Acklam_Lad
Well-known member
it was an A1 call.... the shout goes out to any first responders with the intention of getting anyone First Responder trained to the scene.
PC Mark Roberts
- Thread starter Mayor_Houchens_Underpants
- Start date
Andy_W
Well-known member
Yeah I get it, but who says those controls are correct, for all situations? It's impossible for controls like this to be correct in each situation, so there's always going to be some "manual assessment".
Could have also been held up for another minute and the person died, it was a grade 1 emergency etc.
Apparently the junction was clear when he decided to go through, and sped up to make sure he got through, but the bike entered the junction late etc, if he was was going slower he still might have hit them? Bikes are not exactly easy to see at the best of times, and probably would have got away with it if it was a car.
I wouldn't be surprised if nearly all emergency services are doing things like this all the time, the problem is of course when it goes wrong like this, it's all over the news. There won't be any news about where people have been saved by 10, 30, 60 seconds etc.
Andy_W
Well-known member
It wasn't going to get there quick enough apparently, not sure how far behind it was mind, obviously if someone's choking then every second matters.
Nero
Well-known member
I suppose the information you mention was considered by the Judge though, and potentially resulted in the lower sentence. It’s a terrible situation, and the police and public probably lost a very good Police Officer. Hopefully he doesn’t do more than half and can try to rebuild his life.
Andy_W
Well-known member
Yeah, no doubt. I think the minimum term is 2 years anyway, for "death by dangerous driving", and he probably got the other 3 months for the "serious injury by dangerous driving" part. This was probably the minimum the judge could give out realistically.
One of those where the judge is probably not feeling to great about it too, when he's no doubt also being practically forced to let repeat offenders back out onto the street each week.
Johnny Vincents Motorbike
Well-known member
He'll get the sack as well off the cops - misconduct, plus he cant fulfil his employment contract as he is banged up for Death & Injury.
Counter_Press
Well-known member
The CPS?
It would have to be authorised by and made in the name of the Attorney General by way of a reference but the CPS would do it.
The Court of Appeal would decide if any sentence was unduly lenient.
I think they'd have to do so via the Attorney General, a political appointee. AG is supposed to act independently in such matters.
Edit - posted before seeing above post
FishofContemplation
Well-known member
I think that’s broadly true to be fair, although it’s not a minimum term just a guideline. The only technical detail is that when it’s in the same incident like this, it wouldn’t be normal to have the sentences reckoned consecutively.
I doubt he’s letting repeated offenders who have killed as a consequence of their offence back out on the street each week. Causing death by dangerous driving is a serious offence. It should be seen as such. This is a dreadful situation. But a custodial sentence should be the default when you kill a fellow human being in a criminally culpable manner.
Heam44
Well-known member
Really don’t agree this fella should be going to prison. Doesn’t need rehabilitation, society doesn’t need protecting from him.
Personally don’t think he should have even lost his job (think he’d have to have went into a role whereby he wasn’t required to respond to emergencies though).
There is a stark difference between the circumstances of this incident and most other incidents of causing death by dangerous driving whereby the suspects are often a combination of intoxicated, driving at incredibly high speeds, make no attempt to help the people they have injured etc etc
In contrast, - this chap was trying to save a baby’s life.
What most people will not have considered (including perhaps the judge ) is what will likely have been in this officers mind whilst he was attending the incident.
As well driving through traffic etc, he will have been trying to remember the way to the location / work out the best route / follow his sat nav to the address, obviously not wanting to make a wrong turn.
Listening to the radio for updates, eg. often people in such circumstances will leave their home address and go to a neighbours etc, he will have wanted to know where the baby was / go the right house etc.
Probably reminding himself of first aid techniques for clearing choking hazards in babies, difference is providing CPR to babies (which is significantly different - start with 5 rescue breaths, mouth covering the babies mouth and nose, only using fingers or thumb for chest compression, lower depth on chest compression).
