[Closed] Lying to DVLA (Glasgow deaths content)

If he lied to obtain employment, that could be prosecuted as fraud. Pecuniary advantage by deception and all that jazz. (Am assuming the same act applies in Scotchlandshire. IANAL, etc)

But it is being reported that no prosecutions will be made - and the inquiry has been told that formally.

Only the family are to bring a private action.

Only the family are to bring a private action.

which they seem to be doing

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-33959101 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-33959101[/url]

Given that you're supposed to declare health issues and surrender your licence if you're not fit to drive, I don't see why knowingly driving with a health issue which would lose you your licence isn't considered as driving without a licence.

Before this came to light I was having the same debate with my parents over one of them continuing to drive despite clearly suffering from conditions which should see a licence handed in.

Maybe that's where the DVLA reluctance comes from - it opens a can of worms on all the self certifying drivers who shouldn't still be drivers.

Good point re the worms, but I think the key difference here is the 'professional' nature of the driver. Doddery old biddies aren't paid to be doddery old biddies.

I would be greatly surprised, not to mention hugely upset, if this does not lead to a significant change in the regulations concerning fitness to drive and the availability of information to those making decisions. In days gone by the confidentiality of the doctor patient relationship was protected by making the patient responsible for informing the DVLA if doubts existed about their fitness to drive. On occasion that caused doctors real difficulties. Although there has been some movement on that in recent years I suspect that the fundamental concept of leaving it to the patient has just become untenable.

My Father In Law runs a coach company, he's 75 on Wednesday & every year he has to do a treadmill test to keep his PSV license.
He is of the opinion that all drivers that are not disabled should have to take this test and a more stringent eyesight check every year.

In the last 5 years he has informed DVLA of 4 people he knew that should not be driving. His reasoning was he didn't want some idiot that was clearly unfit to be driving sharing the roads with me on a bike.

I know he might be looking at it from the point of who is looking after his daughter but I admire his stance.

What will come out of is a massive compliance back-lash that will mean an awful lot of money is spent setting up yet another set of systems plus annual licencing costs for ALL 'professional' drivers. Impacting probably 1m drivers?

All because of a few...

http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/index/information-and-services/motoring/driving-for-a-living/driving-at-work.htm

(Am assuming the same act applies in Scotchlandshire. IANAL, etc)

It doesnt, but the law is similar enough to support your argument, I think, IANAL 😛

I would be greatly surprised, not to mention hugely upset, if this does not lead to a significant change in the regulations concerning fitness to drive

This +1

The CPS/Scottish Equivalent may not feel that there was enough evidence to try for a prosecution for any offence (which given the Scottish "not proven" option seems odd) but hopefully this tragedy will see a review of how [u]everyones[/u] competence to drive is checked and assessed.

IANAL or Scottish, before anyone starts on me....

b r is bang on.

I don't think in this instance it would have made much, if any, difference at all, but I really don't like the idea of vehicles of that size and weight doing 30mph through town centres. The town I live in has an express coach to Glasgow, a huge long double decker type that rattles through town every 20 minutes at at least 30mph (ever seen a bus driver pulled for speeding?) and it's actually quite unnerving having it so close to packed pavements.

God knows what the stopping distance on vehicles of that ilk are.

The Glasgow incident is a horrible situation all round, especially for all the families of the victims. As much as he's lied, I feel for the driver too, having that on his conscience.

What I don't understand is that they may delay the inquiry if there is a private prosecution, so that the driver doesn't have to say anything which might incriminate himself. Yet the Crown Office/DVLA with the evidence of his lying are still unwilling to prosecute, so what evidence would they need to carry out a prosecution. Either they are saying that withholding that information isn't a criminal offence, or the word of half a dozen doctors isn't enough to mount a prosecution. Doesn't make sense to me.

The more that comes about about this guy, the more it makes me want him to spend the rest of his life in jail because he clearly doesn't give a shit about the people he killed and cant wait to get behind the wheel again!

THE DRIVER of a Glasgow bin lorry that veered out of control killing six people asked for his HGV licence to be restored less than four months after the fatal crash, an inquiry has heard.

