# Disgusting Result



## cd365 (7 Apr 2014)

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/driver-who-killed-cyclist-stoke-6920344 

Ben Williams, defending, said: “It’s a fact of the rules of the road that a cyclist should not be using a pedestrian crossing.”

Judge Phillip Gregory retorted: “So what? It might have been a child using the crossing and been wiped out by your client.


----------



## BSRU (7 Apr 2014)

A witness claims the light was red, the driver showed no remorse for killing another human being, yet given a suspended sentence


----------



## summerdays (7 Apr 2014)

cd365 said:


> http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/driver-who-killed-cyclist-stoke-6920344
> 
> Ben Williams, defending, said: “It’s a fact of the rules of the road that a cyclist should not be using a pedestrian crossing.”
> 
> Judge Phillip Gregory retorted: “So what? It might have been a child using the crossing and been wiped out by your client.


How is the driver to know if it is a pedestrian crossing or a toucan one, I don't think it would have made any difference to her driving that day.


----------



## JoeyB (7 Apr 2014)

What is a suspended sentence...does it mean she won't go to prison?


----------



## summerdays (7 Apr 2014)

JoeyB said:


> What is a suspended sentence...does it mean she won't go to prison?


I think it means you will go to prison if you commit another offence in the time period.


----------



## MikeG (7 Apr 2014)

JoeyB said:


> What is a suspended sentence...does it mean she won't go to prison?


Wiki


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Apr 2014)

summerdays said:


> I think it means you will go to prison if you commit another offence in the time period.



Yes, a suspended sentence can be activated in whole or part if another offence is committed within the period of suspension.

This woman - as with a lot of killer drivers - appears to be of previous good character, so the chances of her offending again are remote.


----------



## MrWill (7 Apr 2014)

Sad story.

Some people say cyclist shouldn't be on the road, these say shouldn't be using crossings or pavements etc. Impossible situation. There will always be hazardous nobbers on the roads I guess. But many just don't realize that everyone has a right to use the roads. No one has more less right over another to use them to get around.

Always watch what is coming. Even when the crossing says go.


----------



## MrWill (7 Apr 2014)

Banned for life would be better, rather than 3 years, after killing someone like that.


----------



## DCLane (7 Apr 2014)

Through a red light, speeding, killed someone on the pedestrian crossing, showed no response = suspended sentence


----------



## oldstrath (7 Apr 2014)

Apparently the judge was 'satisfied she felt remorse', even though he had not seen any, because she says she had prayed for the victim. So that's OK then - she (claims to have) mumbled some meaningless words, in private, and that constitutes remorse. 

What on earth (or even in heaven) does it take to get our legal system to realise that claiming to be a Christian, and gurning a bit, does not make up for the lack of competence, consideration, concentration and ability displayed by this woman and many others. Maybe putting her in prison wouldn't be helpful, though it might at least signal intent, but surely scrapping her car and banning her from driver for a long time, preferably for life, would be achievable things?


----------



## oldstrath (7 Apr 2014)

Pale Rider said:


> Yes, a suspended sentence can be activated in whole or part if another offence is committed within the period of suspension.
> 
> This woman - as with a lot of killer drivers - appears to be of previous good character, so the chances of her offending again are remote.



By 'previous good character' you mean 'she has previously got away with it'?


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Apr 2014)

oldstrath said:


> By 'previous good character' you mean 'she has previously got away with it'?



Mis-placed cynicism.

I agree someone who appears for burglary may well have done several houses previously without being caught.

But are you seriously suggesting this women has previously wiped out half a dozen cyclists and not been caught for it?


----------



## StuartG (7 Apr 2014)

This is a societal problem rather than pertinent to this case.

AFAIK the thinking is that permanent bans don't work for bad serial offenders. They just continue to drive without licence hence insurance and probably no MoT. They are just or even more lethal. Suspension for a shorter period might just get them off the road for that period as they know by doing that they will have a right to drive again. Which then gives a problem with 'single event' offenders. You can't suspend them longer than serial offenders.

Its a difficult problem. We don't want these people driving but if taking away a licence permanently doesn't stop them - what to do? No easy answers.


----------



## mickle (7 Apr 2014)

MrWill said:


> Sad story.
> 
> Some people say cyclist shouldn't be on the road, these say shouldn't be using crossings or pavements etc. Impossible situation. There will always be hazardous nobbers on the roads I guess. But many just don't realize that everyone has a right to use the roads. No one has more less right over another to use them to get around.
> 
> Always watch what is coming. Even when the crossing says go.


