Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[GrumpyGregry]

Greg, really? read what you keep typing, clearly this has triggered something, but these posts don't seem like you.

did someone force him to ride a track bike on the road? To post what he posted after the accident. To blame the victim during the trial?

 

[Milkfloat]

did someone force him to ride a track bike on the road? To post what he posted after the accident. To blame the victim during the trial?

I look forward to seeing the thousands of cases that have occurred in the past and those that will happen in the future where a motorist does the same to have the same outcome of 18 months.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I look forward to seeing the thousands of cases that have occurred in the past and those that will happen in the future where a motorist does the same to have the same outcome of 18 months.

Completely different argument. I don't agree with the unduly lenient sentences handed out to drivers that kill in "accidents" and have engaged with campaigns/activities that seek to address that. That some motorists - and it is only those that actually get prosecuted - get off lightly is not a reason for all other road users to get off lightly.

 

[Milkfloat]

Completely different argument. I don't agree with the unduly lenient sentences handed out to drivers that kill in "accidents" and have engaged with campaigns/activities that seek to address that. That some motorists - and it is only those that actually get prosecuted - get off lightly is not a reason for all other road users to get off lightly.

Agreed - but it smacks of hypocrisy that because he was a knob on a bike he suffers far more than knob in a car.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Well it'd be incredible for a 18 year old to show that level of self awareness.

The way I see it he's a damaged young man who took to thrill seeking via riding illegal fixed wheel bikes, as both a hobby and initially a part of a courier job. He didn't go out that day to kill someone or cause a collision. He acted stupidly to be riding an illegal bike but jailing a mentally vulnerable man for an accident is harsh to me.

And that's leaving aside the issue of the media smear campaign against him, which attacked him for having a neck tattoo and for not walking to court everyday with tears smeared all over his face.

"The way I see it he's a damaged young man who took to thrill seeking via driving cars illegally, as both a hobby and initially a part of a courier job. He didn't go out that day to kill someone or cause a collision. He acted stupidly to be driving an car illegally but jailing a mentally vulnerable man for an accident is harsh to me."

Yeah, that could play out well in a court where everyone drives.

Our prisons are already chock full of mentally vulnerable people btw. I've met them. I've volunteered amongst them. If you aren't mentally vulnerable when you get there you likely will be once you sentence has started.

Seems we are in danger of arguing that we should make an exception because he is a cyclist and part of "our" tribe"...

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Agreed - but it smacks of hypocrisy that because he was a knob on a bike he suffers far more than knob in a car.

Agreed. 100%

I've already emailed my MP to complain that comparable sentences for drivers are often much more lenient and wasn't the govt. going do to a wholesale review before Brexit became the only game in town? A la the CTC.

 

[User482]

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...ing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf


Do we? Do we really? Or do we just assume we do because of what gets reported by the press?

For what it's worth, the CPS guidelines are online: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...ing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf

Yes, we do know that. As the guidelines you link to make clear, it's far easier to establish careless driving than it is to establish dangerous driving. Mr Alliston wasn't drunk, wasn't on the phone, wasn't speeding, and made at least some attempt to avoid the victim. Unlike your absurd example, he didn't use his bicycle as a weapon in an attempt to deliberately injure her.

I think a combination of his attitude, questionable defence, questionable expert evidence and the unusual nature of the case were all important factors in this conviction.

I do have some sympathy with a point made by @GrumpyGregry earlier - that perhaps this is the kind of sentence that ought to be passed where a death has occurred because of a road user's carelessness (accepting for a moment that the causal link has been established). Yet there remains the problem of dual standards.

ETA: he wasn't found guilty of causing the death, was he? In which case, the comparisons with death by driving are invalid. What's the usual sentence for causing an injury by careless driving?

 

[Pale Rider]

Alliston was acquitted of manslaughter, so comparing his sentence to that for drivers convicted of killing is not properly valid.

It seems unsatisfactory to me for someone to be sentenced for 'causing grievous bodily harm' when they killed someone, but the judge cannot go behind the jury's verdict.

