Bella Cristina

[syerph]

Christina (Chrissy) and Graham were at their bungalow in a little village outside of town. They were preparing for the forthcoming birth of their first child. Nothing was left as “It will do for now”. If they weren’t happy it was ripped out and started again. It had to be perfect.
The work had gone on for months and pride of place was the nursery.
Chrissy was pregnant and all was going well. She was due to give birth full term, in a few weeks time.
She said goodbye to Graham, got in her car and left to travel to her parents home in town. At the same time a man was driving at high speed on a duel carriageway in the opposite direction. He was overtaking cars estimated at up to 90mph, determined that he would get to the end of the duel carriageway before them. Chrissy had just got on to the main road from the village to town when the same car sped around a bend crossed the carriageway and crashed into her.
The impact was so powerful it lifted her car off the road and pushed it through a wall and it landed in some woods.
It was a dark, dank winters evening and she was trapped in her car. The people in the vehicles that had been overtaken tried to help as best they could. When the emergency services arrived she said “I can’t breath”.
They only found out she was pregnant when they cut her free.
She had an emergency Caesarean section but baby Bella was still born.
Chrissy haemorrhaged and bled to death.
Chrissy was 35. Bella was 8 months old.
The man responsible was not charged with Bella’s death.
Google epetition 65451 to try to change the law.
It takes about 1 minute.

[EdithWeston]

BBC a rule here

The other driver, Calvin Connah, was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and was sentenced to 5 years. The judge's sentencing remarks included references to the length of the sentence reflecting that two lives had been ended, even though only the one was named in the formal charge.

What exactly is the change the family are requesting? And does this mean that the unborn have legal rights? Would that set a precedent in any other areas (eg conduct of pregnant women)?

And why we the offence of "destruction" not used in this case (as it was in the murder of Nikita Grender)? Is that connected with whether the criminal knew the female victim was pregnant? In this case, Connah would not have done so, but then again he would not have known how many people of what ages were in the car at all.

[syerph]

Just to “Nail” any myths or misconceptions. (no pun intended)
This epetition 65451, is pretty straight forward. No ambiguity.
It is not about revisiting the law on abortion. Of course the law is the law. 24 weeks gestation period etc; would be at the time of writing this, presumably the cut off point on any prosecution.
The rights of a pregnant woman is paramount on consideration of a termination. It is a decision they (hopefully) come to of their own volition and informed consent. It is not our concern.
Bella was wanted.
She was loved from the first news of Christina being pregnant
and she still is.
We are not interested in :- subsection d, paragraph 127 as amended by blah, blah blah.
We want Bella recognized.
We want all unborn children recognized under the UK law in road traffic accidents by Careless or Dangerous Drivers. We do not want other fatalities like this one to go unrecognized.
To stare down at my beautiful niece in a bed with her equally beautiful daughter in a cot by her side. The absolute desolation of a close loving family and a partner whom had lost everything which was dear to him was awful in the extreme.
But for the Crown Prosecution Service to go through the investigation with a fine tooth comb and all the evidence pointing to a healthy full term pregnancy. Then nothing.
Nothing ! Was what I had witnessed an illusion ?
Bella was not recognized in her own right by the law. Neither will any other unborn child in these circumstances. Something similar may happen again.
We want a change in the law.
It is easy to be academic when not emotionally involved.
I find it difficult but try to be detached as much as possible.
Of course the driver did not know how many people or what ages.
He wanted to get to the end of the duel carriageway before anyone else and hang the rest. It may have been you or someone close to you.Then academia disappears at the speed of light. In this case it was a young woman expecting her first child in a few weeks time. No way do I want to sound patronizing but it is what it is.
Her name was Bella Cristina. Her name should have been on the charge sheet.

[wannaBe]

why have you posted this again?

[syerph]

It may take many posts before someone see's it for the first time. We live in a competitive world for attention.