As well as the obvious intensity / pressure of thinking you will likely be the first responder with the responsibility of trying to save a babies life it may have also occurred to him that the baby may be deceased upon arrival.
WARNING RE NEXT PARAGRAPH
Also, he may have even been thinking “what if’s” I.e if he got there and believed that the circumstances were suspicious I.e the baby had died a while ago / the baby had other injuries etc and that the incident was not as it seemed, he would have to start thinking about preserving evidence and treating the incident differently.
Unfortunately, the police deal with thousands of high risk situations every day and so it’s inevitable that it goes wrong occasionally. It’s not possible to eliminate all risk.
The officer will understandably be devastated, which of course does not bring back the deceased and may not do much to ease her family suffering.
But ultimately, I do not believe the officer should have went to prison, which will most probably be a significantly worse experience for him than a regular Joe.
Even if the judge had gave him a 24 sentence, (instead of 27months) he could have suspended it, keeping him out of prison.
Personally don’t think he should have even lost his job (think he’d have to have went into a role whereby he wasn’t required to respond to emergencies though).
There is a stark difference between the circumstances of this incident and most other incidents of causing death by dangerous driving whereby the suspects are often a combination of intoxicated, driving at incredibly high speeds, make no attempt to help the people they have injured etc etc
In contrast, - this chap was trying to save a baby’s life.
What most people will not have considered (including perhaps the judge ) is what will likely have been in this officers mind whilst he was attending the incident.
As well driving through traffic etc, he will have been trying to remember the way to the location / work out the best route / follow his sat nav to the address, obviously not wanting to make a wrong turn.
Listening to the radio for updates, eg. often people in such circumstances will leave their home address and go to a neighbours etc, he will have wanted to know where the baby was / go the right house etc.
Probably reminding himself of first aid techniques for clearing choking hazards in babies, difference is providing CPR to babies (which is significantly different - start with 5 rescue breaths, mouth covering the babies mouth and nose, only using fingers or thumb for chest compression, lower depth on chest compression).
As well as the obvious intensity / pressure of thinking you will likely be the first responder with the responsibility of trying to save a babies life it may have also occurred to him that the baby may be deceased upon arrival.
WARNING RE NEXT PARAGRAPH
Also, he may have even been thinking “what if’s” I.e if he got there and believed that the circumstances were suspicious I.e the baby had died a while ago / the baby had other injuries etc and that the incident was not as it seemed, he would have to start thinking about preserving evidence and treating the incident differently.
Unfortunately, the police deal with thousands of high risk situations every day and so it’s inevitable that it goes wrong occasionally. It’s not possible to eliminate all risk.
The officer will understandably be devastated, which of course does not bring back the deceased and may not do much to ease her family suffering.
But ultimately, I do not believe the officer should have went to prison, which will most probably be a significantly worse experience for him than a regular Joe.
Even if the judge had gave him a 24 sentence, (instead of 27months) he could have suspended it, keeping him out of prison.
Andy_W
Well-known member
Yeah, I'm not comparing the crimes, and not saying many people should get a pass for an offence like this.
But there's a lot more intent if someone's doing the same crimes 5, 10, 20 times etc, and we see it often were people are not sent down. As there's zero intent in this, and the only intent was to do some good, also putting risk on himself, the words "criminally culpable" just don't seem fitting. I think there should be some sort of element of protection for people when they're clearly trying to save lives, at least as far as sentencing goes, not saying they couldn't be punished in other ways.
It's a tragedy for all concerned, but there clearly was intent. It might have been from the best of motives, but the driver wasn't speeding by accident, or failing to spot a red light. It's difficult to see how the jury could have reached a different decision without ignoring either the evidence or the law.
Similarly, the judge would have had to ignore sentencing guidelines to impose a lighter sentence, and a probable appeal for 'undue leniency'.
newusername
Well-known member
I hear what you say but Death by Dangerous Driving is a serious offence.
