Time to prosecute BMW for corporate manslaughter?

Isn’t it time that the directors of businesses like BMW found themselves in the dock on a charge of corporate manslaughter? They, after all, are complicit in building murder machines specifically designed to go at speeds twice that of the maximum national speed limit, and they bear some responsibility for the carnage on Britain’s roads. The anti-smoking lobby in the USA went down this route with great success, even though smoking is a voluntary activity.

The problem with the crap collaborationist ‘road safety’ lobby is that thoughts like this are completely outside the frame. In fact I can’t think of anyone who has ever suggested it before. Black box data recorders in every vehicle and prosecutions for corporate manslaughter are far better policies than asking cyclists to remember to leave their Harry Potter cloaks at home and try extra hard to be ‘visible’.

A speeding driver who killed a father-of-three when he drove at almost 155mph in an attempt to win back his girlfriend has been jailed for seven years. Shehzad Munir, 25, was showing off when he cut across three lanes and smashed his 4.5 litre BMW 6 series into Sukhpreet "Suki" Singh Chimber's car. The incident is believed to be one of the highest speed death crashes ever on Britain's roads. 

Munir was convicted by the jury of causing death by dangerous driving. He travelled at excessive speed for some six miles. 

Naturally under the British criminal injustice system this lethal yob will one day be allowed back behind the wheel of a car.

 Footnote

 Let’s not forget BMW and the Olympics.

a crackpot prosecution

A fireworks organiser has been charged with manslaughter over a crash on the M5 motorway described as one of the worst on British roads. Geoffrey Counsell, 50, from Somerset, will appear at Bristol Magistrates' Court next month accused of seven counts of manslaughter. 

'It was clear from the investigation carried out by Avon and Somerset Police that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute for driver error and therefore no action will be taken against any motorists. 

So someone who was not directly involved in this spectacular crash is being persecuted as the scapegoat for it.

Motorway crashes of this sort happen with great regularity and there is no mystery about their cause. Large numbers of motorists break the 70 mph speed limit. Large numbers of motorists drive too close to the vehicle in front. Large numbers of motorists drive with complete disregard for adverse weather conditions. Large numbers of motorists are driving inattentively and without bothering to anticipate the unexpected. All it takes is for one small event to require sudden breaking and the next moment three lanes of high speed vehicles are ploughing into each other.

If anyone should be in the dock over this particular crash it should be Avon and Somerset Constabulary, on a charge of corporate manslaughter. This police force turns a blind eye on a daily basis to massive criminality on the M5. In that, of course, it is no different to any other police force in Britain.

Relying on eye-witness evidence in high-speed crashes on a motorway at night during fog not surprisingly results in little useful evidence being gleaned. Once again it underlines how every vehicle in Britain should be fitted with a black box data recorder which would, among other things, supply irrefutable evidence of speed prior to a collision. This is a subject one rarely ever hears discussed. Instead Britain’s car supremacist police forces spend their time telling cyclists to be ‘visible’ and wear helmets and all the rest of it. Chief Constables are not without clout and they could and should be lobbying for black box data recorders, which would make crash investigation work a lot easier. Unfortunately the ACPO crowd sees life through the windows of a chauffeur-driven car. The need for black box data recorders is illustrated by this little detail from a case involving the killing of a cyclist:

It is not known at what speed the BMW was travelling. 

The BMW driver later told police he thought it was a 50 mph zone, when it was 40 mph. 

A good defence lawyer ought to be able to get Mr Counsell off this unwarranted and unfair prosecution. It is also an odd prosecution, coming in the wake of earlier press reports like this, which seem to get to the heart of the matter:

Survivors told how they drove into a thick bank of fog, moments before the accident happened. According to reports, an investigation into the cause of the crash, in which 51 people were also injured, concluded that drifting smoke from a nearby fireworks party was not to blame. A police source was quoted as saying the emphasis of the probe had shifted and that driver error was the probable trigger, possibly a vehicle braking heavily as it encountered a dense fog bank just ahead of the main body of the accident.

six months in prison because he ‘acted dangerously’

The Cycling Lawyer notes how

after 9 months, my analysis of careless driving cases is starting to demonstrate how rare immediate custodial sentences are for motorists who kill cyclists. 

