You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
**** this guy, 18 months isn’t long enough:
Like it or not, 18 months for an assault resulting in those injuries would be quite severe.
I’d like to see it accompanied by a lifetime driving ban for using a car as a weapon.
I saw that earlier. Is it possible to be charged with attempted murder in trials of this nature? Because going by the news reports, that's an awful lot like how it looks to me.
All depends if he was attempting to kill him I guess.
Don't worry though, he will be driving again in a couple of years.
I'm interested in the law behind this if anyone can shed some light?
Looks suspiciously like assault with a lethal weapon to me. In other words, whilst the intent to kill might not be there, the choice of weapon makes it a likelihood at the very least. Surely that's more than assault per se?
Don’t worry though, he will be driving again in a couple of years.
He won't
This week, Moult admitted causing serious injury by dangerous driving. He was also given a three-year road ban, which will start when he is released from prison.
Feel sorry for the wife.
Attempted murder is a high bar so the CPS probably opted for the more or less guaranteed dangerous driving conviction.
It does seem a ludicrously light sentence for intentionally injuring someone so severely, however.
Recovery through a civil case would be an option if the defendant has any significant wealth.
There's a good lesson here though: don't provoke. I was in a similar heated situation a few years ago and similarly let the worst side of my personality out. It was a dumb thing to do because you lose the moral high ground and it could become a factor in court.
He won’t
Jeez, okay then, 4.5 years to be precise, still driving though. And at 78 will be even better.
Feel sorry for the wife.
Sure, imagine being married to a psycho.
It's a nightmare to get such a short sentence for what is effectively attempted murder, but it's down to the CPS to bring appropriate charges, then the judge has to provide the sentence against the guidelines, it's a max of 5 years, but by pleading guilty it's 40% discount i believe, so 3 years, then add in good character, first offence, etc and it's down to 18 months.
Reality is, the guy will be out in less than a year, and driving again 3 years later, he's retired so no loss of income or the likes, and probably be hosted in a nice little HMP.
Thats assault with intent, which should have been measured in years not months. Having 'Intent' on a charge of causing injury always carries a far higher penalty. I have no idea why the prosecution didn't charge him with that.
Whats the rules concerning the public calling for a stiffer sentence. As in can we all do it by writing to the CPS or an MP or something. It's getting beyond a joke the lightweight sentences being handed out to people who injure or kill cyclists.
So if the guy who upset him was a pedestrian or a horsey rider would the outcome have been different?
Having ‘Intent’ on a charge of causing injury always carries a far higher penalty. I have no idea why the prosecution didn’t charge him with that.
Harder to prove? Reasonable doubt with 'loss of control' excuse?
There's not much ambiguity in firing a gun at someone in contrast to driving a car at someone.
Whats the rules concerning the public calling for a stiffer sentence. As in can we all do it by writing to the CPS or an MP or something. It’s getting beyond a joke the lightweight sentences being handed out to people who injure or kill cyclists.
Only for certain categories of offence, sadly.
But Cycling UK are still pushing their campaign to stiffen sentences etc. Please support it.
There’s not much ambiguity in firing a gun at someone in contrast to driving a car at someone.
If he'd happened to have a gun in the car and shot the victim instead (causing similar levels of injury), would he still be looking at 18 months? I'm going to guess the answer is no.
Using your car as a weapon needs to be treated as such.
Something like this could have been brought in instead of 'Harper's Law' but where would be the fun in that.
So if the guy who upset him was a pedestrian or a horsey rider would the outcome have been different?
Shouldn't have been and would have also been wrong. Clearly, deliberately running someone over with a car can only be seen as an attempt to seriously injure them if not kill them whether the victim is a cyclist, pedestrian, runner, horse rider or whatever.
There’s a good lesson here though: don’t provoke. I was in a similar heated situation a few years ago and similarly let the worst side of my personality out. It was a dumb thing to do because you lose the moral high ground and it could become a factor in court.
I understand what you're saying, but that's a bit victim blame-y.
Reality is, the guy will be out in less than a year, and driving again 3 years later, he’s retired so no loss of income or the likes, and probably be hosted in a nice little HMP.
I still think it'l have an impact on him though. It's not a holiday.
That is some seriously disturbing behaviour. Thanks christ I've never met such a psycho on the roads.
I understand what you’re saying, but that’s a bit victim blame-y.