[syerph]

Jessica Fenner, 22, was rushed to hospital in a critical condition after she was struck by a car not far from the family home of her boyfriend Daniel Dutfield.
However, there was nothing doctors could do to save the young mother-to-be and her unborn daughter, and she died from her injuries just hours after the crash in Morden, south west London.

Dutfield, 24, was arrested after the collision on Saturday evening and later charged with causing death by dangerous driving.
He appeared in front of magistrates in Croydon via video link today and was remanded in custody until his next court appearance, scheduled for July 21 at Croydon Crown Court.Miss Fenner, is understood to have been due to give birth to a girl on July 30.
As the law stands the child will not be recognized in it's own right.
GOOGLE epetion65451. sign and share.

[syerph]

IT HAPPENED AGAIN. To Jessica and her unborn baby. The family will be torn apart. Compounded with no recognition of the unborn baby !

[chesterberry]

I can see the reasoning behind this, it is heartbreaking that the RTA led to Bella being still-born, but I think recognising the rights of an unborn child IS opening a can of worms.

For example, if a pregnant woman crashes her own car and this causes her to miscarry/ deliver a stillborn child, would she be prosecuted? If a pregnant woman tries to commit suicide and is saved, but it causes her to miscarry/ deliver a stillborn child, would she be prosecuted?

And how do you prove beyond reasonable doubt that, at the moment of a collision, the unborn baby was alive and well? It is a bit of a Schroedinger's cat situation in that you can't really prove that the baby was definitely alive and wouldn't have been born stillborn regardless - it does happen that babies are born stillborn at 8 months or even full-term so I think it would be hard to find a defendant guilty during a trial.

That's not to take away from the tragedy of these cases, but I don't think it is as simple as saying unborn children should be recognised in their own right. There are too many potential loopholes.

[syerph]

Ah, well there you have it. Thanks for "Joining" the debate. With both a humane and logical argument. You would not believe some of the ignorant comments we have had to put up with. Here is the thing. 2 Autopsy's found that Bella was killed by the accident. The Home Office pathologist confirming this to be so. The can of worms is self constructed. People are theorizing all sorts of possible outcomes. It is what it says on the tin. The e petition sets out what should happen when "all the evidence suggest's"
The judge did indeed state to the defendant, "You killed two people". However, it was an appendage during summing up. People cannot understand the hurt which is caused by not including the baby in the charge. He killed 2 people. The Cause of Death was the accident. A charge should be made (as the Police wanted) times two. Don't be afraid about the can of worms. Sign, Share and lets have the debate. X

[syerph]

Chesterberry asks :- For example, if a pregnant woman crashes her own car and this causes her to miscarry/ deliver a stillborn child, would she be prosecuted? If a pregnant woman tries to commit suicide and is saved, but it causes her to miscarry/ deliver a stillborn child, would she be prosecuted?
No. In neither case was the expectant Mother and Unborn child killed by a dangerous driver.

[EdithWeston]

There is an offence already in the books - destruction of an infant.

Why was it not used here?

[tribpot]

So it should only be a crime if (a) committed by a third party (b) resulting in the death of both mother and baby and (c) in a car? Why?

I'm very sorry for your loss, and very sorry that it is compounded by the lack of charges in the death of Bella but what you are proposing could indeed lead to the prosecution of the mother as chesterberry suggests.

[chesterberry]

No. In neither case was the expectant Mother and Unborn child killed by a dangerous driver.

I see that but I question whether it is possible to change the law to be so specific? Either we recognise that unborn babies have rights and should be recognised in law as as such or we decide that they do not have rights and as such are not recognised in their own right in law. I don't see how you can make a law that says unborn babies are only recognised in their own right when involved in a car accident caused by dangerous driving. There will always be families who lost their unborn children in other ways who will want their children to be recognised as well, for example, if an arsonist sets fire to a house and this kills a pregnant woman and her unborn baby then I think the family of the woman and baby would want both deaths to be recognised. And that does seem reasonable, if society recognise the rights of unborn babies in one situation then it needs to recognise the rights of unborn babies in all situations otherwise you would have some families feeling their children were worth less than others. But where do you draw the line? How can you ensure that all families have the rights of their unborn children given equal importance, regardless of how they were killed, but still ensure mothers won't be prosecuted if their actions lead to the death of their child?

