In a long article for the Daily Mail a former Tory MP, Sir Julian Brazier, describes knocking over and killing a motorcyclist while absent-mindedly driving on the wrong side of the road in Italy 18 years ago. He did what he could to help the man at the roadside and stoically prepared himself to face the music.
Brazier contrasts his obviously proper and responsible response to that of Anne Sacoolas, the American mother-of-three who knocked over and killed a motorcyclist in Northamptonshire but then slipped out of the UK to avoid prosecution, using diplomatic immunity to dodge extradition.
"Whatever the possible consequences," the ex-MP concludes, "my advice [to Sacoolas] is simply this: come back, stand trial."
There is an obvious difference.
Even without the aggravating feature of her flight from UK justice, albeit with the connivance of US authorities, Sacoolas faced the extremely high likelihood of an immediate prison sentence for causing the death of 19-year-old Harry Dunn by dangerous driving.
Brazier says he fully expected to go the jail in Italy but admits that his lawyer told him the most probable outcome would be a suspended sentence, which he duly received without even being required to attend court.
No public interest would be served by sending Sacoolas to prison.
Harry's death was a tragic accident and there was not the least hint of criminal intent, nor - so far as I am aware - any suggestion that drugs, alcohol or dangerous speed contributed to what happened. Jailing her would not in itself prevent future errors at the wheel.
Harry's family, warmly praised by Brazier for their dignity, insist they want justice, not vengeance. I recall one family member saying at an early stage of this unhappy saga that they did not wish to see Sacoolas imprisoned and felt a suspended sentence, perhaps for the lesser offence of causing death by careless driving, would suffice.
The trouble is that it is far from clear that any sort of plea bargaining that exists in Britain could ensure such a sensible course.
A judge following sentencing guidelines might feel unable to show mercy.
Brazier himself talks of the "growing sense in this country that law should be about vengeance rather than justice", with the seriousness of the outcome of a motoring offence overtaking the extent of culpability.
In other words, Sacoolas could have driven with precisely the same level of carelessness and hit a tree, maybe injuring herself but no one else, and faced not the remotest prospect of a spell behind bars.
A friend and former colleague once told me his father assisted in bringing about the changes that led to an offending driver's punishment being made harsher according to the impact on innocents involved in the incident.
His father, in my respectful opinion, was bowing to the desire for revenge as identified by Brazier and his advice was therefore contrary to natural justice.
To those of us who reject vengeance as a substitute for decency and fairness, the right and logical solution in the Sacoolas case would be precisely what happened when Brazier committed his near-identical offence: a guilty plea in absentia, a suspended sentence and, if necessary, a period of disqualification from driving. It should happen, but almost certainly can not.
All judicial systems have flaws. America's sometimes seems driven by primitive instincts, as witnessed in the case of Ashley Menser, 36, a woman with advanced ovarian cancer given what some have likened to a death sentence for shoplifting goods worth all of $109.63.
So appalled was one Judge Samuel A Kline by her behaviour, and a record of previous theft offences, that he jailed her for between 10 months and seven years.
He flatly rejected a defence plea for her term to be covered by house arrest, to allow potentially life-saving treatment to continue.
The district attorney says the punishment was inevitable and justified and claims the prison system is "far more capable of addressing serious health concerns for inmates"; in fact, her family says, prison staff have neglected her cancer treatment.
Menser's fate is, on the face of it, an affront to humanity. Her case was decided in Pennsylvania but reeks of the sort of savage, heartless and incompetent treatment of human beings we are accustomed to reading about in John Grisham's novels about law enforcement in the Deep South.
Sacoolas and Menser both appear culpable. It is hard to imagine Menser being jailed in similar circumstances in the UK. It is not hard to imagine Sacoolas facing imprisonment had she killed someone on the road, however accidentally, in her own country.
But if natural justice were to prevail, Menser would be free to fight her disease or, failing that, be absolutely guaranteed equivalent treatment while in custody.
And Sacoolas would be dealt with in a way that met the Dunn family's legitimate need for closure but did not remove her from her children.
Sir Julian Brazier has been described as socially conservative. I have only a vague idea of what he feels would be the appropriate sentence for Sacoolas, if convicted, and no idea what he would have done with Menser.
Remembering his own good fortune, in facing an enlightened judiciary, I hope he would share my view,
Recent Comments