Causing Death While Uninsured

[iviehoff]

I hadn't heard of this new offence. Driver gets 8 months for hit-and-run death of cyclist (second page of article is interesting).
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... -31767049/

There was no verdict of causing death due to dangerous, or even careless, driving in this case. Indeed the judge clearly said "no blame is attached to the standard of driving" (nor the bald tyres). But I am not aware of any claim either that the cyclist was contributory to the accident, though I would be interested if someone knows different. If not, this appears to perpetuate the situation that judges think that drivers can mow down law-abiding cyclists and not be judged to have fallen short of the required standard of driving.

Rather, the offence for which he has been jailed on this occasion is a new one on me, Causing Death While Uninsured. The offender was not aware he was uninsured: an application with payment had apparently been made by his wife. The insurance company say that they declined the business because of inadequate disclosure, but it is not clear whether they made that decision on receiving the application or retrospectively. (I am reminded of the case where the insurance company failed to pay up for the theft of my neighbour's big flash BMW because he had overlooked to tell them of his wife's recently acquired 3-pointer from a speed camera.) It seems that but for that techical error with the insurance he would be walking free.

The judge criticises him for entrusting the important business of his insurance to his wife and failing to check it is properly done. Well my wife entrusts the important business of the insurance to me and doesn't check: would she be criticised by a judge if I made a mistake and we were unknowingly driving uninsured? Or is this some sexist nonsense from the judge?

[thirdcrank]

We did have a thread a couple of years ago:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=37512

[Mike Sales]

Two more reports.

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2012/09/05/north-wales-man-jailed-for-eight-months-for-killing-cyclist-and-mum-of-five-55578-31768185/

http://road.cc/content/news/65722-eight-month-jail-sentence-motorist-who-hid-bushes-cyclist-lay-dying

[irc]

tThe judge criticises him for entrusting the important business of his insurance to his wife and failing to check it is properly done.

Sounds like an excuse to me, blaming his wife. It wasn't his wife that failed to stop after the crash. It wasn't his wife who didn't dial 999 for an ambulance for his victim. It wasn't his wife who had a previous driving ban.

[iviehoff]

The judge criticises him for entrusting the important business of his insurance to his wife and failing to check it is properly done.

Sounds like an excuse to me, blaming his wife. It wasn't his wife that failed to stop after the crash. It wasn't his wife who didn't dial 999 for an ambulance for his victim. It wasn't his wife who had a previous driving ban.

"The prosecutor said an insurance company had cancelled Lundstram’s policy for failing to provide “no claims” proof. It also hadn’t been told of a six months “totting” ban imposed in 2009."
So it sounds like the wife had in fact sent the forms and payment off to the insurance company. Also the fact that the insurance company refers to "cancelling" the policy suggests to me that they retrospectively cancelled it when the facts emerged at the time of the accident that proper disclosure had not been made at time of application.

I don't think a judge would say that if he really thought the defendant was seeking to blame his wife. On reflection, what i really think is going on there is that the wife sent off an application she may well have known did not make proper disclosure, and the judge was avoiding drawing attention to the fact that the wife may have knowingly signed the form without proper disclosure (an offence), by putting the blame onto him for failing to ensure that a valid application had been made.

[kwackers]

They say behind every good man there's a good woman so logically behind every bad man...

I think I mentioned in another post, imo doing a runner should automatically double the sentence. In a case like this where someone was at the very least left to suffer at the side of the road then quadrupling doesn't seem too much to ask.

[meic]

Failing to mention a ban is not some petty mistake.

If you take out insurance like that you are not insured and you know you are not insured.
You just have a piece of paper to buy your tax disc and show the Police if stopped.

Failing to mention a speeding ticket gained after you last renewed could be described as an omission, but that is obvious fraud.

[iviehoff]

I think I mentioned in another post, imo doing a runner should automatically double the sentence. In a case like this where someone was at the very least left to suffer at the side of the road then quadrupling doesn't seem too much to ask.

Max sentence here is 2 years. Someone on another forum pointed to the guidelines which mentioned that in the case of 2 aggravating factors (as here) the guidelines say sentence should be based on 12 months, with range of 9-24 months. But presumably he got a discount for pleading guilty.

