Victoria Hamer - Victim Personal Statements
Although Lorraine’s Mum, her brother, and my brother wrote and submitted their own Victim Personal Statement’s I have decided that I will only publish mine, our son’s, and our daughter’s.
The Victim Personal Statement (VPS) scheme is a major advancement in that it gives the victim’s family a voice. I was proud to read my VPS in open court. I did it for my beloved Lorraine. What our son and daughter wrote would have sent Lorraine into floods of tears with me hugging her for support.
However, it is suggested by the District Crown Prosecutor (the legal manager) of the CPS team in correspondence that:
“Most importantly for me, is the fact that the Judge was able to listen to the deeply personal and moving Victim Personal Statement that you read out in court. This, along with the harrowing statements provided by your son and daughter, would have left the Judge in no doubt about the enormity of the loss you suffered as a family. These statements would have been considered very carefully by the Judge when he undertook the task of sentencing Ms Hamer.”
and
“Most importantly, the voice of you and your family were heard in court, through the Victim Personal Statements you provided. It is these statements that would have had the greatest impact on all those present in the court and their effect should not be underestimated.”
Taking the second quote first. There is only one person that needs to be impacted by the VPS and that is the Judge. He has the power. With respect to other people in the court in our case it did not affect the defence barrister who clearly did his job, getting Ms Hamer the lightest sentence possible, unaffected by the VPS statements. With regards to Ms Hamer I must say apart for one time during my reading I could not look at her but I am told there was very little emotion. If I was in the dock I would have been in bits, totally distraught.
Figures published by the Unduly Leniency Scheme for the period 04/09/2019 - 11/01/2022 issued by the Attorney Generals office 25/01/2022 shows that sixty seven out of seventy people charged with causing death by dangerous driving went to prison. (Nine people out of twenty-eight were sent to prison for the lesser offence of causing death by careless driving.) The three cases that were handed suspended sentences were:
· 482 PR Maidstone 12/08/2021 2 years' imprisonment suspended for 2 years
· 418 TR Bristol 09/07/2021 2 years' imprisonment, suspended for 2 years
· 611 VH Taunton 21/10/2021 12 months' imprisonment suspended for 2 years
Ms Hamer was handed down the most lenient sentence. Apart from our VPS statements what did His Honour Judge Paul Cook have at his disposal?
· Full CCTV coverage from two cameras capturing the whole event too devastating to be shown in open court
· Police reconstruction footage clearly showing the amount of vision available
· Full Police Traffic Investigation report detailing amongst other things
o Ms Hamer did not, as she says in her statement, “try to avoid Lorraine as soon as she saw her” but rather that Ms Hamer did not make an evasive manoeuvre until at or after the point of impact. If you watch the video clip here it is clear Ms Hamer simply ploughed into the back of Lorraine taking no evasive action.
o The police investigator states that Ms Hamer did not brake until after the point of impact.
o The first point at which Ms Hamer’s view to Lorraine was at least 150.1 metres. Police Traffic Investigator states
§ As a result of the shape of the road, in my opinion Miss HAMER’s view would in fact be further than 150.1m when she could first see Mrs BARROW.
§ Image 41, Illustration of view available to point of impact 150.1m
§ Image 42. Illustration to demonstrate moving back from the point of impact actually increases the distance of view available as the road straightens.”
· Four witnesses state “that although the sun was bright visibility was good”. One witness states that “although the sun was very low and bright in her eyes doing exactly the same route moments later, that she could clearly see what had happened in front of her.”
· Police Investigator states that Ms Hamer was travelling at a minimum of 44mph in a 30mph speed limit. A limit she would have known.
· Ms Hamer was breaking highway code rule 237 and 154.
· From the point of impact Lorraine was carried 27 metres before being dumped. The police state that Ms Hamer’s car stopped between 50 and 60 metres after the point of impact. The RAC stopping distance for 50mph is 53 metres.
· Who actually phoned the vet? I have a copy of a witness statement it reads “She (Ms Hamer) said she worked at the vets nearby, and maybe someone from there could help. She gave me the telephone number and I phoned them on my mobile”. The timeline provided by the police states that Ms Hamer returned to her car after 7 minutes was she phoning the vet or something else?
· Ms Hamer gave a “No Comment” interview
Even with all this evidence for His Honour Judge Paul Cook to consider when he undertook sentencing, and he still did not send Ms Hamer to prison. So I fail to see what influence our VPS statements made.
That said would I recommend that you write a Victim Personal Statement? … YES in a heartbeat but don’t expect it to have any influence on the sentence being handed down.