A grieving widower has said that “the justice system has let my beloved Lorraine down” after a speeding driver who killed his wife just yards from the family home was handed a suspended sentence.
Lorraine Barrow, aged 57, was cycling home on the evening of 17 September last year when Victoria Hamer, 26, crashed into her from behind on the B3139 Mark Road near Blackford, Somerset, at around 6.20pm.
Hamer, who pleaded guilty at Taunton Crown Court to causing death by dangerous driving, claimed that she had not seen Mrs Barrow due to the sun being too low.
However, the court heard that she had been driving her Volkswagen Polo at a speed of at least 44mph despite the road having a speed limit of 30mph.
Mrs Barrow, who just three days earlier had celebrated her 35th wedding anniversary with her husband Chris, died of serious head injuries at the scene of the crash, which was recorded by a CCTV camera at a nearby house.
Yesterday, Judge Paul Cook sentenced Hamer to 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years and also imposed a six-month curfew and ordered her to carry out 200 hours’ community service.
She was also banned from driving for 30 months and will have to take an extended driving test before regaining her licence.
“This is the most saddening of cases,” the judge said. “The harm could not have been greater. You were well over the speed limit and you were driving into blinding sunlight. You were unable to see ahead of you, your proper reaction should have been to slow down – this was short-lived dangerous driving.”
The offence to which Hamer pleaded guilty carries a maximum punishment of 14 years’ imprisonment, but the judge said that in handing down the sentence he had taken account of her early guilty plea, her remorse, and the assistance she gave at the scene.
After sentencing, investigating officer Dai Nicholas of Avon & Somerset Police said: “Lorraine’s family have endured a huge amount of pain and I’d like to pay tribute to their courage throughout the legal process.
“Although Hamer’s sentencing sees the court proceedings conclude, the agony and hurt they are feeling does not simply end with it. Our sympathies are with them and we continue to support them at this time.
“Victoria Hamer will wake up every day for the rest of her life knowing her reckless actions killed an innocent and beloved woman.
“I hope all motorists take heed of this tragic tale and recognise the importance of adhering to road safety measures and speed limits because failure to do so all too often has fatal consequences and rips people’s lives apart.”
Reacting to the sentence, Mr Barrow strongly criticised the justice system, which he said had “gone too far in protecting the rights of the perpetrator losing sight of the rights of the victim.”
He said: “There is no sentence that the court could have imposed on Victoria Hamer that will ever compensate for the unnecessary, avoidable killing of Lorraine. It certainly does not bring closure as my sentence is life without Lorraine. Closure, for me, will be when my ashes join Lorraine’s.
“The justice system is not just about justice for the victim, which will never be enough, but also about setting a deterrent for others. This sentence does neither. After all the hard work done by the police, the justice system has let my beloved Lorraine down.
“Victoria Hamer will serve her sentence and most likely go on to live a normal life which, in all probability, will extend beyond Lorraine’s 57 years. Whilst Ms Hamer did plead guilty this was done in the face of overwhelming evidence and in the knowledge that by pleading guilty her sentence would be reduced.
“From our kitchen window I can view the exact stretch of road that the car travelled on its way to killing Lorraine. I can watch as the police, using their speed guns, attempt to catch drivers exceeding the limit thereby breaking the law.”
He continued: “Why does society in general think that speeding is a low-level crime? It is not. The affect it has on generations of families, in our case four generations, is devastating, shattering and crushing. We do not have a God given right to drive a vehicle how we want and without due consideration to other road users. Drivers have a duty of care. Our attitude to speed and how we control it is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
“Unlike those that carry a knife, which is unlawful in itself, road crime death, is not classed as homicide. Why is this? We have gone too far in protecting the rights of the perpetrator losing sight of the rights of the victim.
“Lorraine was doing everything right. Her road positioning was correct, her signal was clear, she was wearing light blue jeans, cycling jacket with reflective piping, high-visibility vest, and a helmet with rear facing light clearly visible against the green and brown hedge row.
“I am proud, as was Lorraine, that we live in a just society however the scales of justice, in our opinion, have become unbalanced. They tip too far in favour of the perpetrator,” Mr Barrow added.
“Those that break the law are being able to conduct a normal life for months, if not years, while we have had to wait and suffer the anguish and mental anxiety of not knowing what, if any, justice will be obtained for our loved one.”
52 thoughts on ““The justice system has let my beloved Lorraine down,” says widower after speeding driver who killed his wife given suspended sentence”
Sub! Someone call the sub – I
Sub! Someone call the sub – I don’t think there’s a road in the UK with a 44mph speed limit…
Really sorry about this,
Really sorry about this, edited.
