'Careless Driving'

Tombo2001

I'd like to get some opinions in the legal forum of the case of Conor Hickey and the sentence passed down yesterday for the man who killed him.

This is a particularly emotive case as it involves a child, who was doing everything right, crossing the road at a green pedestrian light, being killed by a dangerous driver.

My understanding is that the driver was uninsured and in an untaxed car, may not have had a drivers licence, was driving at high speed in a residential area, and drove through a red light at a pedestrian crossing, hitting a pedestrian, and not slowing down before leaving the scene of the accident.

According to the Irish Times:
"The maximum penalty available to the court for careless driving causing death is two years and the maximum penalty for leaving the scene of an accident is six months.

Judge Ring said she was bound by the legislation and that she must also give credit to Tracey for entering a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity and his genuine remorse expressed at a very early stage."

In this case the Judge is bringing up the old chestnut, 'I'm bound by legislation" and I've no doubt she is to some degree.

I'd just be interested in the views of people here on the term 'careless driving'.

Should it be termed as 'careless driving' when a driver is so reckless that a collision is almost inevitable? Is there any other charge available in this case?

In this case, the man is already in prison and serves no extra time for causing this death.

Ken.

It wasn't premeditated so it shouldn't be murder but at the very least it should be manslaughter.
Me and you could be on a night out have a bit of a scuffle and you push me,I fall bang my head and die and you'll get done for manslaughter. If you get into your car and run me down it's careless or dangerous driving.

Tombo2001

I understand that, but my question is:

Is it possible to make the argument that
(i) a driver is driving extremely recklessly
(ii) it is a matter of fact that if you drive extremely recklessly through a residential area that you may cause an accident

that in fact it is pre-meditated.......insofar as you know that if you drive that way you might kill someone, but you still drive that way anyway......

Mikros

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I understand that, but my question is:

Is it possible to make the argument that
(i) a driver is driving extremely recklessly
(ii) it is a matter of fact that if you drive extremely recklessly through a residential area that you may cause an accident

that in fact it is pre-meditated.......insofar as you know that if you drive that way you might kill someone, but you still drive that way anyway......

It is not pre-meditated - there is no intention there to kill or harm another person.

What you are referring to is involuntary manslaughter by gross negligence. In this an unlawful death is caused because of a negligent act or omission by the accused involving a high risk of death or serious injury. In the case The People (A.G.) v. Dunleavy (1948) the Court of Criminal Appeal held that a conviction for gross negligence manslaughter will not arise unless the negligence was of a very high degree and involved a high degree of risk of death or serious injury. Convictions for this type of manslaughter are very rare as this is a very high threshold to prove.

Because of this the offence of Dangerous Driving causing Death was created in statute under the Road Traffic Acts. Here the proofs required for a conviction are less than what would be required for manslaughter so nearly all culpable fatal traffic collisions are prosecuted under this offence. The maximum penalty for this is 10 years imprisonment.

But even with dangerous driving causing death there must be an element of dangerous driving. Because in many fatal collisions the culpable party might not have been driving dangerously a new offence of careless driving causing death (with a penalty of up to 2 years imprisonment) was introduced. This is what the accused was charged with in this case and it covers driving without due care and attention.

The fact he had no tax / insurance / license is unrelated to the manner of his driving. Speeding in a residential area on it's own is not dangerous driving in itself. Think how many people break a 50km/h speed limit. There was nothing inevitable about the manner of the driving in this case that would lead to a fatal collision, it is just deeply unfortunate that it did on this occasion.

It could be debated it should have been a dangerous driving charge, but without knowing the finer details of the case it's hard to say.

Tombo2001

Mikros wrote: »

It is not pre-meditated - there is no intention there to kill or harm another person.

What you are referring to is involuntary manslaughter by gross negligence. In this an unlawful death is caused because of a negligent act or omission by the accused involving a high risk of death or serious injury. In the case The People (A.G.) v. Dunleavy (1948) the Court of Criminal Appeal held that a conviction for gross negligence manslaughter will not arise unless the negligence was of a very high degree and involved a high degree of risk of death or serious injury. Convictions for this type of manslaughter are very rare as this is a very high threshold to prove.

Because of this the offence of Dangerous Driving causing Death was created in statute under the Road Traffic Acts. Here the proofs required for a conviction are less than what would be required for manslaughter so nearly all culpable fatal traffic collisions are prosecuted under this offence. The maximum penalty for this is 10 years imprisonment.

But even with dangerous driving causing death there must be an element of dangerous driving. Because in many fatal collisions the culpable party might not have been driving dangerously a new offence of careless driving causing death (with a penalty of up to 2 years imprisonment) was introduced. This is what the accused was charged with in this case and it covers driving without due care and attention.

The fact he had no tax / insurance / license is unrelated to the manner of his driving. Speeding in a residential area on it's own is not dangerous driving in itself. Think how many people break a 50km/h speed limit. There was nothing inevitable about the manner of the driving in this case that would lead to a fatal collision, it is just deeply unfortunate that it did on this occasion.

