# Barry Meyer trial. (Title edited)



## glenn forger (8 Apr 2015)

A lorry driver banned from the road five times admitted yesterday that he jumped a red light before crushing a cyclist to death.

Victim Alan Neve, 51, was on his way to work when Barry Meyer’s unlicensed, uninsured truck hit him and dragged his body along the road in front of pedestrians.

Prosecutor Allison Hunter said Meyer, 53, had previous convictions for driving while disqualified, uninsured and without the correct licence.

She said: “He drove through the lights. Not only had he not used his mirrors but he then failed to stop.”

Meyer, of Walthamstow, East London, had also blocked part of his windscreen with a toilet roll, tub of sugar and phone holder.

He admitted causing death by careless driving and will be sentenced later at Blackfriars crown court.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...5480778?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


----------



## glenn forger (9 Apr 2015)

http://road.cc/content/news/147873-...pleads-guilty-causing-death-cyclist-alan-neve

Being uninsured, unlicensed, driving a twenty ton truck through a red light With an obscured windscreen, careless. Just careless.


----------



## Arrowfoot (9 Apr 2015)

I think it is a reporting error.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Apr 2015)

Then you'd be wrong. Again.


----------



## jefmcg (9 Apr 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> I think it is a reporting error.


What do you think is a reporting error? And why? Is there a better source?


----------



## Arrowfoot (9 Apr 2015)

jefmcg said:


> What do you think is a reporting error? And why? Is there a better source?


Does not make seeing the antecedents he has. I can't imagine it being in the careless category. He should be behind bars for a long time.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Apr 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> I think it is a reporting error.


He was charged with

causing the death by careless driving
causing death by driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence
charge of causing death while driving with no insurance

FACT.


----------



## Arrowfoot (9 Apr 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> He was charged with
> 
> causing the death by careless driving
> causing death by driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence
> ...



I just can't believe it. How can it be careless driving.


----------



## Drago (9 Apr 2015)

The law is a bit crap on this. The decision to drive unlawfully was a pre meditated act, so ' death by' seems a bit inadequate. While I'm sure the death was unintentional, it was the consequence of several deliberate unlawful acts, so would be ripe for a 2nd degree murder charge like in some other countries.


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Apr 2015)

The charge is correct - in law.

Prosecutors are told to disregard previous convictions when deciding if to charge death by careless or death by dangerous.

Those are the only two possible charges.

The causing death part is met in both charges, so the prosecutor effectively disregards that for the next stage.

Was this careless driving or dangerous driving?

The evidence is the driver 'followed on' through an amber or red light.

He then stopped in the middle of the junction, presumably due to traffic, then pulled forward a second or two later and ran over the cyclist who was trying to get around the front nearside of the lorry.

The act of running the light at slow speed and getting stuck in the junction can be no more than careless driving - as defined by law.

It is routinely dealt with by a fixed penalty.

Thus the prosecutor charges causing death by careless - the killing is accounted for by the 'causing death' part of the charge.

The driving would have to have been of a much lower standard for causing death by dangerous to be correct.

An example would be if he ran the light at full speed.

Typically, a dangerous driving charge will also contain a more prolonged period of bad driving, such as racing around for a few miles.

In that example, the driver would be charged with dangerous driving if he didn't hit anything or hit a lamp post, but he would be charged with causing death by dangerous driving if he killed someone.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Apr 2015)

Drago said:


> The law is a bit crap on this. The decision to drive unlawfully was a pre meditated act, so ' death by' seems a bit inadequate. While I'm sure the death was unintentional, it was the consequence of several deliberate unlawful acts, so would be ripe for a 2nd degree murder charge like in some other countries.



The charge is plainly absurd. He had rubbish piled on his dash that blocked his view. He chose to drive without being able to see where he was going. "Careless" is dropping a cup. Driving blind and running a red light is Dangerous.


----------



## A V Lowe (9 Apr 2015)

The truck was a very clean & new vehicle and it seems unlikely that Meyer was the owner of it. Thus there is an operator, with an operators licence who has handed Meyer the tool with which he killed Alan Neve.
O Licences are issued to those who are required to prove and maintain good repute and diligence in operating their fleet legally and honestly. This is regulated by the Traffic Commissioner - for Met & SE this is Nick Denton. He is charged with being the independent overseer for commercial operations which exploit the use of the roads to make a profit, to ensure such operations are legally delivered, and accountable.
The Commissioner can impose a variety of sanctions on drivers (holders of vocational C D and E licences) and operators. 
It is not clear what sort of O licence was held by the operator nor have we an operators name and operating base address - does anyone have this?
A photo of the truck cab should reveal if the O Licence was a UK standard national (blue) or a restricted licence (orange) (for carrying only the licence holder's goods) 
Depending on the O licence category the operator may have a Transport Manager whose duties include maintaining a record of drivers and their qualification to drive
What is the Traffic Commissioner doing about this operator?
The issue tracks back further to the principal client who should have done due diligence on reviewing the contracts and monitoring performance with regard to the balance that naturally determines the outcomes in terms of price and safety


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Apr 2015)

User said:


> We appear to have lost sight of what constitutes a reasonable standard to expect from people.



We do expect that standard, careless driving is an offence.

The punishment is not great, careless driving on its own is not imprisonable, so it's a maximum of a mixture of a fine, points and ban.

The maximum sentence for death by careless is five years - if the case is heard in a crown court.

But it's an either way offence, it can be heard by magistrates.

If so, the maximum sentence is six months.

I've seen cases where the driver doesn't go to prison, although he will in this one.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Apr 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> I just can't believe it. How can it be careless driving.



The CPS will go for what they think they can get. The jury, made up of drivers because only 2% of the population are regular cyclists, will be reluctant to convict behaviour they themselves were guilty of. If you needed proof that ignoring traffic lights when you can't see where you're going then a fatality is as good a proof as you can get, but the CPS avoid laying that charge. It's like apartheid South Africa, having a black man on trial before a jury of white racists will achieve similar results. There should be a single charge of Causing Death on the roads then the court decide the sentence.

