure to render aid to qualify as dangerous driving. I don't quite see how the two correlate to be honest, but I can understand why a parent would want something positive to come out of something so dark.

I see loads of people driving now distracted by CarPlay/Android Auto or whatever touchscreen system they have in their car. It's incredibly easy to be distracted by them, and I'd like to see a study into those systems being disabled over a certain speed or voice activated only. It would be a inconvenience to me too to be honest, but I imagine there is little question people are distracted by them at times at least as much as holding a phone.

The parents want hit and run, failure to call 999 and failure to render aid to qualify as dangerous driving. I don’t quite see how the two correlate to be honest

They don't. The key thing would have been was the driver driving dangerously when they hit them or were they driving carelessly. If they were driving dangerously and proven guilty of it then dangerous driving it is. Failing to call 999 or render aid are different things all together and while a consideration do not alter it.
The problem is usually not enough evidence to go for dangerous driving conviction isn't it?

They don’t. The key thing would have been was the driver driving dangerously when they hit them or were they driving carelessly. If they were driving dangerously and proven guilty of it then dangerous driving it is. Failing to call 999 or render aid are different things all together and while a consideration do not alter it.

I entirely agree with this. That's not to say that the combination of those two things doesn't warrant a similar net outcome though. Especially since, logically, failure to stop and give help can reasonably be expected to have a high chance of increasing the severity of harm to the victim.

Really they should rename the offences to help the public understand the difference. In common parlance of course if you killed someone your driving was dangerous but in court it has to fall FAR below the standard of a careful and competent driver AND be obvious that it would be dangerous. It’s quite tough to prove.

I kind of agree with this in the naming, but what I don't agree with is the widely used interpretation. To me, if someone says "yeah I was driving along a pretty straight road, nothing unusual going on, but I ploughed into someone, no idea why, maybe I wasn't paying attention?", then unless there's a plausible explanation for that other than 'was driving a car whilst NOT LOOKING AHEAD' then that absolutely qualifies as both 'far below' any reasonable expectation of driving standard and as 'obvious that it could cause harm'. I mean, ask anyone on the street "what might happen if you drive along without looking out of that big window in front of you?".

The parents of Ryan Saltern were on the news this morning, raising awareness of #ryanslaw.

I’m starting to find this trend of anyone who’s family member dies naming a campaign after them to change the law a bit worrying. Parliament love to respond to an emotional story like this but it’s rarely a well thought through change to the law.

He was a 31 year old, walking to a party late one night and was struck by a car in a hit and run. He sadly died, and the driver was given a four month suspended sentence – charged with careless driving.

I’ve not looked up the details but I’m guessing given the short sentence that the judge thought the manner of driving was not particularly bad.

The parents want hit and run, failure to call 999 and failure to render aid to qualify as dangerous driving. I don’t quite see how the two correlate to be honest, but I can understand why a parent would want something positive to come out of something so dark.

They don’t but you could make a new offence of death after failing to stop at the scene of an accident have similar punishments. Except failing to stop (with or without a death) is already imprisonable, is an aggrivating factor for death by careless, so not sure there is anything meaningful going to change - because the standard defence / mitigation (which I suspect will have been trotted out here) is “I didn’t realise I’d hit a person, I thought it was an animal, there was nowhere safe to stop at the point of impact”. Imagine if you had a new law and the outcome was actually that the person gets off because there is reasonable doubt about whether they were aware of a collision!

Agree with all of that, Poly.

Threads like this and the court of social media generally show a correlation between the smallest understanding of the facts of a case and the strongest emotional response to an outcome... It's become a human condition, only accelerated with online.

I don't know the facts of this case but do think the judge went to work each day wanting to find the right outcome based on the facts presented; and I believe in a well established process for when the court gets it wrong.

I ride on the road, and my two kids ride to school, about 3 miles each way. I really do worry about how easily distracted drivers can be - but don't know what we do about that without a technological solution. I don't think we'll change behavior through education.

