Death crash sentence 'an insult'
The husband of a 51-year-old care worker killed while riding her moped says a 12-month driving ban issued to the man who caused her death is an “insult to her memory”.
Danny Lewis, 41,was found guilty of causing the death of Joan Morris by careless driving last week.
He was acquitted by a jury at Swansea Crown Court of the more serious charge of causing death by dangerous driving.
Sitting in Cardiff Crown Court on Friday morning, Judge Phillip Richards told the defendant that no punishment he delivered would be “greater than the sentence on your conscience.”
Lewis, of Hawen, Penparc, Cardigan, was ordered to complete a community order of 250 hours unpaid work and has been disqualified from driving for a period of 12 months.
Swansea-born Mrs Morris was the wife of Alan Morris, communications manager for Hybi Cig Cymru and a former editor of the South Wales Guardian newspaper in Ammanford.
Danny Lewis, 41,was found guilty of causing the death of Joan Morris by careless driving last week.
He was acquitted by a jury at Swansea Crown Court of the more serious charge of causing death by dangerous driving.
Sitting in Cardiff Crown Court on Friday morning, Judge Phillip Richards told the defendant that no punishment he delivered would be “greater than the sentence on your conscience.”
Lewis, of Hawen, Penparc, Cardigan, was ordered to complete a community order of 250 hours unpaid work and has been disqualified from driving for a period of 12 months.
Swansea-born Mrs Morris was the wife of Alan Morris, communications manager for Hybi Cig Cymru and a former editor of the South Wales Guardian newspaper in Ammanford.
Mr Morris issued the following statement after the sentencing -
As a family, we are disappointed and angry that someone who has taken a life is only given a driving ban of just 12 months. It has taken 20 months for this case to get to court.
A driving ban without a custodial sentence, or even a suspended prison sentence, is a sick joke. It is a travesty of justice and an insult to Joan’s memory.
Danny Lewis has the inconvenience of not being allowed to drive, but we as a family are serving a life sentence without Joan.
There have been a series of crashes in Wales in recent years, with many innocent people losing their lives through the appalling actions of some drivers who treat our roads like racing tracks.
It is also obvious that some drivers either do not take any notice of warning signs and road markings or do not know what they mean.
The defendant in this case had difficulty in explaining what the road markings at the scene of this crash meant, even though he knows the road well and travels along it regularly.
I believe it is time for all drivers, regardless of age and experience, to be subjected to a regular test to make sure they understand the rules of the road. It cannot be right that you can pass the driving test at 17 and then not be assessed for your fitness to drive until you are 70.
As a family, we are struggling to understand why the the jury was allowed to hear a series of testimonials and character references for Mr Lewis which had no relevance whatsoever to the facts of this case.
Why should the jury be potentially swayed by testimonials that Mr Lewis does a lot of good work in his community and for charity before they reach their verdict?
I thought that in a case such as this, character references would only be taken into account by the judge if and when the jury returned a guilty verdict so that he can decide what sentence to impose. This could then be balanced by our victim impact statement, describing the effect Joan’s death has had on our family.
The jury heard nothing about Joan’s character, that she was a loving wife, mother and sister who had devoted her working life looking after the elderly and vulnerable and the fund raising work she had done for various charities.
They were not told of the devastating impact her death has had on her family and friends, and in particular on our children. As far as the jury is concerned, we were all effectively airbrushed out of the picture.
I strongly believe that the jury should have been left to come to their verdict based solely on the testimony given by the witnesses on the day of the crash, and not be influenced by character references or testimonials.
This sentence sends out entirely the wrong message. It effectively says that people who cause death on our roads know they have a very good chance of not spending even one second in prison for their crime.
As a family, we are disappointed and angry that someone who has taken a life is only given a driving ban of just 12 months. It has taken 20 months for this case to get to court.
A driving ban without a custodial sentence, or even a suspended prison sentence, is a sick joke. It is a travesty of justice and an insult to Joan’s memory.
Danny Lewis has the inconvenience of not being allowed to drive, but we as a family are serving a life sentence without Joan.
There have been a series of crashes in Wales in recent years, with many innocent people losing their lives through the appalling actions of some drivers who treat our roads like racing tracks.
It is also obvious that some drivers either do not take any notice of warning signs and road markings or do not know what they mean.
The defendant in this case had difficulty in explaining what the road markings at the scene of this crash meant, even though he knows the road well and travels along it regularly.
I believe it is time for all drivers, regardless of age and experience, to be subjected to a regular test to make sure they understand the rules of the road. It cannot be right that you can pass the driving test at 17 and then not be assessed for your fitness to drive until you are 70.
As a family, we are struggling to understand why the the jury was allowed to hear a series of testimonials and character references for Mr Lewis which had no relevance whatsoever to the facts of this case.
Why should the jury be potentially swayed by testimonials that Mr Lewis does a lot of good work in his community and for charity before they reach their verdict?
I thought that in a case such as this, character references would only be taken into account by the judge if and when the jury returned a guilty verdict so that he can decide what sentence to impose. This could then be balanced by our victim impact statement, describing the effect Joan’s death has had on our family.
The jury heard nothing about Joan’s character, that she was a loving wife, mother and sister who had devoted her working life looking after the elderly and vulnerable and the fund raising work she had done for various charities.
They were not told of the devastating impact her death has had on her family and friends, and in particular on our children. As far as the jury is concerned, we were all effectively airbrushed out of the picture.
I strongly believe that the jury should have been left to come to their verdict based solely on the testimony given by the witnesses on the day of the crash, and not be influenced by character references or testimonials.
This sentence sends out entirely the wrong message. It effectively says that people who cause death on our roads know they have a very good chance of not spending even one second in prison for their crime.
Links -
Comments