# Guilty of causing serious injury by dangerous driving - 3 years jail



## jefmcg (10 May 2017)

A woman who deliberately ploughed into a cyclist after being confronted about using her mobile phone behind the wheel has been jailed for three years.


----------



## Slick (10 May 2017)

Really beggars belief. She's due to give birth in November, what happens there?


----------



## Profpointy (10 May 2017)

As in similar cases previously I have to ask why tf is this a driving offence not assault? Maybe because the victim is a mere cyclist hence sub human.


----------



## Drago (10 May 2017)

She got herself up the duff to try and escape jail, so goes the speculation.


----------



## Markymark (10 May 2017)

The video is sickening. 

She's a carer for her mum do her actions are hurting multiple people. 

I hope her 3 years are hell.


----------



## jefmcg (10 May 2017)

Slick said:


> Really beggars belief. She's due to give birth in November, what happens there?


It's not a rare event, so they have a process.

https://www.gov.uk/life-in-prison/pregnancy-and-childcare-in-prison


----------



## Dismount (10 May 2017)

On this issue the punishment does not fit the crime, with good behaviour she will be out earlier and 4 and half year ban should be at least 10. I hope she's got family who can raise the child until she is released.


----------



## Drago (10 May 2017)

As ever, should be banned for life. If she'd used a shotgun to injure someone she would be banned for life from ever being licenced again. Howevwr. because cars are so damned convenient , because the legislators all have them, and because it was only a cyclist after all, she'll get her licence back eventually. That boils my wee wee.


----------



## gaijintendo (10 May 2017)

This seems [like an] appropriate [punishment, given how lenient these things often are]. Don't approve of kicking someone's mirror mind you, but I'm a pious eejit.
[Edits]


----------



## Slick (10 May 2017)

jefmcg said:


> It's not a rare event, so they have a process.
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/life-in-prison/pregnancy-and-childcare-in-prison


I just don't know what to say to that. Some start in life that, I just didn't want her using that as an early exit card. I would imagine it's still an easier life than most card though.


----------



## Drago (10 May 2017)

I couldn't disagree Mr Tendo. While I'm pleased the lass got her comeuppemce, if Mr Cyclist had kept himself to himself he wouldn't have ended up in hospital with a serious liver injury.

I'm a great advocate of not participating in road rage or confrontation, because the three years in prison won't undo pain or repair organ damage. The Father of my Daughters friend died during a road rage incident, and the time in prison the offending party got won't raise the victim from the dead.


----------



## winjim (10 May 2017)

Drago said:


> I couldn't disagree Mr Tendo. While I'm pleased the lass got her comeuppemce, if Mr Cyclist had kept himself to himself he wouldn't have ended up in hospital with a serious liver injury.
> 
> I'm a great advocate of not participating in road rage or confrontation, because the three years in prison won't undo pain or repair organ damage. The Father of my Daughters friend died during a road rage incident, and the time in prison the offending party got won't raise the victim from the dead.


It's pride. Nobody likes having their actions criticised, and when they're in the wrong people will just double down if confronted. They're not exactly going to enter into a rational debate. So the situation escalates from phone use, to shouting, to mirror kicking, to ramming somebody with a car.


----------



## Lonestar (10 May 2017)

Assaulting someones car is never going to end well.


----------



## oldstrath (10 May 2017)

Lonestar said:


> Assaulting someones car is never going to end well.


I thought you could only assault a person? I know some people are a bit precious about their boxes, but trying to kill someone for a few quid damage really should get you a long sentence and a no license card. 

Still wonder why the charge was crap driving rather than attempted murder. If I took revenge on a motorist with a baseball bat would that be dangerous use of sports equipment?


----------



## Dec66 (10 May 2017)

I don't care if he kicked her wing mirror, that's attempted murder.


----------



## ianrauk (10 May 2017)

The video makes for horrific watching.


----------



## Dec66 (10 May 2017)

ianrauk said:


> The video makes for horrific watching.


I can't "like" this, obviously, but I agree 100%. Absolutely shocking.

Imagine if there hadn't been a camera there?