Look at the comments beneath newspaper stories. Cyclists are "vermin" or "pests". Ring any bells? Who else dehumanises people that way? It's a similar thought process to racism, homophobia, you name it. A million people tried to save the job of a man who has made a lot of money by "joking" about killing cyclists. These "jokes" tap into a deep reservoir of hatred and antipathy. The people who enjoy these "jokes" serve on juries.


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Apr 2015)

User said:


> You misunderstand. Choosing to drive through a red light is not careless, it is deliberate.



In the legal meaning of the word it is careless driving - in this case.

The driver said he deliberately followed on to keep up with his mate.

A driver who hammered through a red light deliberately at high speed would be charged with dangerous driving.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> In the legal meaning of the word it is careless driving - in this case.
> 
> .



No, it is not.


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Apr 2015)

glenn forger said:


> No, it is not.



The senior CPS lawyer who laid the charge would give you an argument.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Apr 2015)

Of course he would. That has nothing to do with the legal definition.


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Apr 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Of course he would. That has nothing to do with the legal definition.



That is all he is applying.

Even if the CPS had tried for death by dangerous, it would never reach a jury because the defence barrister would get it chucked out before the case started.


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Apr 2015)

User13710 said:


> I read that, unusually, this driver's 'bad character' in having been banned five times was permitted to be mentioned in court. I'm sure Pale Rider will argue that he didn't get a fair trial as a result.



There was no trial, he pleaded guilty.

Following changes to the law a few years ago, the defendant's bad character can be put before a jury in certain circumstances.

There needs to be a pre-trial hearing about that.

Usually bad character is only allowed if it is similar offending.

Thus a burglar with previous convictions for burglary would likely have those convictions opened to the jury.

But if the previous was for say, drugs, those convictions would likely not be allowed.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Apr 2015)

User said:


> We appear to have lost sight of what constitutes a reasonable standard to expect from people.


Society is now so utterly completely and unconsciously motor-centric that the law bends over to protect people from the consequences of their own shite driving and brushes off the victims they kill and main as entirely acceptable casualties, collateral damage, to the cost of running UK plc. And they then spout bollox about the "war on the motorist".


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Apr 2015)

User said:


> This is clearly a case where, given that he was driving uninsured, driving without the correct license, jumped a red light and caused a death, he should have been charged with causing death by dangerous driving.


You'd think so. But then the CPS would be faced by a jury of "there but for the grace of God"-ers.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Apr 2015)

User13710 said:


> How did this miserable individual get a job as a driver if he was unlicensed at the time? Will there be any penalty on the company that employed him?


That's what I want to know.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> That is all he is applying.



No, it is not. Your posts are getting so random and nonsensical you're going on ignore, you haven't got a single danny what you're banging on about.


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Apr 2015)

User said:


> You do talk complete rubbish at times.
> 
> The definitions of dangerous driving and careless driving are clear. The CPS guidance is clear (and can be found h
> 
> ...



Your links are for the sentencing guidelines.

They are not relevant to the charging decision.


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Apr 2015)

User said:


> Pardon? You clearly have a problem with reading and comprehension.
> 
> Are you dibble by any chance?



This is a link to the charging guidelines:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/...ance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/#a30

Try this extract:

*Factors that are not relevant in deciding whether an act is dangerous or careless*
The following factors are not relevant when deciding whether an act of driving is dangerous or careless:


the injury or death of one or more persons involved in a road traffic collision. Importantly, injury or death does not, by itself, turn a collision into careless driving or turn careless driving into dangerous driving. Multiple deaths are however an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes (Sentencing Guidelines Council: Causing Death by Driving Guideline, page 5, paragraph 19);
the skill or lack of skill of the driver - R v Bannister [2009] EWCA Crim 1571
the commission of other driving offences at the same time (such as driving whilst disqualified or driving without a certificate of insurance or a driving licence);
the fact that the defendant has previous convictions for road traffic offences; and

the mere disability of a driver caused by mental illness or by physical injury or illness, except where there is evidence that the disability adversely affected the manner of the driving.

Just to repeat, those are factors that are NOT relevant to deciding if it is careless or dangerous.

Among them are previous convictions and other offences committed at the same time.

This is what you posted earlier: "This is clearly a case where, given that he was driving uninsured, driving without the correct license, jumped a red light and caused a death, he should have been charged with causing death by dangerous driving."

That is plainly garbage.

You might still want the charge to be death by dangerous, but the law and the guidelines have been applied correctly to reach the decision of death by careless.


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Apr 2015)

User said:


> As I said, you clearly have a problem with reading and comprehension.



The extract from the charging guidelines looks clear enough to me.

All the factors you said were relevant are not relevant to deciding whether it is death by dangerous or death by careless.

You made an error, just accept it and move on.


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Apr 2015)

User said:


> What does the relevant law say constitutes careless and dangerous driving?



A CPS fact sheet is as good a reference as any.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_driving/


----------



## stowie (10 Apr 2015)

I have taken an interest in this case since the driver came from my area.

From the thread above, is it correct that, when charged, the CPS will only take into account the specific circumstances of the incident to determine the charge? Therefore the previous offences aren't considered at this point? If this is the case, I can kind of see (although absolutely don't agree) that careless driving may have been considered. The driver's story about following his mate and presumably then "missing" the change in light would probably allow some in a jury (of which at least some will be sympathetic to motorists in these instance) to consider that it might not be classed as "dangerous".

This seems a problem with the law as it stands. In my opinion, driving without a valid license is dangerous driving by definition. Otherwise why would we go through all the testing procedure in the first place. The other issue is that juries seem to be very reluctant to find anyone guilty of dangerous driving as can be seen on other threads. As someone else has mentioned, having a single charge of, say, "negligent driving" to cover both careless and dangerous would seem sensible with a judge then considering the actual sentence required, with a range from the bottom end of careless to top end of dangerous.

Finally, I assume the driver wasn't driving just for himself but had been contracted by a firm. WTF were the firm doing to check their drivers? A partial extension of health and safety regs applicable onsite to the public streets seems appropriate. A firm that can (deliberately or through lack of checks) employ a driver with no license or insurance and with a record such as his, should have their operation license removed and be taken out of business. This will be the only way to concentrate minds and remove these dangerous drivers, as the drivers themselves clearly have no care for the consequences. Maybe the prospect of a firm being taken out of business for not checking staff properly would be more effective.


