All he got was 18 months??

[Paul]

BBC

Sleeping driver jailed over crash
A lorry driver has been jailed for 18 months for causing a fatal accident after falling asleep at the wheel.
Emma Kelly, 20, was killed when Russell Ellis's 17-tonne Volvo hit her car on the A361 between Shepton Mallet and Frome in November 2002.
A witness told Bristol Crown Court that the lorry drifted on to the other side of the road at a 45-degree angle.
Ellis, 26, from Melksham in Wiltshire, pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving.
Noel Sweeney, prosecuting, said: "There was no deliberate or instinctive reaction by the defendant to control the lorry before, during or after the collision.
"For all that time he must have been asleep at the wheel. By his plea he appears to accept that."
Jailing Ellis for 18 months, Judge Simon Darwall-Smith said: "It is a permanent loss for Emma Kelly's family and friends. It is something you won't forget for the rest of your life."
'Cruel'
Outside court, Miss Kelly's mother, Deborah Hough, said she was appalled at the short sentence.
Miss Kelly's boyfriend, Clark Mears, said: "It was our three-year anniversary. She had planned a meal and it was the night I was going to propose.
"It is cruel. Nothing will bring her back but 18 months in jail is not enough."
Mr Sweeney said Ellis had been out drinking the night before and his sleep had been interrupted by text messages on his phone.
Ellis was driving back to the lorry company's depot at the time of the crash. He was driving at 46mph in a 40mph zone.
The jury was told how Ellis' car "steadily drifted across the road" before hitting Miss Kelly's car.
Despite attempts to resuscitate her, she was declared dead at the scene.

So, he was out drinking the night before, knew he hadn't slept properly, was speeding and eventually fell asleep at the wheel. Nice to see a professional driver taking the correct precautions
At least he had enough sense about him to plead guilty

[orangebird]

I don't see what a longer jail sentence wouold achieve? He has to live with the fact that he killed someone, he's probably lost his job too. I wasn't a deliberate deviant act, so I really don't see what a prison sentence can do for him...

[themelon]

Problem is these idiots who dont even think in the first place probably dont have a Conscience anyway............so to them killing somebody doesnt matter and when they get out they will live their life as normal probably claiming benefits off the state.

I and most 'logical' people wouldnt even consider driving on the day after a 'heavy' night out, ESPECIALLY if I had had no sleep.

Theres NO excuse, the punishment should be much harsher, he has taken a life and destroyed many others.........the same or worse should happen to him.

[etccarmageddon]

Originally Posted by orangebird

I don't see what a longer jail sentence wouold achieve? He has to live with the fact that he killed someone, he's probably lost his job too. I wasn't a deliberate deviant act, so I really don't see what a prison sentence can do for him...

a longer sentence would achieve a better deterent factor.

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

a longer sentence would achieve a better deterent factor.

The thing is you have to prove intent, he wasn't intending to cause anybody any harm (small consolation I know)

It's not manslaughter, or murder.

However, I agree that a tougher stance has to be taken. It has been tried as a Traffic Offence (which it is).

If you get into a car, knowing that you are unfit to drive and kill someone through your negligence, then that is near to manslaughter and should be treated as such.

[themelon]

Maybe there was intent however..

If you get into a car knowing you are not fit to drive for whatever reason, then you are responsible for you actions.

You might not have the intention to kill, but the odds are that you are more likely to kill.

A Car is a dangerous weapon, if somebody went on a rampage with a chainsaw when they were drunk or in a dopey state, what would people think?!?

(on a side note thanks to the person who left a red rep and a really constructive comment for the post above (not), well done, you must be big, the season of good will and all, thank you and merry christmas! , I like to return gifts, although I probably wont return the favour until necessary )

[Paul]

The final "outcome" may not have been deliberate but the fact that, knowing he was driving the next morning, this "professional" driver went out drinking and then left his mobile on so that he would be woken during the night by texts. (surely turning it off so he could sleep undisturbed would have been a better idea) He then drove a 17 tonne lorry, exceeding the speed limit, whilst half asleep and didn't even react when he impacted the car:

"There was no deliberate or instinctive reaction by the defendant to control the lorry before, during or after the collision."