----------



## jefmcg (10 May 2017)

Markymark said:


> She's a carer for her mum


Yeah, maybe, or maybe when she she broke up with her boyfriend, she moved back in with her parents. But how do you spin that in court? Oh yeah, she's now her mum's carer.

The worst part is claim of domestic abuse. I am with the judge on that, her bf did not orchestrate this assault from the passenger seat. It's an insult to every victim of domestic abuse.

So pregnancy, elder care, and domestic abuse. She's a triple threat! I wonder if she tried to quickly get a PhD so she could add cancer research?


----------



## Drago (10 May 2017)

Or a contract to play for Leicestershire County Cricket Club!

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/w...nally-jailed/story-30256171-detail/story.html

Some of the crap I've heard given in mitigation over the years would be worth of Danielle Steel or Frederick Forsyth, but things have gone too far with it lately and Courts seem to be less tolerant of bull.

Looking at the tabloid press this week it would seem that getting pregnant just before your court appearance seems to have finally stopped working.


----------



## gaijintendo (10 May 2017)

Drago said:


> Or a contract to play for Leicestershire County Cricket Club!
> 
> http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/w...nally-jailed/story-30256171-detail/story.html
> 
> ...



Goodness. If you pick on people who are "not vulnerable" then no offence has been committed eh?


----------



## Drago (10 May 2017)

Madness, innit?


----------



## steveindenmark (11 May 2017)

That would be attempt murder in my eyes and she should be banned for life and be doing 5 years at least.

But the cyclist must have been a bit of an idiot as well. I can understand a bit of verbal but it appears that he must have chased her to the next set of lights to kick her mirror.

Once she had driven off. That was the time to let it go.

No excuse for what she did though.


----------



## jefmcg (11 May 2017)

For comparison, the day before

_A 16-year-old who stabbed another boy five times in front of families and children on Boxing Day – just for looking at him -has been jailed for eight years and will serve an extra two years on licence.
_
(Male and - I suspect - black might make more of a difference than the choice of weapon )


----------



## Origamist (11 May 2017)

gaijintendo said:


> This seems appropriate. Don't approve of kicking someone's mirror mind you, but I'm a pious eejit.



Piety aside, I find it perverse that in a video that shows another human being violently assaulted, that you would want to emphasise the cyclist's behaviour. No mention of the alleged mobile phone use and careless driving, or the deliberate, brutal and horrendous ramming of a vulnerable individual.


----------



## Milkfloat (11 May 2017)

jefmcg said:


> For comparison, the day before
> 
> _A 16-year-old who stabbed another boy five times in front of families and children on Boxing Day – just for looking at him -has been jailed for eight years and will serve an extra two years on licence.
> _
> (Male and - I suspect - black might make more of a difference than the choice of weapon )



Maybe I am generous - but I doubt it and think it was more to do with the crime.

He went equipped with a knife which is premeditated and is illegal. As yet it is not illegal to drive a car. I would also assume that the 'kicking off the door mirror' affected the outcome in court in some way.


----------



## gaijintendo (11 May 2017)

Origamist said:


> Piety aside, I find it perverse that in a video that shows another human being violently assaulted, that you would want to emphasise the cyclist's behaviour. No mention of the alleged mobile phone use and careless driving, or the deliberate, brutal and horrendous ramming of a vulnerable individual.


I'm not sure if I wrote this ambiguously ( I meant the sentencing was appropriate, which is unusual - could have reasonably have been harsher) or if you are criticising me for omitting specifics of the case in an internet forum response.
If it is the latter, I think the perverse aspect is uncalled for. If it makes you feel better to be more pious than me, then bully for you.
I read the article, as I don't really need to see someone driving someone else off the road. I didn't watch the video; I read that article, and that was the response that I chose to post. If it was terse, I may have been chosen to spend a moment on this forum in between other more important life things.
I still don't approve of damage other people's property, because they used a phone or were brutish towards you. I suspected, being a lover of cycling, a lot of my feelings went without saying.


----------



## Milkfloat (11 May 2017)

User said:


> It is not just the outcome in Court that is worrying though. The charge of dangerous driving, for something that looks like one form of assault or another, using a car as a weapon, is just weak.



