Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 125 total)
  • Lying to DVLA (Glasgow deaths content)
  • timba
    Free Member

    Several diabetic drivers have been prosecuted having caused a death, e.g. in Liverpool and in Chester
    Why does Scottish law / this case seem to be different?

    timba
    Free Member

    I probably should add that there is no suggestion that the lorry driver is diabetic, but the principle of some sort of medical condition and collapse seems similar

    totalshell
    Full Member

    liar liar pants on fire has royally kicked a whole bunch of folks in the essentials.. i ve had my licenced ‘revoked’ twice.. once when i had a heart op for 30 days and the latest 6 years ago when i had a TIA

    i declare them to the insurers who could nt care less. i would nt declare them to an employer as in my experience i would nt get a job.. thats not my experience of not getting a job because of them but my experience of vetting health questionaires at job application stage for a a large business where every little helps

    i quite happily worked for that company for 20 years and in total had one absence of 12 weeks for the heart op and even after the tia i went to work every day.. i just had to take a couple of buses.. yet my direction was very clear in black and white.. no heart operations no tia victims to be employed.. plus a load of other conditions..

    some folks make use of been ‘ill’ others just get on and live.. what we have to do is understand where the line is of getting on and keeping safe..

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    BobaFatt
    Free Member

    They jumped the gun at the beginning of all of this when they said there would be no criminal prosecution, now knowing what they know, they can’t go back on their original decision.

    Facebook was alight at the beginning of all of this defending the driver to the hilt, that’s all strangely went quiet now

    It’s no wonder the families are proceeding with a private prosecution

    nixie
    Full Member

    Does the private prosecution (if it were to go ahead) carry the same weight as if the state had prosecuted him?

    I too can’t understand how he can be prosecuted by the state for this. I can understand him wanting employment but surely he could have done something else instead of putting others at risk!

    mcj78
    Free Member

    bencooper – Member

    Perhaps there should be a prosecution, but there’s a good argument that it should be Glasgow City Council being prosecuted for corporate manslaughter.

    Is a good point – i’ve read excerpts from the HR people at the council’s testimonies & there seems to be no proof of any references being checked, and certainly no paper copies or otherwise held on file… GCC has been accused plenty of times in the past as having serious problems with well, “jobs for the boys” type attitude & i’m wondering if someone’s put in a good word for him which effectively circumvented the whole vetting process…

    williamnot
    Free Member

    my understanding is that the offence of failing to notifiy DVLA of a medical condition carries an absolute 3 year time bar (as does a whole host of motoring offences) This guy as had blackouts for a lot longer than that. As tragic as this whole situation is there doesnt appear to be an indictable offence.

    bencooper
    Free Member

    They jumped the gun at the beginning of all of this when they said there would be no criminal prosecution, now knowing what they know, they can’t go back on their original decision.

    Thing is, they did know what they now know – no new information has come out during the enquiry, the PF had all the relevant information at the time.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    Perhaps there should be a prosecution, but there’s a good argument that it should be Glasgow City Council being prosecuted for corporate manslaughter

    SO he can lie to them /not disclose information and then they get prosecuted. Why ?

    I am not arguing their were failings on theior part , as there are when someone falls victim to any scam/fraud, but why blame them for what he did[not] do?

    Stoner
    Free Member

    GCC busy with other matters. Like nicking stuff…

    STATO
    Free Member

    I think it was clear from the start that there was an investigation required, and the best way to ensure all the answers were found was to ensure there was incentive to be open and honest, and not try to hide anything.

    If there was threat of prosecution people/organisations would have kept quiet unless to answer direct questions, and that could well have meant things got missed. Hopefully with a more open investigation lessons will be learnt and positive action can be taken. It may (should!) result in organisations reviewing their current procedures and re-assessing existing employees.

    Its very sad that those who lost their lives or loved ones may not receive what they want as justice, but hopefully some positives can be taken as a result on the inquiry.

