Jail for speeding driver who killed teenage cyclist and fled scene

I agree. Sentencing like this will inevitably lead to people taking the law into their own hands.

Only the ones that commit road crimes.

This "no sentence will bring them back" bollocks is winding me up no end.  The purpose of the criminal law is not - obviously - to bring back the deceased victim.  Do the learned judges and magistrates need to go back to law school for a bit of a refresher?

100% what I feel about such stupid judicial statements, of course nothing will ever take away their pain and suffering, why on earth is that an argument for leniency? You've done something so awful that the victim's family will never recover from it so I'll give you a few months rather than the five years you could have?

Agreed. Looking at the Sentencing Guidelines, I really struggle how the Judge decided this was an appropriate sentence. Nine months would seem to be towards the lower end of the scale, when this case seems like it ought to have been towards the higher end of the scale given guidelines on culpability and aggravating factors (albeit there would be a reduction for the guilty plea). 

I notice the sentencing guidelines are effective from 1 July 2023. I don't know if this relates to the date of the trial or the date of the offence.

Either way even if he got the max 5 years it would still be lenient. Also I don't understand how he can plead guilty to dangerous driving, but it was accepted that it was only careless driving that caused the death????

Finally, the section 59 notice thing. I have just read the legislation, and I struggle to understand how he was issued with 2 notices. The purpose of the notice is to warn a driver "you are driving dangerously, if we see you doing it again we can seize your car". So why wasn't his car seized on the second occasion?

That's a good point - I hadn't twigged the effective date, and I'm not sure what that relates to.

On the dangerous/careless driving thing, I wouldn't say I agree with it but after the collision, he continued to drive despite the damage to his windscreen making it almost impossible to see through; even greater speeds recorded (56mph); and swerving onto the wrong side of the road. Although the driving before the collision was self-evidently dangerous, there appear to have been fewer concrete things the prosecution could point to (only the speed of 46mph).

On the S59 notice, it might just come down to police "discretion". Having just skimmed the legislation myself, it says nothing that the police must seize a vehicle if the behaviour continues; only that they cannot normally seize a vehicle without a warning first. Although as you say, it would appear to undermine the purpose of the warning if the punishment is not in fact subsequently carried out.

Where are s.59 notices recorded? Is it centrally with the DVLA or locally with the police force that issued it? I wonder whether he had those two notices from two different forces and they didn't share information to a useful degree...

Muddy Ford wrote:

But a cyclist who collided with a pedestrian that stepped out into the road whilst fiddling with phone, unfortunately resulting in the death of that pedestrian gets 18mths in prison. There is a wave of anti cycling vitriol in the press and the government promises to implement laws to protect pedestrians from the danger of furious and wanton cyclists. If this driver had been riding a bike he would have got a longer jail term.

Although the cyclist accused the pedestrian of staring at her phone, there was no evidence to support that.

Muddy Ford wrote:

But a cyclist who collided with a pedestrian that stepped out into the road whilst fiddling with phone, unfortunately resulting in the death of that pedestrian gets 18mths in prison. There is a wave of anti cycling vitriol in the press and the government promises to implement laws to protect pedestrians from the danger of furious and wanton cyclists. If this driver had been riding a bike he would have got a longer jail term.

1) no evidence of phone use

2) going out on the road without the required brakes.

Interesting that if you ride a fixie with no brakes it is wanton and reckless, but if you hire a santander bike with no effective brakes and a freehub that's all ok.

I feel really sorry for the parents of the lad that died. This sentence must be an insult. RIP to the victim.

absolute right wrote:

One hopes a significant period of disqualification and an extended test in addition to the four and a half months in prison (out after half on licence); . 

I hope I'm still correct when I say the "serve half' rule only applies to sentences over 12 months.  But these things change and I'm sure someone is more up to date than me.

Unfortunately not

the little onion wrote:

time to call this modified car culture what it is - a danger to the law abiding public. 

Gonna indulge myself with a little "woke wonkery":

time to call this car culture what it is - a danger to the public - mitigated by patching back in safety after the fact. Safety improvements particularly for the occupants of motor vehicles, with further reductions in casualties coming via pedestrians having "learned their place" * and the numbers of users of vehicles smaller than cars or slower than motorbikes declining to a few %.

* our place is clearly not on motor infra! Safety exchanged for convenience with long diversions from "desire lines" and waits at pedestrian crossings.

He was also sentenced for other dangerous driving, driving without insurance and leaving the scene of the crime, so how much of the 9 FUCKING MONTHS is for the 13yo's life. 

CPS couldn't be bothered to convince the Judge and Jury that driving 50% over the speed limit is dangerous. 

They managed to do dangerous for the second because his windscreen was smashed.