The driver of a speeding vehicle who was convicted after admitting causing death by dangerous driving was sentenced today at the High Court in Edinburgh to two years and nine months imprisonment, after pleading in his own social inquiry report to be imprisoned.

Jamie Ross had killed 18 year old Christopher Gribben whilst driving a Subaru Impreza at what Lord Brodie described as excessive speeds probably in excess of 50mph in April last year.

“What occurred on 21 April 2007 was not an accident in the sense of a mishap or something that happened by chance. Christopher Gribben’s parents describe what happened as preventable. I agree,” Brodie said, passing sentence. 

"I have noted from the Social Enquiry Report that you go a step further than that. What appears there is this – ‘Mr Ross has sincerely expressed a wish for a custodial sentence on the grounds that he feels any lesser disposal would be seen as diminishing his responsibility for his actions.’ That appears to me to show an insight on your part into the circumstances in which you find yourself and a wish and need to come to terms with the full consequences the tragedy that has been caused by reason of your actions," Hardie concluded.

Lord Brodie praised Ross's good character and genuine remorse for what occurred.  His entire statement as heard in court can be read below.

“You appeared before me at Edinburgh on 29 April 2008 when you pled guilty to contravention of section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, using the accelerated procedure in terms of section 76 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995

By pleading guilty you have accepted responsibility for causing the death, on 21 April 2007, of Christopher Gribben.

You also have accepted responsibility of causing injury to Charlotte Fernandes, Maria Fernandes and Christopher McLeese

Your dangerous driving therefore has had the result of taking away one life and causing inestimable damage to the lives of many others. I have had the benefit of reading a dignified letter from the parents of the late Christopher Gribben who have lost a beloved son of great promise of whom his family were very proud just as he was beginning his adult life. Christopher was 18 years old. His loss has caused his family great pain.

In terms of section 2A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously (which is what you have pled guilty to) if the way in which he or she drives falls far below the standard that would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and that it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

There is, however, a quite wide range of driving that can properly be described as dangerous and the courts, both in Scotland and England, have emphasised that while the tragic consequences are very important, the main consideration in determining sentence must be the culpability of the driver as judged by the gravity of the dangerous driving involved and the surrounding circumstances. I therefore must look at the various factors that the courts have held must be considered in order to place this case at its appropriate point on the scale of cases of causing death by dangerous driving.

But before I do that can I emphasise one thing. References provided by those who know you and recognise in you someone with good qualities use the expression ‘accident’. What occurred on 21 April 2007 was not an accident in the sense of a mishap or something that happened by chance. Christopher Gribben’s parents describe what happened as preventable. I agree.

Turning to the gravity of your dangerous driving, I depend on the description provided by the Advocate Depute today and on 29 April, what was said by Mr Latif and my consideration of the Strathclyde Police Crash Investigation Report which parties, at my request, agreed I should look at.

• The scene of the accident was the B774 Caplethill Road, Paisley, approx 520 metres east of speed camera positioned close to the junction with Glenfield Road
• This road is single carriageway, subject to a 30mph speed limit, with two lanes separated by double white lines. The side of the road is bordered by a white line. Both sides of the road are bordered with dense shrubbery and hedges
• You were travelling eastbound with two passengers in your brother’s Subaru Impreza N13 WRX
• Initially you were driving at no more than 30mph as you passed the speed camera
• However, you applied harsh acceleration as you went into the sweeping left hand bend ‘travelling well in excess of the 30 mph speed limit and more than probably in excess of 50mph’
• You continued to apply acceleration as you attempted to negotiate the bend
• Due to the excessive speed you were unable to maintain control with the result that the Subaru swung anti-clockwise and then, as you over-corrected, clockwise, round to travel broadside on and to cross into the opposite lane and into collision with the Hyundai SE55 AAF driven by Charlotte Fernandes despite Ms Fernandes’s best attempt to avoid such a collision
• No blame whatsoever attaches to Ms Fernandes
• The crash investigation report includes this ‘Ross was well aware of his actions in that just prior to the incident occurring, he was driving very carefully and within the speed limit as he passed Road Safety Camera but on passing the camera applied harsh acceleration and sped away towards the locus [of the accident]. He has then attempted to negotiate the left hand bend just prior to the point of impact at a speed that was if not in excess of the vehicles abilities well in excess of his. …He has, due to the hedge on his nearside negotiated the left hand bend with no appreciable views of oncoming westbound traffic, at a speed that left no margin for error …’
• As it was put by the Advocate Depute today your driving was ‘assessed as dangerous as a result of the combination of speed …and the limited views [you] had of oncoming vehicles’.
• As Mr Latif reminded me
o it is not known precisely at what speed you were travelling
o it was however over no more than 400 metres
o but it was a speed that put it beyond your capabilities to control the car.

You could not but accept that that was dangerous driving - harsh acceleration to an excessive speed as you drove into the left hand bend.

Mr Latif drew my attention to the cases of Cooksley and Richardson. In these cases the English Court of Appeal laid down guidelines as to the level of sentence in various categories of cases of causing death by dangerous driving. He accepted that in this case there are the following aggravating factors

• excessive speed
• disregard of a warning from another passenger
• in addition to causing one death you caused injury to three other direct victims.
HOWEVER, as Mr Latif pointed out and I accept, in this case there were present all the mitigating factors identified as relevant in the guideline cases
• previously good driving record
• absence of previous convictions
• timely plea of guilty
• genuine remorse at death of work mate
• your youth (you were just 20)
• you yourself sustained some injury (albeit not very serious).

I must take into account all of these factors in the case and I note.

• that you pled guilty at the earliest opportunity which allows me to accept your expression of remorse as genuine
? your good character as demonstrated by the Social Enquiry Report and the references provided to the court, from which
o I take you to be as you are described in the Social Enquiry Report - a law abiding and hardworking young adult
o Who has been traumatized, albeit by events of his own making.

I nevertheless have no alternative but to impose a custodial sentence having regard to the nature of the offence to which you pled guilty. I understand that you recognise this but I have noted from the Social Enquiry Report that you go a step further than that. What appears there is this – ‘Mr Ross has sincerely expressed a wish for a custodial sentence on the grounds that he feels any lesser disposal would be seen as diminishing his responsibility for his actions.’

That appears to me to show an insight on your part into the circumstances in which you find yourself and a wish and need to come to terms with the full consequences the tragedy that has been caused by reason of your actions.

Having regard to the guideline cases, the various factors that I have identified, the contents of the social enquiry report and what has been said on your behalf, the sentence of the court will be two years and nine months imprisonment from today’s date. That reflects, as I must do in terms of the decision in the case of Du Plooy a discount of the order of third to reflect your plea of guilty by way of the section 76 procedure. If it had not been for your plea of guilty the sentence would have been of four years imprisonment.

In addition I shall disqualify you from driving or applying for a driving licence for 7 years. After that you will require to pass the extended test, if you wish to drive.”