    STATO
    Free Member

    Perhaps there should be a prosecution, but there’s a good argument that it should be Glasgow City Council being prosecuted for corporate manslaughter

    SO he can lie to them /not disclose information and then they get prosecuted. Why ?
    I am not arguing their were failings on theior part , as there are when someone falls victim to any scam/fraud, but why blame them for what he did[not] do?
    [/quote]

    Depends if they were wilfully negligent in their checks? Afterall they were the ones who gave him access to a large potentially dangerous vehicle.

    There were plenty of calls for skip-lorry companies to be prosecuted when drivers have been found without the correct licences.

    franksinatra
    Full Member

    I feel for the driver too, having that on his conscience.

    If he had any sort of concience, he would not have lied to drive a massive vehicle in a city centre knowing that we could blackout and kill people at any time..

    I find it staggering that he is not in court fighting for his liberty.

    If I ever want to kill anybody, my weapon of choice will be a vehicle. Easy to access, easy to kill, easy to get away with it.

    aracer
    Free Member

    Make sure you “have a blackout”, work for the public sector and kill enough people that an investigation is required.

    franksinatra
    Full Member

    Make sure you “have a blackout”, work for the public sector and kill enough people that an investigation is required

    or make sure that the victim is riding a bike, as that also seems a sure fire way of getting away with it.

    aracer
    Free Member

    Yeah, but most of them at least see the inside of a courtroom from the dock.

    mrmonkfinger
    Free Member

    Roll on self driving lorries.

    If this doesn’t result in some prosecution maybe it will at least result in some change of law.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    Depends if they were wilfully negligent in their checks? Afterall they were the ones who gave him access to a large potentially dangerous vehicle

    IMHO it would be perverse to let him off and only prosecute the employer

    he lied/act fraudently/was deceptive and knew the danger/risk he posed to others; they were simply ioncompetent

    I am not saying they should not be prosecuted but to ONLY prosecute them is bonkers

    squirrelking
    Free Member

    Finally the doctor says right, you’re unfit to drive- tell the DVLA. I know there’s a reporting system in place for some conditions because he got an automatic suspension when he had a TIA but apparently not for being blind as a ****ing bat.

    Mate was training as an optician, one of a few reasons he decided to knock it in, didn’t want that on his conscience.

    As for the driver, looking at it another way maybe he really thought he was fine? I’m not defending him in any way shape or form but there is always another side to the story. Plenty of people are in denial as to how bad their health really is, maybe he was one of them.

    I genuinely don’t believe he ever set out to do this, I don’t believe he thought it would happen either. Obviously we all know differently now.

    As for this public enquiry throwing up nothing new, I’d say there is a strong case for a review of notifiable mdical conditions and how they are managed, wouldn’t you? Like how did he even have a licence in the first place never mind get a job with that history? I hope the DVLA get taken to task on this as well as GCC.

    jambalaya
    Free Member

    Perhaps there should be a prosecution, but there’s a good argument that it should be Glasgow City Council being prosecuted for corporate manslaughter.

    Very possibly. If he lied to them then there is a question about whether they checked references, ie carried out basic due diligence which they have a duty to. If he lied on his job application / DVLA he should be prosecuted.

    FWIW I think the driver was less in denial about his health and more in need of work. So he lied / covered up his health issues.

    matt_outandabout
    Full Member

    As suspected, with a private prosecution hanging over his head, the driver is not really answering many questions.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34000965

    I am still struggling to understand how the authorities though that there was not enough evidence, or that it was not in the interests of state or victims to prosecute.

    wwaswas
    Full Member

    I wonder if it was so he’d be able to answer questions during the enquiry without fear of being prosecuted for what he said?

    Still daft, though.

    cbike
    Free Member

    It is a fatal accident enquiry. The outcome is to ensure the systems are in place that this can never happen again. Prosecuting the guy would mean that can’t happen.

    Now he is in an impossible situation, as some of the families want to prosecute him privately he cannot say anything that would incriminate himself. Not all of the families want him prosecuted.