Killing people with a motor vehicle is regarded with great tolerance by the British criminal injustice system.

But if you upset people, judges and magistrates will have no compunction about sending you to prison:

Trenton Oldfield, who disrupted this year's Boat Race by swimming into the path of the crews on the Thames, was sentenced to six months in jail at Isleworth Crown Court after he was convicted of causing a public nuisance. 

The judge said Oldfield had acted dangerously, disproportionately, had not shown what he was actually protesting against, and displayed prejudice in sabotaging the event

Speeding footballer update

The latest prominent footballer to be convicted after multiple speeding offences. And he didn’t even have to bother turning up in court.

Yes, it’s Peter Crouch.

Hit and run driver who left cyclist in road allowed to continue driving

Impulsively and foolishly put something on your Facebook page that offends Daily Mail readers, send an abusive tweet, or wear a T-shirt with a tasteless and repellent slogan and Britain’s magistrates and judges will have no qualms about sending you to prison for many months, even for a first-time offence.

But recklessly crash into a cyclist and leave them lying in the road while you drive away hoping never to be caught and the British judicial system will treat you very leniently indeed. If you are caught you not only won’t automatically go to jail, you may even be allowed to continue driving, like this motorist:

A WOMAN has pleaded guilty to failing to stop after her car collided with a cyclist. Stephanie Crotty admitted injuring Alister Sykes and causing damage to his bike while driving a blue Volkswagen. The 26-year-old from Yeats Close, Royston, was ordered to pay £400 after failing to report the accident on the A505 near to the entry to the northbound Letchworth Gate A1(M) junction slip road in September. Crotty was also given seven points on her driving licence when she appeared at Stevenage Magistrates’ Court on Friday. 

Meanwhile a London borough where SUSTRANS collaborates with a car-supremacist local authority to ‘encourage cycling’ by handing out loyalty cards to cycling shoppers has been revealed as the sixth worst borough in London for hit and runs:

Figures obtained by the Greater London Authority show that during 2011 there were 147 hit and runs in the borough.

Spot the irrelevant, victim-blaming detail

Cyclist Joseph Belmonte, known as Pepe, was struck from behind by Pc David Lynch’s van in Hackney. The officer, who was responding to an emergency call, was driving at more than double the 30mph speed limit before losing control of his van. Mr Belmonte, 31, who was not wearing a helmet, was thrown across the van’s bonnet and into a tree like a “ragdoll”, according to witnesses. He was left with brain, spine and face injuries and a broken right arm and finger. He also remained in an induced coma for nine days after the crash and needed surgery. 

Lynch, 31, from Hitchin in Hertfordshire, walked free from Southwark crown court on Tuesday after receiving an eight-month suspended prison sentence. He had previously pleaded guilty to careless driving and was also convicted of the more serious charge of dangerous driving. Father-of-two Lynch was driving his British Transport Police Mercedes Vito van at up to 68mph in a 30mph zone when he lost control of the vehicle and hit Mr Belmonte at 45mph. 

The smash happened as Lynch sped to an urgent call for assistance at Hackney Downs station on March 31 last year. Lynch, who has two previous convictions for speeding, was also ordered by judge Jeffrey Pegden QC to complete 240 hours’ community service and faces a 6pm-7am curfew for 12 weeks. He was banned from driving for 15 months and ordered to retake his driving test, as well as pay £1,000 costs.

In the courts

British justice, where wearing an offensive T-shirt will get you a longer prison sentence than a road rage driver who assaults an 81-year-old woman.