Except failing to stop (with or without a death) is already imprisonable

The woman who hit me and drove off almost went to prison. Had she not had a 5 year old, she would have spent six months at her majesty's pleasure. She went packed for the trip. Failure to stop is mitigated by reporting within 24hrs. In my case, she left me for dead (unconscious for 30 minutes), denied all knowledge, covered up, hid the vehicle, pled not guilty until the very last minute and changed her plea only when it was obvious that she was guilty and was likely facing prison. Instead, she received 200 hours community service. That was the maximum after she changed her plea.

If you do not complete the order, you still go to prison. I was satisfied with that sentence. I thought she could have spent some of those hours marshalling the Surrey League races that passed her house - I used to point out the dents on her Merc every time we lapped it 😉

Some sensible comments up there. As ever, it's lack of evidence and therefore enforcement that's the issue.

Some sensible comments up there. As ever, it’s lack of evidence and therefore enforcement that’s the issue.

Which is why I think every motor vehicle should be fitted with cameras both internal and external - the lorry driver who killed a family on the A34 only admitted guilt after being shown the in cab footage of him choosing music on his phone.

It is the lack of retributive justice in this case that irks.

The discount for early plea is also irksome because it took so long to bring a charge (just over a year).

The CPS generally have to make a charging decision within 24 hours of arrest. Soon after there is a committal hearing where the defendant has the opportunity to make a plea. That seems a more logical case for the application of discounting for an early guilty plea, not when the charge is only agreed many months (or years in this case) after the offence.

The driver could count himself lucky he wasn't remanded whilst the CPS decided what charge to bring. I know that this isn't the process, just making a point that Mr Rennie didn't even get a ban until July this year, so he's had a year's free driving which I'd count as a decent discount in the circumstances.

Driving offences and sentences are definitely worthy of some review as the 'outrage' is far too common.

@iamtheresurection - I had a moment on a conference call earlier where I was bored - so looked up the Ryan Saltern case... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-53686401. Not quite your classic death by careless driving case.

It is the lack of retributive justice in this case that irks.

Why do we want retribution though? What is it we are trying to punish? To my mind, retribution is probably better linked to the degree of Culpability behind the actions. Fine is someone makes a conscious decision to do something stupid - punish them hard, but someone who we have to assume was just in zombie-driver mode (like most people are driving the same road time and time again - is there anyone here who has never fallen into that complacency trap?)

The discount for early plea is also irksome because it took so long to bring a charge (just over a year).

I assure you that will 99.9% not be anything to do with the driver. The courts are bursting. The prosecution is bursting. They have been since before covid and they've got worse through huge government budget cuts. He could have walked into a CPS office and said "I beg you to start proceedings against me, in fact if you make it a full dangerous charge I'll plead guilty to that, I just want it over with" and it would almost certainly not have gone any quicker!

The CPS generally have to make a charging decision within 24 hours of arrest.

No they don't! They can't keep you in custody longer than 24 hrs without special justification but they certainly don't have to decide if they are charging you. From the press reports at the time its not clear that the driver was even arrested - he was "helping the police with their enquiries".

Soon after there is a committal hearing where the defendant has the opportunity to make a plea. That seems a more logical case for the application of discounting for an early guilty plea, not when the charge is only agreed many months (or years in this case) after the offence.

.

As far as I can see the history is:

Collision 1st June 2020
Charged (by post) 15th July 2021
The charge required the accused to appear at magistrates court on 20th August 2021
There the accused was "committed" to appear on the 14th October 2021
Formally pleads guilty on October 14th 2021, sentence deferred for reports
Sentenced at Crown Court on 12th November.

I'm not an expert in the English system but I don't think there's an expectation that the accused pleads (and may not even be able to plead?) at the first hearing in a magistrates court if the case is going to the Crown Court.

Reading between the lines of the Judge's comments - in the first police interview (presumably a few hours after the collision) the accused gave a "no comment" interview. Its his right to do so, and late at night after an event anyone would find traumatic (or perhaps early the next morning after probably little sleep) I'm not sure you'd find many defence lawyers suggesting you do anything else. Once you've calmed down had a chance to discuss properly with the solicitor then you can give a full response. The judge implies that he did that fairly soon afterwards - that could be the next day or it may be a few days later. There's no suggestion it was months or a year later (it would be rather odd if it was as his statement probably helps the police if they haven't got enough to proceed by then).

