You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39876692 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39876692[/url]
She obviously planned to run the cyclist down, so why is it not attempted murder and a much lengthier sentence?
Given the cyclist had previously kicked in her wing mirror and antagonised things, then yes 3 years is probably reasonable.
3 years and 10 year driving ban would have been better.
About right, though the driving ban should be longer IMO. Perhaps it wasn't attempted murder because she didn't set out kill that cyclist that day and the final ramming was the end to a series of events.
Why the cyclist rode in front of the car I don't know. I do know I wouldn't have been there. In a similar incidents I've been careful not to put myself in a place where the car could be used as a weapon. I've given up chasing cars down after one ran a red light trying to get away and came very close to a collision.
I'd be willing to bet that if I, for example, were on my way home from a spot of cricket, got in to a heated exchange with a car driver and used my cricket bat to beat the shit out of them I'd get more than three years. Both would be instances of using something not normally considered a weapon. Yet I imagine one would result in a much longer sentence than the other.
Remember kids, cyclists aren't people, they're just cyclists 😐 kicking a wing mirror, whilst daft, is a far cry from ramming somebody with a car IMO
she should get three years for being on the phone when there's someone else in the car. There really are some dangerous moronic people around.
First thing I did on reading this article was look up the sentencing guidelines for attempted murder. The lowest starting point for spontaneous incidents (which this is) is 9 years. The range for spontaneous incidents is 6-20 years depending on various factors. On that basis, I think 3 years is very lenient, but of course for att murder (unlike successful murder) you have to prove the intent was to kill, which you'd struggle to do here without a confession.
kicking a wing mirror, whilst daft, is a far cry from ramming somebody with a car IMO
And everybody else's.
Which is why she's going to prison.
kicking a wing mirror..[is] daft
It's just not necessary and if you do that then you have to expect folk to react regardless of who's in the right. Not defending her actions in the slightest but if I'd booted off someone's miror I'd expect a come back.
3 years, though she'll probably do half that at most, is still a fair chunk of your life. If she'd have killed him it'd be a lot more, I would've thought.
Isn't murder preplanned rather spontaneous killing?
So this would be closer to manslaughter.
Rubbish sentence either way.
I'd be willing to bet that if I, for example, were on my way home from a spot of cricket, got in to a heated exchange with a car driver and used my cricket bat to [b]beat the shit out of them[/b] I'd get more than three years. Both would be instances of using something not normally considered a weapon. Yet I imagine one would result in a much longer sentence than the other.
I think it would depends how may swipes you took. If one as in this case with the car I suspect not. The 2nd third and forth are increasingly premeditated in action. The driver in this case did not reverse and have a 2nd or 3rd go.
Agree with Edukator though, infuriating a driver then getting in front of them to receive a red mist payback is almost Darwin award territory.
Isn't murder preplanned rather spontaneous killing?
Isn't that "premeditated murder" (or is that a US thing)? Murder vs manslaughter is all about intent I thought.
Person shoots someone with a shotgun, seriously injuring them.
3yrs prison and a 4 year ban from owning a shotgun.
As if.
This should never have been treated as a driving offence. The sentence is obviously ridiculously lenient and totally disproportionate to the offence which, had the criminal picked any other weapon, would have been far longer.
The "provocation" is totally irrelevant, morally and legally.
It's just not necessary and if you do that then you have to expect folk to react regardless of who's in the right.
People do daft things when angry or scared. Necessary rarely comes in to it in the heat of the moment. I once, regrettably, kicked a set of rear lights in on a car. This was after the driver had almost run me down, then pretty much said I deserved it for not paying road tax (as a pedestrian). It was his lights or him. He ran back to his car and drove off.
I called the police, told them what had happened and paid for the damage. Results would have been worse had I not moved as quickly as I did. I'm just glad I broke his lights rather than him.
I think it would depends how may swipes you took. If one as in this case with the car I suspect not. The 2nd third and forth are increasingly premeditated in action
Chasing somebody down in s mobile, seriously heavy chunk of metal and then purposefully hitting them with it has to be worth at least six bat hits. Does nobody have a comparison chat e handy? 🙂
Cougar almost right yes.
