You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Don't think this has been done already.
Write up from Cycling Weekly and Evening Standard
The CPS went with causing serious injury by dangerous driving, GBH and criminal damage. The "serious injury" crime is relatively new and increased the maximum possible sentence from 2 years to 5.
The defence seems to have convinced the jury that this wasn't a deliberate act, but rather reckless use of a car (the only way I can think of to get the verdicts given). The Judge seems less convinced.
Quotes:
"The jury acquitted ... of GBH with intent, the judge saying he had “used his car as a weapon effectively”.
"came back to take photos of ... lying on the floor with serious injuries ... did not call an ambulance"
What a pathetic excuse for human being.
Isn't a judge able to over-turn a jury verdict if he or she thinks it a gross miscarriage of justice?
Indeed, can a judge not send the verdict for review / appeal somehow?
No. They can grant an absolute discharge if they don't like a conviction. There are some limited options for appeals against an acquittal but not applicable here. The prosecution can appeal a lenient sentence if convicted.
See also Tolpuddle Martyrs and Clive Ponting.
Tbh the jury's verdict isn't manifestly perverse.
I just can't understand why they never seem to get a total ban from driving. Why the **** should he be able to driver again after showing total neglect of his privilege!!!
Could see an interesting civil case getting made with the judge making comments like that
Be out in a year give or take , having caused life changing injuries to his victim. Showing no remorse whatsoever , taking photos, why ? for facebook ?
Use a gun , crossbow, knife, baseball bat etc to cause that level of injury would see a tougher sentance. Jury made of car drivers , probably from London who have to put up with the scurge of cyclsists every day sympathise with the attacker ( because that is what he is )
Probably given the max sentance within guidlines for the crime of which he was charged with by the CPS
They should make insurance companies hike premiums for idiots like this tool, clearly a liability.
Isn’t a judge able to over-turn a jury verdict if he or she thinks it a gross miscarriage of justice?
That would kind of undermine the whole point of the jury system. The appeal court can set aside the verdict and ask for a retrial. A judge can sentence very leniently (even to the point of an absolute discharge) to somewhat balance a jury convicting someone where circumstances may mitigate the offence. Doing the opposite, and mentioning “using as a weapon” just after the GBH charge was found not guilty I think leaves the sentence potentially wide open to appeal (of course if the offender / legal team think they got off ok they may well not want to open the can of worms).
I just can’t understand why they never get a total ban on driving
Sentencing generally works on the basis that people can be rehabilitated and learn from their errors. A life ban is legally possible but exceptionally rare, and if this is the first offence would almost certainly be challenged at appeal. Any ban over 5 years can be reviewed after 5 yrs anyway (your politicians wrote that into law). As a point of principal do you think that someone who is stupid, at 21 will automatically be unable to be sensible at 63?
It’s a shame there couldn’t be some form of psychological risk test for getting your license back rather than just an extended retest.
they do. With a prison sentence and a four year ban his premiums will be huge... BUT... if they are totally ridiculous it just encourages people to drive without insurance which is not good for any of us.they should make insurance companies hike premiums for idiots
Similar sentencing and 5 year ban here
https://west-midlands.police.uk/news/jail-speeding-hit-and-run-driver-who-ploughed-cyclist
Although he didn’t stop to take pics of the victim.
Yet yesterday's news reports scumbag runs over copper with car in premeditated 'attack' and gets 12 years. I'm sure there'll be all sorts of why's and wherefores to justify the situation but at the simplest level, man gets run over whilst on bike, ~2 years, copper gets run over, 12 years.
yea not understanding why he only got 2 years
I agree with Boblio.
However I assume that running over a Copper is considered to be a worse crime as the offender is probably doing it to evade justice.
I just can’t understand why they never seem to get a total ban from driving.
61-year-old Craig Perrott was cycling in Tooting, London when he remonstrated with Abdool Choonka, 70, for pulling out of a junction and nearly hitting him.
At that age he's unlikely to be driving for much longer anyway is he?
61-year-old Craig Perrott was cycling in Tooting, London when he remonstrated with Abdool Choonka, 70, for pulling out of a junction and nearly hitting him.
At that age he’s unlikely to be driving for much longer anyway is he?
70 isn't that old, anymore. He could be driving for another 20 years or more
'kin hell. Cyclists really are the lowest form of life. You'd probably get a stiffer sentence for doing the same to a dog.
"man gets run over whilst on bike, ~2 years, copper gets run over, 12 years"
The difference is that the first was a conviction for dangerous driving and the second a conviction for GBH with intent. One is a more serious offence than the other.
The juries thought that the cyclist case was an accident and the policeman a deliberate act. That's why the punishment is different. Both juries were offered a GBH charge so you can't blame the police or CPS (this time). Obviously helicopter and body worn footage helps prove the GBH.