Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Seven years for drunk driver who killed cyclist

Driver had eight previous convictions for driving with excess alcohol and had never held a full licence

A man who hit and killed a cyclist in Hersham last May has been sentenced to seven years in prison at Guildford Crown Court after he admitted causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of drink. Jason Taylor also pleaded guilty to two counts of driving while disqualified and two counts of driving while uninsured.

Get Surrey reports that Yvonne Wyeth was cycling to her job as a cleaner along Molesey Road at around 6.35am on May 28 when Taylor hit her rear wheel.

Prosecutor Amanda Hamilton said: “Mr Taylor was driving a Vauxhall Combo van in the same lane as Mrs Wyeth. He came up behind her and didn’t change his course to go round here and hit her, causing her to fly off her bike with force. A witness saw her doing a full two body cartwheels.”

After hitting Wyeth, Taylor ran into a Vauxhall Astra in front, veering into the other lane in an apparent attempt to avoid the impact. He was then involved in a head-on collision with a 17 tonne truck.

Wyeth sustained multiple injuries, including to her head, pelvis and vertebrae as well as rib damage which punctured her lungs.

Taylor himself remained in hospital for two days with broken ribs, fractured vertebrae, a broken nose and lost teeth.

He was found to have been two and a half times the legal alcohol limit with a reading of 207mg per 100ml of blood. He told police he had drunk three Stellas the previous night at a friend’s house, but had driven away after that person attacked him.

Taylor had 31 previous convictions for 74 offences – eight of which were for driving with excess alcohol and six for driving while disqualified. He had never held a full licence and had last been disqualified in January 2015.

He was given a 10-and-a-half year sentence which was reduced to seven years, taking into account his guilty plea. He was given four months each concurrent on two charges of driving while disqualified – one from the day of the incident and the other from the day before, and he was also disqualified from driving for nine years.

Addressing him, Judge Robert Fraser said: “It was almost as if she hadn’t been seen; she wasn’t there. You drove through her almost. She had done absolutely nothing wrong.”

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

27 comments

Avatar
Dan S | 8 years ago
1 like

Bendertherobot's post is exactly right: the charge of careless driving under the influence at this alcohol level is sentenced the same way as the most serious death by dangerous.  The choice of which to choose therefore comes down to the actual actions of the car.  Failing to see somebody is classically careless rather than dangerous.  Not always but that is more normal.  

A good rule of thumb (not the strict legal test but useful nonetheless) is that careless driving is for mistakes.  Not necessarily mistakes that anybody might have made (although it does cover those), but incidents where the driver misjudged something or jut had a moment's inattention or miscalculation.  Dangerous driving, generally speaking, relates to those instances where the driver knows they are doing something stupidly dangerous.  

So pulling out of a sideroad having not checked carefully enough and therefore not spotted somebody: careless.  Just zooming out of the sideroad without looking at all: dangerous.  Tailgating at high speed: dangerous.  Miscalculating your stopping distance or being momentarily distracted just as the guy in front brakes: careless.  Changing lines without thinking, thereby bringing down the whole peloton: careless.  Ducking under the level crossing barrier and barely mising the TGV: dangerous  1

The charge here would have made no difference to sentence and careless is easier to prove and more likely to avoida trial (which is extremely traumatic for witnesses and relatives, as well as a great drain on public funds), so this was absoutely the correct charge.

A few other points people have made:

No, disqualification will not stop this guy driving again.  But until we have the sci-fi device that RafRafRafRaf suggests, at least this way any time he is seen driving he can be sent to prison.  And will be.  And yes, that does happen.  It  just doesn't make the papers dreadfully often.  The other reason to impose a disqualification is that it's mandatory for this offence.

For all those saying that he shouldn't get the discount for pleading guilty because the evidence was overwhelming, please do share with us your in-depth knowledge of the evidence.  Please don't say that the few lines in this report mean that you know how many witnesses there were, how good a view they had, how reliable they were and how many there might have been saying something else.  Please don't say that.  I like thinking that people aren't that stupid, so please tell me that your comments about the strength of the evidence come from actually knowing something about the evidence?  

Same for the comment correcting the judge's comments.  That's the judge who'd read the case and heard full opening and mitigation before making his comments.  I assume that to correct those comments you have some knowledge of the case beyond the few lines of this article?  

 

 

Avatar
sam_smith | 8 years ago
0 likes

It was a shame that when he was hospitalised he didn't loose some limbs which might of prevented him from being able to drive again when he gets out.

Avatar
bendertherobot | 8 years ago
0 likes

Alcohol is an aggravating factor for dangerous. It's part of the offence of careless (under the influence). It's correct that it should be taken into account in the former. But it doesn't affect credit, that's separate and gets taken off when all other factors have been "totted up." As I explained above this is an offence that was given around 11 yrs and 4 months or so in reality. 

Avatar
Christopher TR1 | 8 years ago
2 likes

Never mind the current sentence, this scumbag should have been permanently removed from our society long ago.

What's the point of giving him another driving ban? It obviously means nothing to him and he does't even have a licence anyway. We can only hope that, after release, he kills himself in a car crash before he kills someone else.