Sorry, I really am not trying to respond to your campaign insensitively and I apologise if you feel my response is ignorant, illogical or inhumane but I do think it is important to have an objective debate around possible changes to policy such as this. I cannot even begin to understand how heart-wrenching this accident, and the loss of both Cristina and Bella, must have been for you, their families and all that knew them. I can understand the desire to have Bella recognised in law as being killed and for her to be acknowledged by the charge given as undoubtedly friends and family suffered two losses and not one. However I think that the debate has to be wider than this one incident, tragic as it has been for the families. Before changing the law society should consider the possible effect recognising unborn babies in their own right could then have on all incidents which lead to the death of an unborn child, including the possible outcome that a mother might be prosecuted for putting their children in danger.

[syerph]

On the contrary I think the comments you expressed are both humane and expected. The problem in trying to persuade people that indeed we can be specific. A question was asked and a (surely) unequivocal answer given. I know it is hard these days it is surprising to get a straight answer. But then again I am not a politician or a lawyer. Yet again I go back to constructing an argument. If "others" want to change the law, let them try. We ARE specific. It is not about any other circumstances. After therapy, tranquilizers and 6 months off work, primarily due to the accident. It is a struggle to get the point across. Let us be specific. Someone whom is suspected of killing a heavily pregnant female and her unborn child. When ALL the evidence suggest a healthy baby. That person be charged on both counts. Now, let us be tangent looking. The defence council say "But my lord if we look at the case of the person that did not look after the tree in their garden. It fell on a pregnant woman and killed both her and her unborn child". "Me lud, that person was not prosecuted on both counts".
The Judge dismisses this as it has no relevance. The tree was not being driven dangerously. If anyone proposes a change in the law for any other circumstance's. Let them. I am desperately not trying to sound patronising. I hope you will sign and share epetition 65451 x

[squizita]

Syerph I am afraid from a legal perspective, if the law was changed, a woman who crashed her car and caused her pregnancy to end after 24 weeks or child be stillborn could be prosecuted.
In the same way as if a passenger died.
In terms of case law a precedent could very easily be set.

As someone who is currently 31 weeks pregnant after loss, it still sits uneasily with me, knowing how case law has played out in the past (which I know from work). Law doesn't have a "if we feel sorry for the person it doesn't count" element to it: in a tragic accident the mother might well end up being arrested and at least interrogated after the death of her child.

[squizita]

No. In neither case was the expectant Mother and Unborn child killed by a dangerous driver.

You see if you drive dangerously and someone in your car is killed, YOU ARE liable for death by dangerous driving. So if the law changed to make an unborn child a legal passenger this could definitely happen.
Not just to speeding rogue drivers, but to mothers who let their vision slip for a moment and there was a horrible tragedy.

[squizita]

Before I go, suffice to say, all my losses were medical issues: I have no vested interest in protecting anyone who might endanger their own pregnancy by doing something stupid.

[Mama1980]

I am terribly terribly sorry for your family's loss. This hits very close to home for me, I was in a car crash, the other drivers fault not mine, at 26 weeks pregnant with my ds1 a crash c section and the best part of a year in hospital and we both made it. I promise I know how lucky we are.
But while from a moral point of view I am totally with you. I have to agree with the other posters as to thinking that legally this is opening a can of worms. To enable a mother to be prosecuted if she crashes and kills her unborn child would be horrific. And I cannot see a way to draw a legally binding distinction.