----------



## glenn forger (10 Apr 2015)

CTC pushing for corporate manslaughter against whoever employed Meyer:

http://road.cc/content/news/147987-...anslaughter-prosecutions-after-alan-neve-case

I wouldn't let Barry Meyer be in charge of a shopping list, let alone a twenty ton lorry. Yet the construction industry allow any drunk, druggie or habitual criminal with no license or insurance drive around the capital.


----------



## Pale Rider (10 Apr 2015)

stowie said:


> I have taken an interest in this case since the driver came from my area.
> 
> From the thread above, is it correct that, when charged, the CPS will only take into account the specific circumstances of the incident to determine the charge? Therefore the previous offences aren't considered at this point? If this is the case, I can kind of see (although absolutely don't agree) that careless driving may have been considered. The driver's story about following his mate and presumably then "missing" the change in light would probably allow some in a jury (of which at least some will be sympathetic to motorists in these instance) to consider that it might not be classed as "dangerous".
> 
> ...



Your understanding is correct.

At charge decision time the prosecutor must not take into account previous convictions or commission of other offences at the time.

They are aggravating features at sentence, so the judge has leeway to add to the sentence because the driver has previous and was disqualified.

Juries have been reluctant to convict in some cases, presumably thinking the death was a genuine accident.

In this case the defendant pleaded guilty, albeit on the morning of the trial.

It his likely his barrister will have told him something like: "The evidence against you is so strong, the jury will pot you for sure."

Pleading guilty helps the defendant because he is automatically entitled to a discount off his sentence.

Prosecuting the company is a harder one.

We don't know what checks they made, probably none, but we don't know.

Disqualified drivers have been known to keep their valid paper licence and show that to get jobs.

Only a direct check with the DVLA would reveal the driver's true status.

If no checks were made, there may be some HSE or Transport Commissioners record keeping offence the company could be charged with.

Corporate manslaughter is very, very complicated and I can't see it being a goer in this case.


----------



## Dan B (10 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Prosecuting the company is a harder one.
> 
> We don't know what checks they made, probably none, but we don't know.
> 
> ...


Because of course it's absolutely impossible for anyone to phone up the DVLA and check whether their employees licences are valid

It's curious how car hire companies all seem to manage to do exactly that though, isn't it?


----------



## Pale Rider (10 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> Because of course it's absolutely impossible for anyone to phone up the DVLA and check whether their employees licences are valid
> 
> It's curious how car hire companies all seem to manage to do exactly that though, isn't it?



Not in the slightest.

I expect reputable transport companies do make further checks, but I doubt Cowboy Tipper Co does.


----------



## Dan B (10 Apr 2015)

glenn forger said:


> CTC pushing for corporate manslaughter against whoever employed Meyer:



I find it odd that Barry Meyer's home address is on the public record (see e.g. here) yet the name of his employer is apparently being kept secret


----------



## subaqua (10 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> I find it odd that Barry Meyer's home address is on the public record (see e.g. here) yet the name of his employer is apparently being kept secret



possibly "self employed" and working on an ad hoc basis for another company

lots of smaller firms don't check basic details like insurance and licences, as they wrongly assume you will have the required legal stuff ( we do check and drivers who cant provide the info don't get to cart away, and in some cases deliver)


----------



## glasgowcyclist (10 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> I find it odd that Barry Meyer's home address is on the public record (see e.g. here) yet the name of his employer is apparently being kept secret



He's had a few of his own haulage and skip companies in the past, probably self-employed at the time of this case too.

GC


----------



## Pale Rider (10 Apr 2015)

As a defendant, his home address is released to the press.

There is no particular secret about his employer - if there is one - or the company he was sub-contracted to.

It may have already been mentioned at one of the hearings, or may be mentioned by the prosecutor at sentence.

The employer's name could be mentioned by the defence if they give him a reference.

You are then relying on the court reporter to still be awake at this point and for him/her to think it a sufficiently interesting piece of information to include in the report.


----------



## glenn forger (11 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> I find it odd that Barry Meyer's home address is on the public record (see e.g. here) yet the name of his employer is apparently being kept secret



Meyer was working the system, he's acquainted with the legal process. he changed his plea at the last minute so prosecution evidence wasn't heard.


----------



## Arrowfoot (11 Apr 2015)

*I looked at the Charging guidelines and what Parliament legislated and it appears that CPS has usurped the power of Parliament. Or have I got the wrong legislation. The one by Parliament appears to the definition that seems to tie with the normal usage of the word Dangerous. *


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/2A
*[F12AMeaning of dangerous driving.*
_(1)For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)— 

(a)the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and 

(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. 

(2)A person is also to be regarded as driving dangerously for the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous. 

(3)In subsections (1) and (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of those subsections what would be expected of, or obvious to, a competent and careful driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused. 

(4)In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above the state of a vehicle, regard may be had to anything attached to or carried on or in it and to the manner in which it is attached or carried.]_


----------



## glenn forger (11 Apr 2015)

stowie said:


> This seems a problem with the law as it stands. In my opinion, driving without a valid license is dangerous driving by definition. Otherwise why would we go through all the testing procedure in the first place. The other issue is that juries seem to be very reluctant to find anyone guilty of dangerous driving as can be seen on other threads. As someone else has mentioned, having a single charge of, say, "negligent driving" to cover both careless and dangerous would seem sensible with a judge then considering the actual sentence required, with a range from the bottom end of careless to top end of dangerous.
> 
> .




They've left a massive hole in the law:








The offence of causing death by careless driving was introduced in 2008. As the graph shows, the number of prosecutions for causing death by dangerous driving has roughly halved since then.


----------



## Pale Rider (11 Apr 2015)

User said:


> Is there a graph to show how many convictions resulted? I.



Yes, you are looking at it - the convictions are the dotted lines.


----------



## Haitch (11 Apr 2015)

User said:


> Is there a graph to show how many convictions resulted?



The dashed line on glenn forger's graph, or am I missing summat?


