Driver who hit 11 people outside school after 'accidentally pressing accelerator' gets 6 points on licence

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
BTB 500

BTB 500

MB Club Veteran
SUPPORTER
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
22,989
Location
Shropshire
Car
R129 SL500, W639 Vito 120, S205 C300
Dolly Rincon-Aguilar, 39, is believed to have pressed the accelerator instead of the brake in her Toyota Rav4 outside Beatrix Potter Primary School in Earlsfield, south west London.

She mounted the pavement, hit a tree and then smashed into 11 people, including seven children, trapping some of them under her 4×4.

Injuries included fractures to children’s faces, skulls, legs, arms and eye sockets, while a seven-year-old boy had to have emergency treatment for a blood clot.

Rincon-Aguilar, from Wandsworth, denied eight counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving but was found guilty at Kingston Crown Court.


As well as the points, she was ordered to pay a £3,000 fine and £930 costs.
Click to expand...

6 points is equivalent to two minor speeding tickets ... surprisingly lenient for a dangerous driving conviction? :dk:

metro.co.uk

Mum told she can keep licence after crashing car into seven children at school

Some children as young as six were left trapped under the car.
metro.co.uk metro.co.uk
 
Does seem pretty lenient. It's not like she's a befuddled OAP at the age of 39 & she doesn't have any underlying health issues. A ban would've been more appropriate IMO.
 
Phil1968 said:
Does seem pretty lenient. It's not like she's a befuddled OAP at the age of 39 & she doesn't have any underlying health issues. A ban would've been more appropriate IMO.
Click to expand...

Yep I'd have thought a 6 month ban, minimum, given the number of people hurt and that it was considered 'dangerous driving'. Bet she's not popular at the school PTA.
 
Stratman said:
If only we'd heard all the evidence presented to the court...
Click to expand...

Do you mean mitigating circumstances? She was found guilty on eight counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, so presumably the evidence for that was convincing enough.
 
If I had meant 'mitigating circumstances' that's what I would have posted. I posted 'all the evidence' because that's what I meant.
 
I would have thought a 24 month ban and a retest when she gets her licence back would be more appropriate :rolleyes::(
 
Doesn't seem the punishment fits the crime considering you can collect 6pts and a big fine for doing over 100mph on an empty motorway harming nobody.
Mowing down and injuring 7 young children should surely warrant a lengthy ban and an automatic retake of the driving test?
Soft doesn't come close.
 
Doing 100mph on an empty motorway is a conscious, voluntary decision to break the law.
This driver inadvertently applied the accelerator. There was no evidence to show she was on the phone, drunk or drugged. An accident.
She displayed remorse.
[Devil's advocate mode off]
 
The local ambulance chasing lawyers will be licking their lips.

That said, the victims do had a valid claim(s) to bring
 
whitenemesis said:
This driver inadvertently applied the accelerator. There was no evidence to show she was on the phone, drunk or drugged. An accident.
Click to expand...

She was convicted of the more serious offence of dangerous driving though, rather than careless or inconsiderate driving. AFAIK that's based on exhibiting potentially dangerous behaviour - excluding use of phone/drink/drugs it might include things like racing or excessive speed, ignoring lights/signs, dangerous overtaking, etc. Given that, it's the apparent leniency of the punishment that seems odd. But as mentioned there might have been mitigating circumstances that we're not aware of.
 
DSM10000 said:
It seems, , om the evidence, that it was an innocent mistake but one with significant consequences.

I would have supported a compulsory retest in this case.
Click to expand...
I agree - had she been intoxicated or using her mobile phone then a more severe penalty should apply. Unfortunately humans can sometimes make mistakes, luckily there were no life changing injuries or fatalities.

A retest would be good, to prove she is in fact capable of driving to a safe level…
 
DSM10000 said:
It seems, , om the evidence, that it was an innocent mistake but one with significant consequences.
Click to expand...
The age-old dilemma: to punish based on the act, or the consequences of the act?
 
st13phil said:
The age-old dilemma: to punish based on the act, or the consequences of the act?
Click to expand...
Indeed.

The driver wasn't under the influence of alcohol or drugs, didn't leave the scene and accepted responsibility which very much mitigates the potential penalty.
 
She was convicted on 8 counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. This is a significant offence based on reckless/dangerous behaviour ... as I understand it a simple accident/mistake would generally be dealt with under careless driving.

I found some draft sentencing guidelines (which are for consultation only, but give an idea of the seriousness) ... a minimum of 26 weeks custody, plus an obligatory disqualification of at least 2 years followed by a compulsory extended re-test. So six points and a fine is a pretty astonishing outcome.

For sure some of the listed mitigating circumstances may have applied, but equally at least one of the 'aggravating circumstances' (which increase the seriousness of the offence) definitely applied - "Victim was a vulnerable road user, including pedestrians".

Causing serious injury by dangerous driving – for consultation only – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk
 
BTB 500 said:
She was convicted on 8 counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. This is a significant offence based on reckless/dangerous behaviour ... as I understand it a simple accident/mistake would generally be dealt with under careless driving.

I found some draft sentencing guidelines (which are for consultation only, but give an idea of the seriousness) ... a minimum of 26 weeks custody, plus an obligatory disqualification of at least 2 years followed by a compulsory extended re-test. So six points and a fine is a pretty astonishing outcome.

For sure some of the listed mitigating circumstances may have applied, but equally at least one of the 'aggravating circumstances' (which increase the seriousness of the offence) definitely applied - "Victim was a vulnerable road user, including pedestrians".

Causing serious injury by dangerous driving – for consultation only – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk
Click to expand...
Presumably 8 serious injuries means 8 charges and hence convictions?

As to reckless and dangerous behaviour, I am unsure if that as a charge would have stood up as it seems to be that the original action was a mistake, although one that, unfortunately has had significant consequences?
 
DSM10000 said:
Presumably 8 serious injuries means 8 charges and hence convictions?

As to reckless and dangerous behaviour, I am unsure if that as a charge would have stood up as it seems to be that the original action was a mistake, although one that, unfortunately has had significant consequences?
Click to expand...

I guess so, on the 8 charges.

The charge of dangerous (not careless) driving did stand up as she was convicted of it. I found this Police definition:

Careless or inconsiderate driving​

The offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) is committed when your driving falls below the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver, and includes driving without reasonable consideration for other road users.

Dangerous driving​

The offence of dangerous driving is when driving falls far below the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver, and includes behaviour that could potentially endanger yourself or other drivers.
Click to expand...

So the court must have considered that "behaviour that could potentially endanger yourself or other drivers" had been present, rather than just a mistake. Otherwise the offence of dangerous driving wouldn't have been committed.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom