People often ask me how the Courts determine what is an appropriate punishment or period of disqualification as a result of being convicted for example after a crash, especially in a fatal Well such a case has just been heard at the RCJ on appeal, which I thought you might find interesting. R v MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER BAGSHAWE (2013) It was not inappropriate for a judge to sentence an offender to three years' disqualification from driving for causing death by careless driving where the offence did not fall within the lowest category of the relevant sentencing guidelines. The appellant (B) appealed against a three-year disqualification from driving following his plea of guilty to causing death by careless driving. B had been driving his car on a carriageway when he pulled out across a motorcyclist (V). V was thrown from his bike and died at the scene. B was 85 at the time of the accident. Before sentencing, the judge mentioned that he had sought to advise his own parents about driving when they were elderly. When sentencing he stated that it was because of B's inadvertence that he had not seen V. He concluded that the offence fell within the middle category, category 2, of the relevant sentencing guidelines, and that the minimum disqualification period of one year was not sufficient in circumstances where a man had died. He sentenced B to a 12-month community order comprising a 150-hour unpaid work requirement and disqualified him from driving for three years. B submitted that the judge (1) unfairly took into account his age when sentencing; (2) erred in saying that the minimum one-year disqualification period was insufficient as Parliament had determined that the minimum period was sufficient in cases involving death by careless driving; (3) was unfair to impose a sentence that was three times the minimum period. HELD: (1) In mentioning the advice he himself had given, the judge was simply making a helpful and friendly observation. He did not take B's age into account when sentencing. (2) It was important to have regard to the judge's wording as he had said the minimum period was not sufficient "in a case such as this". He had found that the offence fell in the middle category of the sentencing guidelines because of B's culpability, and in those circumstances the judge was entitled to reach the conclusion that he had. (3) The sentencing guidelines made it clear that a one-year disqualification was the minimum that could be imposed, not that it was the normal or standard period that would be imposed. Disqualification from driving had a dual role: it was a penalty as well as a preventative measure. The judge was fully entitled to decide that a three-year disqualification was appropriate. Appeal dismissed
As a biker you cannot excuse anyone not looking, which counts for about 50% of car drivers. As a son It must be so hard to tell your father that he needs to stop driving.. My Dads a complete petrol head like me and if I notice that his driving is seriously deteriorating, I'm going to have to tell him. Its not going to be easy. I'm not sure that age comes into it really yes your reactions are going to be slower, but an 80 year old is less likely to be texting or on the phone or typing an address into the sat nav..... I don't know the full circumstances but did the biker put himself in a dangerous position? Was he speeding through traffic, some riders don't help themselves sometimes.....
