Unlicensed lorry driver faces jail for killing cyclist

Calling it now: 18 month prison sentence, suspended for 2 years.

I believe it's been said before in similar cases, the haulage firm that employed the driver even if its via a 3rd party are legally obliged to check the licence exists/is valid, and if they dont then the traffic commissioner should now be taking legal action against that firm,which is not limited to shutting them down completely if necessary and disqualifying them from ever operating again.

We do have that extra layer of regulation for haulage firms, but that relies on separation of duties. Not every truck driver is working for a big haulage firm. Some are sole traders, or similar. Next time you hire a builder or landscaper, it's pretty unlikely that you'll check (or have any legal obligation to check) whether the gaffer has all the necessary paperwork for his tired old Iveco.

If you hire a plumber or gas technician you check if they are on the gas safe register and if you hire a builder, then you'd want to see some sort of insurance for more than minor works.

I don't think your analogy works, since driving a lorry is the job whereas landscaping is the job for the landscaper.

If I hire a man with a van to dispose of waste, I am legally required to check the waste disposal licence (n.b. a lot of people are only licensed for waste created in doing their job; e.g.  a carpet fitter can dispose of offcuts from a new carpet but often isn't licensed to dispose of the old carpet...)

If they fly tip the waste I paid them to get rid of then I can be personally liable... If we can do that for far more common private customer to business transactions (e.g. disposing of old carpet) then requiring businesses have and follow H&S procedures for checking up on truck drivers they hire is perfectly reasonable (and at the end of the day, I seriously doubt an owner/operator can survive without mostly working for other businesses)

You might actually believe that recipients of deliveries should be held liable if the delivery driver mows down a cyclist. However, that's not the law and it's not going to become the law and we don't need to waste time on the internet arguing about absurd hypotheticals.

Holding people accountable for disposing of their waste is a little different to holding people accountable if the person they paid to take waste away runs through a red light and hits a cyclist. The difference between those two situations is very closely connected to the meaning of the word "accountable".

What I struggle with in these scenarios is why, when the offender has neither a licence or insurance, they are still given the priviledge of been prosecuted with a driving offence. 

He had no legal right to be driving that vehicle... therefore surely he should be charged with manslaughter? 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

What I struggle with in these scenarios is why, when the offender has neither a licence or insurance, they are still given the priviledge of been prosecuted with a driving offence. 

He had no legal right to be driving that vehicle... therefore surely he should be charged with manslaughter? 

To me there are two crimes. Driving whilst unlicensed, and any charge relating to the death. These in my opinion, for charging and sentencing at least, are discrete. 

My reasoning is this

1. If they were unlicensed, but the standard of their driving had not contributed to the crash/death, I would not want to see them done for manslaughter
2. If their driving was so appalling that it warranted a manslaughter charge,  that should be the charge, licence holder or not. I would not want to see that holding a licence would mitigate it to dangerous driving.

I tend to agree but with one caveat - bear in mind for HGV's and the like that unlicensed may mean never trained, that's very similar to getting a gun but not following the gun licensing laws IMO.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

I tend to agree but with one caveat - bear in mind for HGV's and the like that unlicensed may mean never trained, that's very similar to getting a gun but not following the gun licensing laws IMO.

 

Absolutely, which would be a serious offence in itself I agree. My intention is not to belittle one charge or the other, just they are distinct enough (in terms of intent etc) that they may be treated as two separate counts in the same case

Thanks Jimmy, I was thinking the same thing, but could think how to word it.

The "privilge" of being charged with a driving offence should be for those who fail to uphold the conditions of their licence. But those who don't have the licence should be into the moe "common law" type offences, but perhaps these have higher thresholds of proof required so we should be careful what we wish for.