 FYI, cyclists have a 'right' to use the road. Motorists require qualifications and permissions.


----------



## oldstrath (7 Apr 2014)

Pale Rider said:


> Mis-placed cynicism.
> 
> I agree someone who appears for burglary may well have done several houses previously without being caught.
> 
> But are you seriously suggesting this women has previously wiped out half a dozen cyclists and not been caught for it?



Her excuse for kiling this man was 'The light was green'. Not even the usual SMIDSY rubbish, but basically 'I was entitled to drive into him, he should not have been there', so although I agree she probably hasn't killed anyone else, with an attitude like that I think it's more down to luck than good driving.

As for her good character, if I felt entitled to heave a d-lock through the windscreen of a car because the driver was breaking the rules I doubt you'd think me a fine person. How is driving into someone because they are breaking the rules different?


----------



## oldstrath (7 Apr 2014)

StuartG said:


> This is a societal problem rather than pertinent to this case.
> 
> AFAIK the thinking is that permanent bans don't work for bad serial offenders. They just continue to drive without licence hence insurance and probably no MoT. They are just or even more lethal. Suspension for a shorter period might just get them off the road for that period as they know by doing that they will have a right to drive again. Which then gives a problem with 'single event' offenders. You can't suspend them longer than serial offenders.
> 
> Its a difficult problem. We don't want these people driving but if taking away a licence permanently doesn't stop them - what to do? No easy answers.



Would probably involve imposing major costs and inconvenience, but there are technological ways to ensure only drivers with a valid licence drive. Agreed there'd be the usual 'civil liberties' issues, and some people might be forced to stop driving. Hard to greet over, to be honest.


----------



## AndyPeace (7 Apr 2014)

It's a poor result for sure. Locally, a firmer sentance was recently given to a driver who killed a pedestrian. Different circumstances but the driver got a 9 month prison sentance along with a three year driving ban. She was a volunteer for The Red Cross (the driver). One of the younger employee's of the local rag wrote a heartsob story about how it was wrong this lady was in prison for something that 'could happen to anyone' and how if she wasn't she'd still be do- gooding in her voluntry role. I think it was step forward (all be a small) in sending a message to drivers.


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Apr 2014)

oldstrath said:


> As for her good character



It is her previous good character that is taken into account at sentence.

She draws upon all those blameless law abiding years as 'credit' to set against the sentence.

The amount of credit is decided by the judge, and there are no guidelines for how much a judge should take previous good character into account.

Clearly, the offence comes into it.

Someone such as the double child killer Ian Huntley gets a whopping stretch whatever his previous character.

Someone who unintentionally knocks a person over on a crossing is in a different position.


----------



## theclaud (7 Apr 2014)

Pale Rider said:


> Someone such as the double child killer Ian Huntley gets a whopping stretch *whatever his previous character.*



If you typed that with a straight face, then it's quite illuminating. Of course, courts don't really mean "character" - they mean respectability.


----------



## Crankarm (8 Apr 2014)

Pale Rider said:


> It is her previous good character that is taken into account at sentence.
> 
> She draws upon all those blameless law abiding years as 'credit' to set against the sentence.
> 
> ...



Errr …….. good character in the legal sense means no criminal record i.e. a person has never been before a court and had penalties, sanction or a punishment imposed on them. It has NOTHING to do with whether a person does good or bad things in their life such as charity worker, nurse as opposed to some one in a less morally acceptable job or profession. A judge may be swayed but they should not be. Some one without a criminal record is considered to be a person of 'good character' and is given credit for this. However, how much credit is dependent on the severity of the offence they are about to be convicted of, their conduct in court and whether having pleaded NG as is their right when they clearly were guilty and should have pleaded so, to have put victims and witnesses to give evidence may counteract any benefit a good character might have had on reducing sentence. But it is not an exact science despite sentencing guidelines that some judges just seem to make it up as they go.

This woman should have got a minimum of 3 years in prison and a 10 year driving ban to commence on her release in addition to the £2k fine she was given. The car she was also driving if not written off should be crushed.