[kwackers]

I think I mentioned in another post, imo doing a runner should automatically double the sentence. In a case like this where someone was at the very least left to suffer at the side of the road then quadrupling doesn't seem too much to ask.

Max sentence here is 2 years. Someone on another forum pointed to the guidelines which mentioned that in the case of 2 aggravating factors (as here) the guidelines say sentence should be based on 12 months, with range of 9-24 months. But presumably he got a discount for pleading guilty.

Getting discounts shouldn't really apply when you have no real defence... I'd have been happy with say 2 years total, then doubled (or more) for not stopping.

Hit and run seems to be a national pastime these days. I'm of the opinion that it's time to have a sensible deterrent in an attempt to put a stop to it.

[meic]

Oddly, I assume that they only run because they mistakenly believe there is a deterrent against dangerous driving.

If he knew what we know he would have stayed at the scene of the accident fairly sure that little would happen to him. Though of course he knew about the lack of insurance.

[thirdcrank]

On the subject of sentencing guidelines, the govt is keen to keep people out of jail and also to reduce the cost of trials. A NOT GUILTY plea, especially in the Cown Court in front of a jury, costs vastly more than a GUILTY plea. They can't punish people for exercising their right to contest a case, so they try to reward them for not doing so - an exercise in sophistry. Much of the problem is that those costs are not caused by having to keep the lights and central heating running longer, but because our learned friends need to make a living. There was a suggestion by a top judge earlier this year that there should be really juicy discounts for people who admitted their guilt immediately on arrest. That did cause some squeals of anguish.

[dalifnei]

i read the case report but can't recall the details, but the effect is even where the vehicle driver is blameless, if he is uninsured he falls guilty of this offence. if i still have it will post the report...

[iviehoff]

i read the case report but can't recall the details, but the effect is even where the vehicle driver is blameless, if he is uninsured he falls guilty of this offence. if i still have it will post the report...

Given that the offence is "causing death while uninsured", can one really be described as "blameless" if one is found to have "caus(ed) death"? Presumably if the incident leading to death was ruled to be the consequence of some other party's action, or external circumstances outside one's control, one could not be found guilty of "causing death". There must be at least some contributory effect from guilty party's actions for them to be found guilty of "causing death".

In the present case, as I pointed out above, the judge explicitly said "no blame is attached to the standard of driving". It remains one of the very curious, and indeed outrageous, conundrums of road accident jurisprudence that one can "caus(e) death" whilst the same time not being "dangerous" or even "careless" in one's driving. Circumstances such as "I was unsighted" or even "just didn't see them" apparently don't make one even "careless".

(Edit:) The point of being insured is that when an incident occurs for which responsibility can be attached to you, you can at least have access to money to make the financial restitution (even thought that can't undo death or permanent injury). It is already an offence not to have insurance, whether you cause loss or not. There is some kind of logic in punishing people additionally when a loss actually occurs when they are uninsured, and which they cannot therefore compensate. If your insurance would have had to pay out, then I don't think one is "blameless", cause is ascribed to you.

[reohn2]

This excuse for humanity will serve 4months of an 8month sentence,and will be driving again in 21/2years!!!!!!!!!!

Did anyone say the word justice!

[thirdcrank]

iviehoff

I think that the first thing to appreciate is that in a prosecution (ie a criminal case) the defendant can only be tried and punished for the offence they have been charged with. The trial isn't an inquest. So, if the defendant isn't charged with a "bad driving" offence, they are not on trial for that. As to how the charging decision is reached, here's the defintion of "due care." This was inserted as a new section quite recently as s 3ZA of the RTA. (There's a separate definition of "dangerous driving." )

(2)A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.
(3)In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above what would be expected of a careful and competent driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/3ZA

Beyond that, in the sentencing remarks made by a judge, everything being taken into account is set out in some detail. The reason for this is to minimise as far as possible appeals against sentence. I think that when the judge was making the comments you dislike he was saying that he wasn't punishing the defendant for anything other than the offence of which he had been convicted. In the same vein, a judge today has to be wary of saying anything on the lines "If the prosecution had done their job properly, you would have been charged with a more serious offence." This is partly why you sometimes get things like "This is at the upper end of the range of careless driving...."