A thug has been jailed for beating up an elderly woman who told him to watch his language when he swore at her for driving too slowly. Road rage driver Usman Ali Yasin, 30, left Patricia Pearson, 81, with horrific injuries following the attack in June this year. She suffered cuts to her forehead, lips and cheek and told police the attack had left her feeling 'vulnerable'. 

Yasin claimed that the pensioner attacked him and told officers he had been acting in self-defence. He was jailed for 16 weeks yesterday after a trial at Burton Magistrates Court found him guilty of common assault. 

Elsewhere

A man who wore a T-shirt with offensive comments about the murders of Pc Fiona Bone and Pc Nicola Hughes on it just hours after they died has been sentenced to eight months in prison. 

Barry Thew, 39, who has a lengthy criminal record, wore a T-shirt with ‘One less pig: Perfect justice’ hand-written on it the same day the two women police officers were gunned down. 

Thew, of Radcliffe, Greater Manchester, admitted a Section 4A Public Order Offence (displaying writing or other visible representation with intention of causing harassment, alarm or distress) and was sentenced at Minshull Street Crown Court today. 

Another instance of the British judiciary’s enthusiasm for imprisoning people for expressing offensive opinions is the jailing of Matthew Woods. Nineteen years old, and doing three months for making "grossly offensive" comments about an abducted child. On his own Facebook page.

Justice for cyclists: one possible small step forward, two big steps back

The cycling lawyer continues to explore the unacceptably low penalties handed out to drivers for killing a cyclist, a topic which is being raised in parliament (more details here). Even judges sometimes express deep frustration at the limits placed upon their sentencing power

But while this latest effort to reform the law is very welcome, I wonder how many people are aware that the Crown Prosecution Service is currently seeking to limit the prosecution of some drivers involved in fatal collisions or who have, for example, driven at reckless speeds.

PLANS for bold legal reforms could see fewer emergency services personnel charged with criminal offences over their response to 999 call-outs. Draft Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance today suggests it is should be‘very unlikely’ police, fire and ambulance workers are prosecuted for committing driving offences while responding to call-outs. The draft guidance also suggests there may be no public interest in charging people in cases where members of their family or close friends are killed – as they will already have suffered ‘overwhelming grief.’ The consultation ends on November 8. 

I stumbled upon this revelation in a local newspaper account of a police driver who was found not guilty of dangerous driving.

These are some of the reforms which the CPS is proposing to introduce. Personally I think they will end up making our roads more dangerous, and reinforce the message that criminally reckless, even lethal driving, is not so regarded by the justice system. In the case of fatal collisions involving the death of someone close to the killer driver, the CPS is proposing to water down the current law as follows:

Whilst the serious nature of these cases usually means that a prosecution will be in the public interest, prosecutors must acknowledge the greater emotional impact felt by a driver where the death he/she has caused is that of a relative or someone with whom they share a close personal/family relationship. These types of cases are more commonly referred to as "nearest and dearest" cases. Where the degree of culpability of the driver is low and the fatality was as a result of the standard of driving falling below that required by law with no evidence of danger to other road users, it is unlikely that a prosecution will be in the public interest. Examples of this may include minor errors of judgement such as failure to look properly before turning at a junction due to a momentary lapse of attention; or, where the illegality arose as a result of a genuine mistake on the part of the driver, for example, a mistaken belief that he/she was insured. The same conclusion would be appropriate where a driver demonstrated a higher degree of culpability (i.e. slightly more than low culpability) but there was no evidence of continuing danger to others. For instance, where an individual is tuning a car radio and is distracted by this and a fatality ensues. 

This shows that the CPS is institutionally on the side of the criminally inattentive driver. The roads are crammed with drivers whose attention is not focused on the road ahead, yet the CPS is proposing to exempt some of them from prosecution. In any case, the notion that innocent drivers suffer from ‘a momentary lapse of attention’ is garbage – this is the feeble excuse wheeled out every time by the classic dangerous driver who regularly drives in a criminally reckless and negligent way and then, when sooner or later they end up in a collision, sob that they were momentarily distracted.