[syerph]

Tripot... There is a charge of "Causing death by dangerous or careless driving" It is against the LAW to kill people by dangerous driving or careless driving. Destruction is different. You are indeed bringing something else to the debate. 2 pathologist reports. One by the Home Office, definitively said, both Christina and Bella were killed by another. The cause of death was a vehicle crashing into them.mThe CPS were within a gnats whisker of charging on 2 counts. Then I can only imagine they imagined ! I surmise the CPS thought about, what if this, what if that. If they had gone for both and had lost we would have accepted that they tried. They didn't.
I find myself (not speaking for the rest of the family) in a most curious position. Trying to get across the message that we indeed can be specific. To, how many, 4 or 5 people. When I could be putting up fliers and gaining 50 or 60 more supporters. But it is important. To us and the ones yet to come. It's happened again. Bad enough to loose them both. Not to recognise the unborn child only serves to compound a tragedy. epetition65415.

[syerph]

Do people actually and honestly think the Crown Prosecution Service, would charge a woman with killing her unborn child while driving with undue care of attention, or careless driving or even when driving dangerously ? I am slowly being dragged into Semantics and Constructs. Imagination running wild. From personal knowledge I could see the police investigate to the enth degree when fatality occurs. Would it be in "The Public Interest" ? The law is somewhat vague at times I agree but as for, [And] "I cannot see a way to draw a legally binding distinction". I live on the English/Wales border, near Chester. It is still in statute that a Welshman caught within Chester City walls after midnight can be shot by arrow till dead. It was used during the Welsh revolt century's ago. I dare say if someone was to indeed did do that and try to use an archaic law as a defence the CPS would prosecute the archer with murder.The CPS would also like video evidence if possible or all of the jury to be at the accident in real time. They only like to go for prosecution if they have a 75% chance of winning. You may notice that they charge people with either or. Also do not forget, probably THE most important thing. A jury will decide on the evidence presented.

[syerph]

Mama1980... Very sorry to hear that. What would close family and friends have wanted if they lost you both ? Ask them. Tell them there is a epetition. google epetition 65451 x

[syerph]

wannaBe Tue 24-Jun-14 09:19:23
Asked."why have you posted this again"?
Answer. see above.
Answer. see left.

[Mama1980]

Again I am so sorry for your families loss, your pain is palpable in your posts.
I will ask my family, I am genuinely curious as to their response. As I said I agree with you morally but and Forgive my possible ignorance I haven't been able to read properly ( I have two under 17months) but the difficulty for me is where to draw the line?
My second son was born 4 years after the car crash at 24 weeks to the day as a medically proven result of the injuries I sustained in the crash. He had a fight on his hands but is fine, but if things had been different would the driver still have been responsible? As you can imagine I have very strong feelings on the 24 week 'limit' but I can see why it in place logically even if emotionally I hate it.
If we say a unborn baby has a right to the legal status of a 'living' woman then that has huge implications all across the board. Where do you draw the line?
I hope none of my post causes any offence I am genuinely thinking about this.
Why if you don't mind me asking did they choose to drop the second charge?
I will google when my children are sleeping.

[Anthjones]

Chrissy and Bella were killed by a person who drove to the limit with no concern or consideration for the safety of others. He was driving dangerously and killed 2 lives.
Let's not get blinded by what ifs. The judge and or jury in any case have the over riding ruling. Would a heavily pregnant mother race at 85 miles an hour overtaking on a road that they knew was precarious? If they did then why shouldn't the father have every right to have his child being recognised. If she did the same with a week old baby in the car isn't it the same?
We don't want to change world we just want to change a law that is very close to our hearts and could make a huge difference in the future for families. mum's dad's, siblings, grandparent, aunties, uncles, friends alike. Please sign Epetition 65451 and let's make one difference and make unborn babies worthy.

[EdithWeston]

"Destruction is different"

It is however an applicable offence in relation to the infant when mother and unborn child are unlawfully killed together.

Are you saying it was considered here and excluded because it was a driving offence?

[syerph]

Child destruction is . . . . Look it up !
In this case it was considered to charge on both counts of death by dangerous driving.