The problem is that 44mph in
The problem is that 44mph in a 40 zone (assuming that’s what the speed limit was) is within a 10% bound of the speed limit, and therefore (I believe) wouldn’t be prosecutable as a speeding offence by itself. Perhaps someone could correct if that’s factually incorrect?
If it was 30mph that would be a different story.
A far worse problem in my opinion is driving with care and attention, which appears to becoming more and more ubiquitous as the number of gadgets and smart phones increases. Just this morning I was at Tesco and witnessed a pedestrian being hit by a van while crossing a zebra crossing when he was three quarters of the way across – the driver simply cannot have been looking, either on his phone, fiddling with something, or being otherwise preoccupied with something else. Some people’s attention spans are shrinking so low I wonder if they can technically cope with driving a vehicle. Luckily I captured the footage on my car dashcam, and I really must get round to installing something similar on my bike.
it was a 30mph limit, Road.cc
it was a 30mph limit, Road.cc need to update the article.
Ah, thank you. In that case
Ah, thank you. In that case this is a very disappointing outcome.
I think that your opening
I think that your opening paragraph neatly summarises a large part of the driving population’s attitude towards speed, which revolves around “the limit’ and likelihood of prosecution. I do recall when I was taking my test we were told on one hand that a speed limit was not a target, but on the other hand if you didn’t get up to the limit promptly you could be failed for being “too cautious”. Regardless of the limit, if you can’t see where you are going you need to stop.
Condolences to the family, it breaks my heart how many times I have read statements like Mr Barrow’s, in the certain knowledge that nothing will done and we will all be here again saying the same things again all too soon.
Also the 10% is just a
Also the 10% is just a guideline. Police can prosecute at any speed over the limit and courts will progress it on zero tolerance over as well. Of course the defence might argue that the device might be out or the speedo might be out but I’m pretty sure the onus of proof is them to prove that in court. In this case they Police either got the speed from forensically examining the film or crash scene (or both) so no device tolerances needed.
> Also the 10% is just a
> Also the 10% is just a guideline. Police can prosecute at any speed over the limit and courts will progress it on zero tolerance over as well. Of course the defence might argue that the device might be out or the speedo might be out but I’m pretty sure the onus of proof is them to prove that in court.
I believe speedometer calibration testing is part of the MOT – I seem to recall it isn’t permitted to under report speed, but it is permitted to over report by upto 10% – and vehicle manufacturers tend to err on the side of over reporting in my experience*
So if your travelling at 44 mph, your speedometer is probably showing closer to 48 mph.
* i.e. measuring against a (presumably) more accurate source, such as sat nav. or one of those road side devices that flashes your speed at you.
Yeah. “Minimum speed limits”
Yeah. “Minimum speed limits” they are, apparently. Because the anchoring effect and the observation that many drivers are above any particular signed limit despite the “cash cow” of speeding fines I’m interested in ways that these could be more “self enforcing”.
Nigel Garage wrote:
It’s factually incorrect. In a 40mph zone anything from 41-55mph is the same class A offense, prosecutable and punishable by 3 points and a fine. Since it was a 30 zone, it was already a class B offense, prosecutable and punishable by up to 6 points, a temporary licence suspension and a bigger fine.
And this is before you even consider that she was doing it while not being able to see which is, on its own, clearly dangerous driving.
This is aslso a prime example of the stupidity and entitlement that people bring to thinking about how they drive. The speed limit isn’t the speed limit + 10%. That’s obvious nonsense that no-one with half a brain or quarter of a social conscience could possibly believe. The speed limit is the speed limit.
“OFFENCE”.
“OFFENCE”.
What is wrong with you?
What is wrong with you?
How about keeping silent out of respect ?
hirsute wrote:
Agreed, and I’ve deleted my sarcastic response, as that probably wasn’t entirely appropriate either. Just saw swldxer’s comment and jumped in with a reply – should have read the story first.
swldxer wrote:
.
Nigel Garage wrote:
bang on the money there. As a pedestrian or cyclist you can see the numbers of drivers fiddling with their smartphones or yammering animatedly over their handsfree (just as distracting). Drivers think nothing of tapping out a message if they are pootling nose to tail in traffic. Some may say where’s the harm at that speed, but I’m damn sure their attention, once engaged, is not released so quickly from the device. It would be so easy to prosecute, but it seems there’s no appetite.
Nigel Garage wrote:
Cycliq 6CE rear facing camera/light captures HD video with a time stamp overlay, suitable for providing admissable evidence. It always captures the number plate and sometimes the drivers face, light dependent.