OB is quite correct in thinking that a longer sentence wouldn't have much more affect on the driver but as others have suggested, it may well act as a more potent deterant if people that caused these accidents/ deaths faced a stiffer penalty for their actions.
Since it's christmas though, I shall point out that everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and opinions so neg-repping for an opinion isn't necessary (whoever it was)

[Bex]

Originally Posted by themelon

If you get into a car knowing you are not fit to drive for whatever reason, then you are responsible for you actions.

i agree. this person is someone who drives for a living, surely he should know lack of sleep can effect your driving.

i can also understand where OB is coming from. yes the person does have to live with what they have done and since we don't know the person we don't know how this will effect them, and they will never be able to go back to their job. but for the family and friends of the person who was killed, 18months is nothing. they have to live without her for the rest of their lives. chirstmas won't be a nice one for them

[Anon]

I can't belive the guy got off that lightly. I can only imagine the guilty plea's what bought him 18 months.

Do I believe a harsher sentence would act a deterrent? Doubtful.
The awareness just isn't there. After all, if you're lacking enough in conscience and/or the ability assess your own state of mind; then I can't really see the thought that "someone else" got a heavy sentence for killing someone whilst driving would cross your mind before you climbed into your 17-tonne truck whilst deprived of sleep, [most likely] dehydrated from last nights drinking session, safe in the knowledge that you do this for a living, you're a professional, I won't happen to you. (true in a way, it's tha car driver who takes the impact; there's a pretty small chance of the truck driver getting killed/injured in a collision with a car)

Would it bring her back? No.

Would it make me feel better? Damn right.
Causing death by dangerous driving - section 1 RTA 1988

"It is an offence triable only on indictment and carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment, by virtue of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and/or an unlimited fine."

"The Sentencing Advisory Panel recommends that the occurrence of more than one death should be treated as a seriously aggravating factor, where the offender has knowingly put more than one person at risk, or where the occurrence of multiple deaths was reasonably foreseeable."

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_b.html#33


"Gross Negligence manslaughter

(Archbold 19-108)

It must be proved that:

* The defendant owed the victim a duty of care
[see last sentence of paragraph below]
* The defendant's act or omission amounted to a breach of that duty
* The defendant's act or omission caused the death of the victim, and
* The jury must be satisfied that the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount in their judgement to a criminal act or omission

In respect of Gross negligence manslaughter the driver must be shown to have been in breach of a duty of care towards the person who died. The ordinary principles of the law of negligence apply to ascertain whether there is such a duty. There is a general duty of care on all persons not to do acts imperilling the lives of others.

To show a breach of a duty of care will require proof that the driving:

* fell far below the minimum acceptable standard of driving; and
* involved a risk of death; and
* was so bad in all the circumstances as, in the opinion of the jury, to amount to a crime: (R v Adomako [1994] 3 All ER 79).

Manslaughter is also discussed at Wilkinson's 5.61. At 5.65, Wilkinson's argues that in one factual scenario a "hit and run" driver might be guilty of manslaughter. Consideration should be given to this in appropriate cases where there is clear evidence to satisfy all the above elements.

The examples of driving which fall far below the minimum acceptable standard of driving see dangerous driving, above in this chapter apply here as well."

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_b.html#30
__________________

also see:
http://www.hartpub.co.uk/Updates/upc...ligence05.html

[Maggy J]

A longer sentence won't bring back the poor victim.I also very much doubt if it will act as a deterrent as there are always those who think they can handle drink and driving and 'it won't happen to them'.

The only way to truly deter professional drivers from this type of behaviour is for them to be breathalysed and checked each day to see if they are fit to drive.If a few hauliers had to be legally responsible for the fact that their employees hadn't been drinking/smoking wacky baccy too soon before going out driving then maybe situations like this could be avoided.

