Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Suspended sentence and 12 month ban for driver who killed Suffolk cyclist

"Exemplary citizen" unable to explain how she failed to see rider on clear sunny day...

A driver who hit and killed a cyclist in Suffolk last year has been handed a six-month suspended sentence and banned for 12 months after pleading guilty to causing death by careless driving.

Deborah Lumley-Holmes, 53, drove into the back of 51-year-old Julian Evans on Newmarket Road, Risby, on October 7, 2012. Mr Evans suffered serious head injuries and died in hospital the next day.

According to reports from Ipswich Star and Bury Free Press, Judge John Holt said the case was an “absolute tragedy”. He said he had read four victim impact statements and it was inadequate to describe Mr Evans’ family as “devastated”.

Prosecutor Robert Sadd said that Lumley-Holmes should have seen Mr Evans who was riding on a straight stretch of road on a dry, sunny day with clear visibility.

Mr Sadd said police accident investigators estimated Lumley-Holmes would have been able to see Mr Evans for 200m. If she was travelling at 30mph she would have had 11 seconds to see him. “This was not momentary inattention,” said Mr Sadd.

Mitigating, Michael Proctor said that Lumley-Holmes had no recollection of seeing Mr Evans before the accident. She was a vulnerable defendant who had suffered an abusive childhood, her teenage years in care and been diagnosed with a personality disorder.

As a result of the collision Lumley-Holmes had been “devastated and horrified” and suffered a form of post traumatic stress disorder.

He said she was an “exemplary citizen” who had raised £18,000 for charity and had volunteered at a local hospice.

Passing sentence, Judge Holt said: “You can’t explain what happened and I accept that, so precisely why you didn’t see Mr Evans will remain a mystery.”

He said that even accepting the view of her own expert Lumley-Holmes would have had a clear view of Mr Evans for 60m which meant that if she was driving at 30mph he would have been in her view for four-and-a half seconds. If she was driving at 40mph he would have been in her view for three-and-a half seconds.

Mr Evans’ family declined to comment on the sentence, but Lumley-Holmes said: “I would like to say how very sorry and devastated I am for the accident and tragic loss of Julian Evans and to say how sorry I am for the loss, hurt and suffering this has caused the family and those dear to him.

“I pray and hope that in the future the family can forgive me for their tragic loss.”

Lumley-Holmes was also ordered to do 200 hours community service and to attend a women’s emotional wellbeing course.

CTC Road Justice comment

Cycle campaign charity CTC said that this was another example of a court putting the impact on the perpetrator before that on the victim's family and handing down far too short a ban.

CTC campaigner Rhia Weston said: "Again we see far more emphasis in court on the impact of a fatal collision on the perpetrator of the collision than on the victims (i.e. the bereaved’s family).

"It doesn’t matter how charitable a person is, this does not affect their form of driving, therefore, although a suspended sentence is appropriate in this case, it should have been accompanied by a much longer driving ban and possibly a re-test."

John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.

He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.

Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.

John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.

He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.

Add new comment

56 comments

Avatar
Malaconotus | 10 years ago
0 likes

Here's the CPS sentencing guidelines... http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/causing_death_by_ca...

There have not been applied in several regards. E.g. the mimimum mandatory disqualification is 12 months. The community order is appropriate only for cases arising from momentary inattention, which is clearly not the case here as the court heard.

As pointed out above, the aggravating factor of driving other than in accordance with the terms of a valid driving licence, specifically with an undeclared personality disorder, has been successfully presented as a mitigating factor.

The sentence is clearly unduly lenient, and can and should be appealed within 28 days as detailed here... http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/unduly_lenient_sentences/#a01

Avatar
tourdelound | 10 years ago
0 likes

She was obviously not "driving" at the time or the cyclist would have been seen.

Another justice fail.

Should be a lifetime ban.  102

Avatar
Housecathst | 10 years ago
0 likes

I bet this guy wishes he'd done a bit more charity work now.

http://road.cc/content/news/103569-12-months-jail-red-light-jumping-cycl...

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 10 years ago
0 likes

Just occurred to me, to wonder how this would have gone if the _victim_ had been the one with a psychological issue? What's the betting that _also_ would be regarded as a mitigating factor for the driver?

"Well, he shouldn't have been cycling on the road if he wasn't in perfect mental health"

Avatar
Airzound | 10 years ago
0 likes

The courts are a fucking joke. Yet another stupidly lenient sentence from an idiot judge. The slaughter continues.

Avatar
Airzound | 10 years ago
0 likes

The courts are a fucking joke. Yet another stupidly lenient sentence from an idiot judge. The slaughter continues.

Avatar
A V Lowe | 10 years ago
0 likes

Nearly 7000 individuals lobbied for Mc Court retrial (Audrey Fyfe), so anyone care to put up a petition for this one?