It's not a bad thing to say though and I don't think he was victim blaming. I think he was just saying there is a takeaway for the rest of us rather than that is what caused this to happen.
That is some seriously disturbing behaviour. Thanks christ I’ve never met such a psycho on the roads.
And that's why. We just don't know what will trigger someone. I don't think if they physically had to hit someone hard enough to break their ribs they would do it but if all it takes is to push a foot to the floor then yes for a minute they might
To be clear, this person shouldn't ever be allowed to drive again. They are too dangerous.
4.5 years to be precise, still driving though. And at 78 will be even better.
If he passes his extended test.
Having been assaulted for getting gobby with a driver, I'm a bit more careful which battles I pick these days.
and probably be hosted in a nice little HMP.
Hmm, guess you've never seen the inside of a prison, horrible oppressive places.
+1 for not provoking, guy nr here attacked 2 motorcyclists with an iron bar after a bit of road rage, some people are wired all wrong ☹️
Having been assaulted for getting gobby with a driver, I’m a bit more careful which battles I pick these days.
Indeed. My 2005 assailant got a year inside, it transpires he had two(!) suspended sentences for assaults. He was released after 6 months, only to be called back having beaten the crap out of some pub goer the first Friday night out...
Sadly some arseholes come looking for it - last year's incident involved a car who tried to fit between myself and 10 kids on bikes....
I don’t have the words that express my anger and disbelief at that sentence.
Personally, spitting on the car would not be my action, but how does that justify intentionally driving into someone - and more so someone more vulnerable than you in a large, heavy vehicle.
Lifetime ban from driving and a longer custodial sentence. I’m with Cycling UK and their campaign.
In some way, it's a good job he didn't kill the cyclist as he'd only be looking at a fine or suspended sentence.
Ideally the insurer (who are probably on for several hundred thousand £) would pursue him to recover their costs, but I doubt that's going to happen.
I don’t think many insurers motor policies cover road rage.
They will pay out under the RTA.
I was banging a nail in my fence and a guy walked past and knocked into me. I dropped my hammer and scratched the lovely varnish coat on the handle. He had 20 ft to get past but still managed to walk in to me so I said said “careful” and he gave me an earful. I wonder if I had hit him with my hammer would I get away with 18 months or would the CPS be pushing for attempted murder with a weapon; because I knew what would happen when I hit someone with a hammer.
I think the law needs changing regarding reckless driving.
In some way, it’s a good job he didn’t kill the cyclist as he’d only be looking at a fine or suspended sentence.
Not in these circumstances he wouldn't.
I’m actually pleased he received a custodial sentence at all given the recent judgements.
Completely agree with bsims, law needs changing. Hammer analogy is quite apt.
No way would anyone believe “well your honour, I was only trying to tickle him a bit with the knife. Just kind of gently hitting him with it, I had no idea it would actually stab him. How could I have done? Anyone else would have done the same thing etc… 🤷♂️“
They will pay out under the RTA.
Yes, so would my insurer - but they would recover the costs from me.
Not in these circumstances he wouldn’t.
Being cynical I guess it depends on whether there were any independent witnesses. Otherwise could be "sorry sun in my eyes. nowt I could do honest".
This is just astonishing.
the victim spat on his luxury Land Rover
As opposed to all those poverty-spec Freelanders?
Alan Moult, 74, jailed for 18 months
...
He was also given a three-year road ban, which will start when he is released from prison.
After which, pushing 80, having not driven for a few years and being jailed for almost killing someone, he'll get his licence back?
In mitigation, his defence counsel, Rachel Shenton, said there was “a certain amount of goading”
Well, that explains everything. Serves him right.
Defence Lawyer must be one of the most soul-destroying jobs on the planet. I think I'd rather cook socks for a living.
Being cynical I guess it depends on whether there were any independent witnesses. Otherwise could be “sorry sun in my eyes. nowt I could do honest”.
My comment did specifically say "in these circumstances"
After which, pushing 80, having not driven for a few years and being jailed for almost killing someone, he’ll get his licence back?
As has already been pointed out, once he's passed an extended test.
We do love to make bad situations seem worse on here, too much "woe is us". No wonder people are are too scared to cycle when we seem so keen to talk ourselves out of it.
I’m actually pleased he received a custodial sentence at all given the recent judgements.
+1
But shame it wasn't three or five years, so he might actually serve 18 months.