Murder is killing someone where you have the intent to kill someone or seriously harm them.
This driver should never be allowed a licence to drive a motorised vehicle in the UK for the rest of their life.
Send a simple clear message that using your car as 1.2T battering ram simply is not going to be tolerated , no matter what the provacation.
Cougar almost right yes.Murder is killing someone where you have the intent to kill someone or seriously harm them.
I think you have successfully undermined your own argument. She [i]intended[/i] to knock them off their bike. She successfully managed that. The fact that she is either too stupid, ignorant or in such a red mist that she did not consider knocking someone off their bike might kill them too does not mean she [i]intended[/i] to try and murder them.
I do agree she should never be allowed to drive again however.
funkmasterp wrote lots
Muchos lolz, especially the comparison chart of harms.
But seriously, I've done very similar on more than one occasion. How I ever got away with it I'll never know. As previously claimed, I'm quite lucky.
I have the ability to think before I act now so just shrug or at worst glare. Just not worth the potential consequences for either party, even with just fists it can go very wrong.
Convert I don't know what you are talking about.
Nowhere did I say that she should have been tried for attempted murder. That said a decent prosecution could have put together a case, but the risk of acquittal would probabaly have been high.
What I said is this should never have been treated as a driving offence. GBH is an obvious option.
My point is driving offences should be reserved for cases where the standard of driving is the relevant factor. This was a person using a car as a weapon because it was the most convenient weapon to hand. Whether it was a car or a knife or a gun is irrelevant to the offence and so the Offences Against the Person Act would have been far more appropriate prosecuting legislation.
So this would be closer to manslaughter.
You can't attempt manslaughter though.
Would be interesting to know whether she turned the corner and veered off her journey path to purposely follow the cyclist. Could you not argue that at the moment she made the turn the intent was there and therefore premeditated?
The trouble is proving intent in a World which is so tolerant generally of the utter ****wittery of the average motorist.
That she wasn't banned from driving for life (in the way that a firearm licence would be revoked for a comparable gun offence) is greatly troubling but also indicative of how society has learnt to trivialise driving-related crime no matter how callous the actions of the driver.
Life is a very long time to be banned for. 3 years in prison and 10 years trying to find work with a criminal record and no driving license is plenty of time to realise the error of your ways.
Only luck separated this driver and her being a murderer. Wouldn't want her driving anywhere near me, ever.
The trouble is proving intent in a World which is so tolerant generally of the utter ****wittery of the average motorist.
This pretty much sums it up for me. Three year sentence and a lifetime driving ban would seem like a better punishment.
What purpose would a longer sentence serve?
Would anyone else be deterred? does she need to be punished more? does she need longer to be rehabilitated?
You can't attempt manslaughter though.
Well there is that.
What purpose would a longer sentence serve?
None really. I think a lifetime ban would serve more purpose by removing a clearly volatile individual from the road. People, including me, seem to be bothered by the fact that a similarly serious incident committed with something other than a car would result in harsher measures. I could be wrong though.
I think i'll leave it to the experts. 3 years it is then
Yeah I'm with you Funk
Once again, a lenient conviction to someone using their motor vehicle as a weapon against a cyclist, IMO.
The sentence given here is the minimum I would like that van driver to get, from that recent publicised incident, where the cyclist was forced off the road during a wreckless overtake.
I think this case should have been more prison time and a longer, perhaps even lifetime, driving ban.
The courts need to show drivers that using their vehicles aggressively against other vulnerable road users will not be tolerated. I should not have to spend ~£200 on a front and rear video camera to record every road ride a take, on the off-chance some twonk tries to mame me.
People, including me, seem to be bothered by the fact that a similarly serious incident committed with something other than a car would result in harsher measures.
Isn't that just a guess though ?
Nobody seems to have come up with a suitable example where that was the case.