Just wondering

Avatar
hood | 10 years ago
0 likes

she should have got a much longer ban, maybe even lifelong ban, if not lifelong ban then at least a training course or re-test (reapply for license)

Avatar
coolzy | 10 years ago
0 likes

so sorry

Avatar
kie7077 | 10 years ago
0 likes

I just did the math on the stop as well, it takes 6.71 seconds to go 90meters at 30mph it would take longer with stopping taken in to account, unless she was driving crazy fast.

Why can't she account for not seeing him for 14.91 seconds and why did she not stop with a shattered windscreen for 7+ seconds.

She should be in prison, I'm thinking from the science and the lack of forthcoming that she may have done this WITH intent. Did this case even have anyone acting as prosecution - what were they doing?

Next time your driving, think about how scary it would be to not look at the road ahead for 5 seconds, let alone 15seconds.

Does anyone know the stretch of road in question? If I were the victims family then I would probably be appealing this sentence.

Avatar
dreamlx10 replied to kie7077 | 10 years ago
0 likes
kie7077 wrote:

I just did the math....

THE MATHS

Avatar
Denis B replied to kie7077 | 10 years ago
0 likes

Reply to kie7077
You can learn a lot about the road where this collision took place simply by opening either Google Maps or Google Earth, and then opening Streetview to give you ground level pictures which you can rotate around. Useful info will include the typical visibility (500 metres +), the location of the side roads from Cavenham and Burthorpe, Gowing Auto Salvage, the extent of the 70 MPH speed limit and the following 40 MPH limit, the weigh scales, the four trees in a row and other useful landmarks.

Regarding the 30 MPH figure was this used to suggest a possible visibility time, or was it a red herring to dupe the court (and yourself) in to thinking the speed was only 30 MPH ? I could not find where it actually stated that the speed of the car was only 30 MPH. We should all remember that the press only reports a fraction of the court proceedings. A review of the accident reports of any of these fatalities and the court proceedings I am sure would be very revealing.

Avatar
kie7077 replied to Denis B | 10 years ago
0 likes

I guess that's here:
http://goo.gl/maps/b1ofH

She could have easily been doing 50mph down that road, which would change the times in seconds moving to about 40% less... She would have had 9 seconds at that speed to see him. She wouldn't have stopped for 4 seconds instead of 7 seconds.

Avatar
Shouldbeinbed | 10 years ago
0 likes

I volunteer in my local community, I've raised money for charity. Am I allowed a stay out of jail free card if I find myself stamping on a few kittens or worse. I promise to say I don't remember doing it & I'm very sorry.

Avatar
kie7077 replied to Shouldbeinbed | 10 years ago
0 likes
Shouldbeinbed wrote:

I volunteer in my local community, I've raised money for charity. Am I allowed a stay out of jail free card if I find myself stamping on a few kittens or worse. I promise to say I don't remember doing it & I'm very sorry.

Go murder someone, you've earned it.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 10 years ago
0 likes

I can't figure out exactly what I feel about these cases. Because I don't want to be vengeful and demand very long sentences for perpetrators.

But the alternative (which is what we actually have) is that its just taken as an unfortunate 'given' that cyclists, like this poor man, can at any time be violently killed through no fault of their own, and its just 'one of those things' and no strong culpability can be attached to those responsible.

I think the problem is that these tragedies don't just occur because of the mistakes of the drivers, they are socially and politically caused, and the responsibility lies with those who design awful roads, and a society that has contrived to make driving almost compulsory and hence made it into a 'right' rather than the privilege it really should be.

At the very least, however, the courts need to be much more ruthless about imposing driving bans, regardless of people's claims about how much they 'need' to drive. You kill someone through your error, you never drive again.

Avatar
A V Lowe | 10 years ago
0 likes

Travelled 90 metres with the windscreen smashed by the impact of the victim - 90 metres FFS.

How many emergency stops from 30mph is that? Well its almost 4 emergency stops from 30mph (23m) and nearly 3 from 40mph (36m). Did she have a big problem deciding which pedal to press? Or was it havering on a decision of whether to step on the gas and do a runner? Or did she realise that someone had seen the crash and so had better stop? Quite clearly we will only get one view on this.

A 1 year ban is ridiculous, if someone with such mental issues slipped through the net and shot their victim with a firearm - even without the intent of harming their victim, you can be damn sure that that person would not get another firearms licence, and there would be questions about how that person got the licence in the first place.

Perhaps it is the time, when the driving test is being reviewed, that, just as a motorcycle licence has a compulsory element of basic training in motorcycle handling, the driving test should require candidates to have taken and passed Bikeability Level 3, which for many younger candidates could have been taken at school with 4 or more years cycling experience, and practical appreciation of road signs, traffic law etc, before they get behind the wheel of a car - far more relevant and effective than a multiple choice theory test, which can often be passed by intensive rote learning.

Avatar
harrybav | 10 years ago
0 likes

Possibly a re-test, is it, CTC? I think you are too mild for your role, pehaps a bit too comfortable in it to be rocking the boat?

If I were a CTC member, I'd be diverting my cash to the likes of the Stop The Killing campaign with their excellent "subvertising".