[Anon]

It's so fkin wrong

He killed her, and for what? For nothing. For the sake of getting his jollys from some late night text messages. Beyond contemptuous, beyond redemption.

And what was he doing whist awaiting scentence?
http://archive.wiltshiregazetteandhe...19/129619.html

To some degree, the courts eventually woke up:
http://www.respectforpeople.org/news000.asp

Driver's jail term doubled
Commercial Motor, 16 June 2005, p14

Russell Ellis, who was jailed for eighteen months in December 2004 for killing a woman whilst asleep at the wheel has appeared at the Court of Appeal to have his sentence doubled. "The offender must have known he was deprived of adequate sleep and rest. Making allowances for all the circumstances, in our view the appropriate sentence is one of three years' imprisonment," ruled Lord Justice Gage.

It's something, but here's something else.
Here's something that's total supposition, but in all honesty make plenty of sense:
The guy was deprived of sleep, dehydrated; not quite with it.
It was reported that his lorry veered accross the road at 45 degrees before it killed Em. The corner in the road that shortly follows the site of the crash is of a similar angle. The driver had stated "stupid cow tried to come accross me". Due to his refusal to get out of the cab it could be assumed that this statement was part of the shock and denial. But just maybe he actually believed it.
Remember that next corner? What if he had believed that he was already at that corner. From his perspective, he would be on the correct place in the road, just rouding a corner as he would have done many times before, so it would have appeard the a car had "come accross him".
What could cause this? Certainly not tiredness alone.
Recent research (see Liao & Cheng (Cheng-Chi Univ.[China]) or Duke University [USA]) shows a link between stimulants (such as Cocaine and d-Amphetamine) and a distorted perception of time. Rats injected with d-Amphetamine in one experiment showed a huge difference in time perception compared with a control group. Their internal clock was running faster, they performed a pre-conditioned time based response more frequently and importantly, earlier than the time to which they'd been conditioned.
Had Mr. Ellis (and I say again this is pure supposition) taken such a stimulant in an attempt to offset his sleep deprivation, then it is concievable that he would have made the action to turn the corner before he normally would, before he had reached the corner. Due to the effect of sleep deprivation and dehydration, any concious counter response to this action would be sevearly impaired, if not disabled. In this scenario, Mr. Ellis would have been awake at the time of the crash.

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/motorcarnage/current.html
(contains a case where caffiene as a stimulant was implicated in an unexpected RTA)

The only way to prove such a theory would have been propper testing at the time of the crash.

I believe it should be routine practice to test for drugs in drivers in RTA's particularly in those that appear tired and even more so for proffessional drivers for especially for stimulants.

Why would I come up with this? It seems quite improbable to me that a sleeping driver could cause a LGV to reach 45 degree steering angle, due to:
the low gearing between the steering wheel (makes it easier to steer but takes more steering lock to acheive a steering angle than most smaller vehicles),
and the upright position of LGV steering wheels;
a combination of which makes it unlikely that the slumping of a driver as they fall asleep would result in anywhere near the required steering angle and an absolute maximum of less than half a turn of the wheel.

.... . . . .

[TheNorm]

Is there a case for installing a video camera on the front of every HGV? Just a tiny webcam-type camera, linked to a hard disk, on a "continuous loop" of something like 20 minutes. Then, in case of an "accident", the device is taken by police and analysed.

If we don't learn from mistakes, how are we to make any progress?

[budwieser]

Sorry, But this Driver by way of his thoughtless actions has caused the death of an innocent person.
He should be punished the same as if he had fired a gun into the air.

[Russ B]

As this thread is 18 months old, perhaps he's out now.

[Chris W]

This is an interesting to the Times.

Have to say that this issue is one that is brought to light time and time again, but so clearly there are some provocative issues which need to be considered by a government with a sensible approach to crime and punishment, rather than obscenely influenced by the media and clearly only designed to win elections.