Would anything else have stuck? I think there would have been uproar if the CPS went for an attempted murder charge and she got off because she did not mean to ram him into a tree.


----------



## Milkfloat (11 May 2017)

User said:


> Attempted murder would never have stuck, because it would be near impossible to prove the intention to kill. Some sort of assault, ABH, GBH, on the other hand should have been possible to prove.



Path of least resistance from CPS and Police I would assume.


----------



## Drago (11 May 2017)

CPS have to authorise all assault charges from ABH upwards, and they won't generally authorise assault charges for moving traffic incidents.


----------



## Markymark (11 May 2017)

User said:


> Is that the sort of service we should get from the Crown Prosecution Service?


Get <> expect <> desire


----------



## Milkfloat (11 May 2017)

User said:


> Is that the sort of service we should get from the Crown Prosecution Service?



It depends, could they also work on another case with a great chance of a conviction, or would they drop another case to work on a greater charge on this one that may see the offender walk free? Given unlimited resources, then yes I would like each case prosecuted to the fullest ability of all involved, but unfortunately in the real world compromises have to be made. 

Unfortunately, after some of the stories you hear (Mason) we have to chalk this one up as a 'success' even if it not the perfect outcome.


----------



## Pale Rider (11 May 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> Path of least resistance from CPS and Police I would assume.



That can happen, but not in this case.

Causing serious injury by dangerous driving is the equivalent of grievous bodily harm, plus the motoring aspect.

The benefit is she is sentenced for the assault and dangerous driving, which brings an automatic driving ban.

It also means she must take an extended driving test if she wishes to drive after the ban expires, and I can tell you that no one passes one of those first time.

It's also the appropriate charge from the point of view of her criminal record, because it most accurately reflects the offending.

Length of sentence/ban is a matter for the judge, but the maximum jail sentence is five years.

We don't have full details of the injury, but three years sounds about par for the course. or even a bit above par, if those injuries had been caused in, say, a pub brawl.


----------



## Drago (11 May 2017)

User said:


> Is that the sort of service we should get from the Crown Prosecution Service?



No, but as long as the CPS are 'scored' on their successful prosecution rate its what we'll get. Because they get scored on performance have targets they're very risk averse. Prior to 2003 the police charged almost all offences, and they didn't give a stuff about success percentages.


----------



## User482 (11 May 2017)

User said:


> It is not just the outcome in Court that is worrying though. The charge of dangerous driving, for something that looks like one form of assault or another, using a car as a weapon, is just weak.


This lawyer agrees with you: http://defencebrief.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/charging-decisions-cyclist-mown-down-by.html?m=1


----------



## Origamist (11 May 2017)

gaijintendo said:


> I'm not sure if I wrote this ambiguously ( I meant the sentencing was appropriate, which is unusual - could have reasonably have been harsher) or if you are criticising me for omitting specifics of the case in an internet forum response.
> If it is the latter, I think the perverse aspect is uncalled for. If it makes you feel better to be more pious than me, then bully for you.
> I read the article, as I don't really need to see someone driving someone else off the road. I read that article, and that was the response that I chose to post. If it was terse, I may have been chosen to spend a moment on this forum in between other more important life things.
> I still don't approve of damage other people's property, because they used a phone or were brutish towards you. I suspected, being a lover of cycling, a lot of my feelings went without saying.



I've never been called 'pious' before, but I'm flattered...

It wasn't that your post was terse, it was more the focus on the cyclist's misbehaviour and not the perpetrator of the life-threatening violence. As a self proclaimed 'lover of cycling', I think you'll appreciate that it jars somewhat.


----------



## gaijintendo (11 May 2017)

Origamist said:


> I've never been called 'pious' before, but I'm flattered...
> 
> It wasn't that your post was terse, it was more the focus on the cyclist's misbehaviour and not the perpetrator of the life-threatening violence. As a self proclaimed 'lover of cycling', I think you'll appreciate that it jars somewhat.