[url= http://www.grayandcosolicitors.co.uk/section-20-assault-and-section-18-assault-grievous-bodily-harm/ ]Section 18 and 20[/url]
I think it should fall under the section 18 category in the link. Chasing somebody down and purposefully hitting them with a car. They must have a good idea of the damage that's going to cause and it's not going to be minimal. Only my opinion of course
Neal there's a million examples. Here's one:
10 years for GBH
That plus a lifetime driving ban and I'd have been content.
Based on some recent cases I'm amazed she got three years. An acquittal or suspended sentence would be more likely
Apparently you can now get ten years in the slammer for downloading a film.
So it is about in line with the current craziness.
She intended to knock them off their bike.
I don't how you can prove what she intended either way, including that she 'only' intended to knock him off.
Nobody seems to have come up with a suitable example where that was the case.
Quite interesting to compare the case to this one:
[url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer) ]Tony Martin[/url]
i think if i had used a disproportionately large object to ram a cyclist into a tree causing a three day stay in hospital the GBH charge would get me more than the 3 years she got
It is not just a driving offence its just a a common assault with a vehicle as the weapon of choice. Clearly she must have realised it stood a good chance of serious harm section 18 offence IMHO
Its pretty hard to argue the offence was not a deliberate hitting of him with the car;actually its impossible...she did not even deny it she said her BF did it not that she never meant to do it it was just a swerve to avoid a ???? and i drove off because??I don't how you can prove what she intended either way
Honestly she clearly rammed them
WHy or what damage she wanted to inflict is conjecture [ without a confession] but that she did it intentionally is not in question
It's assault with a deadly weapon, let's not mince words here.
Manslaughter at best.
manslaughter requires an death but where you did not intend to murder them..a punch to the head resulting in death being an example of manslaughter
Given its an unintentional murder you cannot be charged for an attempted manslaughter only attempted murder hence we have the assault laws
Not quite Junk - the mens rea for murder is that the intent is to cause either death or serious harm.
Ok that's fine, assault with a deadly weapon then.
Is there a legal difference between stabbing someone with a kitchen knife in the heat of argument, or running someone over with a 800kg vehicle due to road rage?
Matty yes it seems that there is and that is what a number of us (including me) find so incredibly frustrating.
Crowd funded private prosecution anyone? I'd chip in £100 for that.
For the offence she was charged wit!h and convicted of, the punishment is appropriate. She was charged with the offence most likely to secure conviction. She would have done better to have pleaded guilty.
It is unlikely that more serious charges would have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Pity her newborn.
[quote=curto80 ]What I said is this should never have been treated as a driving offence. GBH is an obvious option.
I tend to agree - GBH seems the obvious option, and from my understanding of the law it's fully evidenced for that.
However:
[quote=Junkyard ]i think if i had used a disproportionately large object to ram a cyclist into a tree causing a three day stay in hospital the GBH charge would get me more than the 3 years she got
The first thing I always do with cases like this is check the sentencing guidelines. The maximum sentence for GBH appears to be 4 years, which is lower than the maximum sentence for what she was charged with which is 5 years. So looking at that it appears the CPS got this one right.
There is a more serious offence - causing GBH with intent, which is what the chap with the 10 year sentence was convicted of. Whilst I'd like to think she could have been convicted of that, it would have left the defence lawyer with some relatively straightforward ways of introducing reasonable doubt.
I agree the driving ban could and should have been longer, but I'm putting away my pitchfork regarding the prison sentence. TBH as conviction and sentencing of motorists driving their cars into cyclists go, this one isn't actually too far off the mark when compared with the likely sentence for similar actions using a different weapon - it's certainly sufficient to be a deterrent, and any longer is unlikely to make a difference to that. I'll save my anger for greater miscarriages of justice.
After the last thread on a car vs cyclist death I was trying to find out any CPS/COPFS guidelines on why they don't use some of the assault type legislation for these incidents, but without success. I suspect it's to do with what offence is the video editing more likely to get a conviction for, but would like to know definitively what the reason is. It's a question, and a good one, that comes up each time this sort of thing happens.