    The press and public witch hunt is appalling and counterproductive. He is obviously totally distraught and has said so.

    MrsToast
    Free Member

    The press and public witch hunt is appalling and counterproductive. He is obviously totally distraught and has said so.

    I don’t know, he killed a load of people because he wasn’t fit to drive and lied about it. I imagine the majority of drink drivers that injure or kill people are distraught about it and didn’t mean to, but it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be punished for it. He knew he shouldn’t drive, yet he lied about his history to secure a job driving large vehicles.

    I think the public and press need to be more witch hunty, so that people begin to realise that driving comes with responsibility, and isn’t a god-given right. Hopefully if there are people out there with similar conditions who think, “I’ll be fine”, the publicity surrounding the case might make them think twice before getting behind the wheel.

    unknown
    Free Member

    He was so distraught that he tried to get his HGV licence back after the crash.

    Staggering that he’s not facing criminal charges.

    ChubbyBlokeInLycra
    Free Member

    The press and public witch hunt is appalling and counterproductive

    He tried to get his licence back after the accident, so he obviously thought that passing out and killing 6 people wasn’t a bad thing.
    The PF isn’t going to charge him, so he walks away unpunished, even though he has a history of passing out and shouldn’t have been driving.
    To protect himself, he refuses to apologise to the families.

    I don’t see what’s counterproductive

    martinhutch
    Full Member

    I agree that the guy should be before the courts but there does seem to be some lawyer grandstanding going on asking a bloke repeatedly to apologise knowing full well that he can’t for fear of incriminating himself.
    Fatal accident inquiry should have been delayed until the question of criminal charges was dealt with properly.

    slowoldgit
    Free Member

    Someone elsewhere made the point that if he’d accepted he couldn’t continue driving, he’d have the usual problems with benefits and there’s no re-training, thanks to that nice Ian Duncan Smith.

    They may have been jumping on the bandwagon, but it seems a fair viewpoint.

    slowoldgit
    Free Member

    There was a case near me, when a chap was killed by a truck driver drifting off. ISTR sleep apnea was involved, and the driver did time.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    martinhutch – Member

    I agree that the guy should be before the courts but there does seem to be some lawyer grandstanding going on asking a bloke repeatedly to apologise knowing full well that he can’t for fear of incriminating himself.

    I’ve no sympathy for him but not just this, the reporting of that part is pretty awful. This:

    “Mr Clarke, I would give you the chance to say ‘I’m sorry I told lies in April 2010 and I know and accept that those lies led to the deaths of those innocent people’ Can you say that Mr Clarke?” He replied: “No I can’t say that.”

    Gets reported as “refuses to say sorry”. That’s not refusing to say sorry, that’s refusing to incriminate himself, it’s not the same.

    It’s shitey lawyer games, with the families in the court room bearing the brunt. The same lawyer asked him outright if he was deterred from answering questions by the threat of public prosecution- ie, while calling for honest answers and apologies and making noises about helping the family, is totally aware that it’s their lawyering that makes that so unlikely. 2 different sorts of **** on opposite sides of the room, this.

    aracer
    Free Member

    Prosecuting drivers who lie about their medical disorders would appear to be part of the system which needs to be in place to ensure this can never happen again. I should point out that by that I mean all drivers who lie about their medical disorders, not just ones who kill people due to them.

    I think to some extent a point is being made by asking questions which he knows aren’t going to be answered. Yes it is lawyer games, but lawyer games with a point (ISTR some case where the whole point of calling one witness was to get him to refuse to answer questions).

    Fatal accident inquiry should have been delayed until the question of criminal charges was dealt with properly.

