- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)Hit & run driver who killed Gloucester cyclist jailed for 11 years after last-minute guilty plea
A Gloucester man has been jailed for 11 years after entering a last-minute guilty plea at Bristol Crown Court today to a range of offences mainly related to the hit-and-run killing last September of cyclist Alan Knight.
Tykeran Hamilton, aged 24 changed his plea this morning as his trial was due to start. He had been charged with causing death by dangerous driving, causing death while driving in an uninsured vehicle, causing death while driving an unlicensed vehicle and failure to stop, reports BBC News.
He has been sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for those offences, and will also serve a separate one year term, consecutively, relating to earlier charges relating to drugs, plus a six-month concurrent sentence for possession of an offensive weapon.
While the criminal justice system in England & Wales does not have the same type of institionalised plea bargaining system common in the United States, a guilty plea is often a mitigating factor in sentencing, and a last-minute change of plea may follow advice of defence counsel to admit the offence in the hope of securing a lesser penalty.
Mr Knight, aged 64, was killed on Gloucester’s Stroud Road last September as he rode his bike on his paper round, an activity his family said had “kept him fit and active” in the four years he had been doing it.
The court heard that Hamilton was driving a BMW at speeds in excess of 70mph when the fatal crash happened, and that beforehand he had been taking cocaine and drinking vodka. He fled the scene and remained at large for a month before police arrested him.
According to the Western Daily Press, Judge Graham Cottle told Hamilton: "In the early hours of the morning of September 26 Mr Knight was doing a paper round on his bicycle.
"What had you been doing for the past 12 hours? The evidence paints a picture of you spending a night drinking, taking cocaine.
"You were an uninsured driver, you were unlicensed. You went to a garage and as it happened you saw somebody nearby who you knew.
"You said 'watch this'. The inference that can be drawn from that statement is that you attempted to show off to him what this car could do.
"You took off up the road at around 60-70mph. You were overtaking recklessly and just managed to avoid colliding with a central island.
"You drove straight into Mr Knight, doubtless killing him instantly" he added. "You left him in the road and you drove off at equally high speed."
A victim impact statement was read out to the court on behalf of Mr Kinight's widow, Linda, who wrote: "My life just isn't the same since he was taken from us by such a show-off person like you, Mr Hamilton.
"Alan was a great husband, father and grandfather. We didn't want for anything. If we needed the moon he would get us the stars as well."
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- brooksby 1 sec ago
Hmm - cylinders of plastic filled with a paint-eating solvent, maybe?
- mdavidford 6 min ago
Seems probably even more appropriate than what I originally intended.
- slc 1 hour 18 min ago
Credit to the author for attending the opposition meetings and trying to understand their concerns, but I agree with hp. There has been significant...
- RoubaixCube 2 hours 18 min ago
I like how youre using a Mojito X to advertise an Mojito 3
- Basemetal 2 hours 39 min ago
The PU dip on the palm and fingers is over the knitted nylon so not chilly in use, and the material is thick enough to provide some cushioning. It...
- Geoff H 2 hours 54 min ago
“jumped-up, arrogant” cyclists motorists causing “carnage” and posing a risk to pedestrians everyone else. Fixed it ..........
- chrisonabike 3 hours 4 min ago
Given that - at least in UK- we have a mostly flip-flop political system and parties in power eventually run out of credit with the electorate -...
- OldRidgeback 4 hours 6 min ago
If he'd been able to get hold of one of the rarer five speeds, it would've had a better choice of ratios. You can see it's got proper brakes, a big...
- David9694 4 hours 17 min ago
But whAT aboUT thE disable d? (Foreground left - pretty faded)
Add new comment
29 comments
Ok, I understand the legal rigmarole leading to the conclusion that is not murder, because he 'did not intend to kill the victim'. But morally, this person deliberately got behind the wheel of a large metal object, deliberately drove it extremely fast and in an uncontrolled fashion. As a consequence of his deliberate actions, a man was killed. Either he should be held responsible for his actions and their consequences, or we are effectively saying he is too stupid to comprehend that hitting someone with a tonne of metal at 100+ kph will kill them, in which case why don't we just throw the key away?
He is being held responsible, he's going to jail.
And how long 'til he's back behind the wheel?
oh and on a tangent our local paper the Birmingham Mail led on the front page last night with the top 40 locations where camera's caught speeders.
you can imagine the tone of the piece as if this was wrong to catch the poor idiots (I speak as someone who got caught speeding). It is that mentality that fails to stop the ritual murder on our roads every year.
I could and would argue that if you get behind the wheel of a car drunk and drugged up that is equilivant to murder for me. Not manslaughter as when you get behind the wheel of something that can speed at high speeds you should be totally responsible for that act.
It is time we had a proper degree system of murder int he country.
Didn't know you could go to jail for killing a cyclist. Was this person a paedophile too or something?
Not fair to get killed by such a lowlife scumbag.
Sentences are roughly 14 plus 2 plus 6 months for the headline stuff. 16 years 6 months. Less about 10% discount for guilty plea (at door of Court). So, in theory, if sentenced consecutively, that would be 16 1//2 years less 10%. Even on the max sentence of the group sentenced concurrently that would be 14 years less 10%. So, 10 years for the driving offences is still, IMO, too low. But a step in the right direction.
It's a shame that the driving lot wasn't dealt with consecutively.
should see his previous which was read out AFTER sentencing...