Glad she got a custodial, nothing else to add.
As above TGA, they appear to have made the right choice in this case and charged her with the offence with the longest maximum sentence out of those they were likely to get a conviction for. I was expecting GBH to result in a heavier sentence, but I was wrong. I reckon in this particular case there probably was a good chance of getting a conviction on a GBH charge - all the required evidence and no obvious easy "reasonable doubt" for a defence barrister. It might have been a useful precedent, but the chances are she would have got a shorter sentence if convicted of that (I'm struggling to put it into the highest category).
She probably committed GBH with intent, but given the information in the media I'd not have chanced that if I was the CPS lawyer - balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt, and that's just a fair assessment without considering a barrister without morals like Janick Fielding (re Helen Measures).
Just for once I feel fairly happy that the judicial system has at least come out with the intended result in a driver vs cyclist case (whether the intended result is correct is another argument, but one which could equally apply to a whole load of GBH cases not involving cyclists).
As always, IANAL, though I probably have a better understanding of the law than most who aren't.
Not enough but better than expected. Guidelines/standards are wrong IMHO . if you chose to do something that just might have fatal results like this then you are trying to kill. I have no respect for the principle that you were provoked or didn't think.
However in the disgusting nanny state we live in its way better than expected so I am sort of "happy" with the result. I expected the care issue to keep her out. I do expect that it softened the blow thought. Ban should be for life but so should driving using a phone or knocking up more than one 12 point ban
I'm surprised the sentence wasn't a little longer given she tried to weasel out of the allegation by blaming her 'abusive' boyfriend for 'coercing' her into chasing down the cyclist, and even claiming he grabbed the wheel to collide with him.
But hey ho, I'm sure the judge has his reasons for leniency for an unrepentant liar who almost killed a cyclist through a deliberate assault.
its weird replace that car with anything - even a broom- and I am getting an assault chargeI suspect it's to do with what offence is the video editing more likely to get a conviction for,
Whatever the outcome I bet the cyclist wishes he'd minded his own business. It's all very very well remonstrating with strangers about their behaviour, but you never know who you're dealing with.
She's not exactly conducted herself well during the trial, but the fact that she's four months pregnant will have been taken into consideration.
Personally, I'd also have liked to see her receive a ten year driving ban, but ultimately when she does get her license back she'll be practically uninsurable.
Oh and I agree with this in principle:
Crowd funded private prosecution anyone? I'd chip in £100 for that
Given the number of times we see drivers get off with a slap on the wrist, I thought the judge's comments and custodial sentence represented some progress. Though why on earth she should ever get her licence back is beyond me.
but the fact that she's four months pregnant will have been taken into consideration.
It's remarkable that she was fortunate enough to fall pregnant shortly before a situation where she was facing serious jail time.
Her whole approach to the trial was to game the system as cynically as possible.
To be fair to the judge, actually putting her behind bars for the entire pregnancy/postnatal period probably shows she was pretty unsuccessful in that ploy.
Interesting comment from someone who knows what they are talking about:
http://defencebrief.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/charging-decisions-cyclist-mown-down-by.html?m=1
^That is interesting, thanks. It felt like it was more like GBH than anything else, which carries a much longer sentence.
Guidelines/standards are wrong IMHO . if you chose to do something that just might have fatal results like this then you are trying to kill. I have no respect for the principle that you were provoked or didn't think.
1) Career criminal plans and carries out a brutal execution of someone who crossed them, e.g. gave evidence against them.
2) Woman who's been battered by her husband for years one day has enough and, after he's fallen asleep, hits him over the head with a hammer and kills him.
If you don't have guidelines that allow the court to take into account all the circumstances of each incident then these two scenarios would be treated exactly the same as they're both murder. When they aren't (in my opinion at least).
Good link mudshark, that answers my questions over it.
http://defencebrief.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/charging-decisions-cyclist-mown-down-by.html?m=1
I guess that if the defence can somehow muddy the water over intent with regard to Section 18 GBH, the whole case could fall down. 'I only intended to scare him' etc.