Edit: No sale or agent relationship, it just works adequately for me for many hours with the light off, camera on. Your milage may vary…
What a tragic thing to happen
What a tragic thing to happen to that family and such an emotional and damming statement.
I hope that Mr Barrow’s statement echo’s across the land and every law maker and politician is force fed that statement until something changes.
Those last nine paragraphs should be put in bold within this article, they sum up everything this site is trying to rally against.
@simon
@simon
“However, the court heard that she had been driving her Volkswagen Polo at a speed of at least 44mph despite the road having a speed limit of 44mph.”
Mr Barrow’s statement is yet
Mr Barrow’s statement is yet another in the long list of victim statements that should be required reading for all aspiring and existing drivers, annually.
Never mind, once the report on road law is issued we won’t have to read them any more, because all these problems will be addressed.
EDIT: The A&S Police web page has a facility to share on fb or twitter; please consider doing that.
A sad story to read and
A sad story to read and heartfelt condolences to Mr. Barrow. He raises a really valid point in expressing his utter disgust at the sentencing provisioning within the UK Legal System. How can we, as a society, tolerate the use of a motor vehicle to injure, maim and kill another person and yet not sentence and deter others appropriately? If someone is seen, or is suspected of carrying a weapon (firearm. knife, machete et al) the police, quite rightly, would descend on the scene with the express aim of removing the threat to the innocent population. The judiciary would follow up with the might of the law in their sentencing, to give a message that these acts will incur consequences. Why then do we tolerate the opposite view when a speeding/carelessly driven motor vehicle is used? When terrorists use lorries etc to mow down pedestrians, the media and general public are outraged. Yet, we see and hear of victims such as Lorraine Barrow daily. Why have we become so immune to the senseless slaughter on our roads?
I agree. I hope the judge
I agree. I hope the judge gets a copy of that statement and feels a little ashamed by his lienciency.
The sun didn’t look that low
The sun didn’t look that low from the CCTV still. I’m actually surprised that she pleaded guilty to Dangerous Driving though. Normally the CPS gives them the option of Careless or the Defence state plead not guilty to Dangerous as the jury will normally let you off.
Although it seems the sentencing judge must have not got the memo and thought it was careless looking at that sentencing. The Qatari royal I posted about in yesterdays blog got more for Careless (although still suspended).
I was a bit confused by the
I was a bit confused by the photo and lack of sun.
Driving is a right is something that is going to be around until we get autonomous vehicles and also sentencing is too light.
I just read a bloke was banned for driving with excess drugs in his system after he tested positive for cocaine at the roadside and was banned for 2 years.
5 days later he was caught by the same officer but only gets a further 12-month ban.
Quote:
Fixed it 😉
Probably.
Why do so many people think
Why do so many people think that ‘the sun was in my eyes, I couldn’t see‘ is somehow a mitigation for whatever happened instead of an indictment of their poor driving skills?
brooksby wrote:
‘the sun was i my eyes’ should not be allowed in court as a defence.
It should be struck off and countered with ‘if you can’t see the fucking road ahead of you, you shouldn’t have carried on driving you stupid arsehole.’
brooksby wrote:
WIth a turn of phrase like that you must be a barrister right?
SimoninSpalding wrote:
Hey, I didn’t say that!
SimoninSpalding wrote:
Would be good if a few people in the courtroom would be so blunt. Maybe the judge?
It seems that due to the massive cockup in the justice system the main focus of the judge is to stop people ending up in prison or forcing the justice system to take any further substantial action.
SimoninSpalding wrote:
Why thank you m’lud.
I agree, if you can’t see
I agree, if you can’t see (because of any reason), you need to slow down. I’ve had someone complain that in fog on the motorway the problem is that everyone slows down, and if we all just kept going at 70 mph, then the fog isnt an issue. It’s nuts.
Another one like this that resulted in a few deaths in New Zealand was when someone overtook a small bunch of cyclists, and when they came parallell to the group, they saw an oncoming car, so swerved back away from oncoming car into the cyclists (I think they killed 3 of them).
I had conversations with people at the time who said “of course the driver pulled back into the cyclists to avoid the worse head on collision with the other car”. They completely miss the point that you are not to overtake unless you have something like 200m of clear road after the overtake.
There is a serious issue with peoples ability to think more than one action ahead, and serious lack of ability to think of themselves as just one cog in a big machine, and not the most important and only cog in the machine.
In New Zealand you can (maybe not anymore, I got my licence a while ago) do a Defensive Driving Course to reduce the time you need to spend on your restricted licence. The course focused on maybe 7 causes of crashes, and basically everyone came back to the primary root cause being driver attitude. It was a real eye opener.
