Tomasz Kroker - the Lorry Driver.

ICBM

fretmeister said:

It's quite difficult to kill an entire family with a moped. It's very easy with an HGV.

about 20 years ago I had a short lived job at a car dealer. They had a large pre-delivery inspection unit that the police would use as storage for crash damage cars.

I remember seeing 1 van that had been hit head on by a big motor bike. The bike hit it right in the middle and pretty much ended up in the back of the van. (To quote the fireman "We'll hose the last bits of him out later")

The 2 chaps in the van got cuts and bruises and a shitload of whiplash. No fratures. The impact was in between them. Lucky guys. With any other vehicle they would probably have been dead.

A friend of mine was driving a Toyota Yaris that was hit head-on by a lunatic biker overtaking a line of traffic coming the other way. The bike hit the front driver's-side corner of the car full-on, and bounced off the windscreen pillar on the way over the top. Looking at the pics of the car, about another six inches towards the middle of the car and he'd probably have had the bike in his face.

The bike and the biker sailed right over his car landed in the road behind, and somehow avoided being hit by other traffic that was following. The biker survived, amazingly. The Yaris was a write-off, but I have considerable respect for their survivability now.

fields5069

I'll only ever text through the car's scrolly wheel system. My merc won't let me enter text while moving, if I'm stationary then it's OK. But really this is still distracting enough that it's probably the cause of a few low-speed shunts and that's not on.

CabbageCat

boogieman said:

CabbageCat said:

Gassage said:

As I'm shored up at Gassage Towers with busted ribs I have watched this unfold today and 10 years is a minimum for me

I am no angel in previous times- I have called and texted with impunity whilst driving.

So, given that you have effectively done the same thing as this guy (just you got lucky because you didn't have a stopped car in front of you) do you think that you deserve a 10 year sentence?

I know the answer, obviously. I don't think you deserve any sentence. But the driver is a victim of circumstances. He rolled the die and got a 1, you did it and got a 6. The impact of the error is different but the error is identical.

I understand that a big sentence is probably forthcoming as a deterent but I do feel sorry for the guy. I feel sorry for the victims too, naturally, just as I do for the victims of any such catastrophe.

Identical crime: yes. Different consequence: maybe.

I'm not defending his actions by any means but I suspect Gassage wasn't driving an HGV at the time. I have no sympathy for the lorry driver at all. He's a professional driver in charge of something that he knew can do a hell of a lot of damage if not handled properly. He's acted totally unprofessionally and irresponsibly. 10 years for killing 4 people? That's a pitiful sentence. He'll be out in 5 no doubt if he behaves himself. 

Do you think that, in general, the punishment should fit the outcome or the intent? If someone chucked a nail bomb into a crèche and no-one was killed should he be sentenced less heavily than someone who crossed a road without looking and caused a fatal car accident?

fretmeister

CabbageCat said:

boogieman said:

CabbageCat said:

Gassage said:

As I'm shored up at Gassage Towers with busted ribs I have watched this unfold today and 10 years is a minimum for me

I am no angel in previous times- I have called and texted with impunity whilst driving.

So, given that you have effectively done the same thing as this guy (just you got lucky because you didn't have a stopped car in front of you) do you think that you deserve a 10 year sentence?

I know the answer, obviously. I don't think you deserve any sentence. But the driver is a victim of circumstances. He rolled the die and got a 1, you did it and got a 6. The impact of the error is different but the error is identical.

I understand that a big sentence is probably forthcoming as a deterent but I do feel sorry for the guy. I feel sorry for the victims too, naturally, just as I do for the victims of any such catastrophe.

Identical crime: yes. Different consequence: maybe.

I'm not defending his actions by any means but I suspect Gassage wasn't driving an HGV at the time. I have no sympathy for the lorry driver at all. He's a professional driver in charge of something that he knew can do a hell of a lot of damage if not handled properly. He's acted totally unprofessionally and irresponsibly. 10 years for killing 4 people? That's a pitiful sentence. He'll be out in 5 no doubt if he behaves himself. 

Do you think that, in general, the punishment should fit the outcome or the intent? If someone chucked a nail bomb into a crèche and no-one was killed should he be sentenced less heavily than someone who crossed a road without looking and caused a fatal car accident?

Was the nail bomb thrown during creche opening hours or was it in the middle of the night for some sort of insurance fraud?