You can see the logic in the blog arguments, but in the end it has to be put before a potentially credulous jury, who, as we have seen in previous cases, might also be willing to be more favour drivers over cyclists to some degree, even if the evidence seems to be clear cut. If it is pointed out to the jury that the maximum sentence for a guilty verdict is much higher, that could compound the problem, especially regarding a woman driver etc etc.
On the whole I don't think three years is a bad result here.
What will happen after she gives birth in November? Will she be released? Will the baby stay in prison with her?
Holloway has a mother and baby unit.
I think the sentence was pretty reasonable.
What worries me is that she may and up serving minimal/no time due to the sprog.
Agree with that solicitor, the charge was wrong.
Dangerous driving charges should be for incidents caused by people just trying to drive, but doing it dangerously.
This clearly crosses the line to a GBH charge, she's stopped her driving and is using her vehicle as a weapon after the red mist came down.
With the charge being a motoring offence, she as the driver has primary responsibility for driving the vehicle. Perhaps a GBH charge might bring the boyfriends alleged actions more into play, muddying the waters to such an extent a conviction might not have happened. It was GBH though IMHO and I reckon she got lucky 🙁
Yep, what I've been saying for the last two pages of this thread. We have to get away from automatically seeing all harm done in the act of driving as a driving offence. You can argue in this particular case it hasn't made much difference to the sentence, but there are many other similar cases where people have been very leniently dealt with by the courts because they have been convicted of a driving offence circumstances where the car was used as a weapon. Once you cross that line that's where the applicability of driving offences, which are designed very narrowly to deal with standards of driving, should cease.
PJM1974 - MemberPersonally, I'd also have liked to see her receive a ten year driving ban, but ultimately when she does get her license back she'll be practically uninsurable.
Doesn't seem like the kind of person who will worry about having insurance.
And wrt to charging these situations as GBH as opposed to driving offences - that will require a lot of realigning of jurors beliefs. There's a massive social norm that driving offences/crimes committed behind the wheel of a car are different to say stabbing someone. It's the idea that they could happen to anyone. Either the media need to be encouraged to treat these things differently, or the laws need changing the make it impossible to apply a charge of dangerous driving to a situation where there was clear intent.
Re driving ban lengths I was wondering what the situation on the continent might be and whether the relatively short (in our minds) bans might be a wider phenomenon. We have a principle of proportionate penalties in both English law and I assume under EHCR. It's possible that v long bans might be overturned on appeal under some claim of onerous punishment.
In France bans for serious injury through dangerous driving appear to be 3 yrs. (5 for death)
https://www.french-property.com/guides/france/driving-in-france/driving-offences/
In Germany it appears that the top end is 5yr ban too.
And wrt to charging these situations as GBH as opposed to driving offences - that will require a lot of realigning of jurors beliefs. There's a massive social norm that driving offences/crimes committed behind the wheel of a car are different to say stabbing someone.
Exactly, and while GBH with intent is theoretically the right charging decision here (certainly fits the circumstances best), the CPS may well have taken a real world view that they would be risking an acquittal if they put that before an average jury.
It's a bit like the 'death by careless' vs 'death by dangerous' driving. CPS has to overcome the ingrained thought among the averagely shit drivers on the jury that it's just an accident, could happen to anyone, not something that 'falls significantly below the expected standard' of driving.
Watching the video, I reckon she was trying to kill him. Very disturbing that there is ANYONE out there prepared to use their car in such a way. I feel quite shaken after watching the video. But yeah, he smashed her wing mirror after she pulled out on him because she wasn't paying attention to what she was doing, so what did he expect?
And wrt to charging these situations as GBH as opposed to driving offences - that will require a lot of realigning of jurors beliefs. There's a massive social norm that driving offences/crimes committed behind the wheel of a car are different to say stabbing someone.
Couldn't disagree more.
Charging the offence as GBH frames it to the jury as assault, rather than just bad driving or bad luck.