Seems they've set a precedence now. No need to declare any illness or medical conditions you have to your employer or the DVLA. Drive HGVs with uncontrolled Diabetes, Sleep Apnoea or Severe Cardiac issues as lying is fine.

Lawyers really don't care what happens as long as they win.

The guy who caused the Selby rail crash through lack of sleep got a prison sentence, it's hard to understand that they could prosecute him but not the driver in this case.

It could and does happen to anyone whether they lied or not. There must be quite a few dodgy drivers out there avoiding the issue in the same way. But then there are also millions of very healthy drivers that just drive like cocks and kill way more people all the time.

Tragic.

I'm also going intrigued as to why Crown Office and the DVLA have both decided not to prosecute. There may be a sound legal reason for this, but if so they need to publish it.

IANACHiPS

As much as he's lied, I feel for the driver too, having that on his conscience.

I would feel sorry for him if it just happened

however he had done this before, lied about it and continued driving
the result was entirely foreseeable by HIM
We will send a sleepy driver to prison but let this deliberately and wilfully neglectful "professional" get away with it.7
Anyone know why the CPS decided not to prosecute?
Best I heard was "criminal intent" at the time of the accident. I assume he had criminal intent when he lied to get a licence and job

lightman - where is that quote from?

thegreatape - Member
I'm also going intrigued as to why Crown Office and the DVLA have both decided not to prosecute. There may be a sound legal reason for this, but if so they need to publish it.

Eh? I don't get it, well I do but don't get why they are not going to prosecute 😕

JY, I'm not aware of the reasons not to being made public, although I haven't looked that hard. COPFS website perhaps?

It could and does happen to anyone whether they lied or not.

Far more likely if you have a medical condition that causes you black out.

bikebouy - I don't understand either, I can't see any obvious reason for not doing anything.

having that on his conscience.

This would be the same conscience that thought blacking out at the wheel was mutually compatible with driving large vehicles for a living.

I'm not defending him in any way footflaps, just my thoughts.

steveoath, I read about it on the BBC site, but just did a quick Google and I think that quote was from the Daily Record.

Edit:[url= https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=THE+DRIVER+of+a+Glasgow+bin+lorry+that+veered+out+of+control+killing+six+people+asked+for+his+HGV+licence+to+be+restored+less+than+four+months+after+the+fatal+crash,+an+inquiry+has+heard.&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&gws_rd=ssl ]Googling the quote.[/url]

Anyone know why the CPS decided not to prosecute?

As I understand it, and this is recollecting something I read a little while ago, I've not got time to look for a source and therefore apologies if I've got this wrong, but the decision not to prosecute was made in advance of the inquiry, and a large driver for that was to ensure that people (the driver, but also his employers) felt able to give frank and honest evidence to the inquiry. The alternative being that the driver etc. would have taken the stand and refused to answer any of the questions put to them for fear of incriminating themselves.

However, when I read this, it was reported as just covering Scotland, so the possibility was raised that the DVLA could take action in a different jurisdiction (England / Wales). Seems from the posts here that this has moved on and that won't now be happening?

I guess that whoever made the decision to promise no prosecution didn't anticipate how it's since gone with the evidence that's emerged..

[url= https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim ]This is the Twitter of the journalist following the case.[/url]

Cheers for the answers

It could and does happen to anyone whether they lied or not. There must be quite a few dodgy drivers out there avoiding the issue in the same way.

What is your point here ? You have just stated a fact and ignored, as Drac notes, that it was almost a certainty he would black out AGAIN behind the wheel of a vehicle. That is probably why he lied about it to get employment.
Whether othe roflk ignore th elaw and act irresponsibly is not justification for it

There are also plenty of drivers getting pissed and driving , not having insurance , speeding , bald tyres etc.

Cheers lightman. Ridiculous.

ISTR what edlong wrote. Also in the interests of the victims affected to speed things up.

In 2010 two young woman were killed 300 yards from the location of the bin lorry crash. Again a driver with a history of blackouts. Again not disclosed to the DVLA. Again not prosecuted.

