[Closed] Lying to DVLA (Glasgow deaths content)

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...

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.

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.

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

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?

GCC busy with other matters. Like nicking stuff...

[img] [/img]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[quote=franksinatra ]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.

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

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.

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

Roll on self driving lorries.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/03/motorist-kills-second-cyclist-edinburgh ]make sure that the victim is riding a bike, as that also seems a sure fire way of getting away with it. [/url]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Staggering that he's not facing criminal charges.

The press and public witch hunt is appalling and counterproductive

I don't see what's counterproductive

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.

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.

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.

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.

[quote=cbike ]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.

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.

[quote=martinhutch ]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 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.

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.)

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.

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.

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 [u]on that particular day[/u]. If he had known he would, then he was reckless, as he didn't he was only negligent and therefore not guilty.

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...

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 [b]and [/b]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?

^^^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.

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 [u]that day[/u]' 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.

Well one Scottish QC thinks there was a case for prosecution.

He added there was a prima facie case for Mr Clarke to be charged with causing death by dangerous driving or, failing that, the lesser charge of causing death by careless driving.

http://www.scottishlegal.com/2015/08/21/qc-says-crown-jumped-the-gun-in-not-prosecuting-bin-lorry-driver/

Probably nae chance now as private prosecutions have to jump huge hurdles.

The law is an ass.

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

It still seems remarkable to me that they're not interested in prosecuting him for that - the message they're sending is that you can lie about such things with impunity, which is exactly opposite to what they should be doing if they want things like this not to happen again.

spokesman said: “It is clear on the evidence at the time that the driver lost control of the bin lorry, resulting in the tragic deaths, he was unconscious and therefore not in control of his actions.

“He did not therefore have the necessary criminal state of mind required for a criminal prosecution.

“In addition, the Crown could not prove that it was foreseeable to the driver that driving on that day would result in a loss of consciousness.

If it is precedent, it's a crazy one.

Is it necessary to have the 'criminal state of mind' at the moment of the accident? The criminal state of mind is an ongoing recklessness to the consequences of driving with a known medical condition that causes blackouts.
I would have thought that the Crown should at least be testing in court whether what happened it was a reasonably foreseeable outcome for a man who had already suffered a prior blackout at the wheel.

The reason why the DVLA ask you to notify them of conditions like this is that you are at high risk of harming yourself or others if you carry on driving until your condition is under control.

It's a bit like driving around with a unroadworthy vehicle. You don't know exactly when it will fail catastrophically and cause a crash, but there is a significant risk that it will.

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.

It's unclear to me - there was a very similar case a year or two before, and only 100 yards away, when a driver blacked out and killed two young women. Again, he faced no consequences despite having known medical issues.

It's a bit like driving around with a unroadworthy vehicle. You don't know exactly when it will fail catastrophically and cause a crash, but there is a significant risk that it will.

The argument here I presume is a bit like if you were injured because of a faulty bike part - you could sue the manufacturer for damages, but they wouldn't face criminal prosecution.

[url= http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/answer-for-your-actions-harry.html ]Lallands peat worrier[/url]

another good blog post that shed some light on the legal aspects of this. this paragrapH particularly resonated with me

"But if you found yourself in his position, would you ignore your lawyer's advice? If so, you may well be a nobler and more self-sacrificing character than this man. Perhaps the right thing to do would be to stand behind your deeds and your mistakes, and to take what comes. Reading reports from the inquiry over the last few weeks, I'm struck by the all too human qualities of Harry Clarke. An unfit, unhealthy man of a certain age with limited education and limited skills. A man who had his trade - and who desperately wanted to keep it. A man who succumbed to the all too human desire to keep his livelihood, little thinking, little imagining, the gruesome consequences of the white lies he thought he told. I don't know about you, but I can see clearly, all too clearly, how this might happen."

I can see clearly, all too clearly, how this might happen

It's the "it could happen to anyone" defence.

I deal with case files in my job and I have to collect evidence to potentially prosecute people. The problem when you look from outside is that you don't see the intricacies of the case which are often so important.
You have to pass 2 tests to take something to court, is it in the public interest to prosecute someone and do you have the evidence to prove a crime has been committed. In this case there is clearly a high public interest so there must be something about the evidence of the combination of evidence and the potential offences that could be prosecuted for. It might be that the legal team went through the available evidence and potential offences and realised that for each potential offence there was a clear argument that the defence could show in court which would have made it impossible to gain a guilty verdict.
I had exactly a similar problem in a case I had, stacks of evidence collected over several weeks but when I sat down with the legal team and went through the whole case bit by bit we saw a clear problem we couldn't get around. No problem proving it happened but there was a clear defence the offender could bring which would have made the whole thing pointless. So we couldn't take it further even though the person had clearly been to blame.
Each law that we have has different types of proof that need to be brought to court to prove that someone is guilty of breaking that law. Sometimes it's pretty simple proof that is needed, sometimes it's complex.