----------



## Pale Rider (11 Apr 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> *I looked at the Charging guidelines and what Parliament legislated and it appears that CPS has usurped the power of Parliament. Or have I got the wrong legislation. The one by Parliament appears to the definition that seems to tie with the normal usage of the word Dangerous. *
> 
> 
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/2A
> ...



The charging guidelines use the same definitions.

Put simply, dangerous is 'far below' a competent standard, careless is 'below' a competent standard.

That's the choice the prosecutor has, the death is effectively irrelevant in making that choice because it is met by both charges.

So the prosecutor knows it is either death by careless, or death by dangerous.

Running a red light at a relatively slow speed is careless driving.

As I mentioned, it is routinely dealt with by a fixed penalty.

So, under the law, this was always going to be death by careless.

That charge was laid the day after the crash, which I think demonstrates this was not a hard decision for those with experience of making such decisions.

I'm not sure where the 'massive hole in the law' is.

Almost any minor motoring transgression can be characterised as careless, so you will be charged if you kill someone doing it.

Prior to 2008, when death by careless was introduced, this driver could not have been charged with anything.

Edit: I should add, he could only have been charged with simple careless driving.

That happened a few times in fatal crashes.

The victims' families were, quite rightly, not impressed.


----------



## Pale Rider (11 Apr 2015)

User said:


> Apologies, phone screen.



Good answer, thinking on your feet.

Have you thought of a career at the criminal Bar?



User said:


> The discussion that needs to be had is around what constitutes below and far below. It appears that we accept far below as being below and below as being competent. Put that right and we might recover some decent standards of behaviour.



I agree, if you are unhappy at the way cases are charged at present, you need to focus on achieving a change in the law and charging guidelines.

That will be a long and exhausting process, but it can be done.

The laws surrounding the double jeopardy protection for defendants were changed in response to public pressure.


----------



## Dan B (11 Apr 2015)

In particular, driving through a red light on Proctor St, which is a four lane one way road at a busy junction with cars, vans, cycles and usually hordes of pedestrians trying to cross ... that's a long way from "careful and competent"


----------



## Origamist (11 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> The charging guidelines use the same definitions.
> 
> Put simply, dangerous is 'far below' a competent standard, careless is 'below' a competent standard.
> 
> ...



Although, if a car runs a red light at a relatively slow speed, say 8 mph, and hits a vulnerable road user, the chances of survival are very good. If a HGV runs a red light at a similar speed and hits a vulnerable road user the chances of survival are vastly diminished.


----------



## CopperCyclist (12 Apr 2015)

glenn forger said:


> They've left a massive hole in the law:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



An excellent graph showing a clear problem. 

The problem is (as normal) the way CPS have their 'success' measured. The offense of 'death by careless' was, IMO, needed. There were some drivers getting away scot free with killing (no change there then) because they could successfully argue that their driving wasn't dangerous as per the law stated. They are the gap in that graph between the blue lines before 2008. 

If applied correctly, death by careless being introduced in 2008 should have had little to no effect on the blue dotted line (dangerous convictions), and should have just lowered the blue solid line to meet it. 

However as can clearly be seen, CPS have seized the chance to have an 'easy option' and are routinely prosecuting lower offences when they should have been continuing with dangerous. If they would have charged with dangerous before 2008, charge with it now. If they wouldn't, that is the only point you should be considering careless. 

Shame we don't have some sort of democracy based system where we can get something done about this.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Apr 2015)

User said:


> Most people, when driving, are highly critical of other drivers not forgiving at all.


Most people, when driving, though highly critical of others are entirely insulated from the vast majority of the consequences of their own poor driving and that of others. Physics is a harsh mistress but modern motor vehicle design mitigates a lot of her cruelty towards the occupants of vehicles.


----------



## classic33 (13 Apr 2015)

Any of these come up before?
http://companycheck.co.uk/director/905339070/MR-BARRY-ERIC-MEYER


----------



## classic33 (13 Apr 2015)

You also have this one. Note the address!
http://directory.thesun.co.uk/13935782


Anyone willing to say what the chances are of two people sharing the same name living on the same road, who are both in the same line of work?
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/wfnews/11297585.Lorry_driver_charged_with_cyclist_death/


----------



## classic33 (13 Apr 2015)

A V Lowe said:


> The truck was a very clean & new vehicle and it seems unlikely that Meyer was the owner of it. Thus there is an operator, with an operators licence who has handed Meyer the tool with which he killed Alan Neve.
> O Licences are issued to those who are required to prove and maintain good repute and diligence in operating their fleet legally and honestly. This is regulated by the Traffic Commissioner - for Met & SE this is Nick Denton. He is charged with being the independent overseer for commercial operations which exploit the use of the roads to make a profit, to ensure such operations are legally delivered, and accountable.
> The Commissioner can impose a variety of sanctions on drivers (holders of vocational C D and E licences) and operators.
> It is not clear what sort of O licence was held by the operator nor have we an operators name and operating base address - does anyone have this?
> ...


----------



## glenn forger (13 Apr 2015)

> An O licence holder has by law to verify their drivers are competent to drive the vehicles provided, and can be called to a dicsiplinary hearing by the Traffic Commissioner. If there is a good picture of the front of the truck it may be possible to establish whether the operator held a Natonal or restricted O Licence.
> 
> Unfortuinately if there is a likely hearing, many operators surrender their exiting licences and apply for a new licence as a different company. This avoids ending up in the traffic comissioners' court.



http://lcc.org.uk/articles/driver-p...after-court-hears-of-shocking-driving-history


----------



## benb (13 Apr 2015)

Anyone who thinks that driving a vehicle through a red light with obscured visibility is only "below" and not "far below" the standard we would expect from a competent and careful driver is an idiot.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Apr 2015)

classic33 said:


> Any of these come up before?
> http://companycheck.co.uk/director/905339070/MR-BARRY-ERIC-MEYER
> View attachment 85510



Yes!


glasgowcyclist said:


> Maybe he employed himself behind his own limited company...
> 
> http://companycheck.co.uk/director/905339070/MR-BARRY-ERIC-MEYER
> 
> GC





glasgowcyclist said:


> He's had a few of his own haulage and skip companies in the past, probably self-employed at the time of this case too.
> 
> GC




GC


----------



## glenn forger (13 May 2015)

Sentencing tomorrow. Aggravating factors, last minute change of plea, and possibly his employers will be named.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (14 May 2015)

36 months in prison (discounted from 42 months) and 10-year disqualification.