Attempted murder might have been a stretch as it was unlikely he intended to actually kill the victim? Sounds like pure red mist and "serious injury by dangerous driving" appears to be the highest charge available for drivers, when nobody is killed.
The maximum sentence was five years, and that would have felt more fitting for the nature and consequences of the offence, to my layman's mind. A broken pelvis is pretty heavy.
A knife is a useful tool but the law has no trouble seeing it as a weapon if it is used to intentionally injure someone.
A hammer is a useful tool but the law has no trouble seeing it as a weapon if it is used to intentionally injure someone.
A car is a useful tool but it seems the law does not view it as a weapon even when it is used to intentionally injure someone.
Why?
Perceived intent? "Well, it was a mistake anyone could've made, that might've been me up there."
I mean, as arguments go it's obviously bollocks of the highest order, but folk don't generally walk through town with a knife in one hand and a hammer in the other.
Being cynical I guess it depends on whether there were any independent witnesses.
The dash cam footage of his wife shrieking don’t do it might be germane here. He was lucky not to kill the cyclist, because had he done so, the sentence would have been much longer based on the evidence presented.
The judge (not magistrate since it was a serious crime) summing up comments are pretty damning. For the charge, the sentence is appropriate. Whether the charge is appropriate is another matter.
did his defence try to make anything of the cyclist spitting? I would have thought 'being in fear of a deadly pandemic as such vulnerable old people' etc would have been an open goal for a jury
OMG! Cars can carry the infection?!
I do think that a change in law and/or charging process to reflect that a vehicle can be used as a weapon is needed, which would then feed into sentencing.
It's pretty obvious from the dashcam audio that he was deliberately using the car as a weapon in this particular case.
Meh, I'm finding it hard to be outraged by this sentence. I was intentionally driven into by a ****er in a big car who was irritated that I'd filtered in front of them. I wasn't injured, and S Yorkshire police just weren't interested at all, so I'm just pleased this actually got to court and a conviction.
18 months is a proper custodial sentence, especially for an elderly gammon with a limited number of years left, even if it's not the 'throw the book at him' sentence we'd probably prefer. More importantly, hopefully drivers start to see that their dangerous actions actually can have serious consequences.
desperatebicycle
Free Member
OMG! Cars can carry the infection?!
my mistake; we've definitely not been told for months to wash hands etc
It sounds like the loopy old git would deserve anything coming his way, but surprised that line of mitigation wasn't at least given some very serious thought if not used
It sounds like the loopy old git would deserve anything coming his way, but surprised that line of mitigation wasn’t at least given some very serious thought if not used
It was used, defence lawyer is quoted further up
Where are y'all getting the dashcam footage from?
This is just astonishing.
the victim spat on his luxury Land Rover
As opposed to all those poverty-spec Freelanders?
No, the point of this little journalistic manoeuvre is to distance the old, rich toff in his posh car from the people reading the newspaper. It's not about you, dear reader. This couldn't possibly happen to normal folk like you and me. Don't worry about it - you don't need to do any of that uncomfortable soul-searching. /s
Getting insurance once he eventually gets his licence back will be interesting!
Can you imagine how that conversation will go?
@Cougar in the original report
Dashcam footage recorded Moult’s wife, Irene, begging him to avoid the confrontation as Moult sped after the victim, blaming him for damaging the wing mirror on his Freelander.
“It’s not worth it – don’t, love,” she said.
No, the point of this little journalistic manoeuvre is to distance the old, rich toff in his posh car from the people reading the newspaper. It’s not about you, dear reader. This couldn’t possibly happen to normal folk like you and me. Don’t worry about it – you don’t need to do any of that uncomfortable soul-searching. /s
I think you read too much malevolence into this. I'm not a journalist but I remember my school English days writing "dummy" newspaper articles and being encouraged (i.e. criticised for not) to use more florid language. People want to read articles that tell you about people, so a luxury landrover lets people infer information about the driver.
in the original report
Ah right, so it's just the report not the actual footage. Ta.
Pretty incriminating evidence really. As I said, if the cyclist had died it would have been five years. So I guess the lesson is not to use a dash cam if you are going to run people over.... "Foot slipped onto the accelerator" is not the same as “It’s not worth it – don’t, love,”.
Yep, he should have just waited till he was walking along the pavement and run him over, much easier to get away with.