The "there but for the grace of god go I" effect doesn't really apply when someone snaps and chases a cyclist, ramming him with their car, IMO.
The issue here is with the charging and sentencing anyway, not the jury.
[quote=ransos ]^That is interesting, thanks. It felt like it was more like GBH than anything else, which carries a much longer sentence.
Once again for those who haven't read my comments - no GBH doesn't carry a much longer sentence. GBH with intent does (which is what that blog is suggesting she should have been charged with), but as the blog mentions you're then into a completely different ball game regarding intent.
Whilst I tend to agree that charging her with plain GBH would have set a useful precedent, it would likely have resulted in a lighter sentence. I don't think there would have been much difficulty getting a conviction on a normal GBH charge, it appears to be fully evidenced.
GBH with intent however you have to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" the intent to cause serious injury. IANAL, but I'm not sure I need to be to work out a plausible defence involving introducing reasonable doubt over her intentions (the likely result of doing that might have been serious injury, but the defence lawyer simply has to suggest that she wasn't thinking straight and hadn't actually intended serious injury). Sure I agree she probably did have the intent, but if I'm being honest even sitting on a jury with the required standard of proof in mind I'm not sure I could find her guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Sometimes we just have to be pragmatic and accept that the system has done the best it can. In this case the young lady's life is going to be pretty screwed up and such a sentence is perfectly sufficient to act as a deterrent to anybody who might be deterred by such convictions happening. A longer sentence probably wouldn't make any real difference to anything apart from for those after vengeance. I'm not sure she should ever be allowed to drive again mind.
That's an outrageously lenient sentence. Appalling.
zanelad>>>
I bet the cyclist wishes he'd minded his own business.
Er...
The court heard how the pair nearly collided on Stoke Newington High Street on 10 February 2016, when [b]Henshaw-Bryan pulled out in front of the cycle courier while using her mobile[/b].
He was minding his own business and she nearly ran him over!
GBH with intent however you have to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" the intent to cause serious injury.
Sure, but from the judge's comments:
"This was a calculated attempt to run him over and use your car as a weapon," the judge said.
"It would have been obvious that to do so would have carried significant risk of injury."
Mr Doughty confronted the driver over her use of the phone, at which point she shouted at him, the court heard.
Angered by the exchange, he kicked her wing mirror when they met at the next set of lights.
Both idiots imo. Her escalation of violence won is the main difference.
There's a massive social norm that driving offences/crimes committed behind the wheel of a car are different to say stabbing someone. It's the idea that they could happen to anyone.
Of course. But there's a world of difference between a moment's inattention causing tragic results, and deliberately swerving to try and run someone over. The grade of your gods would apply to the former but not the latter, surely? I'd sincerely hope that there's no-one on the jury watching that video and thinking "wow, that could easily have been me doing that."
Sure, but from the judge's comments:"This was a calculated attempt to run him over and use your car as a weapon," the judge said.
"It would have been obvious that to do so would have carried significant risk of injury."
Thing is though, that's a statement after the fact. You wouldn't know that it was provable "beyond reasonable doubt" back when you were presenting the charges, so you've got to charge what you think you're likely to win.
Thing is though, that's a statement after the fact. You wouldn't know that it was provable "beyond reasonable doubt" back when you were presenting the charges, so you've got to charge what you think you're likely to win.
I understand that, but until the CPS start prosecuting appropriately, we guarantee that nothing will change.
Both idiots imo. Her escalation of violence won is the main difference.
Yeah, not much difference between their actions really. 🙄
patriotpro -
Mr Doughty confronted the driver over her use of the phone, at which point she shouted at him, the court heard.
You can't quote that without the context : "The court heard how the pair nearly collided on Stoke Newington High Street on 10 February 2016, when Henshaw-Bryan pulled out in front of the cycle courier while using her mobile."
So wouldn't you confront someone who did that if you had the chance? Nothing idiotic about it at all. Completely normal. Hitting a wing mirror is nothing.