WHEN THE SCALES OF JUSTICE TIP IN THE ‘FAVOUR OF A KILLER’
The tragic story behind an innocent, young life taken and a family failed
WHEN Sharlotte-sky Naglis was knocked down and killed as she walked home along the pavement with her father, the lives of those closest to her were shattered.
Nothing would ever be the same again and nothing could make up for the loss of such a beautiful, promising child.
But if there was one thing, apart from the support and care the wider community showed for Sharlotte’s family, that might have given the slightest sliver of comfort, it would have been knowing that her killer would face justice.
And, if it were to be justice, it would be swift, and it would be sure.
But what followed was not swift. It was, in truth, a protracted, painful nightmare, and by the time the drunken, drug-fuelled driver who killed that precious little six-year-old was sent to jail in October this year, 15 months had passed since her death.
Sharlotte’s family spent their first Christmas without her not knowing what justice for her would look like.
They marked what would have been her seventh birthday unaware whether her killer would receive the punishment he deserved.
Yes, the legal process can be a long one. And sometimes necessarily long. But a legal process that took as long as this one did, only to culminate in what felt, to all who knew and loved Sharlotte and many more people besides, to be an ‘insult to her memory’, is hard to see as anything other than a failure of swift and sure justice.
Why did it take so long? And why did the process end in such a way that, far from bringing comfort, brought further pain?
The reasons for that are many. Some of them rest with the actions of the killer, John Owen, and some of them rest with the law as it stands in this country.
Owen, aged 45, spent the afternoon of June 19 last year drinking and taking cocaine in Leek.
He had driven there, and seemingly had every intention of getting in his car later that day, despite the alcohol and drugs he’d been taking. He set off in the early evening and was driving along Endon Road, at speeds of up to 50mph, when he smashed into Sharlotte and her dad, Kris.
He’d also been talking on his handsfree mobile phone in the moments before the impact. And he wasn’t wearing his seatbelt. As has already been highlighted, it would be difficult to imagine what else he could have been doing wrong.
As a result of not being buckled up, Owen was thrown from the vehicle and landed in a heap in front of his car.
While Sharlotte’s dad was frantically calling her mum, Claire, to give her the unbearable news that her daughter had died, Owen was drifting in and out of consciousness.
When the police and paramedics arrived, suspicion that he may be under the influence fell upon Owen. And as per the powers available to police, a blood test was taken from him as he lay in a coma hospital.
Owen remained in the coma for some time. And currently, even if a sample can be taken, it cannot be tested without the suspect’s consent. But, as Stoke-on-trent North MP Jonathan Gullis, left, pointed out when he spoke in the House of Commons on Wednesday night of the many frustrations of the quest for justice for Sharlotte, under Section 7A of the Road Traffic Act, anyone who ‘fails to give his permission for a laboratory test of a specimen of
blood without reasonable excuse is … guilty of an offence’.
Clearly, Owen was in no position to consent while in a coma. But the unintended consequence of this situation was that Staffordshire Police were unable to access at that time what would go on to prove key evidence against him.
Mr Gullis argues that, considering someone would be committing an offence if they failed to give consent when able to do so, the consent is essentially a ‘formality’; and that, in such road traffic investigations where lives are lost, this consent should be unnecessary.
It is not difficult to understand the anxiety and worry that these delays caused Sharlotte’s family.
One doesn’t have to search far to find law firms’ websites that advise potential clients about the ways in which blood samples can be ruled out of evidence for any number of reasons, notably delays in analysis, right down to how many times the door of the fridge in which they are kept may have been opened or closed.
Once Owen was discharged from hospital and his consent was obtained, many weeks had passed since the collision. The sample seemingly gave the police the evidence they needed that suggested
Owen had been drinking and under the influence of drugs, and he was charged. But it was, by then, just days short of six months since Sharlotte had died.
His first appearance in court was on January 13, this year, when he appeared before magistrates in Newcastle.
Given the seriousness of the case, it was always due to go before crown court, and Owen was not required to enter any plea.
But concern was growing among Sharlotte’s family about what they had heard of Owen claiming not to be able to remember the crash.
The fear was that he might effectively claim that being unable to remember the events leading up to the collision meant he was unable to say whether he was guilty or not.
Claire, Sharlotte’s mum, feared that this would mean that if he were eventually to enter a guilty plea, no matter how far down the legal line it came, it would be his defence argument that it was the earliest opportunity he’d had.
Why would that be so important? The answer lies in the way in which the justice system credits offenders with making an ‘early’ guilty plea.
Mr Gullis, speaking in the Commons debate this week, argued that ‘there were significant nuances in the law that allowed Owen to prolong the case significantly yet unnecessarily’.
He had appeared in court in February, where it was said his ‘fitness to plead’ would be assessed, and it was not until May that all the reports and evidence were finalised.
It was not until what would have been the first day of his trial, July 18 this year, that Owen entered a guilty plea in a courtroom. And at his sentencing hearing in October, Sharlotte’s family’s fears that Owen would, in their view, get off lightly, appeared to be confirmed.
His crime was considered to be in the worst possible category for dangerous driving. There were multiple aggravating factors, and the sentencing guidelines said that he could face anything from eight to 14 years in prison.
The judge at Stoke-on-trent Crown Court, Paul Glenn, decided the sentence should be nine-and-a-half years, but crucially, he took a third off Owen’s sentence for his early guilty plea. The six-years-and-four-months sentence Owen was given will in all likelihood see him serve fewer than three years behind bars for taking Sharlotte’s life.
“Owen did not plead guilty until that report was produced,” Mr Gullis told his Commons colleagues. “He could have done that far earlier. Legally, he pleaded guilty at the ‘earliest possible moment’, but given the lengthy delay and ample opportunity, I do not believe that this should entitle him to the whole one-third reduction in his sentence … it is totally different to plead guilty as soon as possible compared with as soon as ‘legally possible’.”
“There are significant nuances in the law that allowed Mr Owen to prolong the case significantly, yet unnecessarily,” he added. “That meant that the case dragged on for too long, which has had devastating consequences for Claire and her family. More importantly, it is still my view and that of the Stoke-ontrent community that John Owen’s sentence is shockingly lenient, considering what he did.”
Solicitor General Michael Tomlinson pointed out that ‘Sentencing Council guidelines rightly encourage a defendant to accept responsibility and avoid the need for a trial’.
He added: “If there were no reduction for a guilty plea, there would be little incentive to plead guilty, and a defendant may as well just have a trial.
“That would cause more anxiety to witnesses, victims and their families, and would act as a disincentive to pleading guilty.
“We must, however, get the balance right—hence there is a process to encourage an early guilty plea.”
From June this year, the maximum sentence for dangerous driving was increased to life imprisonment. But as long as offenders who are considered to have committed the most serious of these types of crimes are able to, as Mr Gullis suggested, “exploit loopholes in our justice system” and receive substantial credit for pleading guilty, then the chances are that more families will find the outcome of the justice process to be as disappointing and hurtful as Sharlotte’s family has.
Whatever form change takes, it must come. Something must change if there is to be a real and meaningful challenge to Mr Gullis’ assertion that ‘the law clearly works in favour of the killer’.