Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Driver who hit John Radford sentenced to four years and eight months in prison

Radford died of his injuries 16 months after the incident took place

The man who hit and killed cycle campaigner John Radford in a road rage incident has been jailed for four years and eight months after admitting causing death by dangerous driving, reports The Huddersfield Examiner. Michael Gledhill was convicted of causing serious injury by dangerous driving in 2013, but when Radford later died of his injuries, fresh charges were brought.

Radford was chairman of Huddersfield CTC and a Yorkshire regional representative on the CTC’s national council. He is credited with spearheading the CTC's Road Justice campaign in West Yorkshire by meeting with his PCC, Mark Burns-Williamson, to deliver the Road Justice report.

On July 31, 2013, he became involved in an altercation with Gledhill while cycling on the A616 Huddersfield Road in New Mill. Gledhill was accused of succumbing to “road rage” and following a collision, Radford fell into the road, sustaining brain damage.

A jury at Leeds Crown Court subsequently found Gledhill guilty of causing serious injury through dangerous driving, but a month later, Radford died of his injuries. A decision was then made to pursue the more serious charge of causing death by dangerous driving.

The judge said there was evidence both men had exchanged abuse as they continued moving along the road for some metres. “One independent observer driving in the opposite direction described what he saw as ‘cat and mouse’ between the two of you,” he told Gledhill before concluding that the incident had been ‘motivated by rage’.

“What you did was deliberate. You drove your car towards him. Whether to frighten him or not, your temper caused you to act in a deliberate manner and the consequences were catastrophic.

“Mrs Radford has lost her husband, her best friend for many years, his daughters have lost their father and grandchildren their grandfather, all this after having spent the period of some 16 months watching they man they knew so full of life in a persistent vegetative state, unable to communicate with them. Their lives were turned upside down by your moment of rage.”

Gledhill, who was also disqualified from driving for four years, was at the time about to leave the army as a Lance Corporal in the 2nd Battalion Yorkshire Regiment. Nicholas Johnson, representing him, told the court that he was likely to have suffered post-traumatic stress disorder from service in Afghanistan which made him more impatient and angry on is return to the UK. He had been having counselling for anger management prior to the incident and has now also been diagnosed as suffering severe depression.

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

21 comments

Avatar
Stumps | 8 years ago
0 likes

When the judge comes out and say's that he drove the car at the cyclist deliberately then i do wonder how he only got the time he did.

I know the govt put pressure on the judiciary not to send people to prison and use other forms of punishment, perhaps this is the case here ?

However until the law changes in relation to driving offences whereby someone is deliberately killed or injured, and brought into line with GBH, Manslaughter / Murder,  then we will continue to see these type of sentences. A lifetime driving ban is not worth the paper it is written on, as i've said many times before.

If i had the knowledge to do it i would set up a petition for the law to be changed as outside pressure is the only way for the law to change as its not a priority of this govt.

Avatar
Eric D | 8 years ago
0 likes

I guess he gets some reduction of sentence for pleading guilty to causing death through dangerous driving, despite earlier pleading 'not guilty' to causing serious injury through dangerous driving.

Michael Gledhill jailed for causing death of 70-year-old cyclist John Radford - Huddersfield Examiner

Telling comments from irresponsible motorists:

"was the cyclist not also to blame by not wearing an helmet"
"This is the same guy who was knocked off his bike at the top of Rastrick about 6 months before this accident, & he still wasn't wearing a helmet. You would have thought that a guy who was pushing for safer cycling would have worn a helmet after getting knocked off once already."
"get cyclists off the roads till they pax tax and have insurance like all car drivers have to have "
"the only thing that 'mind boggles' is why he wasn't wearing a helmet in my view"

I wonder which drivers are worse:
those that think it's OK to drive at a helmetted cyclist because the helmet will protect him,
or those that think it's OK to drive at un-helmetted cyclist because he's not protecting himself so his injuries will be his own fault ?

What has happened to the idea that it's simply not OK to drive at cyclists ?
That seems to get overlooked.
What can be done to get drivers to overtake properly ?

Avatar
webster | 8 years ago
0 likes

Perhaps any soldier returning from Afghanistan or Iraq should automatically be banned from driving to prevent this kind of behaviour. Was Gledhill diagnosed with PTSD or is the judge simply saying that he could be suffering from it? Should it exonnerate any soldiers returning from conflicts from committing any crimes?

Avatar
BikeBud replied to webster | 8 years ago
0 likes
webster wrote:

Perhaps any soldier returning from Afghanistan or Iraq should automatically be banned from driving to prevent this kind of behaviour. Was Gledhill diagnosed with PTSD or is the judge simply saying that he could be suffering from it? Should it exonnerate any soldiers returning from conflicts from committing any crimes?

It was Gledhill's solicitor that said he was "likely" to have suffered PTSD.  