I am new to the forum, at least in terms of participating, so I guess I hadn't realised I had to balance my responses to avoid offence. Perhaps it was the "pious eejit" that made it come across flippant?
Either way, I completely regret participating in this thread.


----------



## Pale Rider (11 May 2017)

User482 said:


> This lawyer agrees with you: http://defencebrief.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/charging-decisions-cyclist-mown-down-by.html?m=1



The motoring lawyer will rarely deal with offences of violence, and it shows from the blog post.

Proving intent to the satisfaction of a jury is notoriously difficult, because you are asking at least 10 people to be satisfied so they are sure that they are mind readers and know what the person was thinking.

The lawyer is correct in that she was charged with 'wounding by dangerous driving' - no intent needs to be proved.

The only other charge would be wounding with intent.

That's too easy to defend, she will simply say she only intended to scare the cyclist, or even knock him off his bike and give him a few cuts and bruises.

The fact she could have caused/did cause serious injury - or even killed the cyclist - is irrelevant to defending the intent charge she would have been facing.

So she can happily tell the jury: "I knocked him off his bike in the hope he would suffer a bit, but not seriously."

The jury must then find her not guilty of wounding with intent.

She walks from the court free as a bird and there's hell on.

Although what usually happens is the two offences are charged in the alternative, so she would have been found not guilty of wounding with intent, but guilty of simple wounding.

But that's no good, because it doesn't reflect the driving aspect.

Charging her with causing serious injury by dangerous driving is much harder to defend, as the guilty verdict shows.

The prosecution only has to prove the cyclist was seriously injured, that's nailed on from the medical records, and the driving was dangerous - the video does a pretty good job of proving that.


----------



## oldstrath (11 May 2017)

Since I assume no lawyer ever advises their client to admit that they intended to cause harm, how on earth does anyone ever "prove intent"?

If you're really going to allow someone to get away with pretending to be stupid enough not to know that driving a car into a person will hurt them, or to pretend that they chased a man down a street just to scare them a wee bit, what in God's name do you need to " prove intent"? A signed declaration in front of 10 witnesses?

Or should we just accept that if you are driving a car you can pretty much do anything you like to a vulnerable road user, then say " oh, I didn't mean it, I never expected driving over him to hurt him " and get essentially let off?


----------



## Drago (11 May 2017)

For an assault you don't need to prove intent. It is equally possible to recklessly assault someone. 

Random example - you throw a brick out of the window of your flat into the street below. You do not know if there is anyone there, so could not possibly intend to hurt any specific person, but the act of recklessness is sufficient. Ditto with some other offences, such as criminal damage.

So if this Lady had been charged with some level of assault it would not be necessary to prove intent, only that she was reckless. However, if intent can be reasonably proven on a GBH or above the charge gets the 'with intent' tag that one often hears in the news.


----------



## Pale Rider (11 May 2017)

Drago said:


> For an assault you don't need to prove intent. It is equally possible to recklessly assault someone.



You do need to prove intent for the more serious wounding with intent charge, which is the one some posters on here are calling for.

You do not need to prove intent for simple wounding, which is the charge she has effectively been convicted of, but with the added ingredient of dangerous driving.



oldstrath said:


> Since I assume no lawyer ever advises their client to admit that they intended to cause harm, how on earth does anyone ever "prove intent"?
> 
> If you're really going to allow someone to get away with pretending to be stupid enough not to know that driving a car into a person will hurt them, or to pretend that they chased a man down a street just to scare them a wee bit, what in God's name do you need to " prove intent"? A signed declaration in front of 10 witnesses?
> 
> Or should we just accept that if you are driving a car you can pretty much do anything you like to a vulnerable road user, then say " oh, I didn't mean it, I never expected driving over him to hurt him " and get essentially let off?



You are right that wounding with intent is usually denied, but it can be proved by the nature of the assault.

Bear in mind the jury hears all the gory details, so if someone is stabbed multiple times that might prove intent, but if they are 'only' stabbed once that might not.

Or if the victim is simply punched to the ground that might not prove intent, but if he is punched to the ground then jumped on and kicked numerous times in the head that could prove intent.