The judge told him, _"You have a sustained history of driving offences showing wretched disregard for the safety of road users"_


GC


----------



## glenn forger (14 May 2015)

"The degree of your carelessness was in my judgement about as high as the court may ever have to deal with for this offence for causing death by careless driving, as opposed to causing death by dangerous driving.

"You have a sustained history of driving offences showing wretched disregard for the safety of road users."

At the original hearing, he told Meyer that he had a “shocking driving history,” _with the lorry driver only changing his plea once the judge said that his past record would be disclosed to the jury._


----------



## Tin Pot (14 May 2015)

Three years, so what , about 18 months in chokey - minimum security?


----------



## Tin Pot (14 May 2015)

User said:


> It was always going to be thus, as soon as the dangerous charge was bottled.


Well I'm not advocating violence, but if it were me I'd be looking up contract killers.


----------



## Tin Pot (14 May 2015)

User said:


> If who were you, the late Alan Neve?


A relative or close friend of his.


----------



## Tim Hall (14 May 2015)

What does


> while two offences of driving while uninsured and unlicensed were allowed to lie on file



mean?


----------



## jefmcg (14 May 2015)

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/termination_of_proceedings/#a18


----------



## glasgowcyclist (15 May 2015)

jefmcg said:


> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/termination_of_proceedings/#a18



Thanks for the link, I was about to ask the same question as @Tim Hall .

However I still don't understand the benefit of this procedure or how it is 'particularly useful'. Useful for what/whom?

GC


----------



## glenn forger (15 May 2015)

The lorry firm was not named in court. It is understood police have decided not to prosecute - which caused concern from the judge.

"Heaven knows why the lorry owners let you drive that vehicle without checking and seeing whether you had a proper HGV licence," he said.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...iled-for-three-and-a-half-years-10250978.html


----------



## jefmcg (15 May 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Thanks for the link, I was about to ask the same question as @Tim Hall .
> 
> However I still don't understand the benefit of this procedure or how it is 'particularly useful'. Useful for what/whom?
> 
> GC


My *guess* would be this allows them to let the lesser charges go without dropping them entirely or finding him not guilty. I guess they could bring them back into play if he appeals.


----------



## Origamist (15 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> The lorry firm was not named in court. It is understood police have decided not to prosecute - which caused concern from the judge.
> 
> "Heaven knows why the lorry owners let you drive that vehicle without checking and seeing whether you had a proper HGV licence," he said.
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...iled-for-three-and-a-half-years-10250978.html


 
I reckon the company name will become public knowledge very soon...


----------



## glasgowcyclist (15 May 2015)

Letter from LCC to the Traffic Commissioner asking for action to be taken against the vehicle operator/transport manager. They supply what they believe is the operator's licence number (OK1046680).

GC


----------



## classic33 (15 May 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Letter from LCC to the Traffic Commissioner asking for action to be taken against the vehicle operator/transport manager. They supply what they believe is the operator's licence number (OK1046680).
> 
> GC


If that number is correct, then its already been suspended.
Might explain why LCC only believe its that number.


----------



## glenn forger (15 May 2015)

Origamist said:


> I reckon the company name will become public knowledge very soon...



The name was actually given in court, I dunno why it's not repeated but I'm not going to say it just in case. The vanity plate seems to be registered to a East London firm. Meyer seems to be a middle aged delinquent, the question is who sent a coke head out in that vehicle and why aren't they in the dock? We don't even know which vehicles to be extra careful around.


----------



## classic33 (15 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> The name was actually given in court, I dunno why it's not repeated but I'm not going to say it just in case. The vanity plate seems to be registered to a East London firm. Meyer seems to be a middle aged delinquent, the question is who sent a coke head out in that vehicle and why aren't they in the dock? We don't even know which vehicles to be extra careful around.


You've answered your own questions there. All of them.


----------



## Pale Rider (15 May 2015)

jefmcg said:


> My *guess* would be this allows them to let the lesser charges go without dropping them entirely or finding him not guilty. I guess they could bring them back into play if he appeals.



That's about it.

The unlicensed and uninsured offences will have been dealt with at sentencing as aggravating features of the main offence of death by careless.

Quite reasonably, you can't be dealt with twice for the same offences.

Had the case gone to trial, a jury may well have found him guilty of all offences.

In that outcome, it's likely the judge would have sentenced for death by careless, and ordered no separate penalty for the other two offences.

The driver only pleaded guilty to death by careless, so the other two offences are still 'live' and must be disposed of.

One might ask why the driver didn't plead guilty to the whole lot.

That's one for the defence barrister, but in general terms the barrister will advise the client to plead guilty to the least number of offences he can to get the overall case dealt with.

Letting the other two lie on the file in this case is 'particularly useful' to the prosecution as a means of finalising the case - the phrase comes from the CPS website advice to prosecutors.

The procedure is irrelevant to any concerned members of public who are trying to assess the overall justice of this case.


----------



## glenn forger (15 May 2015)

classic33 said:


> You've answered your own questions there. All of them.



What question? If you have something to say then spit it out, please don't play silly games here, what are you trying to say?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (15 May 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> The unlicensed and uninsured offences will have been dealt with at sentencing as aggravating features of the main offence of death by careless.



As I understand it, he has not been convicted of those offences so how can they be used in determining the sentence for killing the cyclist?



Pale Rider said:


> Had the case gone to trial, a jury may well have found him guilty of all offences.
> In that outcome, it's likely the judge would have sentenced for death by careless, and ordered no separate penalty for the other two offences.



And that would be fine but at least his record would accurately show he had convictions for those offences. This could make a difference should he be convicted of similar offences in the future (and he does appear to be a confirmed recidivist).



Pale Rider said:


> Letting the other two lie on the file in this case is 'particularly useful' to the prosecution as a means of finalising the case - the phrase comes from the CPS website advice to prosecutors.




The 'particularly useful' phrase still baffles me. If the offences were not left to lie on file how would that be a disbenefit to the prosecution? He either had a licence or not, similarly with insurance. These don't seem to be particularly difficult things to prove.