As for the emergency services:

In the course of their duties, police officers, ambulance drivers and fire-fighters may need to drive a vehicle in response to an emergency in a manner which would otherwise be considered unacceptable. It is very unlikely to be appropriate to proceed with a prosecution on public interest grounds if a police officer, ambulance driver or fire-fighter commits a driving offence while responding to an emergency call unless the driving is dangerous or indicates a high degree of culpability. There will sometimes be cases when a person who is not a member of the emergency services will have to drive in response to an emergency situation. For example, a parent taking a sick child to hospital. As with members of the emergency services, the considerations outlined above will also apply in these cases. 

If this exemption is granted to drivers who are not members of the emergency services then I feel sure we’ll be hearing lots of reckless drivers involved in a crash using the ‘my child was unwell and I genuinely felt it was an emergency’ alibi.

As for the professionals. The police are involved in high-speed collisions, sometimes with fatal consequences, with alarming frequency. Indeed

Each day in London, an average of 12 road traffic accidents take place involving vehicles belonging to the Metropolitan Police, according to figures obtained by the Daily Mail, resulting in the deaths of 22 people, including five pedestrians and one cyclist, during the past three years. 

The notion that police drivers responding to emergencies have in the past been unreasonably and mercilessly prosecuted by the CPS is a myth. Most of the time they are never prosecuted at all.

The local case that sticks in my mind is the killing of an elderly pedestrian in Chingford three years ago. Brian Elton was killed while walking across a very wide road with clear sightlines for approaching drivers. The investigation of his killing by an un-named police driver was less than transparent. The toothless, dysfunctional and utterly discredited IPCC (which is stuffed with ex-police officers) rushed to exonerate the killer driver. Two very salient issues were never made public. What was the speed of the police car in this 30 mph zone? What was the nature of the emergency that the police officer was responding to? These are reasonable and valid questions which I think it is very much in the public interest to know the answers to, but they never will be answered because there are no systems in place to bring them out into the open.

Finally, cop this.



 The story behind this video is here.

It was ‘an accident’

Coroner Geoffrey Saul said all three people had died from injuries sustained in the crash. He also made clear that the coroner’s court does not seek to prove any criminal or civil liability.

He said: ‘I will simply say that Derek and Ethan were in a VW Golf, which was being driving appropriately, when for some reason the vehicle driven by Mrs Lee strayed from its own carriageway and into the oncoming carriageway.

‘There was no evidence of excessive speed but the incline of the bridge meant neither driver had an advanced view of the other car.' Coroner Saul returned a verdict of accidental death.

The coroner’s mealy-mouthed equivocation is baffling, since the reason why the vehicle driven by Mrs Lee strayed from its own carriageway and into the oncoming carriageway is surely obvious.

It is interesting that Mrs Lee’s body was posthumously tested for alcohol, since in another case of a fatal crash where drinking was almost certainly a factor the dead driver’s blood was never tested for alcohol. 

But then consistency is not the strong point of the English system for dealing with violent deaths. For example:

His subsequent driving record was appalling. In July 2009 he drove into the rear of another vehicle causing £3,000 worth of damage. In August 2010 he was involved in a collision though he disputes this was his fault and the Judge therefore rightly disregarded it. In March 2011 he collided with a parked motor vehicle and failed to stop, as a consequence of which he was dismissed by his then employer. In June 2011, shortly before he killed Ms Gutmann, he attempted to overtake a minicab so closely that he removed the wing mirror. His solicitor argued that since none of these incidents had resulted in any conviction they should be disregarded but the Judge wisely disagreed. 