Really, why bother making laws about DVLA disclosure when you can break them, kill people, and not face prosecution. It isn't justice.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/blackout-driver-who-collapsed-wheel-5337602

I think this chap is a lawyer, and Scottish too. His opinion...

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/harry-clarke-and-criminal-letters.html

If you believe slowoldgit's link, a private prosecution looks unlikely. But, IANAL, what about a civil claim for damages? I think in English law (Scots law may be different) civil cases have a lower burden of proof, 'balance of probability' rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt' for criminal.

I do not understand why there is not a criminal prosecution. He had a history of blackouts inc when driving a bus. He should have had no driving licence at all never mind a commercial licence.

If you think that [i]someone[/i] told the DVLA to wind in their neck, what chance has a private prosecution? Though maybe, after the legal dust has settled, it could go ahead?

Fitness to drive rules are sadly a joke. My dad's going blind, he stopped driving at night voluntarily ages ago, cut his daytime driving massively and kept it local, then eventually decided to stop entirely. Finally the doctor says right, you're unfit to drive- tell the DVLA. I know there's a reporting system in place for some conditions because he got an automatic suspension when he had a TIA but apparently not for being blind as a ****ing bat.

I'm diabetic, so I get a 3 yearly medical and licence renewal- good idea. But the assessment is fundamentally flawed- the key questions are about unsymptomatic hypo attacks, and hypos where you needed outside assistance. I'd had both of those in the previous years, because of alcohol in some cases and being asleep in others- so if they'd affected my driving, I'd have had bigger problems! But apparently they're declarable. Idiotic. So my doctor, how to put it, advises people on how to answer in order to make the system work as it should.

Shit like that removes all faith in the system, people are basically pushed towards lying in order to avoid risking being suspended for no reason. And once people start doing that, you're bollocksed.

I do not understand why there is not a criminal prosecution. He had a history of blackouts inc when driving a bus. He should have had no driving licence at all never mind a commercial licence.

Perhaps there should be a prosecution, but there's a good argument that it should be Glasgow City Council being prosecuted for corporate manslaughter.

[quote=oldbloke ]Maybe that's where the DVLA reluctance comes from - it opens a can of worms on all the self certifying drivers who shouldn't still be drivers.

It's a can of worms which needs opening IMHO.

Several diabetic drivers have been prosecuted having caused a death, e.g. [url= http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/diabetic-driver-who-killed-mum-3350552 ]in Liverpool[/url] and [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-12208458 ]in Chester[/url]
Why does Scottish law / this case seem to be different?

I probably should add that there is no suggestion that the lorry driver is diabetic, but the principle of some sort of medical condition and collapse seems similar

liar liar pants on fire has royally kicked a whole bunch of folks in the essentials.. i ve had my licenced 'revoked' twice.. once when i had a heart op for 30 days and the latest 6 years ago when i had a TIA

i declare them to the insurers who could nt care less. i would nt declare them to an employer as in my experience i would nt get a job.. thats not my experience of not getting a job because of them but my experience of vetting health questionaires at job application stage for a a large business where every little helps

i quite happily worked for that company for 20 years and in total had one absence of 12 weeks for the heart op and even after the tia i went to work every day.. i just had to take a couple of buses.. yet my direction was very clear in black and white.. no heart operations no tia victims to be employed.. plus a load of other conditions..

some folks make use of been 'ill' others just get on and live.. what we have to do is understand where the line is of getting on and keeping safe..

They jumped the gun at the beginning of all of this when they said there would be no criminal prosecution, now knowing what they know, they can't go back on their original decision.

Facebook was alight at the beginning of all of this defending the driver to the hilt, that's all strangely went quiet now

It's no wonder the families are proceeding with a private prosecution

Does the private prosecution (if it were to go ahead) carry the same weight as if the state had prosecuted him?

I too can't understand how he can be prosecuted by the state for this. I can understand him wanting employment but surely he could have done something else instead of putting others at risk!

bencooper - Member

Perhaps there should be a prosecution, but there's a good argument that it should be Glasgow City Council being prosecuted for corporate manslaughter.

