[Closed] Lying to DVLA (Glasgow deaths content)

If he lied to obtain employment, that could be prosecuted as fraud. Pecuniary advantage by deception and all that jazz. (Am assuming the same act applies in Scotchlandshire. IANAL, etc)

But it is being reported that no prosecutions will be made - and the inquiry has been told that formally.

Only the family are to bring a private action.

Only the family are to bring a private action.

which they seem to be doing

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-33959101 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-33959101[/url]

Given that you're supposed to declare health issues and surrender your licence if you're not fit to drive, I don't see why knowingly driving with a health issue which would lose you your licence isn't considered as driving without a licence.

Before this came to light I was having the same debate with my parents over one of them continuing to drive despite clearly suffering from conditions which should see a licence handed in.

Maybe that's where the DVLA reluctance comes from - it opens a can of worms on all the self certifying drivers who shouldn't still be drivers.

Good point re the worms, but I think the key difference here is the 'professional' nature of the driver. Doddery old biddies aren't paid to be doddery old biddies.

I would be greatly surprised, not to mention hugely upset, if this does not lead to a significant change in the regulations concerning fitness to drive and the availability of information to those making decisions. In days gone by the confidentiality of the doctor patient relationship was protected by making the patient responsible for informing the DVLA if doubts existed about their fitness to drive. On occasion that caused doctors real difficulties. Although there has been some movement on that in recent years I suspect that the fundamental concept of leaving it to the patient has just become untenable.

My Father In Law runs a coach company, he's 75 on Wednesday & every year he has to do a treadmill test to keep his PSV license.
He is of the opinion that all drivers that are not disabled should have to take this test and a more stringent eyesight check every year.

In the last 5 years he has informed DVLA of 4 people he knew that should not be driving. His reasoning was he didn't want some idiot that was clearly unfit to be driving sharing the roads with me on a bike.

I know he might be looking at it from the point of who is looking after his daughter but I admire his stance.

What will come out of is a massive compliance back-lash that will mean an awful lot of money is spent setting up yet another set of systems plus annual licencing costs for ALL 'professional' drivers. Impacting probably 1m drivers?

All because of a few...

http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/index/information-and-services/motoring/driving-for-a-living/driving-at-work.htm

(Am assuming the same act applies in Scotchlandshire. IANAL, etc)

It doesnt, but the law is similar enough to support your argument, I think, IANAL 😛

I would be greatly surprised, not to mention hugely upset, if this does not lead to a significant change in the regulations concerning fitness to drive

This +1

The CPS/Scottish Equivalent may not feel that there was enough evidence to try for a prosecution for any offence (which given the Scottish "not proven" option seems odd) but hopefully this tragedy will see a review of how [u]everyones[/u] competence to drive is checked and assessed.

IANAL or Scottish, before anyone starts on me....

b r is bang on.

I don't think in this instance it would have made much, if any, difference at all, but I really don't like the idea of vehicles of that size and weight doing 30mph through town centres. The town I live in has an express coach to Glasgow, a huge long double decker type that rattles through town every 20 minutes at at least 30mph (ever seen a bus driver pulled for speeding?) and it's actually quite unnerving having it so close to packed pavements.

God knows what the stopping distance on vehicles of that ilk are.

The Glasgow incident is a horrible situation all round, especially for all the families of the victims. As much as he's lied, I feel for the driver too, having that on his conscience.

What I don't understand is that they may delay the inquiry if there is a private prosecution, so that the driver doesn't have to say anything which might incriminate himself. Yet the Crown Office/DVLA with the evidence of his lying are still unwilling to prosecute, so what evidence would they need to carry out a prosecution. Either they are saying that withholding that information isn't a criminal offence, or the word of half a dozen doctors isn't enough to mount a prosecution. Doesn't make sense to me.

The more that comes about about this guy, the more it makes me want him to spend the rest of his life in jail because he clearly doesn't give a shit about the people he killed and cant wait to get behind the wheel again!

THE DRIVER of a Glasgow bin lorry that veered out of control killing six people asked for his HGV licence to be restored less than four months after the fatal crash, an inquiry has heard.

Seems they've set a precedence now. No need to declare any illness or medical conditions you have to your employer or the DVLA. Drive HGVs with uncontrolled Diabetes, Sleep Apnoea or Severe Cardiac issues as lying is fine.

Lawyers really don't care what happens as long as they win.

The guy who caused the Selby rail crash through lack of sleep got a prison sentence, it's hard to understand that they could prosecute him but not the driver in this case.

It could and does happen to anyone whether they lied or not. There must be quite a few dodgy drivers out there avoiding the issue in the same way. But then there are also millions of very healthy drivers that just drive like cocks and kill way more people all the time.

Tragic.

I'm also going intrigued as to why Crown Office and the DVLA have both decided not to prosecute. There may be a sound legal reason for this, but if so they need to publish it.

IANACHiPS

As much as he's lied, I feel for the driver too, having that on his conscience.