"The court was told Hamilton had 56 previous convictions, many of which were motoring offences including driving without a licence or insurance."
http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/hate-wife-Alan-Knight-tells-hit-run-k...
http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/Police-reveal-month-investigation-Glo...
"After his death the family described Alan, 64, as a "much-beloved father, pampy and great pampy".
He left behind four children and 14 grandchildren when he was knocked of his bike doing a paper round in Tuffley, where he lived."
http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/Hit-killer-Tykeran-Hamilton-s-sentenc...
Sadly, this kind of oxygen thief will only stop driving when dead or seriously incapacitated in a crash.
Our legal systems values possessions and wealth not people!
Almost right... just swap 'society in general' for 'legal systems'....
11 years would be good if it was served but probably only half of this will be served in which case a 6 year sentence for this crime seems light.
Sometimes I wish we still had the death penalty!
He will probably only serve half of it though.
5 years for a life.
I wonder what the safety deposit box robbers will get if they are caught?
It is the best result I have seen in a long time. Not long enough but far better than the usual slap on the wrist.
This is the best result for a long time and I'd like to think a step in the right direction.
However I can't help but wonder if the relative harshness of this sentence, compared to most similar cases we read about, is more about his ethnicity rather than a sudden rush to proper sentencing?
I think lots of death by dangerous driving cases are found not guilty because the jury can imagine making the same stupid decisions. The drinking & 70 miles an hour are rather harder for them to empathise with than driving while using a phone, say. That said I can't imagine the defendant's background helped.
Although it seems like a light sentence for the crime/consequences I'm of the opinion that there's rarely much point in locking a person up for much more than a decade unless the intention is that they should never be released.
If someone can't learn their lesson and be sufficiently rehabilitated such that they don't pose a danger to the public after 10 years inside I find it hard to believe that another 10 years will make much difference.
In this case, maybe the driver should be kept away from the public permanently, I'm really not sure.
I think he should be kept away from a car permanently. Reading the story it sounds like he was showing off with his penis extension. Let him show off if he wants, just make sure he's not doing it with something as potentially lethal as a car.
Yep, the sentence itself sounds about right. I agree this pitiful excuse for a human being should never be allowed to drive again.
My sympathies are with the family of the victim.
The problem is that we don't seem to have a system capable of preventing people from driving. This guy had a stack of previous driving convictions and (correct me if I'm wrong) was driving illegally at the time of the incident. This seems to be becoming a familiar story.
it wasn't even his car... he'd borrowed it off a mate
70mph and drink and drugs involved too ? The sentence doesn't seem harsh enough to me.
There is a common idea about that judges have a free hand on sentencing. This is wrong. They have a very detailed sentencing structure. The offence of Causing Death by DD caries a 14 year maximum. So that would be the sentence if the offence was proved and if the offender had all the aggravating factors applied. The way it works is that there is a starting point in sentencing at roughly 50% of the maximum. So 7 years or so. Then the judge needs to consider all the factors that aggravate the crime. so for example stolen car, no insurance, multiple offences ie being in a car chase, drink, drugs, driving while disqualified, hit and run, attempting to evade the police, making false statements, wasting police time, destruction of evidence, wasting court time, attempting to blame the victim or others, no sign of remorse etc......... you get the picture.
All or any of that adds to the sentence pushing it nearer to the maximum. There might be some or there might not be any of these.
Then the judge looks at mitigating factors. Exemplary driving record, offering assistance to the victim, cooperating with the police, genuine remorse etc and on account of any of these may reduce the sentence a bit.
These are not either a matter of opinion they need to be set out in the judgement. So if a judge knock a bit off without justification or adds a bit on without justification then he/she leaves themselves open to appeal.
The discounts after the sentence are also set out and have to be applied.
So pleading guilty immediately 40%, within 4 weeks of the trial or first opportunity after charge 30%, at the "door of the court" before trial commences 10%.
They are there for a good reason which aids overall justice. They are designed to make it a poor calculation to keep rolling the dice. In any trial there is the possibility of a an acquital. If there is no incentive to plead guilty and no additional consequence for pleading not guilty then why would anyone ever fess up. And if every offender ad their day in court then it would be impossible.
Legal counsel acting in the best interestsof their clients will advise their clients to plead guilty if it is clear they are or if it becomes clear that they will be convicted.
Is that a fair sentence for taking a life?
Seems like he should have been tried for manslaughter - in fact I have no idea why death by dangerous driving does not carry the same tariffs as manslaughter anyway.
Manslaughter is a general charge of homicide. Causing death by dangerous driving is a specific charge with charging and sentncing tests specifically related to drivers and their behaviours. Back in the day drivers could be charged with Gross Negligence Manslaughter but that was a pretty insufficient tool when it came to driving. There are no proper definitions of what would constitute negligence, gross negligence while driving. Hence they made a better mouse trap and specified these details. It's a lot harder to beat a charge that is properly defined. There are fewer defences. Fewer caveats, less doubt, fewere points to argue the toss about.
Thank you - that's a good answer and clarifies the legal rationale. I still question the low sentences when the outcome is the same - the guy has shown wilful disregard and negligence and when the inevitable horrific outcome occurs the punishment seems too lenient.
Manslaughter requires intent to cause serious injury, GBH or ABH, I forget which. If he can't be shown to have intended to cause that sort of injury, then the charge doesn't work. He could possibly have been charged with something like manslaughter by gross negligence, which only requires an intent to do something that should be apparently stupid and dangerous to the mythical reasonable man, but I imagine it's probably easier to make the death by dangerous driving charge stick at that point.