Snap

fretmeister said:

Snap said:

fretmeister said:

Garthy said:

boogieman said:

Seriously it's about time the fine for using a mobile inappropriately while driving was ramped up, say to something like £1000, plus a year's driving ban. That's the only way you'll get through to idiots that do it. It needs to be policed much better too. There's no excuse for professional drivers doing it all IMO. 

Sadly the only deterrent would probably be the deletion of their facebook account and destruction of their phone.

10 years is just not justice. It wasn't just death by dangerous driving, his actions met the criteria for manslaughter by an unlawful or dangerous act and in my opinion he should have been sentenced to life.

There used to be an offence of manslaughter for drivers. And Juries repeatedly refused to convict them as they viewed manslaughter as a different type of offence to doing something stupid when driving.

I suspect the average juror couldn't say honestly that they hadn't done something stupid while driving and thus found it difficult to condemn another person for the same thing.

Life sentences are rare in manslaughter convictions of any type, so that wasn't going to happen.

So taking that into account the current statute dealing with causing death by dangerous driving IS a re-defined manslaughter offence using a vehicle. Changing the name of the offence without really changing the description of the criminal act itself meant juries would convict more often.

The chap admitted guilt quickly and that is why his penalty is lower that it would have been if he had pleaded not guilty.

Discretionary Life sentences (not mandatory ones like murder) are for those without remorse and for those who remain a continuing threat. I doubt either of those factors apply to this chap.

Sentencing guidelines are here

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/web_causing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf

From a legal argument perspective Fret, do you think you could apply Caldwell recklessness test to this?

Is it reasonably foreseeable that death is a consequence of not paying proper attention whilst driving a HGV at speed on a busy dual carriageway? I think you could probably argue yes, and bring murder into the fray, but......no doubt its heavily counoterbalanced by so many implications. Not least, that could mean that anyone who causes death by dangersou driving could be guilty of murder.

I think Caldwell has been bought into in the way the statute has been drafted - and the sentencing guide referring to "flagrant disregard" for the rules of the road.

I don't think that the full definition of Murder can be bought in. Even within the wide ranging "not really intent but the outcome was so certain..." type test case decisions. Even in Transfer of Malice cases there was an intent to harm someone, and in the "Using explosives to open a safe just happened to kill someone on the floor below" type cases the index event was (if there was such a phrase) SO criminal that allows a murder charge.

From a jury understanding position I would be very wary of trying to bring in the issue of Intent into road traffic where most of the offences are strict liability.

I think that would lead to jury mis-understanding, long and confusing summing up from judges and more appeals.

I think with using a phone, causing an accident, that causes death, its tricky. But yes, intent and RTAs could open a real legal worm can. Intersting legal evolution though. Cheers (20 years since did criminal!)

octatonic

This might be a good argument for self driving cars.
If people really cannot go 5 mins without fiddling with their fondle-slab then they might be better off as passengers in an autonomous vehicle.

Gassage

CabbageCat said:

Gassage said:

As I'm shored up at Gassage Towers with busted ribs I have watched this unfold today and 10 years is a minimum for me

I am no angel in previous times- I have called and texted with impunity whilst driving.

So, given that you have effectively done the same thing as this guy (just you got lucky because you didn't have a stopped car in front of you) do you think that you deserve a 10 year sentence?

I know the answer, obviously. I don't think you deserve any sentence. But the driver is a victim of circumstances. He rolled the die and got a 1, you did it and got a 6. The impact of the error is different but the error is identical.

I understand that a big sentence is probably forthcoming as a deterent but I do feel sorry for the guy. I feel sorry for the victims too, naturally, just as I do for the victims of any such catastrophe.

A few points back:

I had my first mobile in 1988- at that point there was no law.
I sent my first text in 1996- at that point, no law (to my knowledge)
I haven't done so since maybe 2000 ish?

Do I feel sorry for the guy? In some respects, yes- mainly the fact that if he's anything of a person, this will live with him forever. In other respects, no.

Re the difference- outcome judgment. The outcome here is horrendous. Everything is always outcome judged.

fretmeister

https://cdn-media.threadless.com/submissions_wm/599566-8b1b042c3604a5014790b8b65e217607.jpg

bob21

One interesting thing (though it still doesn't make it okay to use a phone whilst driving a HGV) is that Mercedes now have a feature on their artics called Active Brake Assist, that can bring a fully loaded HGV to a complete stop in some stupidly small distance, completely autonomously of the driver, when the truck detects a 'hazard' like a stationary vehicle.. 
Designed entirely to prevent (ideally) or significantly lessen the impact of accidents like this, regardless of whether the driver is alert, or fallen asleep/on the phone/etc.. 
As far as I'm aware, other manufacturers have similar, but nowhere near as effective systems. Will be interesting if this incident leads to more pressure being put on all HGV manufacturers to implement a similar solution..

