Safe Speed Forums

A DRIVER who killed an elderly woman who stepped out in front of him was sentenced to wear an electronic tag . . . at the age of 85.
Widower Patrick McCarthy was fitted with the device — normally used on burglars and yobs — to make sure he stuck to a 9pm to 6am home curfew.

But the ex-trucker has had the tag removed after a judge branded it “humiliating” and overturned the sentence by a magistrates’ court.

Judge Arthur Noble said: “Mr McCarthy is a man of 85 with an impeccable driving record for 50 years and a man of good character. The curfew order is wrong and should not have been imposed.”

Mr McCarthy said of his ordeal after the hearing at Bolton Crown Court: “It was unpleasant for anyone, particularly someone of my age.

“My wife died two weeks after the accident and I have had to face this all on my own.”

Mr McCarthy was found guilty of careless driving by a district judge at Bury magistrates on September 16. He was given a two-month tagging order, disqualified from driving for 28 days and ordered to resit his test.

The Crown Court heard the pensioner, of Bury, Gtr Manchester was doing under the 30mph limit when he hit Anne Loughrey, 85, who stepped into the road suddenly.

Judge Arthur Noble said: “Mr McCarthy is a man of 85 with an impeccable driving record for 50 years and a man of good character. The curfew order is wrong and should not have been imposed.”

85, who stepped into the road suddenly.

Grandmother died crossing busy road
From the Lancashire Evening Telegraph, first published Saturday 2nd Oct 2004.

AN 85-year-old grandmother died in hospital from serious injuries after she had tried to cross a main road in Prestwich, an inquest heard.

Mrs Annie Loughrey died on January 8 this year following a collision with a Ford Fiesta in Bury Old Road, near its junction with Orange Hill Road.

Bury Coroner's Court heard on Tuesday how the elderly widow was standing in the middle of the road waiting to cross when the car, driven by 84-year-old Patrick McCarthy, struck her.

Mr Dudley Mears, of Pine Street, Bury, was travelling to work that morning and witnessed the incident.

He said: "It was rush hour so the traffic was bumper to bumper and I saw a little lady, with her head down, crossing slowly from the opposite side towards a bus stop. She didn't seem to be observing the traffic.

"The car came around the bend and just kept coming until it hit her. I don't think he saw her until it was too late."

Mrs Loughrey was treated at the scene by a passing GP, Surinder Jolly, before being taken to North Manchester General Hospital where she died later that same day.

The hearing was told Mrs Loughrey suffered a fractured leg and skull which resulted in a brain haemorrhage, causing her death.

Sergeant Stuart Comerford, from the accident investigation unit, told the court Mrs Loughrey would have been visible to drivers from 80 metres. If the car was travelling at the speed limit of 30mph, the driver would have had less than six seconds to react.

Mr McCarthy, who lives in Whitefield, told police in an interview read out in court that he never drove at more than 30mph and had been driving slowly that day. He said Mrs Loughrey suddenly ran out into the road and fell, but his car never hit her.

After hearing the evidence, Coroner Simon Nelson decided to adjourn the inquest following the absence of two key witnesses.

Mrs Loughrey, who lived at Sealand House, Bury Old Road, was described by her only daughter, Mrs Maureen Whitehead, as an "energetic and lively individual" who enjoyed her independence and regularly travelled to her home on the Metrolink as well as taking trips to London by herself to visit her cousin.

Before adjourning the inquest, Mr Nelson said: "Mrs Loughrey appears to have been a very independent lady with many fine attributes. I would hope that her family will be able to move on and remember her and those attributes as she would have wished to have been remembered."

The inquest will resume at a date yet to be fixed.

Archive Home

From the Lancashire Evening Telegraph
http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk
© Newsquest Media Group 2004

for minor offences.

so killing someone is now a minor offence. Or is it only if you're 85?

By reading the two articles posted (I have nothing else to go on) it would seem that the lady in question contributed most to her demise and as such I can't see why the driver should be charged with anything more than he was.

"The car came around the bend and just kept coming until it hit her. I don't think he saw her until it was too late."

he never drove at more than 30mph and had been driving slowly that day

I do not think tagging an old man for careless driving is an appropriate punishment.

I have also not decided he was guilty of more as I'm obviously not in possession of all the facts but I was suggesting, based purely on the article, that it sounds like more than careless driving.

I may be in the minority here,
Cheers
Peter

I may be in the minority here, but I do not believe that a custodial sentence, or any sentence involving loss of liberty in any way, shape or form, is ever justiifiable punishment for any unintentional act , committed with no malice of forethought - regardless of how severe the consequences of that act may have been.

The old guy just made the mistake of not seeing her soon enough. It could happen to any one of us.

I never said it was BUT look at it this way, for an 85 y.o. a 9pm-6am curfew, if that's the only punishment he got, is the same as NO punishment at all. Perhaps that was what the magistrate was thinking?

In terms of the law you also need to take account of recklessness, i.e. behaving in a manner that is clearly dangerous, even though there is no actual intention to cause harm to others, and negligence, i.e. failing to observe safety procedures, where again there is no intention to cause harm.

That may be construed as being malice of forethought, ie a wanton disregard for the safety and well-being of others.
Even negligence is a bit of a grey area as, if your negligence causes harm to another party, you're hardly likely to repeat your negligence.

Cheers
Peter