Avatar
Paul_C | 10 years ago
0 likes

"Mitigating, Michael Proctor said that Lumley-Holmes had no recollection of seeing Mr Evans before the accident. She was a vulnerable defendant who had suffered an abusive childhood, her teenage years in care and been diagnosed with a personality disorder."

WTF...  13

NO MITIGATION... Those items have absolutelu NOTHING to do with the incident...

Avatar
GoingRoundInCycles | 10 years ago
0 likes

"Prosecutor Robert Sadd said that she should have seen Mr Evans who was cycling on a straight stretch of road on a dry, sunny day with clear visibility.

“Anyone could and should have seen the cyclist. There is no explanation other than it was driving in such a way that led to his death.”

After the impact which shattered the windscreen of the car Lumley-Holmes did not stop for another 90 metres and no explanation had been given as to why, said Mr Sadd."

http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/local/latest-news/woman-receives-sus...

I don't know this lady and I wasn't in court so I have no basis to doubt that the accident was unintentional but she should not be allowed to drive ever again until there is a satisfactory explanation of the part she played in this tragic accident.

To the family and friends of Mr Evans, my thoughts are with you today. This outcome must be very hard to bear.

Avatar
philtregear | 10 years ago
0 likes

we should not condemn the attempts of her legal team to mitigate her case. that is their job. there is a saying amongst barristers:

There's no such thing as justice, there's just us.

What an appallingly lenient sentence, sending all the wrong messages. petrol heads will no doubt rejoice in glee.

Avatar
Bez | 10 years ago
0 likes

Oozaveared: interesting thoughts; I like the cut of your jib.

Avatar
antonio | 10 years ago
0 likes

WTF!!!!!

Avatar
Guyz2010 | 10 years ago
0 likes

So the cyclist who jumped a red light and accidently GBH'd a young girl got a 12 month custodial sentence a few weeks back
http://road.cc/content/news/103569-12-months-jail-red-light-jumping-cycl...
And a motorist kills a cyclist get next to bugger all. AND what the hell has this to do with it.
"She was a vulnerable defendant who had suffered an abusive childhood, her teenage years in care and been diagnosed with a personality disorder".
Didn't stop her driving didn it.
Lost for words ....nearly

Avatar
Bez | 10 years ago
0 likes

"Bez, I'm not talking about a hypothetical situation, I'm talking about whether she should be in jail or not for her actions, and on that issue, intent is irrelevant"

If your opinion is that she should be jailed for this non-intentional act then that's absolutely fine and coherent, there's nothing untenable about that view whatsoever.

But that's absolutely not the same thing as saying that intent is not relevant.

Avatar
Sara_H replied to Bez | 10 years ago
0 likes
Bez wrote:

"Bez, I'm not talking about a hypothetical situation, I'm talking about whether she should be in jail or not for her actions, and on that issue, intent is irrelevant"

If your opinion is that she should be jailed for this non-intentional act then that's absolutely fine and coherent, there's nothing untenable about that view whatsoever.

But that's absolutely not the same thing as saying that intent is not relevant.

TBF, we don't know that she killed the victim unintentionally. She has offered no explaination.

Avatar
anarchy | 10 years ago
0 likes

Bez, I'm not talking about a hypothetical situation, I'm talking about whether she should be in jail or not for her actions, and on that issue, intent is irrelevant

Avatar
earth | 10 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

He said she was an “exemplary citizen” who had raised £18,000 for charity and had volunteered at a local hospice.

Why should raising money for charity enable a person to get let off committing crime - accidental or purposeful?

Isn't that how Saville got away with it for so long?

Avatar
Bez | 10 years ago
0 likes

"No intent is irrelevant."

Of course it's relevant.

Example A: Someone gets up from their chair in the lounge to go to the downstairs toilet and, whilst getting up, knocks over a candle onto the floor without noticing. By the time they return, the lounge and stairs are ablaze but they escape safely. Four people are trapped in the rooms upstairs and die.

Example B: Someone gets up from their chair in the lounge, leaves by the front door, lights a candle and drops it through the window onto the lounge floor before walking off. Four people are trapped in the rooms upstairs and die.

If intent is irrelevant, you must sentence those people equally.

Avatar
earth replied to Bez | 10 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

Of course it's relevant.

Example A: Someone gets up from their chair in the lounge to go to the downstairs toilet and, whilst getting up, knocks over a candle onto the floor without noticing. By the time they return, the lounge and stairs are ablaze but they escape safely. Four people are trapped in the rooms upstairs and die.

Example B: Someone gets up from their chair in the lounge, leaves by the front door, lights a candle and drops it through the window onto the lounge floor before walking off. Four people are trapped in the rooms upstairs and die.

If intent is irrelevant, you must sentence those people equally.

Agreed, intent is relevant. The intentional arsonist is predisposed to doing it again.

In the case of the unintentional you have to ask 'Was the accident something they could have reasonably avoided if they changed some aspect of behavior'

In this case is there something fundamentally wrong with their ability at driving?

Pages

Latest Comments