Driver jailed for deliberately swerving towards cyclists

1961BikiE wrote:

So is his brother being prosecuted for the 3rd incident? I suspect not even given that Dean grassed him up, to use the vernacular of my youth.

Almost certainly not, for two linked reasons.

First, to convict somebody you need enough evidence to make the jury sure.  It's not enough to have some evidence, nor even string evidence.  They have to be sure.  Does Dean's word sound like it'd make you sure?

Second, what Dean says in his trial is not admissible evidence in his brother's trial.  The jury hearing the brother's case wouldn't have heard it and had the chance to assess it.  It is a perennial problem that people can blame anybody they like when giving evidence in their own defence and it is very hard to do anything about it.

whatleytom wrote:

Have had this happen to me twice, once a transit van driver and once a guy in a mondeo. Pretty terrifying to say the least. Makes me think of getting a helmet cam though in future to protect myself. Although not sure I could handle the faff of having it on/recording for every single ride. 

A camera will not protect you, well not yet. Best it will do is secure a conviction. In the future when just about everyone has cameras then hopefully driving and general courtesy will be normal

CXR94Di2 wrote:

whatleytom wrote:

Have had this happen to me twice, once a transit van driver and once a guy in a mondeo. Pretty terrifying to say the least. Makes me think of getting a helmet cam though in future to protect myself. Although not sure I could handle the faff of having it on/recording for every single ride. 

Might deter somebody if they saw it on you. Not saying it would, but it might...
A camera will not protect you, well not yet. Best it will do is secure a conviction. In the future when just about everyone has cameras then hopefully driving and general courtesy will be normal

whatleytom wrote:

Have had this happen to me twice, once a transit van driver and once a guy in a mondeo. Pretty terrifying to say the least. Makes me think of getting a helmet cam though in future to protect myself. Although not sure I could handle the faff of having it on/recording for every single ride. 

Off to the local Plod shop in the morning to report simialr to this case. Won't go into too much detail but driver changed from a clear lane 2 into my lane and used the horn to intimidate me then passed me closely. Luckily I had the camera on the back of the bike that night and the lane change is clear to see.

maldin wrote:

Worryingly he got away with the third offence  In all probability he committed that as well. 

Thankfully we don't do probability in criminal law. We do certainty.

There's another minus I forgot to add. Although he got a consecutive sentence he got some of it for free as he's already inside for other offences. It would be good to see his next sentence start after he's finished his current one. Still, it will mean he's inside for a good while yet.

maldin wrote:

Worryingly he got away with the third offence  In all probability he committed that as well. 

I was wondering what the key difference in that case was. Obviously the video'd one was certain. But the two other cases seemed very similar from the reports.

wycombewheeler wrote:

maldin wrote:

Worryingly he got away with the third offence  In all probability he committed that as well. 

I was wondering what the key difference in that case was. Obviously the video'd one was certain. But the two other cases seemed very similar from the reports.

It would be just perfect if they could now charge the brother with that one on the sworn evidence of his brother. Or charge DG with perjury if he withdraws his statement.

ofathens wrote:

A question to the more knowledgeable masses: Does the two year driving ban come into effect when he is released from prison, or does it start immediately at sentencing (i.e. while he is in prison)?

Starts after he is released thanks to recent law update.

20 MAR 15

"We have also changed the law to make sure that driving bans are extended so they continue to apply after an offender has come out of prison."

swldxer wrote:

ofathens wrote:

A question to the more knowledgeable masses: Does the two year driving ban come into effect when he is released from prison, or does it start immediately at sentencing (i.e. while he is in prison)?

Starts after he is released thanks to recent law update.

20 MAR 15

"We have also changed the law to make sure that driving bans are extended so they continue to apply after an offender has come out of prison."

 

So has this change actually been implemented now or not? First it was, then it wasn't (due to some technicality) and now, it is? Is this definitive this time?

bendertherobot wrote:

There are some negatives, whilst there aren't too many aggravating factors (as definied in the sentencing handbook) present, I can't see much mitigation to take 9 months off for each offence. That said, it's quite rare, where there's no damage/contact to see the max. And, where there's injury we're into a different offence.

There aren't any relevant sentencing guidelines here. To get the maximum you're going to need it to be as bad as it could be. With no contact, no injury and each course of driving being relatively short, maximum was never going to happen. And its only a different offence if there's serious injury. Some less serious injury is still dangerous driving.

The problem is that 2 years is far too low a maximum. We need Parliament to raise it. In the meantime this judge (who is no softie) has given about as much he can.

As an aside, the driving ban is not lifted until he passes an extended driving test.

bendertherobot wrote:

There are some negatives, whilst there aren't too many aggravating factors (as definied in the sentencing handbook) present, I can't see much mitigation to take 9 months off for each offence. That said, it's quite rare, where there's no damage/contact to see the max. And, where there's injury we're into a different offence.