This guy was picking a car up from a lot, put his foot on the accelerator rather than the brake & killed someone. A simple mistake with a serious outcome. Not speeding, not drunk, not in a stolen car, doesn’t need rehabilitation, society doesn’t need protecting from him but he got 8 years in prison.
As Tarquin says, the starting point is 36, the lowest sentence is 24 months & PC Roberts got 27 despite the aggravating factors highlighted, arguably it is a lenient sentence.
Man jailed for causing death by dangerous driving after Met investigation
A man has been jailed following a fatal collision last March
news.met.police.uk
Hicktonpen10
Well-known member
Doubt very much that they would have done.
Andy_W
Well-known member
Yeah intent to drive too quick (for good reason in the eyes of many), albeit the accident was at <25mph on a 30mph road, that's not quick, most people survive that being run over. There's probably a 99% survival rate for those in cars. I get that he was going 43 though at top speed before the junction, but this doesn't seem that unreasonable?
No intent to harm an innocent though, that's what I meant. His actions were intended to be risk positive, and probably would be 9/10 times, or overall.
Is it that dangerous though, if driving through a junction with blue lights and sirens on, when the junction is clear when you start to go through? What does the % of death need to be where it's considered dangerous driving?
There can be mitigating factors which are considered against a sentence though (I think), and the CPS also need to want to pursue the case (I think), where in this case the family didn't want a sentence. I'm surprised this wasn't considered to be honest, if it was the case.
The ultimate result of this will likely mean nearly every emergency services driver now slows down, to cover themselves (understandable), which will then increases the risk across the wider population, due to emergency services delays.
The UK's (and developed world's) approach to event based risk, overriding general overall risk just seems a bit mad to me, and it's seemingly all because most people wouldn't understand it/ the bigger picture.
This is the statement from the IOPC:
"While driving guidance permits officers to pass through red lights and travel above the speed limit where necessary in the circumstances, it is never justified if the officer’s manner of driving endangers other road users."
The statement above is contradictory, there is zero chance that driving above the speed limit or going through a red light could be less risk to other road users, so it could only be more risk to other road users, hence endangering. It's not possible for people to see and factor for all eventualities etc.
newusername
Well-known member
46 in a 20 mph according to a report that I read.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents state:
"Hit by a car at 40 mph, nine out of ten pedestrians will be killed.
Hit by a car at 30 mph, about half of pedestrians will be killed.
Hit by a car at 20 mph, nine out of ten pedestrians will survive."
Andy_W
Well-known member
Just to explain where I got my numbers from:
Says, no less than 43 on the police report on the approach to the junction and that he slowed down from there at the junction, and then braked also for the impact to about 25mph.
Says 1 in 5 for 30mph on google and Road safety GB, but anyway, at 25mph the chance of survival is more than half so "most" was accurate. The one who died was on a motorbike with a helmet I assume, probably more survivable than a pedestrian but they also pulled out, so were moving themselves. Obviously effected by age too and think the person who died was 74, so probably more at risk, like children.
Heam44
Well-known member
I feel 8 years seems harsh for that fella given the circumstances. IMO anyway.I hear what you say but Death by Dangerous Driving is a serious offence.
This guy was picking a car up from a lot, put his foot on the accelerator rather than the brake & killed someone. A simple mistake with a serious outcome. Not speeding, not drunk, not in a stolen car, doesn’t need rehabilitation, society doesn’t need protecting from him but he got 8 years in prison.
As Tarquin says, the starting point is 36, the lowest sentence is 24 months & PC Roberts got 27 despite the aggravating factors highlighted, arguably it is a lenient sentence.
Man jailed for causing death by dangerous driving after Met investigation
A man has been jailed following a fatal collision last March
newusername
Well-known member
Fair enough but I don't think that report is 100% accurate on the speed limit or the road name but relatively moot points tbh.Says, no less than 43 on the police report on the approach to the junction and that he slowed down from there at the junction, and then braked also for the impact to about 25mph.
All of Gateshead is 20mph now, so he was doing double the speed limit before slamming on the brakes & slowing to 25 on impact.