The judge in the trial of the police officer who assaulted Ian Tomlinson faced a similar argument but perversely decided that the defendant’s substantial record of alleged violence and uncontrollable anger should be excluded from consideration:

The jury's verdict, after four days of deliberations, brings about something of a legal contradiction: 14 months ago another jury, at the inquest into Tomlinson's death, ruled that he was unlawfully killed by Harwood. The inquest ruling was made on the same standard of proof as a criminal trial, that is, beyond reasonable doubt.

Neither jury heard details of Harwood's prior disciplinary record, which can only be reported now. This includes how he quit the Met on health grounds in 2001 shortly before a planned disciplinary hearing into claims he illegally tried to arrest a driver after a road rage incident while off duty, altering his notes to retrospectively justify the actions. Harwood was nonetheless able to join another force, Surrey, before returning to serve with the Met in 2005. He allegedly punched, throttled, kneed or threatened other suspects while in uniform in other alleged incidents.

Violent road rage motorist spared jail

A motorist who throttled a pedestrian and tried to whip him with his belt in the heat of road rage was spared jail. 

Domingos Goncalves, 34, assaulted Meshack Pond who allegedly stepped out in front of his car, forcing him to brake to avoid a collision.

Goncalves, who admitted assault causing actual bodily harm, was sentenced at Southwark crown court to 16 weeks in jail, suspended for two years, and ordered to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work.

“The defendant approached the victim, stood very close and kept shouting and swearing and pushed him three times. 

"The victim said the defendant then went back to his vehicle and as he was doing that removed his belt and swung it towards him.” 

"Mr Pond then moved on, thinking the situation had calmed down. The defendant approached him from behind and assaulted him. He sat on him then, while on top of him, the victims states the defendant tried to strangle him with both hands.” 

Guy Bowden, defending, said pressure of work built up for father-of-one Goncalves, a bus driver for 10 years.

In the courts

A HUSBAND has spoken of his anger after a hit-and-run driver who left his wife dying in the road was jailed for just eight months. 

Michael James Lundstram fled the scene after his uninsured car hit cyclist and mother-of-five Susan Griffiths. Instead of calling for help Lundstram, of Llandudno, hid in bushes while Mrs Griffiths lay on the road in Dwygyfylchi for 15 minutes with serious head and facial injuries. The 47-year-old died later at Ysbyty Gwynedd in Bangor. 

Lundstram was previously banned from driving in 2009 and had no insurance at the time of the offence. 

He was also disqualified for two and a half years for failing to stop at the scene of an accident and having two defective tyres on the Mondeo.

Repeat offender is allowed to go on driving

Whose heart would not soften in the face of anguish like this?

I can get a telephone call from a player saying they want to speak to me and I have to travel to Bristol. 

“Without a car it would be horrible. I just could not do it.”

In the Courts

photo: The Star

The court heard Beckett, of High Street Mews, Mosborough, was “tailgating” other drivers when he came behind Mr Cunliffe, 60, a keen cyclist who was riding his new £2,500 Protec bike at Tinker’s Corner, Sheffield, on March 6 last year. 

Beckett was alleged to have “cut up” the cyclist as he went round a corner and an altercation ensued. Beckett drove on, then got out of his car and stopped the cyclist in the middle of the road before punching him repeatedly. 

The judge added that Beckett had not shown a “shred of remorse” and he clearly suffered from anger management problems. “The only person who doesn’t see it is you,” he said. “You think the whole world is against you.” 

The judge said reports showed he had an “aggressive and provocative” character and found it difficult not to be the person in control. 

No surprise to learn that this driver was a former police officer or that after all his fierce rhetoric the judge then feebly let him walk free from court.

Meanwhile in another court

A 'chancer' who killed four members of the same family when he shunted their car off the road and into a reservoir while rushing to work was jailed for four years yesterday. 

Mechanic Gordon Dyche, 24, had recently completed a driving ban when he tried to overtake two cars in a row on a winding country road because he was worried he would lose pay if he was late. 

Dyche, who had a history of minor driving offences, had completed a three month ban for driving without insurance just three weeks before the accident on the B4518 in April last year. 