It could be debated it should have been a dangerous driving charge, but without knowing the finer details of the case it's hard to say.

Speeding in a residential area and breaking a pedestrian red light consititutes dangerous driving.

I'd imagine the issue here is that this is based on eye witness reports rather than a speedometer. As such, as you say, the degree of danger is not known.

The other issue is driving under the influence. I dont know whether the driver was in this case.

But hypothetically, if you are blind drunk and stay at the scene of an accident you could get 10 years (I presume for Dangerous Driving) whereas if you leave the scene, the most you can get is an extra 6 months (for leaving the scene) on a two year sentence but the intoxification cant be proven.

Which raises the question, is the calculated risk here for a driver if they were drunk is to 'hit and run' rather than 'hit and stay'.

Mikros

Tombo2001 wrote: »

But hypothetically, if you are blind drunk and stay at the scene of an accident you could get 10 years (I presume for Dangerous Driving) whereas if you leave the scene, the most you can get is an extra 6 months (for leaving the scene) on a two year sentence but the intoxification cant be proven.

Which raises the question, is the calculated risk here for a driver if they were drunk is to 'hit and run' rather than 'hit and stay'.

The distinction between dangerous and careless driving is not whether the driver was drunk. Just because you are drunk does not necessarily mean you are driving dangerously and vice versa. It is an objective test whether the actual manner of your driving involves a direct, immediate and serious risk to the public.

Obviously driving when drunk is dangerous, but the offence of dangerous driving is concerned with how you were actually driving at the time.

Tombo2001

Mikros wrote: »

The distinction between dangerous and careless driving is not whether the driver was drunk. Just because you are drunk does not necessarily mean you are driving dangerously and vice versa. It is an objective test whether the actual manner of your driving involves a direct, immediate and serious risk to the public.

Obviously driving when drunk is dangerous, but the offence of dangerous driving is concerned with how you were actually driving at the time.

I can see how many people get off on technicalities.

You could be speeding and breaking a red light and not driving dangerously.

You could be drunk and not driving dangerously.

One wonders what you would have to do to be driving dangerously.

Mikros

Tombo2001 wrote: »

One wonders what you would have to do to be driving dangerously.

Dangerous driving is one of those things where it all depends on the circumstances of the case. Best I can do is point you to the definition in the Road Traffic Act -

Road Traffic Act 2010, Section 69 wrote:

53.— (1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place in a manner (including speed) which having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the condition of the vehicle, the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be in it) is or is likely to be dangerous to the public.

Tombo2001

Mikros wrote: »

Dangerous driving is one of those things where it all depends on the circumstances of the case. Best I can do is point you to the definition in the Road Traffic Act -

Ta.

Based on that definitition I see no reason why speeding and breaking a red light wouldnt constitute dangerous driving.

On the other hand, its legal speak that could mean almost anything. Which again shows why its so easy to get off on technicalities.

Mikros

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Ta.

Based on that definitition I see no reason why speeding and breaking a red light wouldnt constitute dangerous driving.

Yeah, quiet possibly.

Driving at 65 km/h in a 50 km/h limit, take eyes of road to change radio and break a red light. The outcome is dangerous, but the driving was probably just careless? The degree of intent or recklessness was possibly not there.

Driving aggressively at 65 km/h in a 50 km/h limit, overtake someone slowing down for an amber light and break the red light. More likely dangerous driving.

The question is tested in the District court every day.

Tombo2001

Mikros wrote: »

Yeah, quiet possibly.

Driving at 65 km/h in a 50 km/h limit, take eyes of road to change radio and break a red light. The outcome is dangerous, but the driving was probably just careless? The degree of intent or recklessness was possibly not there.

Driving aggressively at 65 km/h in a 50 km/h limit, overtake someone slowing down for an amber light and break the red light. More likely dangerous driving.

The question is tested in the District court every day.

Probably the bigger issue here is that you have no way of proving how fast the guy is going....so no way of determining the degree of danger.

Mikros

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Probably the bigger issue here is that you have no way of proving how fast the guy is going....so no way of determining the degree of danger.

There is no requirement to prove the exact speed. In fact it is not even a defence to say you were under the speed limit.

Road Traffic Act wrote:

(3) In a prosecution for an offence under this section or section 52, it is not a defence to show that the speed at which the accused person was driving was not in excess of a speed limit

It is what a "reasonable person" would say about the manner of your driving in the circumstances. A witness statement might be enough. What might be considered dangerous outside a school in the morning could be considered differently in the middle of the night.

No Pants

Tombo2001 wrote: »

But hypothetically, if you are blind drunk and stay at the scene of an accident you could get 10 years (I presume for Dangerous Driving) whereas if you leave the scene, the most you can get is an extra 6 months (for leaving the scene) on a two year sentence but the intoxification cant be proven.

Which raises the question, is the calculated risk here for a driver if they were drunk is to 'hit and run' rather than 'hit and stay'.