 

 

Avatar
mike the bike replied to BikeBud | 8 years ago
0 likes

 

It was Gledhill's solicitor that said he was "likely" to have suffered PTSD.  [/quote]

 

And I am likely to say the solicitor was trying to muddy the waters and elicit sympathy for his obviously deranged client.

The pity of it is that he may have at least partly succeeded. 

Avatar
oldstrath replied to mike the bike | 8 years ago
1 like
mike the bike wrote:

 

It was Gledhill's solicitor that said he was "likely" to have suffered PTSD.  

 

And I am likely to say the solicitor was trying to muddy the waters and elicit sympathy for his obviously deranged client.

The pity of it is that he may have at least partly succeeded. 

[/quote]

Presumably  PTSD is a diagnosable illness. It would seem odd if a medically unqualified judge (and jury?) would  take  the opinion of a medically unqualified  solicitor, all without consulting  a clinician. 

Avatar
nowasps | 8 years ago
2 likes

"What you did was deliberate. You drove your car towards him. Whether to frighten him or not, your temper caused you to act in a deliberate manner "

 

Thing is, what the judge is describing here happens all the time... 

Avatar
fixit | 8 years ago
0 likes

4 years for removing someones life deliberatly... dont you people bring back hanging for that?

Avatar
Carlos the jackal | 8 years ago
3 likes

Isn't it about time we started one of those government petitions to force a conversation about dangerous/careless/shit drivers being allowed back on the road at all? If your driving results in the death of another person should you really be allowed back on the road? 

Avatar
Chris James | 8 years ago
2 likes

The sentencing does seem very strange. I was recently on a jury where we convicted a guy of GBH with intent for running over someone with a car after having an argument about money with them. The victim in this case received multiple injuries but was still alive, walking, talking etc at the trial. The driver got 10 years.

I can't really understand how killing someone gets half that sentence.

I can only assume that the tariff for a driving offence is much lower than a GBH one (the judge in our case dismissed a dangerous driving chrage as he said it didn't add to the case and we should consider ony whether GBH had been committed).

Avatar
PpPete replied to Chris James | 8 years ago
0 likes
Chris James wrote:

The sentencing does seem very strange. I was recently on a jury where we convicted a guy of GBH with intent for running over someone with a car after having an argument about money with them. The victim in this case received multiple injuries but was still alive, walking, talking etc at the trial. The driver got 10 years.

I can't really understand how killing someone gets half that sentence.

I can only assume that the tariff for a driving offence is much lower than a GBH one (the judge in our case dismissed a dangerous driving chrage as he said it didn't add to the case and we should consider ony whether GBH had been committed).

Sounds like an enlightened judge in that case, Chris.  More like him needed

 

 

 

Avatar
Peowpeowpeowlasers | 8 years ago
1 like

> disqualified from driving for four years

Pathetic.  He should be banned from driving for life.  Let him use a bicycle, then his rage won't kill others.

Avatar
nedcase | 8 years ago
3 likes

Pathetic sentence for what should have been a manslaughter charge.

Avatar
Simon E | 8 years ago
1 like

If the bloke has PTSD and depression then prison is surely not be a good place to let him fester. OTOH I'm not sure that 4 years is anywhere near long enough before he is allowed to drive again.

Avatar
oldstrath replied to Simon E | 8 years ago
3 likes
Simon E wrote:

If the bloke has PTSD and depression then prison is surely not be a good place to let him fester. OTOH I'm not sure that 4 years is anywhere near long enough before he is allowed to drive again.

If he is that mentally  ill and disturbed  he should never be allowed  to drive again. Terribly sad for  him as well, but the rest of us are surely owed some protection. On the other hand, if he is not really sick  and just playing an excuse, he should be locked away sine die.

Avatar
Das | 8 years ago
8 likes

Ill never figure out how these things work. 4 1/2 years for deliberately attacking and killing a cyclist with a tonne and a half of metal yet a guy who deliberately attacked an OAP with just his hand and feet gets 7 1/2 years. Im not belittling the attack on the OAP by any shape form or fashion, merely trying to fathom how attacking and injuring a person gets a far more severe sentence than killing a human being with a lethal weapon.

 

https://www.facebook.com/itvanglia/videos/1252792088068206/?fref=nf

Avatar
The goat | 8 years ago
2 likes

Will the driver have to be psychologically tested before being allowed on the road?

Avatar
Veloism | 8 years ago
3 likes

If you want to commit murder and get away with it, do it in a car.

Pathetic sentencing

Avatar
mikeyc38 replied to Veloism | 8 years ago
3 likes
Veloism wrote:

If you want to commit murder and get away with it, do it in a car.

Pathetic sentencing

I'm afraid I have to agree with you. Why is there is difference between using a car and manslaughter, which carries a starting sentance of between 3 years and life dependant upon the "levels of provocation" (see CPS website http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/manslaughter_provocation/ )

I don't understand why when a car is involved it is treated differently?

Avatar
antonio | 8 years ago
0 likes

Justice?

Avatar
CXR94Di2 | 8 years ago
5 likes

No victory for anyone

Latest Comments