----------



## Pale Rider (8 Apr 2014)

Crankarm said:


> Errr …….. good character in the legal sense means no criminal record i.e. a person has never been before a court and had penalties, sanction or a punishment imposed on them. It has NOTHING to do with whether a person does good or bad things in their life such as charity worker, nurse as opposed to some one in a less morally acceptable job or profession. A judge may be swayed but they should not be. Some one without a criminal record is considered to be a person of 'good character' and is given credit for this. However, how much credit is dependent on the severity of the offence they are about to be convicted of, their conduct in court and whether having pleaded NG as is their right when they clearly were guilty and should have pleaded so, to have put victims and witnesses to give evidence may counteract any benefit a good character might have had on reducing sentence. But it is not an exact science despite sentencing guidelines that some judges just seem to make it up as they go.
> 
> This woman should have got a minimum of 3 years in prison and a 10 year driving ban to commence on her release in addition to the £2k fine she was given. The car she was also driving if not written off should be crushed.



All of a person's character can be put before the judge, including charity work, references from local worthies etc.

The judge is entitled to take this into account to an extent he decides.

This applies even if a person pleads not guilty, in fact, if they are convicted after a trial their only mitigation can be previous good character.

What they lose by pleading not guilty is the automatic discount for admitting the offence, usually stated as one third.

You seem to be suggesting the woman should have pleaded guilty.

Her defence was a simple one - the light was on green - she may genuinely have believed it, even if that belief was mistaken.

After all, she might be thinking; "I've been driving for years and I'm not in the habit of driving through red lights."

In those circumstances, I think it is understandable for a person to plead not guilty.

As regards sentence, the jury convicted her of death by careless so that is what she falls to be dealt with for.

"Careless' in these terms means 'a momentary lack of attention', which could be about right.

The 'minimum of three years' you suggest is a lot for a second - or less - of daydreaming.

Lock her up forever if you want, but don't complain if it's ever your turn.


----------



## Crankarm (8 Apr 2014)

Pale Rider said:


> All of a person's character can be put before the judge, including charity work, references from local worthies etc.
> 
> The judge is entitled to take this into account to an extent he decides.
> 
> ...



You are still failing to understand the legal meaning of 'Good Character' so email Spen666. I am sure he will spell it out for you as I have tried to do.

For the rest of your rant, l leave it to you.


----------



## cd365 (8 Apr 2014)

Crankarm said:


> This woman should have got a minimum of 3 years in prison and a 10 year driving ban to commence on her release in addition to the £2k fine she was given. The car she was also driving if not written off should be crushed.


+1


----------



## benb (8 Apr 2014)

I wouldn't mind the lack of a custodial sentence if the driving ban was more proportionate to the offence.

I don't see why someone who killed someone when driving, and it was their fault, should ever drive again.
Why aren't there more lifetime driving bans? In fact had anyone ever received a lifetime driving ban?

If you recklessly fired off your legally held shotgun, do you think you would ever get a firearm licence again, even if it was an accident?


----------



## Pale Rider (8 Apr 2014)

Crankarm said:


> You are still failing to understand the legal meaning of 'Good Character' so email Spen666. I am sure he will spell it out for you as I have tried to do.
> 
> For the rest of your rant, l leave it to you.



We will just agree to disagree, although if you think my post was a rant, it doesn't augur well for your grasp of the meaning of words, legal or otherwise.


----------



## Accy cyclist (9 Apr 2014)

"Ben Williams, defending, said: “It’s a fact of the rules of the road that a cyclist should not be using a pedestrian crossing.”

Is this prick for real?! So if i walk my bike across a pedestrian crossing when the lights are on red i can be legally hit without question?! A twenty five quid a week fine and a few weeks picking litter,not bad for killing someone!


----------



## mr_cellophane (10 Apr 2014)

Pale Rider said:


> Yes, a suspended sentence can be activated in whole or part if another offence is committed within the period of suspension.
> 
> This woman - as with a lot of killer drivers - appears to be of previous good character, so the chances of her offending again are remote.


 Even more remote in this case as the suspension is for 2 years and the driving ban for 3.


----------



## Dragonwight (10 Apr 2014)

Cyclist knocks down and injures someone on pedestrian crossing and gets 12 months in jail deservedly mind, driver knocks down and kills cyclist on pedestrian crossing and has to say sorry with a ban. Says it all really.


----------



## S.Giles (6 May 2014)

I recently saw an incident at a pedestrian crossing that may shed some light on this.