Circumstances come into it, the jury may hear of a possible motive - a dispute between the parties - or premeditation where the defendant arms himself with a weapon, then seeks out his victim, all of which goes to prove he intended - set out - to cause serious injury.

Going back to this case, no intent was proved because it didn't need to be.

Three years in prison is hardly a let off, although as a supporter of stiffer sentences I would have given her longer.

Leaving aside the injuries, she should get an extra year for the tactical pregnancy.

Dreadful woman all round.


----------



## Pale Rider (11 May 2017)

User said:


> Has intent been demonstrated?



No, but in my sentencing world it would be inferred.


----------



## jefmcg (11 May 2017)

Pale Rider said:


> No, but in my sentencing world it would be inferred.


Yes, and punishing women for their reproductive choices could never have a down side. [/sarcasm] 

Seriously, if this kid was conceived as a get-out-of-jail card, she is going to have enough problems without inflicting an extra year of foster care on her.


----------



## Pale Rider (11 May 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Yes, and punishing women for their reproductive choices could never have a down side. [/sarcasm]
> 
> Seriously, if this kid was conceived as a get-out-of-jail card, she is going to have enough problems without inflicting an extra year of foster care on her.



Seriously, I (reluctantly) agree.

And the tactic appears not to have worked in this case, because three years looks about right in the context of current sentencing.


----------



## KnackeredBike (11 May 2017)

With all this "intent" stuff it's worth noting that if you drive a car at a police officer where they are "shaken but unhurt" they will push for attempted murder. Shouldn't be one rule for plod and another for cyclists.


----------



## jefmcg (11 May 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> With all this "intent" stuff it's worth noting that if you drive a car at a police officer where they are "shaken but unhurt" they will push for attempted murder. Shouldn't be one rule for plod and another for cyclists.


I totally disagree. Policemen put themselves in harms way, I am happy for the law to offer them a little extra protection - especially in the UK where most of them are unarmed, so can't protect themselves any better than civilians who don't take extra risks for my sake.

Edit: actually, it's more than that. For our society to work, people need to respect the police. If you can hurt them with the same risk as killing anyone else, then we are all more exposed to danger because the police will have less real authority to protect us. So yes, pursue those who attack the police more vigorously than those who attack civilians.


----------



## KnackeredBike (11 May 2017)

jefmcg said:


> I totally disagree. Policemen put themselves in harms way, I am happy for the law to offer them a little extra protection - especially in the UK where most of them are unarmed, so can't protect themselves any better than civilians who don't take extra risks for my sake.
> 
> Edit: actually, it's more than that. For our society to work, people need to respect the police. If you can hurt them with the same risk as killing anyone else, then we are all more exposed to danger because the police will have less real authority to protect us. So yes, pursue those who attack the police more vigorously than those who attack civilians.


Then they should have different offences, e.g. obstructing a constable or change the sentencing guidelines so that attacks on police have greater culpability/harm. But having different charging decisions because of who someone is rather than that actual offence is open to abuse.


----------



## Poacher (11 May 2017)

Markymark said:


> Get <> expect <> desire


More like Get *< *expect *< *desire?


----------



## united4ever (11 May 2017)

Very lucky the camera was there - otherwise I guess they would never have tracked her down and his police report would just go into the black hole. How many more similar events are there like this not caught on camera each year? Really got to assess when you face a conflict what you will get out of it...usually nothing so don't get involved in most cases, hard not to when someone nearly causes an accident by being on their phone I suppose.


----------



## KnackeredBike (15 May 2017)

united4ever said:


> Very lucky the camera was there - otherwise I guess they would never have tracked her down and his police report would just go into the black hole. How many more similar events are there like this not caught on camera each year? Really got to assess when you face a conflict what you will get out of it...usually nothing so don't get involved in most cases, hard not to when someone nearly causes an accident by being on their phone I suppose.


Indeed, I have been a lot more cautious since a nasty incident where someone followed me swerving all over the road because I challenged her because she overtook me and then immediately slammed on the brakes. A minority of motorists think nothing of using their car as a weapon and if they misjudge it you will die or be seriously injured and the police will likely do sod all.


----------

