[Closed] 3 years a fair sentence?

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.

the reality is a judge felt it was an intentional act that would obviously result in serious injury

I see no reason to conclude a jury would not think this as well

Is there really someone out there* who thinks that ramming a cyclist into a tree wont result in a serious risk of harm?

* its the internet of course there is but you get the point

[quote=ransos ]I understand that, but until the CPS start prosecuting appropriately, we guarantee that nothing will change.

All things considered I reckon the CPS did an excellent job here - I've already explained why I don't think GBH with intent would have stuck. I note that even if those judges comments were provable, that's still not sufficient - using the car as a weapon, it being obvious it carried [b]significant risk[/b] of injury aren't good enough for that. You'd have to prove she used it with the intention of causing serious injury and I don't think it's a coincidence that the judges words stopped short of suggesting that.

Also as mentioned above, I doubt that a longer prison sentence would make any difference to anything - the chance of her reoffending or the deterrent effect to others. Maybe if she was considered a danger to the public, but it appears protecting the public from her could have been achieved with a longer driving ban (which I would have approved of).

BTW it seems strange to be arguing this side, I'm normally one with a pitchfork in my hand. I looked up the Helen Measures thread and I was being an arse to crankboy on that!

[quote=Junkyard ]the reality is a judge felt it was an intentional act that would obviously result in serious injury
I see no reason to conclude a jury would not think this as well
Is there really someone out there* who thinks that ramming a cyclist into a tree wont result in a serious risk of harm?

Crossposting with you, so I've kind of said it already, but "felt" != proven beyond reasonable doubt; "serious risk" != intention to cause serious injury.

What the judge can say after the verdict is very different to what he can say before it.

i am genuinely not sure how you can ram a bike, you are chasing, into a tree that requires the rider to have three days in intensive care and then actually argue you never intended to do real harm to them- well not convincingly anyway. If there intention was not to cause harm then you chase them and try to block them or stop them you dont ram them into a tree.

Its like arguing i smacked you in the head with a hammer but i never meant to cause you serious injury...if that is the case WTF are you doing using a weapon then ?

[quote=thegreatape ]What the judge can say after the verdict is very different to what he can say before it.

True however i think most folk will consider ramming with a car - given its use in terrorist incidents- as clearly only done to cause serious harm.

A jury would most likely have seen this IMHO

[quote=Junkyard ]i am genuinely not sure how you can ram a bike, you are chasing, into a tree that requires the rider to have three days in intensive care and then actually argue you never intended to do real harm to them- well not convincingly anyway.

Don't shoot the messenger - I'm not arguing that, but a defence barrister would - even one with a better moral compass than Janick Fielding. He would also only be arguing that there was reasonable doubt of the intention. I don't think the tree is at all relevant either, I'm not convinced even on balance of probabilities that she deliberately rammed him into the tree, that would require levels of conscious thought and planning I doubt she had.

You know I'm not an apologist for bad drivers or the failings of the legal system, but in this case we're not talking about failings of the driving laws, but that it wouldn't be realistic to get a prosecution for a non-driving law. I don't think it would be different if using a different weapon (though I'm failing to come up with an analogy which is equivalent). Remember that she has been convicted of a serious offence here, and isn't going to be having an easy time.

I agree they would try but i am not sure it would be effective
...like hitting someone with a hammer the consequences are so self evidently bad that you had to want to really hurt them hence you use a massive weapon to do it

Not trying to shoot you at all just trying to debate so sorry if it appears differently
i know your views on these issues and we rarely disagree and i think you are usually firmer than i am[ again no offence meant]

I'm glad that she received a sentence and a ban. I also see and agree with what Junkyard and Aracer are saying. It would have been good if she could have been charged under section 18, but the CPS clearly went for an option that would have a likely positive outcome for the cyclist. Until there is a fundamental change in how the general populous view the rights and actions of drivers, this was probably the best possible outcome.

It's a sad state of affairs, but one we seem to be stuck with.

not sure how you can ram a bike, you are chasing, into a tree that requires the rider to have three days in intensive care and then actually argue you never intended to do real harm to them- well not convincingly anyway.

Yeah, obviously she was wriggling in court to attempt to get off or encourage some leniency. That little lunge just before the impact - she really had lost it and was definitely not thinking straight 'cause she almost hit the bloody tree!

🙂

Sorry, not funny really.

I agree with you Junkyard, although juries can be unpredictable, so there's always a risk.

I hope the victim is doing ok. I'd like to see this a a step in the right direction and eventually GBH with intent charges would be brought in a case like this. It is only a matter of perception linked to the universal right to drive.