GC


----------



## classic33 (15 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> What question? If you have something to say then spit it out, please don't play silly games here, what are you trying to say?


 Read your own post, in which you asked questions. The answers are there.


----------



## Pale Rider (15 May 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> glasgowcyclist said:
> 
> 
> > As I understand it, he has not been convicted of those offences so how can they be used in determining the sentence for killing the cyclist?



They are aggravating features of the main offence, so when the judge said this was one of the most serious cases he has come across, in his mind are all the circumstances, including the facts the driver was unlicensed and uninsured.

Those two matters are clearly minor in comparison to killing another road user, but they are in the mix when the sentence is calculated.



glasgowcyclist said:


> The 'particularly useful' phrase still baffles me. If the offences were not left to lie on file how would that be a disbenefit to the prosecution? He either had a licence or not, similarly with insurance. These don't seem to be particularly difficult things to prove.



All of the offences have to be finalised for the case to be properly concluded.

Legally, the two less serious offences have to be dealt with in one way or another.

The prosecution - in this case - applied for the two offences to be left to lie on the file.

The judge allowed the application and made the order.

Strictly, it's the judge who made the decision.

But it's not a controversial one - the defence don't oppose it - so it really is only a matter of legal procedure.


----------



## Tin Pot (15 May 2015)




----------



## Pale Rider (15 May 2015)

User said:


> This is where, as someone so bound up in legal process that you have lost sight of normal standards, you part company once again. The bloke is in court, guilty as hell, common sense would suggest that it is the work of 10 minutes to put it all on record and sentenced.



No need to get your Y fronts in a twist, I am just telling it as it is.

The two offences, drive without a licence and driving while not insured are not imprisonable - fine/points is the maximum.

The bloke's gone to jail, so that prison sentence trumps any possible penalty from the other offences.

Seems sensible enough to me.

If you don't like it, toddle off to see your MP and start a campaign to get the law changed.


----------



## glenn forger (17 May 2015)

http://lcc.org.uk/articles/lawless-and-selfish-lorry-driver-sentenced-to-3half-years-jail

Interesting comment below:



> Noting your letter I gather that the Commissioner has now responded and the operator details have been confirmed. Searching the VOSA website for the publications (A&D) and the operator's licence number (in the LCC letter) provides interesting background, notably that they applied for a change of operating base in December 2013 - barely 1 month after the fatal crash, yet there was no reference to the incident in November, and the change was approved shortly afterwards.
> 
> There is no formal delivery of information on fatal crashes, and traffic offences being taken up by the Police to the Traffic Commissioner, as a result it would appear that officially he has had no call to follow up the failure of the operator and their transport manager to deliver due diligence in checking their drivers' licences and fitness to drive, and the breaches in drivers' hours regulations, either through failure to properly monitor tachograph records, or complicity in this activity.
> 
> In Scotland the Commissioner has in place a Memorandum of Understanding, which gives her direct notification from Police Scotland to deliver swift action against LGV and PCV drivers (and operators) using mobile phones and other offences.


----------



## classic33 (18 May 2015)

'In December 1997, Barry Meyer was convicted of drink-driving for which he was disqualified for 18 months.

'In July 1998, he was convicted of driving while disqualified, which he had committed in June, just six months after his disqualification.

'In December 2004, he was convicted of driving a lorry with a skip which carrying a dangerous load, in other words was overloaded; displaying a tax disc which did not match the registration of the vehicle; driving without the appropriate operator's license for the vehicle.

'In May 2007, he was again convicted of driving with excess alcohol and disqualified for 36 months which would be reduced to 27 months if he undertook a driving course.

'In July 2007, he was convicted of driving a van whilst disqualified and give a further 12 month disqualification.

'In September 2008, he was stopped, driving whiles disqualified, a 7.5 tonne lorry. He gave the police a false name because he knew he was both driving whilst disqualified and driving with no insurance; he was disqualified for a further period of 14 months.'

In addition, he has previous convictions for assault, criminal damage and drug possession.

http://www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=125042


----------



## Tin Pot (18 May 2015)

classic33 said:


> 'In December 1997, Barry Meyer was convicted of drink-driving for which he was disqualified for 18 months.
> 
> 'In July 1998, he was convicted of driving while disqualified, which he had committed in June, just six months after his disqualification.
> 
> ...



Cheers.

Link seems to be dead though:


*Information*
The requested topic does not exist.


----------



## classic33 (18 May 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Cheers.
> 
> Link seems to be dead though:
> 
> ...


Got the same message when I followed the link, so went through history from earlier this morning and got it that way. Link then worked! 
Person making that post is 
roaduser66
SENIOR MEMBER
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 2:45 pm
*Re: Another cyclist killed*


by *roaduser66* » Thu Apr 09, 2015 5:03 pm


----------



## classic33 (18 May 2015)

And a search shows it exists





And the opinions reflected on there, by truck drivers, are that he got of light. All things considered.
http://www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=126212&p=1968173&hilit=barry+meyer#p1968173


----------



## glasgowcyclist (18 May 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Cheers.
> 
> Link seems to be dead though:
> 
> ...



Link worked fine for me.

GC


----------



## Tin Pot (18 May 2015)

Hmm funny. I'd tried the search as well.

Cheers.


----------



## classic33 (18 May 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Hmm funny. I'd tried the search as well.
> 
> Cheers.


Which it wouldn't let you use.


----------



## Tin Pot (18 May 2015)

classic33 said:


> Which it wouldn't let you use.


Ah


----------



## glenn forger (18 May 2015)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...n-colournow-its-black-and-white-10257632.html

The widow of a cyclist killed instantly when he was run over by a rogue driver’s tipper truck has told in heartbreaking detail how her life was torn apart by the trauma of his death.

In the aftermath, deputy headteacher Penny Johnson wrote emails to Alan Neve telling him she loved him — and sent replies from his email account to her own. She slept with his pyjamas and looked in vain for him on the Tube and as she drove around London.

“My life used to be vividly and richly coloured,” she said. “Now it’s black and white. It’s hard to accept that such a gentle, kind, sensitive man had such a horrible death.”

Neil Corre, defending, said Meyer had never served a prison sentence despite his series of bans, some of which were flouted.


