No jail for brother in tragic road death

Egbert Robinson

(CNS): A 27-year-old man from Bodden Town who was behind the wheel during a fatal road crash that killed his brother will not go to jail as a result of a number of the exceptional circumstances. Eduardo Robinson admitted careless driving in connection with the fatal collision on a chip and spray road in Prospect in October 2012. Robinson, who was devastated by the loss of his brother Egbert, is also hearing impaired and the court agreed, given the factors of the case, that a driving ban and a conditional discharge was appropriate.

Robinson is believed to have been traveling around 14mph in excess of the 25mph speed limit on the temporary surface when he lost control of the Nissan Sunny he was driving and hit a wall on Mangrove Drive. Robinson’s brother was killed and he was seriously injured in the smash.

Given all of the circumstances of the case, the judge banned Robinson from driving for twelve months and imposed a conditional discharge to also last twelve months. During the sentencing ruling on Wednesday, Justice Charles Quin stated that the sentence reflected the exceptional circumstances and it was not to be a precedent for other cases.

Fatal crash in Prospect in October 2012

The Traffic Law does not provide for a suspended sentence and, given that all of the risk factors for re-offending by Robinson were very low and because of his disability, it was not appropriate to send him to jail. Furthermore, the family who had lost one loved one in the crash did not want to see Robinson jailed.

Even though the court recognised the seriousness of the offence in the particularly tragic circumstances where the defendant lost his brother, who was described in the social enquiry report as his soul mate and ‘twin’ because they were everywhere together, among other issues, made the case something of an exception.

The court heard that while Robinson was driving his brother had struck the defendant, distracting him and “to some extent, reducing the defendant’s culpability”. The court also accepted that this case was at “the lowest category of seriousness”.

There was no excessive speed involved, no alcohol and the defendant is of good character and was described as very respectful.