Avatar
fixit | 8 years ago
1 like

only seven years? THE FUCKER KILLED SOMEONE!! WTF??

Avatar
bendertherobot | 8 years ago
3 likes

In terms of sentencing and charge, HERE, there's not much difference.

If you believe, withouth knowing what evidence there is other than drink, that this is dangerous driving then it could be a level 1 with a starting point of 8 years and a sentencing range of 7-14 years. If you charge with dangerous driving then alcohol is an aggravating factor rather than part of the offence. There's no information here of the manner of the driving. Without knowing that it's hard to say. Could be level 2 (5 year entry and 4-7 years). 

Contrast the "lesser" offence of causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence. That offence's levels are based on blood alcohol readings. Anything above 71ug, where the offence falls just short of dangerous, has a sentencing starting point of 8 years and a range of 7-14 years. Exactly the same as causing death by dangerous driving (without alcohol). 

In this case he's got credit of about 1/3 (as would be usual, but it's not clear from the reports). Essentially the main part of the sentence was around 11 1/2 years or so. That's very high indeed. 

I suspect, in this case, that there was insufficient evidence to charge dangerous driving other than because it was with alcohol. But, I also think that charging the alcohol related offence arguably achieved a better sentence overall.

 

Avatar
BikingBud | 8 years ago
2 likes

Why isn't it manslaughter?

 

Avatar
HarrogateSpa | 8 years ago
1 like

From the facts given, careless driving seems to be the wrong offence for this person to be charged with, and convicted of.  It should be a more serious offence.

Avatar
ooldbaker replied to HarrogateSpa | 8 years ago
2 likes

HarrogateSpa wrote:

From the facts given, careless driving seems to be the wrong offence for this person to be charged with, and convicted of.  It should be a more serious offence.

The BBC2 programme "the prosecuters" about the crown prosecution service went into detail about the difference between careless driving and the more dangerous driving and basically they are effectively saying that there was not enough evidence in a case like this to show that whilst the driving was below the required standard it was not "far" below.

I think we should adjust our expectations drastically and require far higher driving standards.

Only today in our local paper there is a report of a car flipped onto it's roof  5 miles from me. No mention by the newspaper or the police of any error at all by the driver the headline was "Weather causes car to flip over on A37" and the police were reported as saying "It was weather-related. Apparently there's snow at the moment." Ok, there may be a dusting of snow but nothing out of the ordinary, no wind, no ice yet.

Drivers should be expected to adjust their speed and take account of conditions and when they don't the police should say If you can't handle slightly less than ideal weather then don't drive or take lessons.

Avatar
davel | 8 years ago
2 likes

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

He told police he had drunk three Stellas the previous night at a friend’s house, but had driven away after that person attacked him.

He really needs new friends.

You don't get that reading or carnage from drinking 3 stellas the previous night.

I'd hazard a guess at the twat having been on an all-night bender and being a dishonest liability who only pleaded guilty as damage limitation. He should be locked up for longer and banned from driving for life, with violation landing him back inside.

Avatar
Paul_C | 8 years ago
1 like
Quote:

He was found to have been two and a half times the legal alcohol limit with a reading of 207mg per 100ml of blood. He told police he had drunk three Stellas the previous night at a friend’s house, but had driven away after that person attacked him.

rubbish... he'd had a heck of a lot more than just three Stella's the night before...

where the heck were the police to make sure he was caught whenever he was behind the wheel while disqualified?

It seems they have a greater chance of winning the lottery than being stopped by the police these days.

Avatar
Stumps replied to Paul_C | 8 years ago
1 like

Paul_C][quote wrote:

where the heck were the police to make sure he was caught whenever he was behind the wheel while disqualified? It seems they have a greater chance of winning the lottery than being stopped by the police these days.

 

With your obvious extensive inside knowledge of Police movements and staffing levels also how they work could you please explain how it should have been done ?

Avatar
mikecassie | 8 years ago
2 likes

Someone should go round and inflict the same injuries to him that he inflicted onto Yvonne Wyeth, let him feel some of the pain she had to endure during her last moments.  Obviously not the dying part as that would then be murder...  Oh hang on!!  

People like this will never obey the drink drive rules, which is why the lowering of the DD limit in Scotland bugs me so much, it's only hurting the people who'd just have one with their lunch/dinner and then drive home.  The real offenders still won't care two shits.  

And breathe....

Avatar
RafRafRafRaf | 8 years ago
3 likes

Given that prison is meant to protect the general population from people who are dangerous, and this guy's previous actions show as clearly as anything ever could that he absolutely will repeat his offence the very first chance he gets with no regard for bans or anything else, clearly he remains dangerous and the only way to protect the public from him seems to be to keep him in prison, given that the probation service can't possibly keep him from getting straight back behind the wheel.

What a waste of skin.

They need to design an electronic tag that acts as an immobiliser on any vehicle he sits near the ignition of...

Avatar
davel replied to RafRafRafRaf | 8 years ago
3 likes

RafRafRafRaf wrote:

They need to design an electronic tag that acts as an immobiliser on any vehicle he sits near the ignition of...