That on its own is worthy of
That on its own is worthy of serious analysis. How can it be that admitting you were blinded, could not see in front of you, and yet continued to drive, even to speed, prioritising your momentary selfish progress over the risk of death to others, how is that seen as exculpatory rather than self-incriminating? It gets me every time.
If only there were some way
If only there were some way of knowing ahead of time that the sun would be low and to the east in mornings, and low and to the west in evenings. But no, it just randomly appears in front of us, out of nowhere, and we have to deal with its unexpected blinding death rays.
I suspect I’m in a minority
I suspect I’m in a minority here but when I was renting and commuting by car and then bike I took it into account and tried to rent places to the east of where I was working for this very reason.
I changed part of my commute
I changed part of my commute into work, also with more off road, to get away from the twisty double white lined road and to come in from a direction where the sun was behind me.
I think the “blinded by the
I think the “blinded by the sun” bit is bollox (although the claim should be taken as a aggravating factor, not as mitigation). The black car coming the other way has no shadow ahead of it, and there is no harsh sunlight on the windscreen of the perp’s car. The offender could see well enough to stay in their own lane and not collide with the oncoming car.
The cyclist was clearly signalling to turn right and appears to have started to move across the lane. She may not have heard the sudden approach of the speeding car if the sound was masked by the other car’s.
I suspect the perpetrator had seen the cyclist beforehand, expected to [b]overtake by close passing within the same lane[/b], and for whatever reason failed to process the cyclist’s clear arm signal and subsequent move across the lane.
This is why the law should be that drivers overtake in the other lane. This is the reason close passes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. Each one is potentially a scenario such as this. Cyclists should not have to live just one step removed from sudden death.
As someone who both cycles
As someone who both cycles and drives on that road on a regular basis, the slope does mean that you do get blinded by the sun even before dusk/sunset. You are driving directly into the sun at certain times of the day and manys the time I have had to slow down, almost to a stop when in the car due to visibility issues. You should be driving to the conditions and if you cant see you slow down/stop. You are also coming round a bend and hitting the slope about 50-75 yards before the point of collision so dont get early visibility again highlighting the need to stick to the limit at that point. The driver was obviously anticipating the national sped limit signs less than 100m ahead of them and was accelerating out of the village.
I’m more often than not tailgated going up the hill and its one of those roads where speed checks are not done (they are the other way going into Blackford as there is a “safe” place for the mobile unit/motorcyles to park/stand). Not sure what the solution is now that fixed camera’s are seen as unacceptable by the majority these days.
There probably needs to be some fixed and significant minimum penalties for dangerous driving but I’m not holding my breath given the complete lack of action so far on the government review currently underway.
Apart from the lane up to my house (which has exactly the same issues but has more vegetation) I consider that stretch of road to be the most dangerous in the whole of the local area.
Last summer I had to attend a
Last summer I had to attend a speed awareness course. When I got the letter from the police that I had been speeding I was mortified. I had any number of reasons why I had not been paying attention to my speed and broken the limit (my father was terminally ill, work stress, lockdown etc.etc.) but my immediate thought was if I had hit a pedestrian, cyclist or any other road user, that would have had no relevance to my victim. I was clocked at 38 in a 30 which I know well, and it was a fixed camera that had been there for 15 years! So I took the course.
When I joined the course I was really disappointed with the attitude of the trainer, his attitude was that we were all there to “play the game” and avoid the 3 points, and none of us thought we had really done anything wrong anyway. The attendees were not given an opportunity to comment on this.
What does this have to do with this story? It made me think, based on the fact that the motorist had shown “remorse” and had 200 hours community service to do, actually people like her could be a useful addition to the speed awareness course as a speaker, talking through their experience. Not only would it hopefully have an impact on those attending the course, it would fit in with the concept of restorative justice. It might also just shake the arrogant, complacent approach of the trainer to have to listen to these type of stories on a regular basis.
Here endeth the sermon
SimoninSpalding wrote:
I can see that sort of approach might be pyschologically useful to get a room full of reluctant participants on board at the start, before then hitting them with some hard facts about the impact speeding has. But I’ve never been on any speed awareness course, let alone the same one as you. Was the trainer’s attitude the same throughout?
The course focused on the
The course focused on the futility of speeding rather than the consequences for the safety of other road users. The only reason they might have an effect on speeding is that you can’t do another course for 3 years, next offence will be points. There was also a short section on passing cyclists were comments about being held up and not paying road tax were allowed from one of the attendees. I suggested that drivers dehumanised cyclists because we look superhuman in our lycra.
