Families of pilots killed by dangerous driver blast ‘appalling’ government after anguish of being left waiting months fearing he’d have jail term cut
Families of two Ryanair pilots killed by a dangerous driver have condemned the government as "appalling" after being left fearing for months that his prison sentence could be cut early to ease overcrowding. Relatives of Captain Matthew Greenhalgh and First Officer Jamie Fernandes say the policy was only reversed following a national outcry, and that they learned of the change through media reports rather than being told directly by officials.
Anthony Burns, 63, was jailed for 10 years after pleading guilty to causing the deaths of the two pilots and seriously injuring a taxi driver when his 44-tonne lorry ploughed into their stationary taxi at 50mph on the M62. Families were sent letters in June warning his sentence could be "recalculated" under early-release measures, only five months after sentencing, before the Prime Minister reversed course to exclude manslaughter and death-by-dangerous-driving offenders following outrage over the case of PC Andrew Harper's killers. Both Hannah Greenhalgh, Matthew's widow, and Amanda Lindsay, Jamie's mother, said the ordeal reopened deep trauma and accused ministers of "lazy governance" for only finding alternatives after public pressure, despite claiming beforehand that no other options existed.
- Pilots' families brand government "appalling" over early-release scare
- Killer driver Anthony Burns, 63, jailed 10 years for M62 crash deaths
- PM reversed early-release policy for such offenders after public outcry
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The families can reasonably argue that bereaved relatives should not be left for months uncertain whether a sentence for fatal, highly dangerous driving will be cut, especially when the change was communicated indirectly and reopened their grief. They may also see the reversal as evidence that ministers failed to consider the impact on victims’ families or alternatives to early release until public pressure forced action.
The case against
The government can reasonably argue that prison overcrowding required urgent measures to manage capacity, and that recalculating some sentences was intended as a system-wide response rather than a judgement on these families’ loss. It may also contend that changing the policy after concerns became clear was a legitimate correction, while recognising that communication with relatives should have been handled better.