So what kind of driving ban do you get for having a history of repeated motoring offences which finally culminates in killing four other road users? You guessed correctly. An insultingly small one. He was banned from driving for four years.

This is not a road fatality

A road fatality is defined as meaning any person killed immediately or dying within 30 days as a result of a road crash.

A man who never recovered after being knocked down by a hit-and-run driver six years ago, died after contracting pneumonia, an inquest heard. 

Paul Dix was hit by a car outside his Drayton Road home in Norwich on January 22, 2006, and spent almost six years in a persistent vegetative state. 

 A woman from Lakenham received a six-month driving ban and a £50 fine after admitting careless driving and failing to stop at the scene. Her driving licence had expired due to medical restrictions.

On the buses (not)

Lawyers representing clients on legal aid have spoken of their anger after being told they can claim less in expenses if they travel to court by car. 

The Legal Services Commission, which operates the legal aid scheme, is cutting the mileage rate for cars from 45p a mile to 25p and urging lawyers to use public transport. 

But many lawyers warn it is impractical and dangerous to catch buses while carrying confidential documents.

Crime and punishment: cyclists and drivers

Our friends down in Bristol will be delighted to learn that the British criminal justice system takes a far more robust attitude to lawless, road-tax-dodging cyclists than it does to ordinary decent motorists who through no fault of their own and in exceptional circumstances sometimes find themselves going a little faster than the permitted speed limit.

A “ROGUE” cyclist spent a night in the cells for refusing to give police his name after they stopped him for using a no-cycle lane on Hampstead Heath. Jean Dollimore, spokeswoman for Camden Cycling Campaign, said it was “extreme” to arrest a cyclist using an empty path when “there are not nearly enough cycle paths on the Heath”. She added: “I imagine this man wasn’t trying to be a rogue cyclist, he just thought it was 8pm, no one was around, and it was safe to do so. 

“There is no way to cycle all the way across the Heath on a network of paths without having to get off and walk some of the way, and that needs to change.” Cyclist Eddison Joseph, 50, from Kentish Town, called for “common sense” after he was fined £330 by magistrates in March last year for riding on a no-cycle path on Hampstead Heath 

Meanwhile

Mercedes driver Shayla Christina Arnold, 27, of Tennant Road, Acomb , admitted doing 96 mph on the A64 at Tadcaster . Her solicitor, Keith Haggerty, said she was racing to get home because her daughter, a passenger in the car, was feeling ill and needed medicine. Arnold said she needed her car to do two care service jobs looking after up to 20 people a week in their own homes. She was given five penalty points and fined £170. 

Porsche driver Dean Robert Sheriff, 43, of Dalton Terrace, York, admitted doing 97 mph on the A64 at Tadcaster and had a previous conviction for speeding. He was given five penalty points, and a £200 fine. He said he had been suffering from stomach cramp, sickness and diarrhoea and was hurrying to get to a McDonalds further along the route. 

VW Golf driver Luke Tibble, 29, of Broad Green Wellingborough, admitted doing 108 mph on the A63 at Newthorpe. He was given a 28-day driving ban and £230 fine. He said he had not been in a hurry, but had had a loss of concentration.

Crime and punishment – update

The protester who threw a foam pie at Rupert Murdoch has been jailed for six weeks.

Meanwhile

A van driver risked his life and that of train passengers after making a split-second decision to ignore red lights at a level crossing and accelerate under the protective barriers.

Alan Dodd, 55, was ordered to pay a £400 fine, £45 costs and given three points on his license at Cambridge Magistrates' Court.

The judge who banged up the shaving foam comedian is the same one who cleared Metropolitan police sergeant Delroy Smellie of assaulting protestor Nicola Fisher.

District judge Daphne Wickham ruled he acted lawfully, despite video evidence posted on the internet showing Smellie hitting a woman half his size with the back of his hand and a retractable metal baton.

