Just Six Months For Killing A Cyclist

[BSRU]

Just a measly 6 months for killing a cyclist, it beggars belief.

http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/case-study/cyclist-killed-crash-risby-suffolk-71012

 

[Ganymede]

"CTC's view:
Again we see far more emphasis in court on the impact of a fatal collision on the perpetrator of the collision than on the victims (i.e. the bereaved’s family).

It doesn’t matter how charitable a person is, this does not affect their form of driving, therefore, although a suspended sentence is appropriate in this case, it should have been accompanied by a much longer driving ban and possibly a re-test."

Exactly. Being a "good person" should only very rarely be a mitigating factor. Being a good person should actually mean that you're LESS likely to commit a crime, not that you should be excused when you do. Sheesh.

 

[Spinney]

Just a measly 6 months for killing a cyclist, it beggars belief.

http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/case-study/cyclist-killed-crash-risby-suffolk-71012

It's not 6 months at all. It's nothing - it's a suspended sentence.
So she only gets to do the 6 months (with time off for good behaviour?) if she kills another cyclist in the next 12 months.

 

[Dan B]

The prison sentence aspect is neither here nor there. She should not be allowed to drive any more. That would be fair and proportionate punishment.

"Punishment" or not, it would certainly be a prudent course of action if this is the standard of her driving. Driving is a privilege extended by licence, not a fundamental human right

 

[BSRU]

The prison sentence aspect is neither here nor there. She should not be allowed to drive any more. That would be fair and proportionate punishment.

The prison sentence is important as she killed a human being through her gross negligence.
There were no "cop-out" mitigating circumstances as it was a sunny day, dry road and she had clear view of what was ahead as it was a straight road.

 

[Beebo]

I have to agree with TMN - what benefit would society gain from sending this lady to prison. If her driving and state of mind is this poor she should never drive again.

 

[ASC1951]

Given that we know absolutely nothing about the circumstances of the case beyond the report in a pressure group's website, this is just pointless speculation. She appears to have been given a sentence close to the maximum for those circumstances - look at the detailed sentencing guidelines here. http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_causing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf
I used to spend a fair bit of time in the criminal courts. Just because barristers warble on about the defendant's charitable works, and it gets reported, that doesn't mean that the judge lets it affect the sentence.

 

[Brandane]

The prison sentence aspect is neither here nor there. She should not be allowed to drive any more. That would be fair and proportionate punishment.

She should be banned from driving for a very long time, if not forever. A jail sentence would be handy too. Not that it will bring the victim back, but it might just sharpen up drivers observation skills if they were to read about her getting 5 years in prison. As it stands, they will continue to drive around not giving a toss because if they kill someone they will get a short ban and might have to spend a few hours cutting a pensioners grass.
British justice across the board just stinks.

 

[Peter Armstrong]

“For whatever reason Miss Lumley-Holmes cannot recollect the incident very clearly. She doesn’t recall seeing Mr Evans at all before the collision.”

Bloody hell, she should never be allowed to drive again, If you cannot see objects nor remember anything, why the hell is this person allowed to operate a vehicle?

 

[Ganymede]

I used to spend a fair bit of time in the criminal courts. Just because barristers warble on about the defendant's charitable works, and it gets reported, that doesn't mean that the judge lets it affect the sentence.

I'm sure that's often true, and should indeed be the case. However in this case the judge is quoted:

"Judge John Holt said the death of Mr Evans had been a tragedy for all involved, including Lumley-Holmes who had made a ‘remarkable contribution’ to the community through charity work."

Which makes it look like he thought it was a factor.

I have to say, if someone does do a lot of charity work involving driving, and then gets banned, it is often awful for the people he or she was helping, who suffer as a result of the driving ban. However, it's actually not imposition of the ban itself that causes the suffering, it is the original careless/dangerous driving by the person who should know better.

My sister suffers poor health and works hard, so when her stupid husband managed to clock up 12 points speeding (in 3-point increments, the last one a month inside the time when the first 3 would have expired) we were absolutely furious with him because of the burden he put on her during his driving ban. He just wasn't thinking about her - he was a serial offender and only the ban and its fallout made him think.

 

[numbnuts]

A life is very cheap these days

 

[Linford]

The prison sentence aspect is neither here nor there. She should not be allowed to drive any more. That would be fair and proportionate punishment.

So if someone told you that the only way you can get around in future is to walk, cycle or take public transport, would you consider that to be a punishment ?

Nothing can bring the cyclist back, and no sentence can be adequate to compensate for the loss to their family. Should a long sentence be seen as state sanctioned revenge...I don't think so.
She should have lost her licence for at least 5 years, and ordered to take an extended restest if applying again.

 

[PpPete]

It's a question of proportionality surely?
In a case I know of personally - Dangerous Driving, but in which no one was injured, and no material damage was done, the driver was given the same 6 months suspended for a year, 12 month ban, extended retest, a very significant contribution to prosecution cost, and only a lesser amount of community service (120 hours instead of 200).
I'm not saying either that sentence or the one in the OP is "wrong", but with so little difference between the sentences one can only conclude that either
(as Numbnuts says above) a [cyclist's] life is cheap
or the sentencing guidelines need looking at.

 

[Linford]

It's a question of proportionality surely?
In a case I know of personally - Dangerous Driving, but in which no one was injured, and no material damage was done, the driver was given the same 6 months suspended for a year, 12 month ban, extended retest, a very significant contribution to prosecution cost, and only a lesser amount of community service (120 hours instead of 200).
I'm not saying either that sentence or the one in the OP is "wrong", but with so little difference between the sentences one can only conclude that either
(as Numbnuts says above) a [cyclist's] life is cheap
or the sentencing guidelines need looking at.

That would apply equally if it were another driver, or a pedestrian.
Life is cheap...as I said...how do they put a price on a life...£200 for a beggar, £20million for a fat cat city banker. It was explained o me by a police officer how they sentencing works....you fine on the offence by code, not by consequence. Loss of earnings or amenity from the death of an individual is a civil issue, not a criminal one.

 

[PpPete]

That would apply equally if it were another driver, or a pedestrian.
Loss of earnings or amenity from the death of an individual is a civil issue, not a criminal one.

So you'd suggest the deceased person's family take out a civil case against the driver ?
Maybe some campaigning body (like the CTC ?) could offer underwrite the costs of such actions?
That should provide an element of "deterrence" over and above the current (lenient ? ) criminal sentences.