Occurred to me when I was riding home with my cam running... I wonder if she would have got any sentence at all if it hadn't been caught on CCTV...
Worrying thought.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/06/woman-cleared-careless-driving-crowd-funded-prosecution-cycling-uk ]EG.[/url]

[quote=Junkyard ]...like hitting someone with a hammer the consequences are so self evidently bad that you had to want to really hurt them hence you use a massive weapon to do it

and here we are into the difference between using a car and a hammer as a weapon - though not quite the usual argument. I reckon people genuinely don't realise the consequences of hitting somebody with a car, at least not fully. Given the issue here is one of intent, a perfectly valid defence would be the possibility that she was unaware - I reckon a significant enough proportion of drivers are for that one to fly. Even on balance of probability a reasonable argument could be made that she didn't intend to seriously injure him, because a lot of drivers don't see the difference between pushing somebody with your hands or a car.

i know your views on these issues and we rarely disagree and i think you are usually firmer than i am[ again no offence meant]

No worries - it's an interesting discussion, and strange to find myself arguing this side, though I'm trying to do it from the perspective of a reasonable defence barrister rather than a moral free one (you'll get no victim blaming from me).

everything is s statement after the fact
the reality is a judge felt it was an intentional act that would obviously result in serious injury

I see no reason to conclude a jury would not think this as well

Point was, it's easy to go "well, the judge agreed, so we should've pursued a different prosecution" [i]after[/i] you've got a verdict. As we've seen time and again, many other clearly "obvious" cases have resulted in less than satisfactory outcomes.

I hope the victim is doing ok

That's an incredibly good point whilst we're busy indulging STW's favourite pastime of arguing on the Internet. Has there been any updates since?

Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to see what sort of offences resulted in similar sentences for GBH.

[url= http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/father-daughter-runcorn-jailed-gbh-11793592 ]No "intent" here[/url]

[url= http://www.itv.com/news/london/2016-12-03/man-jailed-after-victim-found-slumped-in-car-with-stab-wounds-in-east-london/ ]nor here[/url]

More interesting though was this case which is back in the news today following an (unsuccessful) appeal http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-37572569 - it appears the CPS are happy to charge drivers with wounding with intent if there is sufficient proof of intent.

[i] a lot of drivers don't see the difference between pushing somebody with your hands or a car.[/i]

I know there are a lot of truly thick people driving around, but part of driver training HAS to be how dangerous cars are? I still remember sitting in a layby with my driving instructor telling me about braking distances and how it feels to hit something at 30mph etc. This was over 35 years ago.

here we are into the difference between using a car and a hammer as a weapon - though not quite the usual argument. I reckon people genuinely don't realise the consequences of hitting somebody with a car, at least not fully.
...
a lot of drivers don't see the difference between pushing somebody with your hands or a car.

I think you're on to something here.

Playing devil's advocate, her intention was potentially likely to be "I'll knock him off his bike" rather than "I'm going to kill him." Give him a bit of a fright and a grazed knee. I've seen a [b]lot[/b] of anti-cyclist sentiment on FB or other social media to this tune, "should've knocked him off," the actual death threats are sadly still present but are comparatively rare.

I think perhaps that a lot of people have "knock him off his bike" in their head as a concept like the beardy copper in the Carry On films who'd regularly stumble of his pedals and pratfall into a hedge at 2mph, or the bully in The Beano who'd shove the speccy swot over for crime of being girly, rather than the reality of a cyclist doing near-car speeds being ploughed into by a ton of metal.

I wonder if this will effect what happens to the vidette uk van driver from last weekend. His driving was equally bad but he was lucky that there wasn't a tree in front of the cyclist.

part of driver training HAS to be how dangerous cars are?

My very first lesson, before I've moved an inch, was, "what are you sitting in?"

"Erm. A car."

"No, it's a deadly weapon."

Great foundation, but it was then never mentioned again.

His driving was equally bad

In terms of severity I think this one was a lot worse. The Vidette incident was clearly outrageous, but he didn't chase the cyclist through the streets intentionally trying to run them over. Going back to "intent" a good lawyer could probably have written this off as a moment of misjudgement and that the driver meant to shove them onto the grass. (Which is mince of course.)

[quote=leffeboy ]I wonder if this will effect what happens to the vidette uk van driver from last weekend. His driving was equally bad but he was lucky that there wasn't a tree in front of the cyclist.

No affect at all I should think - he won't be being charged with causing serious injury, nor with GBH because the cyclist was uninjured. Possible charges are common assault or dangerous driving. I reckon the assault charge is actually easier to prove as there isn't the same subjectivity involved.

[quote=Cougar ]Playing devil's advocate, her intention was potentially likely to be "I'll knock him off his bike" rather than "I'm going to kill him." Give him a bit of a fright and a grazed knee.

That's certainly the obvious line for the defence - TBH I can't hand on heart say I don't find it plausible that really was her thinking. If I was in the jury box and presented with that defence for a "with intent" charge, I'd find it quite difficult to pronounce her guilty.

TBH I can't hand on heart say I don't find it plausible that really was her thinking.

I'd concur if it was a spur of the moment twitch of the wheel. Clearly pursuing him through the streets and then the violence of the swerve OTOH, I don't think so. Chasing someone down is clearly intentional, it's the difference between giving someone a slap outside a pub and running after them to give them a kicking after they've legged it.

"...it's a deadly weapon."

[i]"Coooool...!"[/i]

Would've been my response if it'd been my first lesson.

Point was, it's easy to go "well, the judge agreed, so we should've pursued a different prosecution" after you've got a verdict. As we've seen time and again, many other clearly "obvious" cases have resulted in less than satisfactory outcomes.

ah ok got it