Driver hits cyclist, left for dead. Let off in court.

esuhl

It was too lenient

ic wrote: »

That article doesn't go on to explain the consequences on the driver. Its quite possible they've lost their job and will struggle to find more work due to the sentence. If they're not a danger to society (remember can no longer drive), then what does locking him up in prison achieve?

I don't know, but I think there should be some kind of deterrent against leaving people in agony to die by the roadside instead of helping them because you're too concerned with saving your own skin.

ic wrote: »

I'd agree with the other comments, the story is too brief. Its a bit much to call it attempted murder - I doubt he'd left the house with the intention of running a cyclist over. I don't think there is such a thing as attempted manslaughter - i.e. almost killing somebody by accident, but not. Hence the sentences.

I agree that it's not quite attempted murder, although it is very close. Remember the cyclist was deliberately left to die. Maybe it was nearly "murder through inaction", rather than "premeditated murder", but either way, the driver is fully responsible for his criminal behaviour in driving off and not reporting the accident.

He's going to be back on the roads in less than 2 years, fully able to do exactly the same thing again, knowing that even if he does get caught, it doesn't really matter. He's probably used to getting away with motoring crimes, so there's not really any deterrent to bad behaviour.

TBagpuss

Strider590 wrote: »

The problem with stuff like this AND with our legal system, is that one is judged by a jury of ones peers and not by the law as such. This means that all sorts of social nonsense makes it's way into the whole process and because most drivers hate cyclists, the cyclist is screwed right from the start.

Juries don't decide on sentences, that is down to the Judge.

in this case, the matter was dealt with in the Magistrates Court, which means there was no Jury involved at all.

Cases are allocated to the Magistrates or Crown court based on a number of factors including the seriousness of the offence *as charged* - as magistrates courts only have the power to impose sentences of up to 6 months imprisonment, more serious cases would normally be sent to the crown court (although magistrates do, in some situations, have the power to transfer a case for sentence if they feel that this is justified once someone is convicted)

So it seems likely that the evidence wasn't there to justify charging with more serious offences.

mjm3346

It was too harsh

The original report at the time "on suspicion of causing serious injury by dangerous driving and failing to stop at the scene of a collision"


http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/cyclist-badly-hurt-after-alleged-10889217

esuhl

It was too lenient

mjm3346 wrote: »

The original report at the time "on suspicion of causing serious injury by dangerous driving and failing to stop at the scene of a collision"


http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/cyclist-badly-hurt-after-alleged-10889217

I guess there wasn't enough evidence to prove dangerous driving. It's far easier to prove that he fled the scene, failed to report the accident, and failed to provide a specimen for analysis.

But why do you think the sentence was too harsh, though? You think hitting someone with your car and leaving them for dead doesn't deserve a 20 month ban?!

Johnmcl7

esuhl wrote: »

I guess there wasn't enough evidence to prove dangerous driving. It's far easier to prove that he fled the scene, failed to report the accident, and failed to provide a specimen for analysis.

But why do you think the sentence was too harsh, though? You think hitting someone with your car and leaving them for dead doesn't deserve a 20 month ban?!

There was no need to go for Dangerous Driving, they already had him on offences with the same seriousness of penalties (dangerous driving isn't mandatory jail time, the minimum penalty is well below what the offender got). If they'd killed the cyclist (and thankfully they didn't) then they could have been charged with more serious offences.

John

esuhl

It was too lenient

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

There was no need to go for Dangerous Driving, they already had him on offences with the same seriousness of penalties (dangerous driving isn't mandatory jail time, the minimum penalty is well below what the offender got). If they'd killed the cyclist (and thankfully they didn't) then they could have been charged with more serious offences.

John

I agree. But I don't see how you can say that a 20-month ban (and £85 fine or whatever) was too harsh a sentence.

Johnmcl7

esuhl wrote: »

I agree that it's not quite attempted murder, although it is very close. Remember the cyclist was deliberately left to die. Maybe it was nearly "murder through inaction", rather than "premeditated murder", but either way, the driver is fully responsible for his criminal behaviour in driving off and not reporting the accident.

It's absolutely not anything close to attempted murder, those are a very different scale of charges primarily because of the intent - there has been no evidence shown that the offender had the intent to injure the cyclist. The charges would only be onto that scale if there was evidence, such as a previous altercation between the offender and the victim which provoked the offender into deliberately ramming the bike into the victim.

As from what's known it was an accident and therefore the correct charges were applied. In cases where there was clear intent, they are taken very seriously on the assault scale of offences.

He's going to be back on the roads in less than 2 years, fully able to do exactly the same thing again, knowing that even if he does get caught, it doesn't really matter. He's probably used to getting away with motoring crimes, so there's not really any deterrent to bad behaviour.

I doubt the driver weighed up the potential risks of drunk driving and still chose to drive, even if nothing had happened and he'd been caught he would have still been facing a length ban. Therefore a more serious sentence isn't likely to make any difference in terms to future decisions although I don't agree in writing off the penalty as too minor with no effect, I suspect as others have mentioned above it's likely to have serious implications on the offender's life. If he does get caught drink driving again (or failing to provide again) even without any sort of accident, the penalties quickly escalate.

I still don't think longer sentences are going to help because in this case and too many others despite a serious minimum penalty for drink driving/failure to provide, people still do it and a longer sentence doesn't change the fact the person who was hit is still injured.

Death by dangerous or careless driving also prompts similar topics, there was a lady who was jailed for a couple of years or possibly a bit less as she was distracted while on her phone and tragically killed someone. She was sentenced within the guidelines but many online thought she should be in jail for longer. She showed genuine remorse and was never going to drive again after that, I struggle to see how a long jail sentence would really make any difference particularly when most in her position if caught on their phones would have only received a paltry three points on her license.

I doubt it will ever happen but I think more detection is key with the hope that some of these offences would have never happened in the first place.

John

brat

It was too lenient

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

There was no need to go for Dangerous Driving, they already had him on offences with the same seriousness of penalties (dangerous driving isn't mandatory jail time, the minimum penalty is well below what the offender got). If they'd killed the cyclist (and thankfully they didn't) then they could have been charged with more serious offences.

John

Proving dangerous driving would have made this a more serious offence than those charged, given that the cyclist suffered serious injury.

Johnmcl7

brat wrote: »

Proving dangerous driving would have made this a more serious offence than those charged, given that the cyclist suffered serious injury.

While injury and alcohol would be indicators for a more serious dangerous driving penalty, on the information provided it wouldn't have been enough to get into the top band of Dangerous Driving penalties which is what would be needed to put the penalty beyond what was received (even a medium band dangerous driving offence maxes out at 24 month disqualification). I would suspect that's one of the reasons why he wasn't charged with that offence but as above, only those who were part of the process know what actually happened and what evidence was available.

John

brat

It was too lenient

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

While injury and alcohol would be indicators for a more serious dangerous driving penalty, on the information provided it wouldn't have been enough to get into the top band of Dangerous Driving penalties which is what would be needed to put the penalty beyond what was received (even a medium band dangerous driving offence maxes out at 24 month disqualification). I would suspect that's one of the reasons why he wasn't charged with that offence but as above, only those who were part of the process know what actually happened and what evidence was available.

John

If he was seriously injured, and the OP suggests he was, the offence would be "causing serious injury by dangerous driving" contrary to S1A RTA 1988. It carries a maximum of 5 years imprisonment, which interestingly used to be the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving 25 years ago.

It also carries a mandatory two year disqualification.