Driver tries to kill cyclist, hits building.

[jarlrmai]

I'd accept no jail, but a lifetime driving ban to be honest.

 

[buggi]

You might be pleasantly surprised. From what I remember when I used to work in criminal law, when it comes to violence, women tend to get tougher sentences, even if they have children.

 

[RoubaixCube]

I was gonna ask if it was this guy in the volvo but nevermind

 

[benb]

I'm going to predict 12 months suspended for 2 years, plus a 12 month driving ban. Plus a fine of a few hundred £.

 

[swee'pea99]

From the Surrey Comet site...

"This woman is a mess I see her around new Malden and how she speaks to her children is a disgrace so no shock in seeing her mug to this story line,chuck the book at her she tried to kill someone she should be up for attempted murder makes you wonder what she's like behind closed doors if she can act in such a way in front of children what must she be like behind closed doors send her to prison ban her from driving and take her children from her she's a risk to herself and them not stable mentally what so ever.
Only last week she was dragging her children to school screaming with blacked out eyes says it all really"

Sounds like the jury saw through her without too much difficulty; let's hope the judge does too. I think they tend to take a pretty dim view of barefaced liars in their court, and it was a singularly nasty incident too. Jail time is for once a real possibility. The only problem being, she doesn't sound like the kind of person who will learn from the experience. She'll go in a vicious cretinous daffodil, and come out a vicious cretinous daffodil. Probably with an added grudge against cyclists...

 

[Cubist]

Sentencing guidelines for the substantive offence of malicious wounding start at 12 years and can be adjusted downwards depending on various factors. Attempted offences have no specific guidelines that I can find, but severity of harm is a factor classifying the offence as higher gravity. Also, interestingly, the vulnerability of the victim.

If we're having a sweepstake, I predict a ban and a suspended sentence.

Women convicted of dishonesty offences are more likely to receive a custodial sentence in my experience.

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

[QUOTE 3941523, member: 45"]Do you really think that the driver wanted to kill the cyclist?[/QUOTE]
I know what you mean, but it could have well resulted in death, and if you are responsible for a tonne of metal on wheels, you should appreciate that such actions could result in death or you shouldn't really hold a license...

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

I dont think these things and black and white which is why a jury will decide on the facts of each case.

Are they actually going to charge them with murder? It seems their main aim was to avoid a stinger rather than aiming to kill him.

I think if she had killed him she could have been charged with murder as it looks like she intended to harm him (and did). You have the body.

As he is alive its harder to prove she intended to kill him, as she didnt..

So in @0-markymark-0 's example above, as long as I shut my eyes as I fire the machine gun out of the window down the crowded high street I can look forward to arguing that I didn't actually intend to kill anyone?

 

[slowmotion]

In the circumstances, I can't help feeling that this poor guy got a very raw deal from the British justice system.
http://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk...ter_causing_death_of_Whitchurch_man/?ref=mmpg

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

Out of interest, although not a 'contributing factor', the cars front tyres were worn below the legal limit. Shouldn't that be thrown at her as well?

 

[oldstrath]

[QUOTE 3941523, member: 45"]Do you really think that the driver wanted to kill the cyclist?[/QUOTE]
To be honest, I can't see why else she would have driven a Q7 at him. At the very least people like this should never be allowed to drive again.

By the way, I do understand the legal niceties of all this, but I just don't think they make a lot of sense. The law apparently claims that intention is important, but appears to judge this in part by the essentially random outcome. This woman will probably end up with a short ban, a fine, and a suspended sentence, whereas if the cyclist had died she probably would be imprisoned. But the intent would not have changed, only the random oucome.

 

[Dan B]

Perhaps "attempted purchase of a Q7" should be an offence in itself.

 

[Sara_H]

I'd be interested in the sentencing here. The fella that ran me over had threatened to kill me (twice) followed me and then ran me over. He was sentenced to two years, served seven months (still waiting to recieve compensation 15 months later).
My perpetrator had previous for a very similar offence though, and was still serving a suspended sentence for that offence.

 

[glenn forger]

If you drive a car into a building it's possible that stuff may end up in your car. Sharp bits of wood or metal. Pyne was so angry at the cyclist and wanted to hurt him so much she took that risk with "at least" four kids in the car with her. If that isn't recklessly endangering kids, in another unhelpful and muddled comparison with an unrelated case in America you can get life if you smoke crack when pregnant and the baby dies.

 

[Inertia]

So in @0-markymark-0 's example above, as long as I shut my eyes as I fire the machine gun out of the window down the crowded high street I can look forward to arguing that I didn't actually intend to kill anyone?

I guess it depends if you can convince a jury that you didnt intend to kill anyone