I would feel sorry for him if it just happened

however he had done this before, lied about it and continued driving
the result was entirely foreseeable by HIM
We will send a sleepy driver to prison but let this deliberately and wilfully neglectful "professional" get away with it.7
Anyone know why the CPS decided not to prosecute?
Best I heard was "criminal intent" at the time of the accident. I assume he had criminal intent when he lied to get a licence and job

lightman - where is that quote from?

thegreatape - Member
I'm also going intrigued as to why Crown Office and the DVLA have both decided not to prosecute. There may be a sound legal reason for this, but if so they need to publish it.

Eh? I don't get it, well I do but don't get why they are not going to prosecute 😕

JY, I'm not aware of the reasons not to being made public, although I haven't looked that hard. COPFS website perhaps?

It could and does happen to anyone whether they lied or not.

Far more likely if you have a medical condition that causes you black out.

bikebouy - I don't understand either, I can't see any obvious reason for not doing anything.

having that on his conscience.

This would be the same conscience that thought blacking out at the wheel was mutually compatible with driving large vehicles for a living.

I'm not defending him in any way footflaps, just my thoughts.

steveoath, I read about it on the BBC site, but just did a quick Google and I think that quote was from the Daily Record.

Edit:[url= https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=THE+DRIVER+of+a+Glasgow+bin+lorry+that+veered+out+of+control+killing+six+people+asked+for+his+HGV+licence+to+be+restored+less+than+four+months+after+the+fatal+crash,+an+inquiry+has+heard.&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&gws_rd=ssl ]Googling the quote.[/url]

Anyone know why the CPS decided not to prosecute?

As I understand it, and this is recollecting something I read a little while ago, I've not got time to look for a source and therefore apologies if I've got this wrong, but the decision not to prosecute was made in advance of the inquiry, and a large driver for that was to ensure that people (the driver, but also his employers) felt able to give frank and honest evidence to the inquiry. The alternative being that the driver etc. would have taken the stand and refused to answer any of the questions put to them for fear of incriminating themselves.

However, when I read this, it was reported as just covering Scotland, so the possibility was raised that the DVLA could take action in a different jurisdiction (England / Wales). Seems from the posts here that this has moved on and that won't now be happening?

I guess that whoever made the decision to promise no prosecution didn't anticipate how it's since gone with the evidence that's emerged..

[url= https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim ]This is the Twitter of the journalist following the case.[/url]

Cheers for the answers

It could and does happen to anyone whether they lied or not. There must be quite a few dodgy drivers out there avoiding the issue in the same way.

What is your point here ? You have just stated a fact and ignored, as Drac notes, that it was almost a certainty he would black out AGAIN behind the wheel of a vehicle. That is probably why he lied about it to get employment.
Whether othe roflk ignore th elaw and act irresponsibly is not justification for it

There are also plenty of drivers getting pissed and driving , not having insurance , speeding , bald tyres etc.

Cheers lightman. Ridiculous.

ISTR what edlong wrote. Also in the interests of the victims affected to speed things up.

In 2010 two young woman were killed 300 yards from the location of the bin lorry crash. Again a driver with a history of blackouts. Again not disclosed to the DVLA. Again not prosecuted.

Really, why bother making laws about DVLA disclosure when you can break them, kill people, and not face prosecution. It isn't justice.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/blackout-driver-who-collapsed-wheel-5337602

I think this chap is a lawyer, and Scottish too. His opinion...

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/harry-clarke-and-criminal-letters.html

If you believe slowoldgit's link, a private prosecution looks unlikely. But, IANAL, what about a civil claim for damages? I think in English law (Scots law may be different) civil cases have a lower burden of proof, 'balance of probability' rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt' for criminal.

I do not understand why there is not a criminal prosecution. He had a history of blackouts inc when driving a bus. He should have had no driving licence at all never mind a commercial licence.

If you think that [i]someone[/i] told the DVLA to wind in their neck, what chance has a private prosecution? Though maybe, after the legal dust has settled, it could go ahead?

Fitness to drive rules are sadly a joke. My dad's going blind, he stopped driving at night voluntarily ages ago, cut his daytime driving massively and kept it local, then eventually decided to stop entirely. 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.

I'm diabetic, so I get a 3 yearly medical and licence renewal- good idea. But the assessment is fundamentally flawed- the key questions are about unsymptomatic hypo attacks, and hypos where you needed outside assistance. I'd had both of those in the previous years, because of alcohol in some cases and being asleep in others- so if they'd affected my driving, I'd have had bigger problems! But apparently they're declarable. Idiotic. So my doctor, how to put it, advises people on how to answer in order to make the system work as it should.

Shit like that removes all faith in the system, people are basically pushed towards lying in order to avoid risking being suspended for no reason. And once people start doing that, you're bollocksed.

I do not understand why there is not a criminal prosecution. He had a history of blackouts inc when driving a bus. He should have had no driving licence at all never mind a commercial licence.

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

[quote=oldbloke ]Maybe that's where the DVLA reluctance comes from - it opens a can of worms on all the self certifying drivers who shouldn't still be drivers.

It's a can of worms which needs opening IMHO.

Several diabetic drivers have been prosecuted having caused a death, e.g. [url= http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/diabetic-driver-who-killed-mum-3350552 ]in Liverpool[/url] and [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-12208458 ]in Chester[/url]
Why does Scottish law / this case seem to be different?

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

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..

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

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!