----------



## CopperCyclist (18 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Neil Corre, defending, said Meyer had never served a prison sentence despite his series of bans, some of which were flouted.



That while post is heart rending. 

That's last paragraph though boggles me. Surely that's a statement that would serve the prosecution better than the defence? What point is he trying to make?


----------



## glenn forger (18 May 2015)

Dunno, I guess he's saying "Yeah, Barry is a middle-aged delinquent with a record as long as your arm, but he's never been to chokey!" Which is a sort of subdued defence I guess.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (18 May 2015)

CopperCyclist said:


> That while post is heart rending.
> 
> That's last paragraph though boggles me. Surely that's a statement that would serve the prosecution better than the defence? What point is he trying to make?


+1 fo GF. 

I guess its a form of mitigation: yes it may look like he's got a string of convictions but they're only little ones, who hasn't had a driving slap on the wrists amongst us, this could be any of you hearing this, let just forget about them shall we, nudge nudge.


----------



## classic33 (18 May 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> +1 fo GF.
> 
> I guess its a form of mitigation: yes it may look like he's got a string of convictions but they're only little ones, who hasn't had a driving slap on the wrists amongst us, this could be any of you hearing this, let just forget about them shall we, nudge nudge.


How many have drivers have been disqualified for 61/2 years, in total, out of the last 18 years from driving though?


----------



## shouldbeinbed (18 May 2015)

classic33 said:


> How many have drivers have been disqualified for 61/2 years, in total, out of the last 18 years from driving though?


Defence clutching at straws?


----------



## Pale Rider (19 May 2015)

CopperCyclist said:


> That while post is heart rending.
> 
> That's last paragraph though boggles me. Surely that's a statement that would serve the prosecution better than the defence? What point is he trying to make?



The barrister is accepting it will be prison, but because it will be the first time inside the sentence will have a bigger impact on the client.

Or put another way, the barrister is assuring the judge a shorter sentence would have the same punishment impact as a longer one would have on someone who has been to prison many times before.


----------



## Origamist (20 May 2015)

From LFGSS:



> charlie_lcc
> Traffic Commissioner has replied to our letter, they will be bringing the lorry owner in for a review of his licence etc. It is no longer Drummond Haulage Ltd. they went out of business in 2009, some of the lorries now operated directly by former owner. - More details when I get them


 
http://www.lfgss.com/conversations/232284/?offset=125#comment12286205


----------



## glenn forger (20 May 2015)

It's like one of those not dodgy companies on Watchdog, company closes down then re-opens at same premises, same directors, different name.


----------



## Drago (21 May 2015)

I guess if the law permanently banned people who commuted serious motoring offences then this poor chap would be alive today. The law isn't terribly good at protecting the public and does seem tilted too far in favour of the perceived rights of the offender - I would contend the right of the public not to be killed is higher than an offenders right to get their licence back to avoid hardship.


----------



## glenn forger (21 May 2015)

Meyer took no notice of bans drago.


----------



## glenn forger (21 May 2015)

If a low life like Meyer was desperate to drive he would drive. What are you going to do? Cars only start with biometric id? Banned drivers have to wear tags?


----------



## CopperCyclist (21 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> If a low life like Meyer was desperate to drive he would drive. What are you going to do? Cars only start with biometric id? Banned drivers have to wear tags?



Personally I'd start with putting them in prison when they ignore the ban. Not a permanent solution I accept, but improves our odds slightly.


----------



## jefmcg (21 May 2015)

CopperCyclist said:


> Personally I'd start with putting them in prison when they ignore the ban. Not a permanent solution I accept, but improves our odds slightly.


I don't really see that we have any alternative to this. If someone won't obey they ban voluntarily, there has to be something else to convince them.

Though now I wonder: crush the car they are driving? Or indeed the lorry, if they aren't licensed to drive it. That would put pressure on people not to loan their cars or employ unlicensed drivers.


----------



## Dan B (24 May 2015)

CopperCyclist said:


> Personally I'd start with putting them in prison when they ignore the ban. Not a permanent solution I accept, but improves our odds slightly.


Would it not be easier and cheaper to break their legs? For a first offence, anyway. Put their eyes out if they do it a second time


----------



## Arrowfoot (24 May 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> The barrister is accepting it will be prison, but because it will be the first time inside the sentence will have a bigger impact on the client.
> 
> Or put another way, the barrister is assuring the judge a shorter sentence would have the same punishment impact as a longer one would have on someone who has been to prison many times before.



Thanks for the explanation. I was bewildered by the defence's mitigation until you clarified it.


----------



## oldstrath (25 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> If a low life like Meyer was desperate to drive he would drive. What are you going to do? Cars only start with biometric id? Banned drivers have to wear tags?


Why would either of these be a bad idea?


----------



## Licramite (3 Jun 2015)

Deportation to a prison colony (falklands springs to mind) for a minimum of 10years would sound appropriate to me.


----------



## glenn forger (3 Jun 2015)

http://www.commercialmotor.com/late...ll-public-inquiry-following-driver-sentencing

*Alan Drummond called to full public inquiry after driver sentencing over cyclist's death*

03 June 2015

By Ashleigh Wight


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Jun 2015)

Alan Drummond has failed to appear at the preliminary hearing but the public hearing will go ahead as planned on 24th June.

http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/case-...rested-after-cyclist-dies-london-crash-150713

GC


----------



## glasgowcyclist (26 Jun 2015)

The Traffic Commissioner has banned the transport managers who employed Meyers from holding operators' licences indefinitely:

_"Neither Alan Drummond nor Colin Drummond attended the public inquiry on June 24.

In a written statement the Traffic Commissioner explained that both transport managers had lost their good repute and both were disqualified with immediate effect and for an indefinite period of time. 

Alan Drummond was disqualified from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any traffic area, or being the director of any company holding or obtaining such as licence. 

Colin Drummond was disqualified from acting as a transport manager on any operator’s licence in any member state of the EU. Before he can act as a transport manager again he must appear before the Traffic Commissioner at a hearing in order to re-establish his repute. 