Is a good point - i've read excerpts from the HR people at the council's testimonies & there seems to be no proof of any references being checked, and certainly no paper copies or otherwise held on file... GCC has been accused plenty of times in the past as having serious problems with well, "jobs for the boys" type attitude & i'm wondering if someone's put in a good word for him which effectively circumvented the whole vetting process...

my understanding is that the offence of failing to notifiy DVLA of a medical condition carries an absolute 3 year time bar (as does a whole host of motoring offences) This guy as had blackouts for a lot longer than that. As tragic as this whole situation is there doesnt appear to be an indictable offence.

They jumped the gun at the beginning of all of this when they said there would be no criminal prosecution, now knowing what they know, they can't go back on their original decision.

Thing is, they did know what they now know - no new information has come out during the enquiry, the PF had all the relevant information at the time.

Perhaps there should be a prosecution, but there's a good argument that it should be Glasgow City Council being prosecuted for corporate manslaughter

I am not arguing their were failings on theior part , as there are when someone falls victim to any scam/fraud, but why blame them for what he did[not] do?

GCC busy with other matters. Like nicking stuff...

[img] [/img]

I think it was clear from the start that there was an investigation required, and the best way to ensure all the answers were found was to ensure there was incentive to be open and honest, and not try to hide anything.

If there was threat of prosecution people/organisations would have kept quiet unless to answer direct questions, and that could well have meant things got missed. Hopefully with a more open investigation lessons will be learnt and positive action can be taken. It may (should!) result in organisations reviewing their current procedures and re-assessing existing employees.

Its very sad that those who lost their lives or loved ones may not receive what they want as justice, but hopefully some positives can be taken as a result on the inquiry.

Perhaps there should be a prosecution, but there's a good argument that it should be Glasgow City Council being prosecuted for corporate manslaughter

SO he can lie to them /not disclose information and then they get prosecuted. Why ?
I am not arguing their were failings on theior part , as there are when someone falls victim to any scam/fraud, but why blame them for what he did[not] do?

Depends if they were wilfully negligent in their checks? Afterall they were the ones who gave him access to a large potentially dangerous vehicle.

There were plenty of calls for skip-lorry companies to be prosecuted when drivers have been found without the correct licences.

I feel for the driver too, having that on his conscience.

If he had any sort of concience, he would not have lied to drive a massive vehicle in a city centre knowing that we could blackout and kill people at any time..

I find it staggering that he is not in court fighting for his liberty.

If I ever want to kill anybody, my weapon of choice will be a vehicle. Easy to access, easy to kill, easy to get away with it.

[quote=franksinatra ]If I ever want to kill anybody, my weapon of choice will be a vehicle. Easy to access, easy to kill, easy to get away with it.

Make sure you "have a blackout", work for the public sector and kill enough people that an investigation is required.

Make sure you "have a blackout", work for the public sector and kill enough people that an investigation is required

or make sure that the victim is riding a bike, as that also seems a sure fire way of getting away with it.

Yeah, but most of them at least see the inside of a courtroom from the dock.

Roll on self driving lorries.

If this doesn't result in some prosecution maybe it will at least result in some change of law.

Depends if they were wilfully negligent in their checks? Afterall they were the ones who gave him access to a large potentially dangerous vehicle

he lied/act fraudently/was deceptive and knew the danger/risk he posed to others; they were simply ioncompetent

I am not saying they should not be prosecuted but to ONLY prosecute them is bonkers

Finally the doctor says right, you're unfit to drive- tell the DVLA. I know there's a reporting system in place for some conditions because he got an automatic suspension when he had a TIA but apparently not for being blind as a ****ing bat.

Mate was training as an optician, one of a few reasons he decided to knock it in, didn't want that on his conscience.

As for the driver, looking at it another way maybe he really thought he was fine? I'm not defending him in any way shape or form but there is always another side to the story. Plenty of people are in denial as to how bad their health really is, maybe he was one of them.

I genuinely don't believe he ever set out to do this, I don't believe he thought it would happen either. Obviously we all know differently now.