The driver could count himself lucky he wasn’t remanded whilst the CPS decided what charge to bring. I know that this isn’t the process, just making a point that Mr Rennie didn’t even get a ban until July this year, so he’s had a year’s free driving which I’d count as a decent discount in the circumstances.

Your point is ridiculous though. Not least because CPS can't remand you whilst they fanny around deciding what charge to bring. They can charge you and bail you, charge you and bring to court for the magistrates to decide if you get remanded or they can charge you by post as they did in this case. The idea that someone is held in custody for months whilst the CPS get their act together is abhorent - and keep in mind that plenty of people would end up in that boat who would never end up charged with an offence that might result in custody.

But the judge doesn't get to make up his mind on arbitrary factors about discounts like "well he's not been banned in the meantime (whilst the CPS couldn't even decide if there was an offence committed!)", he has to follow the guidelines, and that's important because when he says to his solicitor "look I can't explain what happened, I see why that means they are prosecuting for careless driving, what are the chances the jury let me off? any what sentence am I likely to get" the solicitor has to be able to have a realistic way to guide the client. Otherwise, he'd be saying - "look the odds of you getting off are not great, but the sentence probably won't be that much worse so you might as well roll the dice".

It is easy to argue about being tougher when it's only guilty people that are under consideration - but consider the situation of the "second driver" in the Saltern case above. He's hit someone who was already lying in the road. The person dies. He's stopped at the scene so now the police have a suspect for a Death by Careless Driving Case. Does he get locked up for months whilst the case is investigated and the facts established?

Poly, I wasn't advocating remand and it would be 'abhorrent' if I was. My response was deliberately obtuse and flippant, apologies. It's a frustration with a terrible loss of life on a road I've cycled along and disappointment that we continue to see similar catastrophes and similar reactions to sentences. In case you couldn't tell, I feel the driver got off lightly, even though I fully acknowledge that the appropriate legal process has been followed.

And just for the record, quite satisfied that the judge did his job.

But it is ridiculous and abhorrent to the accused and those impacted that the CPS have taken more than a year to bring a charge when so many other serious criminal cases see charges bought within 24 hours of arrest, with significantly more serious consequences to boot.

'Better' offences would mean the CPS could charge more quickly and consistently and better reflect the consequences.

The fact that the families are acknowledged to be uneasy with the sentence shows that the retributive aspect of the sentence is flawed, even if the guidelines have been followed. We see similar reactions in similar cases, with pedestrian and cyclist fatalities most commonly generating a 'life's too cheap' sentiment. That's not just on cycling forums btw 😉

This suggests the law isn't meeting a societal need. The offences are more than 20 years old, and with driver aids and autonomous driving coming along, it's probably well worth the Law Commission taking a look soon.

The crux is whether convictions / sentencing should be based on lapses in judgement or the outcomes of those lapses. Punishing on the lapses alone is causing the disquiet. I can absolutely see why that is, and I don't think you need to be an authoritarian to feel uncomfortable.

As for the second driver in Saltern, I don't really see the issue. As I said at the top, I really wasn't advocating locking people up until charges are decided. However, the second driver could well have been charged within 24 hours (before the existence of the first driver was known about). But those charges would have been dropped when the facts came to light. That's pretty standard as I'm sure you are aware, and happens in cases of remand offences too sadly.

The Ryan Saltern case was debated -
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-11-15/debates/2F33B858-4F79-42CA-9544-790886B089C1/RoadTrafficOffencesFatalCollisions

‘Better’ offences would mean the CPS could charge more quickly and consistently and better reflect the consequences.

Not really, the CPS decision will be based on the material in the case file prepared by the police, an incident such as this is going to require a lot of time consuming investigation and forensic analysis, probably by a very poorly resourced traffic unit. The idea of a 24 hour turnaround is ridiculous unless CPS are just going to start firing out holding charges which would/ could be an abuse of process or human rights; charging someone without carrying out a full or proper investigation and therefore the state not being able to clearly articulate the reasoning.

Sometimes “ serious criminal cases” are “quite easy” and 24hrs is doable (or 36 after an extension), man with a bag of drugs, a gun, or a dead body job done. Multi faceted investigations with a number of different charges, necessary forensics, all in a creaking system etc less so.