I'm aware it's the view of Alliston's barrister that the manslaughter laws are a mess and need reform.

I'm given to understand Alliston's legal team intend to make a statement to that effect.

But intricate reform of the law, while worthy, is essentially a dull topic so I'm not sure how much of any statement along those lines will get reported in mainstream media.

 

[Yellow Fang]

Ridiculous sentence, but any case that hits the headlines gets a swingeing sentence.

 

[User482]

Alliston's sentence probably reflects his lack of insight and remorse. He was his own worst enemy.

You are probably right, but I don't think being a dickhead is sufficient grounds for locking people up.

 

[User482]

He's a dickhead who killed someone, and who has expressed no insight or remorse. I think that's grounds for giving him a custodial to contemplate his actions.

He wasn't found guilty of killing someone. He was found guilty of causing an injury by wilful neglect.

Just as I would expect a motorist in the same position to be given a custodial sentence.

It's a reasonable point: what would we expect the sentence to be for a motorist who causes an injury through careless driving?

 

[srw]

It's a reasonable point: what would we expect the sentence to be for a motorist who causes an injury through careless driving?

Because the offence exists, the driver would be charged with causing death by careless driving (or, quite possibly, dangerous driving - you'd need an expert to decide which one the right charge is). There is no equivalent offence for cylists, and the jury decided that manslaughter wasn't the right conviction for Alliston, so the only charge available was the one he got dinged for.

For causing death by careless driving, the sentencing guidelines are:

So if we pretend that Alliston was a driver, not a cyclist, what does this tell us? I think we can agree that Alliston's behaviour fell not far short of dangerous "driving" (he knew by calling out that he was in danger of hitting the victim and he didn't even slow down), and there are two aggravating factors:
1. Other offences - a bike which was wasn't road-legal
5. Irresponsible behaviour - he falsely claimed that the victim was responsible.

So I suspect the sentence wouldn't have been all that different. But you really need a sentencing expert to tell you.

 

[User482]

I didn't say he was found guilty of killing someone. I said he killed someone, which is a statement of fact.

You said

He's a dickhead who killed someone, and who has expressed no insight or remorse. I think that's grounds for giving him a custodial to contemplate his actions.

He was tried and acquitted of manslaughter. Your point is not relevant to his sentence.

I can't say specifically, as it would rely on lots of factors - including their insight and remorse.

I think it is fair to say that many motorists seem to get away with little or no sanction - but we don't address that by arguing that cyclists should be treated similarly leniently. We should be seeking for the sentencing of motorists to reflect the gravity of the situation rather than looking for a lowest common denominator solution.

The problem with that is duality of standards...

 

[Buddfox]

I am not sure the issue is with sentencing of drivers who kill others, whether by careless or dangerous driving. It is that they are found not guilty more often than seems reasonable, and receive no sentence. So just comparing the sentencing guidelines doesn't capture the whole story.

 

[User482]

Because the offence exists, the driver would be charged with causing death by careless driving (or, quite possibly, dangerous driving - you'd need an expert to decide which one the right charge is). There is no equivalent offence for cylists, and the jury decided that manslaughter wasn't the right conviction for Alliston, so the only charge available was the one he got dinged for.

For causing death by careless driving, the sentencing guidelines are:

View attachment 374069

So if we pretend that Alliston was a driver, not a cyclist, what does this tell us? I think we can agree that Alliston's behaviour fell not far short of dangerous "driving" (he knew by calling out that he was in danger of hitting the victim and he didn't even slow down), and there are two aggravating factors:
1. Other offences - a bike which was wasn't road-legal
5. Irresponsible behaviour - he falsely claimed that the victim was responsible.

So I suspect the sentence wouldn't have been all that different. But you really need a sentencing expert to tell you.

All you're doing is regurgitating sentencing guidelines for an offence that is not comparable with the offence Mr Alliston was convicted of. I might equally argue that if guilt was not established for manslaughter, there are grounds to believe it could not be established for "death by driving" either. And you're ignoring an important mitigating factor: it is not disputed that the actions of the victim contributed to the offence.