As for this public enquiry throwing up nothing new, I'd say there is a strong case for a review of notifiable mdical conditions and how they are managed, wouldn't you? Like how did he even have a licence in the first place never mind get a job with that history? I hope the DVLA get taken to task on this as well as GCC.

Perhaps there should be a prosecution, but there's a good argument that it should be Glasgow City Council being prosecuted for corporate manslaughter.

FWIW I think the driver was less in denial about his health and more in need of work. So he lied / covered up his health issues.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/03/motorist-kills-second-cyclist-edinburgh ]make sure that the victim is riding a bike, as that also seems a sure fire way of getting away with it. [/url]

As suspected, with a private prosecution hanging over his head, the driver is not really answering many questions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34000965

I am still struggling to understand how the authorities though that there was not enough evidence, or that it was not in the interests of state or victims to prosecute.

I wonder if it was so he'd be able to answer questions during the enquiry without fear of being prosecuted for what he said?

Still daft, though.

It is a fatal accident enquiry. The outcome is to ensure the systems are in place that this can never happen again. Prosecuting the guy would mean that can't happen.

Now he is in an impossible situation, as some of the families want to prosecute him privately he cannot say anything that would incriminate himself. Not all of the families want him prosecuted.

The press and public witch hunt is appalling and counterproductive. He is obviously totally distraught and has said so.

The press and public witch hunt is appalling and counterproductive. He is obviously totally distraught and has said so.

I don't know, he killed a load of people because he wasn't fit to drive and lied about it. I imagine the majority of drink drivers that injure or kill people are distraught about it and didn't mean to, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for it. He knew he shouldn't drive, yet he lied about his history to secure a job driving large vehicles.

I think the public and press need to be more witch hunty, so that people begin to realise that driving comes with responsibility, and isn't a god-given right. Hopefully if there are people out there with similar conditions who think, "I'll be fine", the publicity surrounding the case might make them think twice before getting behind the wheel.

He was so distraught that he tried to get his HGV licence back after the crash.

Staggering that he's not facing criminal charges.

The press and public witch hunt is appalling and counterproductive

I don't see what's counterproductive

I agree that the guy should be before the courts but there does seem to be some lawyer grandstanding going on asking a bloke repeatedly to apologise knowing full well that he can't for fear of incriminating himself.
Fatal accident inquiry should have been delayed until the question of criminal charges was dealt with properly.

Someone elsewhere made the point that if he'd accepted he couldn't continue driving, he'd have the usual problems with benefits and there's no re-training, thanks to that nice Ian Duncan Smith.

They may have been jumping on the bandwagon, but it seems a fair viewpoint.

There was a case near me, when a chap was killed by a truck driver drifting off. ISTR sleep apnea was involved, and the driver did time.

martinhutch - Member

I agree that the guy should be before the courts but there does seem to be some lawyer grandstanding going on asking a bloke repeatedly to apologise knowing full well that he can't for fear of incriminating himself.

I've no sympathy for him but not just this, the reporting of that part is pretty awful. This:

"Mr Clarke, I would give you the chance to say 'I'm sorry I told lies in April 2010 and I know and accept that those lies led to the deaths of those innocent people' Can you say that Mr Clarke?" He replied: "No I can't say that."

Gets reported as "refuses to say sorry". That's not refusing to say sorry, that's refusing to incriminate himself, it's not the same.

It's shitey lawyer games, with the families in the court room bearing the brunt. The same lawyer asked him outright if he was deterred from answering questions by the threat of public prosecution- ie, while calling for honest answers and apologies and making noises about helping the family, is totally aware that it's their lawyering that makes that so unlikely. 2 different sorts of **** on opposite sides of the room, this.

[quote=cbike ]It is a fatal accident enquiry. The outcome is to ensure the systems are in place that this can never happen again. Prosecuting the guy would mean that can't happen.

Prosecuting drivers who lie about their medical disorders would appear to be part of the system which needs to be in place to ensure this can never happen again. I should point out that by that I mean all drivers who lie about their medical disorders, not just ones who kill people due to them.

[quote=martinhutch ]I agree that the guy should be before the courts but there does seem to be some lawyer grandstanding going on asking a bloke repeatedly to apologise knowing full well that he can't for fear of incriminating himself.