CabbageCat

fretmeister said:

CabbageCat said:

boogieman said:

CabbageCat said:

Gassage said:

As I'm shored up at Gassage Towers with busted ribs I have watched this unfold today and 10 years is a minimum for me

I am no angel in previous times- I have called and texted with impunity whilst driving.

So, given that you have effectively done the same thing as this guy (just you got lucky because you didn't have a stopped car in front of you) do you think that you deserve a 10 year sentence?

I know the answer, obviously. I don't think you deserve any sentence. But the driver is a victim of circumstances. He rolled the die and got a 1, you did it and got a 6. The impact of the error is different but the error is identical.

I understand that a big sentence is probably forthcoming as a deterent but I do feel sorry for the guy. I feel sorry for the victims too, naturally, just as I do for the victims of any such catastrophe.

Identical crime: yes. Different consequence: maybe.

I'm not defending his actions by any means but I suspect Gassage wasn't driving an HGV at the time. I have no sympathy for the lorry driver at all. He's a professional driver in charge of something that he knew can do a hell of a lot of damage if not handled properly. He's acted totally unprofessionally and irresponsibly. 10 years for killing 4 people? That's a pitiful sentence. He'll be out in 5 no doubt if he behaves himself. 

Do you think that, in general, the punishment should fit the outcome or the intent? If someone chucked a nail bomb into a crèche and no-one was killed should he be sentenced less heavily than someone who crossed a road without looking and caused a fatal car accident?

Was the nail bomb thrown during creche opening hours or was it in the middle of the night for some sort of insurance fraud?

He was deliberately trying to kill a bunch of kids. He just got unlucky and didn't manage it.

ESBlonde

I wonder if the ease of driving modern cars/vehicles has an impact on peoples opinions of what other distractions they can manage on the road.
If you didn't have tiny power assisted stearing wheels, automatic gearboxes, cruise control, automatic choke/fuel injection together with masses of white lines, traffic management and street signs would we be better drivers or would people continue to plough into one another like they did before compulsory seat belts, crumple zones and air bags.

boogieman

CabbageCat said:

boogieman said:

CabbageCat said:

Gassage said:

As I'm shored up at Gassage Towers with busted ribs I have watched this unfold today and 10 years is a minimum for me

I am no angel in previous times- I have called and texted with impunity whilst driving.

So, given that you have effectively done the same thing as this guy (just you got lucky because you didn't have a stopped car in front of you) do you think that you deserve a 10 year sentence?

I know the answer, obviously. I don't think you deserve any sentence. But the driver is a victim of circumstances. He rolled the die and got a 1, you did it and got a 6. The impact of the error is different but the error is identical.

I understand that a big sentence is probably forthcoming as a deterent but I do feel sorry for the guy. I feel sorry for the victims too, naturally, just as I do for the victims of any such catastrophe.

Identical crime: yes. Different consequence: maybe.

I'm not defending his actions by any means but I suspect Gassage wasn't driving an HGV at the time. I have no sympathy for the lorry driver at all. He's a professional driver in charge of something that he knew can do a hell of a lot of damage if not handled properly. He's acted totally unprofessionally and irresponsibly. 10 years for killing 4 people? That's a pitiful sentence. He'll be out in 5 no doubt if he behaves himself. 

Do you think that, in general, the punishment should fit the outcome or the intent? If someone chucked a nail bomb into a crèche and no-one was killed should he be sentenced less heavily than someone who crossed a road without looking and caused a fatal car accident?

Interesting point. To answer the question; no I'm sure he had no intent to kill. The fact remains he's acted so irresponsibly that he's directly caused four deaths. Does a ten year sentence adequately reflect that behaviour? I guess that's the maximum sentence allowed for in the guidelines, I don't know what he'd get for manslaughter. Yes he's shown remorse, but those people died solely because of his stupid actions. I'm not sure if it was my family that had been wiped out that I'd want to see him at liberty quite so quickly. 

fretmeister

With manslaughter even with a life sentence he'd probably be out on license quicker than with a specific penalty.

A life sentence ALWAYS means life, it's just that the venue is not always prison.

boogieman

fretmeister said:

With manslaughter even with a life sentence he'd probably be out on license quicker than with a specific penalty.

A life sentence ALWAYS means life, it's just that the venue is not always prison.

