Back when I was in the habit of recording media reports of road trauma involving cyclists, I mentioned the death of Acting Sergeant Graham Elliott. The subsequent court case concluded today and was reported by The Age:
James Aldridge, 25, was sentenced to two years and six months in prison today after he struck and killed Acting Sergeant Graham Elliott, 39, as he cycled to work in Melbourne's north-west in July 2006.
Aldridge was driving at 10kmh above the speed limit and on the wrong side of the road as he rounded a bend on Pascoe Vale Road at Strathmore.
He had not used his brakes or slowed down when the front bumper of his car struck Sergeant Elliott, killing him almost instantly.
Just three months later, and while his licence was suspended, Aldridge was again caught speeding, doing 23km/h over the limit.
Whoa! Hang on there. Let's just run through this: he's killed someone while travelling at speed. As a result his licence is cancelled. He then keeps driving anyway—and continues to drive at speed. Is this the behaviour of someone who takes his responsibility as a driver seriously?
But then I was left utterly dumbstruck by this:
As Aldridge was led away from the dock after being sentenced, a member of his family wailed uncontrollably and shouted: "Where's the justice''.
Well, quite. Where is the justice?
Two and a half years with a 1 year minimum—let's make a few comparisons.
I'll start with the statistical tables in the Victorian Sentencing Manual custodial sentence figures for 2005/06 (the last year reported):
| Offence | Culpable driving causing death |
Manslaughter | Murder |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lowest sentence | 4 years | 5 years | 14 years |
| Average sentence | 5 years and 6 months |
7 years and 9 months |
18 years and 5 months |
| 90th percentile* | 6 years and 9 months |
12 years | 22 years |
* 90th percentile: 90% of sentences were less than or equal to this sentence
By looking at the first column of figures, it's obvious that Aldridge's sentence is at the lower end of the spectrum—and pales into insignificance when compared to what he could have received for a homicide offence.
Clearly the system has dealt with him fairly, if not rather leniently, especially when you consider his behaviour:
[Judge Cotterell] said Aldridge's claim to remorse was greatly lessened because of his subsequent speeding offence.
"I do not consider your driving falls into the category of a momentary lapse,': Judge Cotterell said.
No, it falls into the categories of selfish, stupid and irresponsible. I doubt that Aldridge has the insight and intellect that's really necessary (but not always required) to hold a driving licence. He's been disqualified from driving for 18 months—he should never be allowed behind the wheel again.
And for a simpler comparison, how about the 'sentence' that Graham Elliott's children are 'serving'? A life without their father, no minimum. Whereas James Aldridge will be temporarily separated from his family for a year or so.
Indeed, where's the justice?
Well said, and thanks for the analysis.
Of course the media played on that angle all today when the verdict was reported.
Although it seems that Aldridge's family may sadly lack the insight and intellect to realise what has occured. And my personal opinion is probably not suitable for this family timeslot.
But that's no excuse or apology for the loss felt by Graham Elliott's family and friends. They've got lifetimes of loss to deal with. The outburst outside court by the Aldridge family is abhorrent by comparison, to the dignity shown by Elizabeth Elliott:
Ms Elliott said she could understand why the woman was so upset.
"It doesn't matter what I feel, he is still a part of someone else's family, they love him and they care about him,'' she said.
"I understand what it is like for someone to be taken away from them.''
For a study on such matters I recommend Jake Voelcker's thesis on point.
IMO, Aldridge, should serve full term, never drive again and have to ride a bicycle in traffic every day for the rest of his active life.
Now as tragic as it may be, the full story would not hurt credibility. The young family man that ultimatly served a custodial sentance as a result of this "accident" to my knowledge was NOT proven to be affected by any substances nor could it be proven that any reckless conduct was undertaken by the driver. What was proven and consistantly left out of all media reports was that Act Sgt Elliott was in fact intoxicated, possibly the reason for riding in the first place. As Victorians and Australians we must demand consistancy from our judicial system, we must not tolerate two sets of laws that allow police to be treated differently to the average tax payer. That is truely the seed of corruption!
To B. Stuart, You have no idea what you are talking about. Graham was not intoxicated and regularly rode his bike to work as a means of keeping fit. Your contention that the driver could not be proven to have driven recklessly is utter nonsense. Even the most naive individual would consider driving 10 km/hr over the speed limit, on the wrong side of the road whilst,in his own words "half asleep" reckless conduct. As to police receiving special treatment within the judicial system as a result of their "position" I would encourage you to investigate the results of criminal proceeding that do involve police officers. I'm sure you would be interested to find that generally such cases incur much harsher penalties than your friend Mr Aldridge and his ilk are handed down. Finally I would like to thank you for posting you ridiculously insensitive comment. I just hope to God that my neice and nephew never happen to stumble across it as I unfortunately did today.
Comments
RobE: gods no, he'd probably ride like he drives