To my shame I’ve done 2 in
To my shame I’ve done 2 in the last 12 years and fortunately never had a trainer as poor as yours was.
The first was run by an ex-motorcycle cop and he was excellent. He spent ages on the consequences in particular when you see any additions to the normal speed limit signs it generally means there’s been a KSI in the vicinity.
The second a video course was in lockdown – he was professional but very matter of fact and run of the mill about road dangers.
“Victoria Hamer will wake up
“Victoria Hamer will wake up every day for the rest of her life knowing her reckless actions killed an innocent and beloved woman”‘ said Avon & Somerset Police.
Unlike Lorraine Barrow, who will not wake up again.
With a suspended sentence and a curfew, Hamer will also be able to sleep in her own bed and have an early night. Life will continue broadly as before, bar the minor inconvenience of a bit of community service and a spell without a licence.
Mr Barrow, I fear, will not sleep well and will wake up alone.
Grim.
What a speech by Mr Barrow.
What a speech by Mr Barrow. Dignified and powerful.
AidanR wrote:
That should be printed within the next edition of The Highway Code, preferably inside the front cover, and in the section on vulnerable road users.
Sadly, I doubt that the people who need this insight buy or read THC, so let’s hope they know someone who does….
A few times I’ve had stuff
A few times I’ve had stuff shouted about “the highway code” at me and sadly the best put-down would probably have been “no, you should read it”. More useful would be for drivers to get periodic training / refreshers – effectively re-tests. Like we’d do for most other potentially dangerous activities which take place in public. Think of it as “continuing development”.
I hope all motorists take
I hope all motorists take heed of this tragic tale and recognise the importance of adhering to road safety measures and speed limits because failure to do so all too often has f##k all consequence.
As proved by a suspended sentence.
Why is it that you can get
Why is it that you can get away with killing a cyclist if you’re driving a car, even if you’re already breaking the law by speeding. Not only is this not justice for this gentleman’s poor wife, it also fails to protect vulnerable road users in future by not sending out a strong message, that if you are driving a motorised vehicle you are responsible for doing so safely and within the law.
How come the CPS didn’t
How come the CPS didn’t appeal the unduly lenient sentence. This poor man has more dignity than the whole of the judicary.
That ability does not exist
That ability does not exist except for a few really serious crimes like manslaughter. It would be good to get it extended to all crimes involving a non accidental death but don’t hold your breath.
Most appeals are based on there being a legal procedural error or a failure to consider all of the evidence. Either side not liking the result is not sufficient.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Here’s what the CPS manual says – ‘
“The offences capable of review under Part IV of the Act are:
offences triable only on indictment;…”
Causing death by dangerous driving is an indictment only offence.
So in theory the sentence can be reviewed – but it probably won’t be.
Per others a remarkably
Per others a remarkably thoughtful and balanced response Mr. Barrow to a terrible personal tragedy. A couple of points on the judgement – it seems that the judge sort of “got it” (the extent of the punishment aside) but:
“this was short-lived dangerous driving.”
This is the “legal uncertainly principle” that everyone seems to apply to rule breaking e.g. you can break laws as long as the worse the offense, the shorter the time you do it for. Sad to see it from a judge in court. It’s similar to the “unblemished record” thing. What this should have been was:
“this is dangerous driving – this was almost certainly habitual dangerous driving.”
“Dangerous” means “involving the chance of loss or injury” eg. it doesn’t need an injury every time. Although I’m sure in practice you need one for it to go to law in the UK.
“…the judge said that in handing down the sentence he had taken account of her early guilty plea, her remorse, and the assistance she gave at the scene.”
Ideally that the last point would be assumed to be expected behaviour. I suppose that since we have a “discount scheme” where there’s default maximum sentence (if only…) anything you do to show willingness to undo your wrong will reduce that. Even if it’s just getting a lawyer to read “She is terribly sorry” a year down the line. I’d certainly not want anything that might disincentivise rendering basic aid because we already have that issue. It still sometimes feels like anything an offender does that isn’t celebrating, running away and badmouthing the victims afterwards counts to reduce that sentence. Actually the victim blaming doesn’t seem to count either. Possible exception Charlie Alliston (“ ‘You have throughout sought to put your blame on her,’ the judge said.“)
A cyclist was put in prison
A cyclist was put in prison for 6 months for injuring a girl on a pedestrian crossing.
A motorist never stopped at a pedestrian crossing, hit an elderly man, and killed him – the judge let her off because as he said, “she was only doing 18 mph”.
To me, it seems like the maximum sentence possible for law-breaking cyclists and the minimum sentence possible for law-breaking motorists.