In my opinion, absolutely. I barely drink at all anymore, so this is highly unlikely to happen to me, but if I found myself in such a situation, I'd take myself off home and crack open what alcohol I could find and get it into me. That's the intoxication charge muddied.

Victor

Mikros wrote: »

Speeding in a residential area on it's own is not dangerous driving in itself.

Judges will normally decline to convict for dangerous driving if there is nobody else present. Then surely, if people are present, there should be a prosecution and conviction?

Tombo2001 wrote: »

But hypothetically, if you are blind drunk and stay at the scene of an accident you could get 10 years (I presume for Dangerous Driving) whereas if you leave the scene, the most you can get is an extra 6 months (for leaving the scene) on a two year sentence but the intoxification cant be proven.

Which raises the question, is the calculated risk here for a driver if they were drunk is to 'hit and run' rather than 'hit and stay'.

Was the legislation changed recently to cover this?

Tombo2001 wrote: »

You could be speeding and breaking a red light and not driving dangerously.

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times, it's enemy action."

The more rules you are breaking, the more likely something is going to happen somewhere along the line.

Mikros wrote: »

Driving at 65 km/h in a 50 km/h limit, take eyes of road to change radio and break a red light. The outcome is dangerous, but the driving was probably just careless? The degree of intent or recklessness was possibly not there.

Has the car-orientated dominant discourse come so far that one no longer has to look out the front window?

schemingbohemia

The more proper question is why the Judge decided not to have the sentence run consecutively rather than concurrently, I presume that was an option open to her?

Pro Hoc Vice

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Speeding in a residential area and breaking a pedestrian red light consititutes dangerous driving.

I'd imagine the issue here is that this is based on eye witness reports rather than a speedometer. As such, as you say, the degree of danger is not known.

The other issue is driving under the influence. I dont know whether the driver was in this case.

But hypothetically, if you are blind drunk and stay at the scene of an accident you could get 10 years (I presume for Dangerous Driving) whereas if you leave the scene, the most you can get is an extra 6 months (for leaving the scene) on a two year sentence but the intoxification cant be proven.

Which raises the question, is the calculated risk here for a driver if they were drunk is to 'hit and run' rather than 'hit and stay'.

"He panicked but was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol when he hit the boy."

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/addict-gets-20-months-for-fatal-hit-and-run-261793.html

If he had been charged with dangerous driving causing death it would have had to have been in the circuit court with a jury. The district court is restricted in the max sentence it can impose. This man almost got the maximum the DC can impose.

The real question is why did the DPP direct summary disposal.

Mikros

Victor wrote: »

Has the car-orientated dominant discourse come so far that one no longer has to look out the front window?

I was making up a few examples to show how small circumstances can be the difference between a careless driving and a dangerous driving conviction. It is impossible to make any general statements about these sort of cases because they all come down to the specific set of circumstances.

Again not referring to this specific case - my own personal view is that a deliberate action as opposed to a lapse is the difference when drawing the line between careless and dangerous driving. The difference in punishment reflects the level of intent in that regard. Of course you have to look out the front window, but no driver (or other road user) is perfect and everyone will make a mistake at some stage. Otherwise we would be in an ideal world where collisions would never happen. The law seeks to balance this reality with the level of recklessness or risk shown by the offender's intended actions.

Pro Hoc Vice

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/man-sentenced-to-seven-years-for-causing-deaths-of-sisters-1.1726012

A 7 year sentence with 3 suspended, in a very sad case.

No Pants

schemingbohemia wrote: »

The more proper question is why the Judge decided not to have the sentence run consecutively rather than concurrently.

Does anyone ever get consecutive sentences in Ireland?

Pro Hoc Vice

No Pants wrote: »

Does anyone ever get consecutive sentences in Ireland?

Yes.

DessieO

Hi Lads, sorry if im hijacking the thread but in a bit of a quandry.
Recently got arrested for driving 184 kmh in a 100 zone. First of all I realise how crazy this was and I accept full responsibility for my actions and my stupidity.

I have been charged with dangerous driving and as this was my first time ever arrested i just have a few questions I was hoping to get clarity on.
If convicted of dangerous driving do i face an automatic ban?
If yes then what would be the chances of the judge in court reducing it to careless and not imposing a ban?
Losing my licence would have a huge impact on my life in terms of work etc.
My mitigation's would be 13 year driving experience with only 2 penalty points to show for it as well as never having come to the attention of the police before. It was one of those 2 lane "motorways" but only 100 was the limit. It was straight stretch of road and quiet at the time with perfect driving conditions in the middle of the day.
It was one moment of lunacy in an otherwise clean driving record so hoping the judge might take pity?

No Pants

DessieO wrote: »

Losing my licence would have a huge impact on my life in terms of work etc.

This is the only hope that you have of avoiding a ban. Avoid everything else, express sorrow and regret and focus on the fact that you'll lose your livelihood.