There aren't any relevant sentencing guidelines here. To get the maximum you're going to need it to be as bad as it could be. With no contact, no injury and each course of driving being relatively short, maximum was never going to happen. And its only a different offence if there's serious injury. Some less serious injury is still dangerous driving.

The problem is that 2 years is far too low a maximum. We need Parliament to raise it. In the meantime this judge (who is no softie) has given about as much he can.

As an aside, the driving ban is not lifted until he passes an extended driving test.

Dan S wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

There are some negatives, whilst there aren't too many aggravating factors (as definied in the sentencing handbook) present, I can't see much mitigation to take 9 months off for each offence. That said, it's quite rare, where there's no damage/contact to see the max. And, where there's injury we're into a different offence.

 

There aren't any relevant sentencing guidelines here. To get the maximum you're going to need it to be as bad as it could be. With no contact, no injury and each course of driving being relatively short, maximum was never going to happen. And its only a different offence if there's serious injury. Some less serious injury is still dangerous driving. The problem is that 2 years is far too low a maximum. We need Parliament to raise it. In the meantime this judge (who is no softie) has given about as much he can. As an aside, the driving ban is not lifted until he passes an extended driving test.

CPS sentencing handbook, not guidelines. We know that they will be argued, accepted, or rejected, so they're a good indication of what to expect. So we have to fill in the blanks in the absence of the media explanation of why the Judge did what he did. What's quite notable, in relation to the handbook, is that none of the factors really fit this type of offence at all. 

In relation to your 2 years point, I completely agree. 

bendertherobot wrote:

Dan S wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

There are some negatives, whilst there aren't too many aggravating factors (as definied in the sentencing handbook) present, I can't see much mitigation to take 9 months off for each offence. That said, it's quite rare, where there's no damage/contact to see the max. And, where there's injury we're into a different offence.

 

There aren't any relevant sentencing guidelines here. To get the maximum you're going to need it to be as bad as it could be. With no contact, no injury and each course of driving being relatively short, maximum was never going to happen. And its only a different offence if there's serious injury. Some less serious injury is still dangerous driving. The problem is that 2 years is far too low a maximum. We need Parliament to raise it. In the meantime this judge (who is no softie) has given about as much he can. As an aside, the driving ban is not lifted until he passes an extended driving test.

 

CPS sentencing handbook, not guidelines. We know that they will be argued, accepted, or rejected, so they're a good indication of what to expect. So we have to fill in the blanks in the absence of the media explanation of why the Judge did what he did. What's quite notable, in relation to the handbook, is that none of the factors really fit this type of offence at all. 

In relation to your 2 years point, I completely agree. 

I would love to be in court when somebody raised the CPS Sentencing handbook in front of this judge! Good chap but can be very biting...

Dan S wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

There are some negatives, whilst there aren't too many aggravating factors (as definied in the sentencing handbook) present, I can't see much mitigation to take 9 months off for each offence. That said, it's quite rare, where there's no damage/contact to see the max. And, where there's injury we're into a different offence.

 

There aren't any relevant sentencing guidelines here. To get the maximum you're going to need it to be as bad as it could.

 

As an aside, the driving ban is not lifted until he passes an extended driving test.

An extended driving test might be relevant if the danger were posed by incompetence. But fairly clearly (maybe even to lawyers), this was not a 'lack of skill' event. So unless he really is too stupid to dissemble for a couple of hours, I  fail to see what conceivable comfort should be drawn from this.

oldstrath wrote:

Dan S wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

There are some negatives, whilst there aren't too many aggravating factors (as definied in the sentencing handbook) present, I can't see much mitigation to take 9 months off for each offence. That said, it's quite rare, where there's no damage/contact to see the max. And, where there's injury we're into a different offence.

 

There aren't any relevant sentencing guidelines here. To get the maximum you're going to need it to be as bad as it could.

 

As an aside, the driving ban is not lifted until he passes an extended driving test.

 

An extended driving test might be relevant if the danger were posed by incompetence. But fairly clearly (maybe even to lawyers), this was not a 'lack of skill' event. So unless he really is too stupid to dissemble for a couple of hours, I  fail to see what conceivable comfort should be drawn from this.

I wonder if, in the US, when someone shoots at someone in the street they have taken a dislike to, they are sent on a 'gun handling' course?

oldstrath wrote:

Dan S wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

There are some negatives, whilst there aren't too many aggravating factors (as definied in the sentencing handbook) present, I can't see much mitigation to take 9 months off for each offence. That said, it's quite rare, where there's no damage/contact to see the max. And, where there's injury we're into a different offence.

 

There aren't any relevant sentencing guidelines here. To get the maximum you're going to need it to be as bad as it could.

 

As an aside, the driving ban is not lifted until he passes an extended driving test.

 

An extended driving test might be relevant if the danger were posed by incompetence. But fairly clearly (maybe even to lawyers), this was not a 'lack of skill' event. So unless he really is too stupid to dissemble for a couple of hours, I  fail to see what conceivable comfort should be drawn from this.

Not trying to comfort you.  Just inform.