A drug driver who witnesses estimate was travelling at 80mph shortly before smashing into a cyclist has been sentenced to 30 months in prison, after admitting multiple offences at Newcastle Crown Court last Friday.
John Sinclair was under the influence of heroin and cocaine when he crashed his mother's car into a cyclist and collided with another vehicle at a busy South Shields junction on September 29.
Armed with a hunting knife, Sinclair attempted to flee the scene by threatening passing motorists, approaching a father and son in one vehicle, and repeatedly saying, "I've got a gun".
Sinclair was dragged out of the vehicle and punched by a passer-by, who restrained the drug-fuelled driver until police arrived.
The 39-year-old admitted dangerous driving, aggravated taking without consent, possession of a bladed article, affray and having no insurance. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison.
Detective Chief Inspector of Northumbria Police Sean Mcguigan praised the "extraordinary actions" of the Good Samaritan, and confirmed "thankfully, nobody was injured" during the ordeal.
Sinclair's 18 previous convictions include violent offences, and he admitted to officers following his arrest that he was under the influence of drugs, claiming he had accidentally pressed the accelerator instead of the brake pedal.
"This could so easily have been a very different outcome," DCI Mcguigan said. "Sinclair’s erratic and dangerous actions led to him knocking a cyclist off his bike at high speed, before crashing into a car on a busy road. He was under the influence of drugs, and could easily have killed somebody.
"Thankfully, nobody was injured – and that is largely due to the extraordinary actions of this Good Samaritan. We would always discourage the public from risking their own safety, but it’s important to recognise examples of bravery such as this.
“I would like to thank everybody involved, particularly the passer-by who intervened, as well as the victims who supported this prosecution at every step of the way. It is because of their bravery and cooperation that effective justice has been served, and Sinclair now begins a rightful jail term."
Prosecutor Kevin Wardlaw recalled Sinclair's post-crash rampage: "He opened the passenger door and dived into the car on top of the eleven-year-old son in the front passenger seat. The man said he believed his son would be injured.
"He was trapped under the defendant. He was concerned for the safety of his son and felt physically sick."
Defending his client, Chris Know stressed Sinclair was "acting out of character" and "at the heart of his behaviour is drugs". The court heard he was a "skilled advanced paint technician" with good job prospects.
Add new comment
20 comments
> The 39-year-old admitted dangerous driving, aggravated taking without consent, possession of a bladed article, affray and having no insurance. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison.
So was he not charged with possession of an offensive weapon? The lesser article of possession of a bladed article was only created for when criteria of possession of an offensive weapon cannot be met (i.e. when the bladed article isn't a weapon per se, or wasn't used as a weapon (which it patently was, when he threatened people with it)).
> "This could so easily have been a very different outcome," DCI Mcguigan said.
That's true enough... he could have got a proper sentence.
Did I miss it in the article - what happened to the cyclist? Hard to think that 'nobody was injured' if this toe-rag drove in to the cyclist at high speed.
Drove upto 80mph and colliding with cyclist is two seperate actions. However yes. all the talk is him with a knife and sitting on a child and not the cyclist.
Found this in a Chronical report from last week. Sounds very lucky and probably cuts and scratches.
"Witnesses estimated he was doing up to 80mph in South Shieds before colliding with a cyclist, knocking him off. He escaped with relatively minor injuries."
So how does 'relatively minor injuries' equate with 'nobody was injured'. And the 11 year-old? Might not have suffered physical injuries, does psychological trauma not count?
"aggravated taking without consent"
So...Theft?
Theft requires that the item's owner is permanently deprived but cars can be recovered, hence the twoc crime to enable a charge to be brought.
I thought it just required the intention to permanently deprive? Presumably the issue in this case would be that he would likely argue that he'd just borrowed the car and intended to return it to his mother (rather than anyone needing to recover it).
The act of taking without consent is a crime, regardless of permanent denial of use/benefit, which has different evidence required.
TWOC, yes - but we were talking about theft.
Yep, TWOC is legal jargon for vehicle theft.
11 months more than a bike thief.
Doesn't sit right, does it?
30 months? Shouldn't that be 30 years?
I hope someone 'gets' to him during the 30 months - scumbag
I thought knife crime was supposed to result in a much higher sentence.
"skilled advanced paint technician"
can mix more than 2 colours at the mixing station.
".....effective justice has been served, and Sinclair now begins a rightful jail term."
Prosecutor Kevin Wardlaw recalled Sinclair's post-crash rampage: "He opened the passenger door and dived into the car on top of the eleven-year-old son in the front passenger seat. The man said he believed his son would be injured.
"He was trapped under the defendant. He was concerned for the safety of his son and felt physically sick."
wtf do you have to do to get a proper jail sentence?? - in control of a car when off your head, endangering all around you, and then crash into cyclist and another car, and then armed with a hunting knife and claiming you have a gun, car-jack a dad and 11 year old kid !! FFS , 2 and a half years for all that !! what a f+*king joke
Trouble is the prisons are full of assholes like this and there is not enough room for many more, nor the will to put more in jail. He should have had at least 10 years...
"My client is a lovely bloke except when he's out of his head on two class A drugs at the same time and choosing to drive a car anyway and threaten members of the public with a hunting knife"
Not completely sure he still has good job prospects...
how can the defence claim with a record of "18 previous convictions include violent offences" their client was in any shape or form "acting out of character" ?
Fewer drugs, fewer weapons than usual?
A ridiculous mitigation, and yet it seems to have had some impact.
Any self-respecting road safety expert, however, would have pointed to the cyclist and said, "wot no helmet, wot no hiviz; if they're not fitted, he must be acquitted!"