Court decides driving is a basic human necessity

An unlicensed driver who was jailed for nearly two years for hitting and killing a cyclist on Yorke Peninsula has had his sentence reduced by the South Australian Supreme Court.

The court found the ban was too long, given the limited public transport options where Bennett lives on the Yorke Peninsula.

Well we wouldn’t want killer drivers having to endure all the inconvenience of travelling by bus, would we?

And obviously cycling is totally out of the question.

Crime and Punishment

The court does not tolerate violence against anyone

thundered Judge Nicholas Price QC as he gave an immediate custodial sentence to a student who confessed to throwing two placard sticks at police during anti-cuts demonstrations in March.

The Judge sent the student down for a year.

The courts have an altogether more relaxed and indulgent attitude towards wilful acts of aggression when the  police officer is riding a bicycle and the defendant is a motorist:

Burnley Crown Court heard how Harrison had made nine attempts to run Detective Inspector Melvin off the road, trying to hit him on the pavement and making contact with his handlebars and causing him to veer into trees, with the result he came off his bike. He also threw coins and stones at his victim.

The sciatica defence

Carlton Lewars, 60, of Gladstone Avenue, Tottenham, north London walked free from Southwark Crown Court after prosecutors offered no evidence against him.

He had been accused of causing death by dangerous driving after his bus hit Jayne Helliwell, from Braunston in Northamptonshire, as she cycled along Oxford Street in the West End of London in April last year.

Mr Lewars claimed that a sudden attack of sciatic pain meant that he could not control his foot at the time of the crash, and so was pressing the accelerator pedal rather than the brake.

Prosecutor Barry Gregory explained that the CPS had decided to offer no evidence in the case because “it is not now sure that the prosecution could reach the high standard of proving, so that the jury would be sure, that Mr Lewars drove far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver given those medical circumstances in which it has already been shown that he would not have been able to forsee the sciatica coming on in the way in which it did, causing him to press the accelerator rather than to press or try to press the brake.”

Mr Lewars’ bus hit Miss Helliwell’s bike and then collided with another bus, before hitting a bus shelter.

Sciatica is a very common medical condition. If sciatica is accepted by the British judicial system as a condition which may result in loss of control of body functions, with lethal consequences for other road users, then plainly no one who suffers from sciatica should be permitted to drive any vehicle, whether a private car or a company vehicle.

As things stand this killer driver is perfectly free to continue driving.

This case echoes that of another recent one involving a cyclist hit and killed by a driver:

An investigation found she had made a 40-second mobile phone call to her husband three minutes before the crash, but there was no evidence she made a call at the time of the collision.

She was charged with causing death by dangerous driving and pleaded not guilty at a hearing last year.

In a dramatic turnaround at a pre-trial hearing yesterday Mrs Johnson sobbed as the case against her was dropped after the judge heard she had probably suffered a reflex syncope or faint.

In that case there was no evidence of a pre-existing medical condition nor any conclusive evidence that the killer driver had suffered from ‘a reflex syncope’ (there were other explanations available, the plausibility of which was reinforced by tangible evidence that the killer driver had been on a mobile phone shortly before she killed the cyclist). But again a hypothetical medical explanation was forwarded by the defence, never tested before a jury, and a killer driver was free to breeze out of court and get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and continue driving.

In cases like these, killer drivers get it both ways. They are spared a trial and exonerated from all responsibility for killing a cyclist, but despite allegedly being prone to a medical condition which incapacitates them with lethal consequences for other road users, they are permitted to continue driving.

This, it seems to me, is NOT JUSTICE. A lifetime driving ban in such cases would offer some small consolation to bereaved families. (Who knows, it might well be that if a mandatory lifetime driving ban was made a condition of a medical defence being accepted in cases of this sort, then some killer drivers might actually prefer not to use this defence.)

Mind you, justice is not the word that springs to mind regarding the kinds of sentences imposed when there is a conviction.