Suspended sentence and 12 month ban for driver who killed Suffolk cyclist

Here's the CPS sentencing guidelines... http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/causing_death_by_ca...

There have not been applied in several regards. E.g. the mimimum mandatory disqualification is 12 months. The community order is appropriate only for cases arising from momentary inattention, which is clearly not the case here as the court heard.

As pointed out above, the aggravating factor of driving other than in accordance with the terms of a valid driving licence, specifically with an undeclared personality disorder, has been successfully presented as a mitigating factor.

The sentence is clearly unduly lenient, and can and should be appealed within 28 days as detailed here... http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/unduly_lenient_sentences/#a01

She was obviously not "driving" at the time or the cyclist would have been seen.

Another justice fail.

Should be a lifetime ban.

I bet this guy wishes he'd done a bit more charity work now.

http://road.cc/content/news/103569-12-months-jail-red-light-jumping-cycl...

Just occurred to me, to wonder how this would have gone if the _victim_ had been the one with a psychological issue? What's the betting that _also_ would be regarded as a mitigating factor for the driver?

"Well, he shouldn't have been cycling on the road if he wasn't in perfect mental health"

The courts are a fucking joke. Yet another stupidly lenient sentence from an idiot judge. The slaughter continues.

The courts are a fucking joke. Yet another stupidly lenient sentence from an idiot judge. The slaughter continues.

Nearly 7000 individuals lobbied for Mc Court retrial (Audrey Fyfe), so anyone care to put up a petition for this one?

Just wondering

she should have got a much longer ban, maybe even lifelong ban, if not lifelong ban then at least a training course or re-test (reapply for license)

so sorry

I just did the math on the stop as well, it takes 6.71 seconds to go 90meters at 30mph it would take longer with stopping taken in to account, unless she was driving crazy fast.

Why can't she account for not seeing him for 14.91 seconds and why did she not stop with a shattered windscreen for 7+ seconds.

She should be in prison, I'm thinking from the science and the lack of forthcoming that she may have done this WITH intent. Did this case even have anyone acting as prosecution - what were they doing?

Next time your driving, think about how scary it would be to not look at the road ahead for 5 seconds, let alone 15seconds.

Does anyone know the stretch of road in question? If I were the victims family then I would probably be appealing this sentence.

I volunteer in my local community, I've raised money for charity. Am I allowed a stay out of jail free card if I find myself stamping on a few kittens or worse. I promise to say I don't remember doing it & I'm very sorry.

I can't figure out exactly what I feel about these cases. Because I don't want to be vengeful and demand very long sentences for perpetrators.

But the alternative (which is what we actually have) is that its just taken as an unfortunate 'given' that cyclists, like this poor man, can at any time be violently killed through no fault of their own, and its just 'one of those things' and no strong culpability can be attached to those responsible.

I think the problem is that these tragedies don't just occur because of the mistakes of the drivers, they are socially and politically caused, and the responsibility lies with those who design awful roads, and a society that has contrived to make driving almost compulsory and hence made it into a 'right' rather than the privilege it really should be.

At the very least, however, the courts need to be much more ruthless about imposing driving bans, regardless of people's claims about how much they 'need' to drive. You kill someone through your error, you never drive again.

Travelled 90 metres with the windscreen smashed by the impact of the victim - 90 metres FFS.

How many emergency stops from 30mph is that? Well its almost 4 emergency stops from 30mph (23m) and nearly 3 from 40mph (36m). Did she have a big problem deciding which pedal to press? Or was it havering on a decision of whether to step on the gas and do a runner? Or did she realise that someone had seen the crash and so had better stop? Quite clearly we will only get one view on this.

A 1 year ban is ridiculous, if someone with such mental issues slipped through the net and shot their victim with a firearm - even without the intent of harming their victim, you can be damn sure that that person would not get another firearms licence, and there would be questions about how that person got the licence in the first place.

Perhaps it is the time, when the driving test is being reviewed, that, just as a motorcycle licence has a compulsory element of basic training in motorcycle handling, the driving test should require candidates to have taken and passed Bikeability Level 3, which for many younger candidates could have been taken at school with 4 or more years cycling experience, and practical appreciation of road signs, traffic law etc, before they get behind the wheel of a car - far more relevant and effective than a multiple choice theory test, which can often be passed by intensive rote learning.

Possibly a re-test, is it, CTC? I think you are too mild for your role, pehaps a bit too comfortable in it to be rocking the boat?

If I were a CTC member, I'd be diverting my cash to the likes of the Stop The Killing campaign with their excellent "subvertising".

"Mitigating, Michael Proctor said that Lumley-Holmes had no recollection of seeing Mr Evans before the accident. She was a vulnerable defendant who had suffered an abusive childhood, her teenage years in care and been diagnosed with a personality disorder."

WTF...

NO MITIGATION... Those items have absolutelu NOTHING to do with the incident...

"Prosecutor Robert Sadd said that she should have seen Mr Evans who was cycling on a straight stretch of road on a dry, sunny day with clear visibility.

“Anyone could and should have seen the cyclist. There is no explanation other than it was driving in such a way that led to his death.”

After the impact which shattered the windscreen of the car Lumley-Holmes did not stop for another 90 metres and no explanation had been given as to why, said Mr Sadd."

http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/local/latest-news/woman-receives-sus...

I don't know this lady and I wasn't in court so I have no basis to doubt that the accident was unintentional but she should not be allowed to drive ever again until there is a satisfactory explanation of the part she played in this tragic accident.

To the family and friends of Mr Evans, my thoughts are with you today. This outcome must be very hard to bear.

we should not condemn the attempts of her legal team to mitigate her case. that is their job. there is a saying amongst barristers:

There's no such thing as justice, there's just us.

What an appallingly lenient sentence, sending all the wrong messages. petrol heads will no doubt rejoice in glee.

Oozaveared: interesting thoughts; I like the cut of your jib.

WTF!!!!!

So the cyclist who jumped a red light and accidently GBH'd a young girl got a 12 month custodial sentence a few weeks back
http://road.cc/content/news/103569-12-months-jail-red-light-jumping-cycl...
And a motorist kills a cyclist get next to bugger all. AND what the hell has this to do with it.
"She was a vulnerable defendant who had suffered an abusive childhood, her teenage years in care and been diagnosed with a personality disorder".
Didn't stop her driving didn it.
Lost for words ....nearly

"Bez, I'm not talking about a hypothetical situation, I'm talking about whether she should be in jail or not for her actions, and on that issue, intent is irrelevant"

If your opinion is that she should be jailed for this non-intentional act then that's absolutely fine and coherent, there's nothing untenable about that view whatsoever.

But that's absolutely not the same thing as saying that intent is not relevant.

Bez, I'm not talking about a hypothetical situation, I'm talking about whether she should be in jail or not for her actions, and on that issue, intent is irrelevant

Quote:

He said she was an “exemplary citizen” who had raised £18,000 for charity and had volunteered at a local hospice.

Why should raising money for charity enable a person to get let off committing crime - accidental or purposeful?

Isn't that how Saville got away with it for so long?

"No intent is irrelevant."

Of course it's relevant.

Example A: Someone gets up from their chair in the lounge to go to the downstairs toilet and, whilst getting up, knocks over a candle onto the floor without noticing. By the time they return, the lounge and stairs are ablaze but they escape safely. Four people are trapped in the rooms upstairs and die.

Example B: Someone gets up from their chair in the lounge, leaves by the front door, lights a candle and drops it through the window onto the lounge floor before walking off. Four people are trapped in the rooms upstairs and die.

If intent is irrelevant, you must sentence those people equally.