This. Tough shit if it means he can't get cabs or lifts anywhere. There are people who basically can't be trusted to drive legally, so some strong measure needs to be introduced to prevent them killing innocent people and whacking insurance premiums up.

Avatar
Stumps | 8 years ago
2 likes

Jacobi - i concur whole heartedly.

Avatar
Jacobi | 8 years ago
3 likes

It wuld have been preferable if the cyclist had lived and Taylor had died of his injuries - that's just my opinion though.

Avatar
DaveE128 | 8 years ago
3 likes

I really can't understand why sentences run concurrently  2

Avatar
bendertherobot replied to DaveE128 | 8 years ago
0 likes

DaveE128 wrote:

I really can't understand why sentences run concurrently  2

 

Very hotly debated area but there are guidelines, and they do make quite a lot of sense. 

http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Definitive_guidel...

The sentence in the present case is, as far as the sentencing guidelines are concerned, pretty much spot on in my view. Are sentences too low still? That's an interesting area. But that requires comparison with many other offences generally.

Avatar
34285011 | 8 years ago
6 likes

Unfortunately the wrong person was killed, should have been this piece of low life scum masquerading as as a human being. Seven years, joke.

 

Avatar
brooksby | 8 years ago
8 likes

I can't help but think that it was all the things added together which led to a jail sentence.  As we all know, you have to be very bad before you get jail for killing a cyclist because it's just 'careless' and not something that falls too far short of what the average motorist would do.  Even drink driving on its own doesn't fall that far.

That said

Quote:

He told police he had drunk three Stellas the previous night at a friend’s house, but had driven away after that person attacked him.

He really needs new friends.

And

Quote:

Addressing him, Judge Robert Fraser said: “It was almost as if she hadn’t been seen; she wasn’t there. You drove through her almost. She had done absolutely nothing wrong.”

No, your honour: it was exactly as if she hadn't been seen.  He did drive through her (not 'almost').  But yes, she had done nothing wrong.

The article says that

Quote:

31 previous convictions for 74 offences – eight of which were for driving with excess alcohol and six for driving while disqualified. He had never held a full licence and had last been disqualified in January 2015.

This bloke should be banned from being out in public, let along from driving a car. What possible difference is a driving disqualification going to make if he's totted all that up and never held a full licence???

 

Avatar
StantheVoice replied to brooksby | 8 years ago
0 likes

 

He really needs new friends.

 

I think he'll probably make some in prison......

Avatar
Accessibility f... | 8 years ago
7 likes

> disqualified from driving for nine years.

Apparently being allowed to drive a car is now a human right.  What does it take for a judge to ban someone for life?

Avatar
1961BikiE | 8 years ago
3 likes

Pitiful. The only solution for people like this is to throw away the key. Reduced for pleading guilty, that was big of him considering the carnage and evidence. Pleading guilty in those circumstances should have no effect on the sentence handed down.

How long before he maims or kills again, because he will.

Avatar
Mark142 replied to 1961BikiE | 8 years ago
2 likes

1961BikiE wrote:

Pitiful. The only solution for people like this is to throw away the key. Reduced for pleading guilty, that was big of him considering the carnage and evidence. Pleading guilty in those circumstances should have no effect on the sentence handed down. How long before he maims or kills again, because he will.

Then everyone would plead not guilty, and the tax payer would have to foot the bill for all the jury trials.

 

 

Avatar
danthomascyclist | 8 years ago
10 likes

Quote:

Death by careless driving

Yep - because there's nothing dangerous about drink driving, running over and killing cyclists before colliding head-on with a 17 tonne lorry. That's just a bit careless 

 

Quote:

Taylor had 31 previous convictions for 74 offences – eight of which were for driving with excess alcohol and six for driving while disqualified

Quote:

He was given a 10-and-a-half year sentence which was reduced to seven years, taking into account his guilty plea.

Pitiful. He'll be out in under 4 years.

Quote:

he was also disqualified from driving for nine years

Given that he's never held a full licence, and has already had eight drink drive offences,  and six for driving whilst disqualified, something tells me this isn't going to prevent him from driving.

Avatar
tarquin_foxglove replied to danthomascyclist | 8 years ago
0 likes

danthomascyclist wrote:

Quote:

Death by careless driving

Yep - because there's nothing dangerous about drink driving, running over and killing cyclists before colliding head-on with a 17 tonne lorry. That's just a bit careless 

 

Quote:

Taylor had 31 previous convictions for 74 offences – eight of which were for driving with excess alcohol and six for driving while disqualified

Quote:

He was given a 10-and-a-half year sentence which was reduced to seven years, taking into account his guilty plea.

Pitiful. He'll be out in under 4 years.

Quote:

he was also disqualified from driving for nine years

Given that he's never held a full licence, and has already had eight drink drive offences,  and six for driving whilst disqualified, something tells me this isn't going to prevent him from driving.

 

Nail on the head.

FWIW 'causing death by dangerous driving' and 'causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink/drugs' carry the same maximum penalty, so the choice of either charge will not make for a lighter sentence but the semantics doesn't look good.

However alcohol/drugs are an aggravating factor & so should be taken into consideration when reducing sentences for an 'early guilty plea'.

Latest Comments