@fretmeister ;I'm interested to hear what the consequences to being released on license are? Obviously he'd never be able to drive professionally again and presumably he'd suffer public condemnation but how else would his life be affected legally? 

fretmeister

The point is rehabilitation. So almost everything can be done but under permanent supervision and he can be recalled at any time for any purpose. 

Doesn't even have to be a parking ticket.

There are placement schemes with large employers to try and get them a job rather than claiming unemployment benefits.

No passport of course! And I can't remember what the outcome of the "can lifers vote" case was!

Gizmo

stickyfiddle said:

We're at the point where only an insta-ban for getting caught, and lifetime ban for causing an accident would be a deterrent. 

Insta life driving ban and your car crushed into a little cube at the side of the road for good measure.seems like a good start

EricTheWeary

Everyone in England and Wales serving a custodial sentence has a period on licence supervised by Probation  ( or youth justice ) after they are released. Slightly different types of licence depending on the sentence, age of the convict, to some extent the crime. It may/ not involve HDC which is the electronic tagging and there are a few other things you could add. But essentially it means reporting as directed ( less frequently over time)and if you don't turn up or do something that increases risk ( not just reoffending) then you can be recalled ie re arrested and returned to prison for more of your original sentence.

Unless he has a life ban from driving ( don't know that they can) he could conceivably end up driving again. I don't know if you have to declare convictions ( fairly sure because of the length of sentence this will never be a 'spent' conviction)when applying for a HGV licence so I guess it's possible. Would be a long way off though.

boogieman said:

fretmeister said:

With manslaughter even with a life sentence he'd probably be out on license quicker than with a specific penalty.

A life sentence ALWAYS means life, it's just that the venue is not always prison.

@fretmeister ;I'm interested to hear what the consequences to being released on license are? Obviously he'd never be able to drive professionally again and presumably he'd suffer public condemnation but how else would his life be affected legally? 

fretmeister

Gizmo said:

stickyfiddle said:

We're at the point where only an insta-ban for getting caught, and lifetime ban for causing an accident would be a deterrent. 

Insta life driving ban and your car crushed into a little cube at the side of the road for good measure.seems like a good start

Because there aren't any falsely registered cars being driven by uninsured drivers.

Oh wait...

CabbageCat

boogieman said:

CabbageCat said:

boogieman said:

CabbageCat said:

Gassage said:

As I'm shored up at Gassage Towers with busted ribs I have watched this unfold today and 10 years is a minimum for me

I am no angel in previous times- I have called and texted with impunity whilst driving.

So, given that you have effectively done the same thing as this guy (just you got lucky because you didn't have a stopped car in front of you) do you think that you deserve a 10 year sentence?

I know the answer, obviously. I don't think you deserve any sentence. But the driver is a victim of circumstances. He rolled the die and got a 1, you did it and got a 6. The impact of the error is different but the error is identical.

I understand that a big sentence is probably forthcoming as a deterent but I do feel sorry for the guy. I feel sorry for the victims too, naturally, just as I do for the victims of any such catastrophe.

Identical crime: yes. Different consequence: maybe.

I'm not defending his actions by any means but I suspect Gassage wasn't driving an HGV at the time. I have no sympathy for the lorry driver at all. He's a professional driver in charge of something that he knew can do a hell of a lot of damage if not handled properly. He's acted totally unprofessionally and irresponsibly. 10 years for killing 4 people? That's a pitiful sentence. He'll be out in 5 no doubt if he behaves himself. 

Do you think that, in general, the punishment should fit the outcome or the intent? If someone chucked a nail bomb into a crèche and no-one was killed should he be sentenced less heavily than someone who crossed a road without looking and caused a fatal car accident?

Interesting point. To answer the question; no I'm sure he had no intent to kill. The fact remains he's acted so irresponsibly that he's directly caused four deaths. Does a ten year sentence adequately reflect that behaviour? I guess that's the maximum sentence allowed for in the guidelines, I don't know what he'd get for manslaughter. Yes he's shown remorse, but those people died solely because of his stupid actions. I'm not sure if it was my family that had been wiped out that I'd want to see him at liberty quite so quickly. 

Do you think that the feelings of the victim's family should be the most significant factor in sentencing?

I'm not deliberately getting at you here - I just think people don't always think through what they are pointing fingers at when they are trying to find something to blame for a tragedy.

Gassage

Re the sentence-

Not defending anything, just explaining legal mechanism.

This carries a max of 14 years.

He pleaded guilty at earliest opportunity- he gets 33% discount off the sentence- hence 10 years (or 10.3333)