I think to some extent a point is being made by asking questions which he knows aren't going to be answered. Yes it is lawyer games, but lawyer games with a point (ISTR some case where the whole point of calling one witness was to get him to refuse to answer questions).

Fatal accident inquiry should have been delayed until the question of criminal charges was dealt with properly.

Which is presumably what would have happened if the PF had brought a criminal case - as discussed it seems that a FAI could have been held after such a trial with no resulting legal problems from the driver answering questions fully. Therefore it looks as if one reason behind not bringing charges was in order to have a FAI sooner - if so that appears to be a major blunder. Some top prosecutor was making similar points, it's not just us amateurs here thinking like that.

Even the prospect of a private prosecution should have brought things to a swift stop. The purpose of the FAI is to establish facts - but this is a bit of a circus. This bloke had no way of defending himself (it may be he has no defence, of course.)

What new facts exactly are we expecting? We know he had a history of blackouts. we know had history of lying to the DVLA, his employers, and his doctors. We know 6 people are dead because of his lies.

As in the case of the Selby rail crash this guy should have been prosecuted.

Indeed - whether or not he will admit to telling lies and apologise is somewhat incidental. I suppose it's only if there's something about the incident itself he could tell us, but might incriminate him where there would be something to gain. But from the available evidence it seems he doesn't remember anything about it.

Basically it boils down to this - if you're negligent and someone dies, then you're not guilty. Only if you're reckless could you be guilty. That's the summary of a long Twitter conversation I had with a Scottish lawyer last night.

Which is why there was a point made about how the driver couldn't have known he'd black out [u]on that particular day[/u]. If he had known he would, then he was reckless, as he didn't he was only negligent and therefore not guilty.

Which is why there was a point made about how the driver couldn't have known he'd black out on that particular day. If he had known he would, then he was reckless, as he didn't he was only negligent and therefore not guilty.

But isn't reckless to drive when you know you have a history of unexpected blackouts, when you've been told that you shouldn't drive large vehicles by a doctor? The fact that he's tried to get his HGV license back after wiping out a load of people demonstrates a certain lack of perspective...

Basically it boils down to this - if you're negligent and someone dies, then you're not guilty. Only if you're reckless could you be guilty. That's the summary of a long Twitter conversation I had with a Scottish lawyer last night.

Which is why there was a point made about how the driver couldn't have known he'd black out on that particular day. If he had known he would, then he was reckless, as he didn't he was only negligent and therefore not guilty.

Is that a peculiarity of Scots law? The logical extension of that means you could never be prosecuted for a crash caused by known medical issue which causes fits or blackouts at the wheel unless they were a predictable daily occurrence. Surely if you know that you have such an issue, you are both negligent [b]and [/b]reckless to the potential consequences every time you take the wheel, regardless or not of whether you happen to black out and kill someone on that day?

^^^Wot they say

If say I was an epileptic then the exact timing of any blackout is not predictable but its occurrence is predictable

He lied to get a job as he knew no one would employ him with that history.
His blackout was entirely foreseeable as it was not a one off.

I have also read what bencooper said, that the basis for not prosecuting him for a driving offence was that he couldn't have reasonably predicted that he would collapse on that day (in contrast, say, to someone who set off on a journey when obviously overtired, so knew they were not safe to drive on that day, which was IIRC the crux of the Selby prosecution).

What wasn't clear from what I read is whether or not that decision was based on case law or some sort of legal precedent, or if was simply COPFS's speculation as to what decision would be reached in court. If the former, there isn't much more they could have done. If the latter, I don't see why the question 'isn't reckless to drive when you know you have a history of unexpected blackouts, when you've been told that you shouldn't drive large vehicles by a doctor?' shouldn't be decided by a court. I don't find 'he wouldn't have known he would collapse on [u]that day[/u]' a satisfactory basis on which to conclude he wasn't careless or dangerous. As I say though, if case law exists then COPFS have their hands tied on that matter.

This relates only to careless/dangerous driving and not any DVLA/fraud/pecuniary advantage offences lying to the DVLA or GCC may have involved.