18 months?

[swee'pea99]

Sentencing Moult, the judge, Recorder Dan Prowse, said of Cook’s spitting: ‘It was plainly a provocative act but your response was grossly disproportionate. You deliberately drove into and over Mr Cook, accelerating hard as you did so having aimed your vehicle directly at him and he went under your vehicle.

“Your wife was shrieking and was plainly frightened but your response, knowing you had just run that man down, was to say the word ‘prick’.

“You were consumed by anger and wanted a confrontation with Mr Cook. You deliberately ran that man down in anger in an action that could have been fatal.’

That's as near attempted murder as makes no difference, and for that you get 18 months?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-for-running-over-cyclist-who-spat-on-his-car

 

[Joffey]

Disgusting

 

[Bazzer]

Out on licence in 9 months and only a 3 year ban.

 

[Arjimlad]

If I tried that with a shotgun I would expect ten times that sentence.

 

[Pale Rider]

Presumably the cyclist thought a coffin dodger was unlikely to react in that way.

I'm not sure if locking up a bloke of that age for longer would achieve much.

It's most unlikely he will be able to drive legally again.

He'll be 77 when the ban expires, and he will still have to pass an extended driving test.

Obtaining insurance at that age with that recent conviction won't be easy.

Not that he deserves to drive again, so there is some justice there.

 

[icowden]

Presumably the cyclist thought a coffin dodger was unlikely to react in that way.
I'm not sure if locking up a bloke of that age for longer would achieve much.

Worth saying that the maximum sentence available would have been 5 years. After mitigations this has been decided at 18 months.
I presume that there is a level of contrition such that the Judge felt it would be pointless to issue a longer sentence.

 

[wafter]

Come on; remember it's not like it was an actual person - only a cyclist...

 

[icowden]

Come on; remember it's not like it was an actual person - only a cyclist...

It wouldn't matter if it was a cyclist, a pedestrian or another motorist. The offence has sentencing guidelines that the Judge has to follow.
If you don't like them, lobby your MP.

Personally I'd like to see improvements to the restorative justice element. How about he has to sell his car and the proceeds go to compensate the cyclist?

 

[Oldhippy]

Nowhere near enough! Minimum 10 years, crush vehicle and massive financial payment of murderers assets to the victims family if he had one.

 

[icowden]

Nowhere near enough! Minimum 10 years, crush vehicle and massive financial payment of murderers assets to the victims family if he had one.

As I said - please send your correspondence to your MP or Dominic Raab. Don't forget to include a detailed assessment as to why you feel that the current sentencing guidelines are insufficient, and your costing of the increased sentences on the prison service and prison capacity.

 

[Oldhippy]

As I said - please send your correspondence to your MP or Dominic Raab. Don't forget to include a detailed assessment as to why you feel that the current sentencing guidelines are insufficient, and your costing of the increased sentences on the prison service and prison capacity.

I am aware it wouldn't happen but it would if I had my way. I am fully aware of sentencing guidelines.

 

[Nibor]

Any custodial sentance to a normally law abiding citizen will be seriously life changing.

This is treated as a driving offence when in real terms it was assualt with a deadly weapon. If the guy had got a baseball bat out of his boot and batterd the cycl;ist with it would the sentencing been any different?

 

[icowden]

This is treated as a driving offence when in real terms it was assualt with a deadly weapon. If the guy had got a baseball bat out of his boot and batterd the cycl;ist with it would the sentencing been any different?

There is no UK offence of Assault with a deadly weapon. That's an American charge. The most comparable thing we have would be Causing grievous bodily harm with intent. I think this case would be lower culpability, and the starting point would be 6 years in a 5 to 9 years custody bracket. He would likely get mitigation to reduce to 5 years and then 1/3 off for a guilty plea. So 3 and a half years or thereabouts. So about double the sentence.

I agree with you that this does seem to be a case where a better charge would be causing GBH with intent, as it isn't really a driving offence.
Interestingly there does seem to be precedent from Gwent Police of a driver being charged with GBH rather than a driving offence for a similar offence against a scooterist.

 

[Alex321]

If I tried that with a shotgun I would expect ten times that sentence.

You might expect it, but you wouldn't get it.

Nowhere near enough! Minimum 10 years, crush vehicle and massive financial payment of murderers assets to the victims family if he had one.

Even if he had been charged with GBH with intent, he wouldn't have been getting 10 years.

There is no UK offence of Assault with a deadly weapon. That's an American charge. The most comparable thing we have would be Causing grievous bodily harm with intent. I think this case would be lower culpability, and the starting point would be 6 years in a 5 to 9 years custody bracket. He would likely get mitigation to reduce to 5 years and then 1/3 off for a guilty plea. So 3 and a half years or thereabouts. So about double the sentence.

I think it would have been higher culpability, but category 3 on the level of injury - so a starting point of 5 years in a 4-7 year range. Woulod still have finished up with a sentence at least twice what he actually got.

I agree with you that this does seem to be a case where a better charge would be causing GBH with intent, as it isn't really a driving offence.
Interestingly there does seem to be precedent from Gwent Police of a driver being charged with GBH rather than a driving offence for a similar offence against a scooterist.

Absolutely. That should definitely have been the charge. He deliberately chose to attack somebody, using his car as a weapon.

It isn't impossible he could even have been charged with attempted murder - which would have been lower culpability, but still a starting point of 10 years, with a range of 7-15 years.

 

[grldtnr]

The cyclist spitting on the car, wasn't in anyway justified, but equally ,getting back in the car , deliberately driving into the 'victim' isn't justifiable either.
From my point of view as a cyclist, the sentence to the defendant is light, I say this ,as I was knocked of my bike, in an 'accident', which I think was careless driving, negligence rather than an accident.
The driver got of lightly, 11 points on his licence,and a fine, I got 6 weeks in hospital, and lifelong injury, and loss of enjoyment of cycling, who came of worse?
In mitigation, when I was hit, through no fault of my own , just in the wrong place at the wrong time, I did write of the car, when the driver struck me, smashed the screen, and stove in the roof, had I known what was coming , I would have made sure I struck the driver on my way.
Yes, it was disproportionate sentencing , it may not have been premeditated, but neither actions were justified, I do question one thing, the behaviour of the cyclist, before the initial incident with the wing mirror, what was his riding like to cause him to damage the wing mirror?