If driving bans precious Karl

THERE was a collective gasp in court as Patrick Morgan’s previous convictions were read out: 47 of them, including a litany of driving offences. Careless driving, driving under the influence, driving without tax, the list went on and on.

But most sinister of all were the three separate driving bans which he had defied, leading to the awful events of March 8, 2017.

On a clear dry March night, the Dubliner fatally injured jogger Karl Robertson in a hitand-run on Dublin’s northside.

Driving at 60kmh through an Artane housing estate, he hit Karl as he crossed the road and drove straight on, leaving the young Dunnes Stores worker severely injured and alone. Morgan stopped a short distance away to set fire to the van he had bought the day before. He handed himself in to gardaí the following day but it would be almost a full year before his arrest and a further three months before the case got to court.

He pleaded guilty to five charges, including death by dangerous driving, leaving the scene of a crime and failing to provide medical assistance. Most shocking of all is that what experts describe as his ‘killer behaviour’ is not as unusual as we might think. Karl Robertson’s death happened as the result of an epidemic of banned drivers flouting the law, with apparently little legal enforcement to deter them.

It has been reported that 8,160 disqualified drivers continue to drive on our roads, with only 17% surrendering their driving licence as required by law. Some borrow cars from friends or family, others get away with registering cars purchased from private sellers in a family member’s name. Frighteningly, some of those disqualified are professional drivers, including bus, van and lorry drivers.

Analysis of figures shows that in January 2017, more than 2,000 people had been charged with driving while disqualified. Worse still, less than a quarter of motorists summoned to court for driving while disqualified in 2017 were convicted — only 84 out of 362 motorists were successfully prosecuted.

Research carried out by the Road Safety Authority (RSA) in 2015 showed that banned drivers are responsible for the deaths of between 11 and 14 people each year. It’s this information which both shocks and motivates Karl’s family.

‘If that person hadn’t been able to go out and buy a van while he was banned from driving, Karl would still be here,’ says his cousin Aisling Reid, who has been by the family’s side throughout their ordeal.

Along with Karl’s sister Niamh, she is now determined to spearhead a campaign in Karl’s name to effect change and hopefully bring some peace and a sense of justice to his distraught parents Cathy and Tony.

‘The problem of banned drivers would never have been on my radar, even when I myself was selling a car,’ she says. ‘Now I know it needs to be on everyone’s radar because deaths like Karl’s are happening more and nothing is being done about it.

Aisling and 22-year-old Niamh meet the Irish Daily Mail to discuss the changes they want to see. In the course of the conversation, Niamh bravely talks about her beloved brother and the terrible trauma suffered by her family.

‘There were just the two of us children and Karl was my best friend,’ she says. ‘He was a quiet guy but also very friendly and helpful. He was a real techie, he could build computers and was great at helping neighbours with their TVs or internet. He was always helping people. Now we want to help people in his name.’

From the age of 17, Karl worked as a store assistant in Dunnes Stores in Northside Shopping Centre. Such was the high regard for him in his job that staff members held two vigils following his death, giving comfort and support to his family.

Niamh recalls the night that his life was so cruelly cut short. ‘Every night, Karl went jogging for an hour or so. I always admired his love of cardio,’ she says with a smile. ‘Then he would come home and bring our dog Blu out for a walk.

‘I remember that night very clearly. I had just got home from college and was going to bed as I was starting a new job the next day. At around 9.45pm we got a call. We thought Karl had fallen while jogging, we never thought it would be something so awful. We didn’t get to see Karl for four or five hours in the hospital as doctors tried to stabilise him. That night we were told there was no hope but we didn’t want to start making phone calls, we hoped they would come out and say they were wrong.’

But that didn’t happen. Karl was kept on life support so that some of his organs could be donated. His injuries were so severe that only his kidneys could be used.

The year following Karl’s death was desperate for the family as they waited for news of an arrest and endured repeatedly adjourned coroner’s court dates.

The family had a helpful garda liaison officer, says Aisling, but knew none of the details of Karl’s death until they attended court just over two weeks ago. ‘It was absolutely shocking to hear the details of the case in court,’ she says.

‘My jaw dropped when I heard that this person had 47 previous convictions — 47 offences yet he had never spent a single day in jail. Contrast that to Karl, a young man who was as good as gold, who contributed to society and never gave anyone an ounce of trouble in his life.

‘The problem is that no one, including the judge, knew what Karl was like, his personality and character. He truly was one of the good ones. When they called out a sentence of five years, I genuinely thought it was for the first charge and that more would follow. I couldn’t believe that five years for killing someone would be considered enough.’

‘Karl was 28 when he was killed,’ adds Niamh. ‘If he was to live to an average age, he had another 50 years of his life. A five-year sentence for taking 50 years of life isn’t justice.’

After the sentencing, Karl’s family was brought into a room by the prosecution team and told that by current standards, five years is a good sentence for this kind of crime. If appealed, there was a danger that the sentence would be reduced. The maximum sentence in cases like this is ten years.

‘We thought, is that it? Karl has died, this person has got five years which means he’ll be out in threeand-a-half and that’s it, get on with it. We wanted more for Karl, we felt his story had to be told.’

Shortly after the court case, Aisling put up a Facebook post which received 13,000 shares and almost as many likes. ‘The response was unexpected,’ she says. ‘We received so many messages from heartbroken families whose loved ones died in similar circumstances and haven’t got justice but also from people who are sick and tired of the way this country’s judicial system is run.

‘You could go insane with anger over what has happened. But instead, we want to channel our energy into doing something positive, something Karl would be proud of, he deserves it. It will take time and energy but