A person driving a disabled vehicle shot across a pedestrian crossing much faster than a pedestrian would be expected to do. A car nearly collided with the disabled vehicle, presumably because the driver was not expecting something like that to occur so quickly, and was taken by surprise. Is it possible that a person riding a bicycle (fairly quickly, say) across a _pedestrian_ crossing would have contributory negligence because of the speed at which they were moving? I don't know the particular details of this case (or if what I have said is relevant to it), but the principle seems reasonable to me.

Steve


----------



## Shadowfax (6 May 2014)

I was just reading this thread and was not logged in at the time, hence adverts top and bottom. The top one was for court based solicitors to defend speeding drivers ! At the bottom cheap insurance for banned drivers ! Hmm.


----------



## spen666 (7 May 2014)

Crankarm said:


> You are still failing to understand the legal meaning of 'Good Character' so email Spen666. I am sure he will spell it out for you as I have tried to do.
> 
> For the rest of your rant, l leave it to you.


I'm not sure I disagree at all with Pale Rider

I'm not sure I disagree with much of what you post either, but must just comment on this



Crankarm said:


> ..... Some one without a criminal record is considered to be a person of 'good character' and is given credit for this. However, how much credit is dependent on the severity of the offence they are about to be convicted of, their conduct in court and whether having pleaded NG as is their right when they clearly were guilty and should have pleaded so, to have put victims and witnesses to give evidence may counteract any benefit a good character might have had on reducing sentence. ....


 
The amount of credit someone gets relates (in the normal legal sense) to how much of a reduction they get in their sentence depending on at what stage they entereda guilty plea. For an early guilty plea, this can be up to 30% discount.

The conduct of the defendant, the behaviour in court, the seriousness of the offending go to the tariff (ie sentence length), then when this is decided, the discount (credit) for good character is applied.

Its not easy to explain in a couple of lines and I am sure you were trying to say something similar


----------



## MattyKo (9 May 2014)

Although there should not be any "hard and fast" rules regarding the penal sentences issued, following the death of someone on our roads.

Incidences of drivers causing the death of cyclists or pedestrians (as has always been my contention on this site) should in my opinion result in a custodial sentence. Only then will there be the necessary sea change on drivers minds of the consequences such accidents can have upon cyclists and pedestrians. Lots of road deaths are caused because drivers are virtually flying around the road, with little consideration the effects that piece of metal shall have upon those around then, in the event of that vehicle marginally coming into contact with a cyclists or pedestrian.

Whilst the government shouts about the reduction in road casualties, I do not think that this is because motorists are been threaten with or held in custody. Cyclists are the road user group which has seen an increase in the number of deaths annually - the government attributes this to an increase in the number of cyclists out riding.


----------



## Cycling Dan (11 May 2014)

Why bother putting her in jail or suspended sentences, deporting her would be a better option. That way she is sure as hell is not going to be doing anything like that again in this country.


----------



## Cycling Dan (11 May 2014)

*He added: “I have never seen an expression of regret from her.”

Mr Williams said: “She may not have expressed remorse during the trial but to people known to her and a third party she has expressed remorse.

“She has suffered sleepless nights and cannot get the moment of the collision out of her mind*

What a poor thing, sleepless nights....... they are likely because the car was expensive to repair and she is worrying how she is going to pay for it.Or she has had to claim on her insurance and thinks her premiums are going to sky rocket. It will have nothing to do with the cyclist being killed. She would have expressed something in court if she was sorry considering in court they are talking about the event is self which must surely stir up some sort of emotion of remorse if any was there.
Just on the fact she has never said sorry and insist the lights were green is enough for me to consider that she feels the cyclist was in the wrong and his death was the sole result of his own doing supporting that she has nothing to be remorseful about. So how this judge worked out she had any inch of remorse and reduced the sentence accordingly is rocket science to me.


----------



## Shadowfax (11 May 2014)

Cycling Dan said:


> *He added: “I have never seen an expression of regret from her.”
> 
> Mr Williams said: “She may not have expressed remorse during the trial but to people known to her and a third party she has expressed remorse.
> 
> ...


 After reading some of your posts I reckon the A,B,C is rocket science to you ?


----------



## Cycling Dan (11 May 2014)

Shadowfax said:


> After reading some of your posts I reckon the A,B,C is rocket science to you ?


You clearly haven't seen the rest


----------



## Shadowfax (11 May 2014)

Thankfully.
Smile.


----------



## MattyKo (13 May 2014)

Unfortunately, this is really how these matters are determined maintaining "no claims bonus" on your insurance premium. 

With no consideration of the actual occurrences on the roads.


----------