    Which is presumably what would have happened if the PF had brought a criminal case – as discussed it seems that a FAI could have been held after such a trial with no resulting legal problems from the driver answering questions fully. Therefore it looks as if one reason behind not bringing charges was in order to have a FAI sooner – if so that appears to be a major blunder. Some top prosecutor was making similar points, it’s not just us amateurs here thinking like that.

    martinhutch
    Full Member

    Even the prospect of a private prosecution should have brought things to a swift stop. The purpose of the FAI is to establish facts – but this is a bit of a circus. This bloke had no way of defending himself (it may be he has no defence, of course.)

    irc
    Full Member

    What new facts exactly are we expecting? We know he had a history of blackouts. we know had history of lying to the DVLA, his employers, and his doctors. We know 6 people are dead because of his lies.

    As in the case of the Selby rail crash this guy should have been prosecuted.

    aracer
    Free Member

    Indeed – whether or not he will admit to telling lies and apologise is somewhat incidental. I suppose it’s only if there’s something about the incident itself he could tell us, but might incriminate him where there would be something to gain. But from the available evidence it seems he doesn’t remember anything about it.

    bencooper
    Free Member

    Basically it boils down to this – if you’re negligent and someone dies, then you’re not guilty. Only if you’re reckless could you be guilty. That’s the summary of a long Twitter conversation I had with a Scottish lawyer last night.

    Which is why there was a point made about how the driver couldn’t have known he’d black out on that particular day. If he had known he would, then he was reckless, as he didn’t he was only negligent and therefore not guilty.

    MrsToast
    Free Member

    Which is why there was a point made about how the driver couldn’t have known he’d black out on that particular day. If he had known he would, then he was reckless, as he didn’t he was only negligent and therefore not guilty.

    But isn’t reckless to drive when you know you have a history of unexpected blackouts, when you’ve been told that you shouldn’t drive large vehicles by a doctor? The fact that he’s tried to get his HGV license back after wiping out a load of people demonstrates a certain lack of perspective…

    martinhutch
    Full Member

    Basically it boils down to this – if you’re negligent and someone dies, then you’re not guilty. Only if you’re reckless could you be guilty. That’s the summary of a long Twitter conversation I had with a Scottish lawyer last night.

    Which is why there was a point made about how the driver couldn’t have known he’d black out on that particular day. If he had known he would, then he was reckless, as he didn’t he was only negligent and therefore not guilty.

    Is that a peculiarity of Scots law? The logical extension of that means you could never be prosecuted for a crash caused by known medical issue which causes fits or blackouts at the wheel unless they were a predictable daily occurrence. Surely if you know that you have such an issue, you are both negligent and reckless to the potential consequences every time you take the wheel, regardless or not of whether you happen to black out and kill someone on that day?

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    ^^^Wot they say

    If say I was an epileptic then the exact timing of any blackout is not predictable but its occurrence is predictable

    He lied to get a job as he knew no one would employ him with that history.
    His blackout was entirely foreseeable as it was not a one off.

    thegreatape
    Free Member

    I have also read what bencooper said, that the basis for not prosecuting him for a driving offence was that he couldn’t have reasonably predicted that he would collapse on that day (in contrast, say, to someone who set off on a journey when obviously overtired, so knew they were not safe to drive on that day, which was IIRC the crux of the Selby prosecution).

    What wasn’t clear from what I read is whether or not that decision was based on case law or some sort of legal precedent, or if was simply COPFS’s speculation as to what decision would be reached in court. If the former, there isn’t much more they could have done. If the latter, I don’t see why the question ‘isn’t reckless to drive when you know you have a history of unexpected blackouts, when you’ve been told that you shouldn’t drive large vehicles by a doctor?’ shouldn’t be decided by a court. I don’t find ‘he wouldn’t have known he would collapse on that day‘ a satisfactory basis on which to conclude he wasn’t careless or dangerous. As I say though, if case law exists then COPFS have their hands tied on that matter.

    This relates only to careless/dangerous driving and not any DVLA/fraud/pecuniary advantage offences lying to the DVLA or GCC may have involved.

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 125 total)

The topic ‘Lying to DVLA (Glasgow deaths content)’ is closed to new replies.

Members Notice New deal added to Members Discounts