The Commissioner went on to say in his written statement: ‘From the police evidence I have seen, which includes a transcript of an interview with Alan Drummond, I find that the operator wrongly took on trust Barry Meyer’s assurance that he possessed the correct driving entitlement and never bothered to check whether this was really so, even after Mr Meyer had “forgotten” to bring in his licence for checking, something which should have set off alarm bells. I find that, through their negligence, Alan and Colin Drummond allowed a person to drive a Heavy Goods Vehicle who should clearly not have been allowed to do so. The results were fatal."_​
GC


----------



## fimm (26 Jun 2015)

Well that's something. Thank you for following this and telling us about it, @glasgowcyclist .


----------



## glenn forger (26 Jun 2015)

Up until five weeks ago those two low-lifes had vehicles operating on London's roads.


----------



## Dan B (26 Jun 2015)

So, bets that the same people pop up again running the same crappy operation in a year's time with Mrs Drummond's name[*] on the paperwork?

[*] or other close relative, if there is no Mrs Drummond


----------



## glenn forger (26 Jun 2015)

The full might of the law has descended on the Drummond's and they will have to bear all the costs and inconvenience of, er, changing their stationery.


----------



## subaqua (26 Jun 2015)

http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/case-...rested-after-cyclist-dies-london-crash-150713

more info if people want it.

these 2 are truly the scumbags of the transport industry, and I am horrified by their actions and negligence . funny how the pressures and burdens didn't seem to affect them until they were due before transport commisioners


----------



## subaqua (26 Jun 2015)

Dan B said:


> So, bets that the same people pop up again running the same crappy operation in a year's time with Mrs Drummond's name[*] on the paperwork?
> 
> [*] or other close relative, if there is no Mrs Drummond




possibly NOT if you read the full ruling on the link i posted. they have been banned from hoplding directorships or being involved


----------



## glenn forger (26 Jun 2015)

What sanctions does Mrs Drummond face? You are naive if you think this is an effective sanction, they've already changed the company name once, they'll just do it again.


----------



## glenn forger (26 Jun 2015)

subaqua said:


> http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/case-...rested-after-cyclist-dies-london-crash-150713
> 
> more info if people want it.



That's the link GC just posted.

*Mod Note*: Post Edited


----------



## benb (26 Jun 2015)

The only effective sanction would be prosecuting for corporate manslaughter.


----------



## glenn forger (26 Jun 2015)

How come none of this was aired in the Dennis Putz trial? Exactly the same, multiple banned driver walked in off the street and got a job driving a lorry in the capital. If all the driver has to do is say "I lost my licence" and that's accepted then it's like sending him out on the roads with a loaded gun.


----------



## glenn forger (26 Jun 2015)

> the registered office is in Canning Town. The address appears to be a recently built industrial site next to the closed pub.
> 
> This operating base was a requested change in August 2013 one month after the fatal crash - you will need to search the VOSA online resources under publications for licence OK1046680 and A&D for 20 August 2013.
> 
> Whilst you are using the search facility you might also want to look at recently granted licence OK1133972 which appears to share the same operating base postcode, and similar location.



http://www.westendextra.com/news/20...ter-death-cyclist-unlicensed-driver-sent-jail


----------



## subaqua (26 Jun 2015)

glenn forger said:


> That's the link GC just posted.
> 
> *Mod Note*: Post Edited



I didn't click thr link GC posted, I read the road justice report elsewhere and saw some of the info.

*Mod Note*: Post Edited


----------



## glenn forger (26 Jun 2015)

> I'd suggest that those reading this (and Road CC) might like to look up OK1133972 SN (A&D issue 3922) and note the operators surname, location of registered office, and location of operating base.
> 
> They might also note the change of operating base for OK1046680 (NOT OB1083502 as incorrectly posted by previous poster) per A&D 3899 applied for in August 2013 (one month after the fatal crash) and that the vehicle involved (vanity plate S77 DHL) was recently noted SORN.
> 
> ...



http://road.cc/content/news/152939-haulage-company-under-investigation-employing-killer-driver


----------



## glenn forger (4 Jul 2015)

Predictably:



> The Drummond saga may not end there. According to the cycling charity CTC, in November 2014, a Hayley Caroline Drummond applied to set up a new operator, HCD London, based at an address near to that of AJ Drummond, which was granted in March 2015. CTC has alerted the Traffic Commissioner, so that he can investigate whether they are linked.


----------



## glenn forger (3 Feb 2016)

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co....illing_cyclist_alan_neve_in_holborn_1_4403238

A lorry driver jailed after crushing a cyclist to death has today failed to get his jail sentence quashed.

Barry Meyer, 54, killed music industry executive Alan Neve who was cycling to work in the West End from his east London home at Poplar.


----------



## benb (3 Feb 2016)

glenn forger said:


> http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co....illing_cyclist_alan_neve_in_holborn_1_4403238
> 
> A lorry driver jailed after crushing a cyclist to death has today failed to get his jail sentence quashed.
> 
> Barry Meyer, 54, killed music industry executive Alan Neve who was cycling to work in the West End from his east London home at Poplar.



Good that he lost the appeal, but 3½ years seems very lenient in the first place. I wouldn't mind the short custodial sentence if it was accompanied by a lifetime driving ban - do the courts ever pass those out?


----------



## Licramite (3 Feb 2016)

Kind of blows - cycling isn't dangerous- out the window, with dicks like him on the road. I only whish it was an isolated incident - but it ain't.


----------



## jefmcg (3 Feb 2016)

Licramite said:


> Kind of blows - cycling isn't dangerous- out the window, with dicks like him on the road. I only whish it was an isolated incident - but it ain't.


Despite incidents like this, cycling is still safer than not exercising.


----------



## Origamist (3 Feb 2016)

It's a shame the judge could not extend his sentence.


----------



## Origamist (4 Feb 2016)

User said:


> They could only do that if the CPS had appealed the original sentence for being too lenient. They didn't.



That's my understanding - the CPS were not likely to appeal because he received a sentence of three and half years (max sentence: 5 years). However, given the late nature of his guilty plea and the aggravating factors, he could have got a slightly longer sentence, all the same.

The "shame" was that the CPS didn't go with the causing death by dangerous driving in the first place and I'm glad the Judge upheld the original sentence.


----------

