Seven years for drunk driver who killed cyclist

Bendertherobot's post is exactly right: the charge of careless driving under the influence at this alcohol level is sentenced the same way as the most serious death by dangerous.  The choice of which to choose therefore comes down to the actual actions of the car.  Failing to see somebody is classically careless rather than dangerous.  Not always but that is more normal.  

A good rule of thumb (not the strict legal test but useful nonetheless) is that careless driving is for mistakes.  Not necessarily mistakes that anybody might have made (although it does cover those), but incidents where the driver misjudged something or jut had a moment's inattention or miscalculation.  Dangerous driving, generally speaking, relates to those instances where the driver knows they are doing something stupidly dangerous.  

So pulling out of a sideroad having not checked carefully enough and therefore not spotted somebody: careless.  Just zooming out of the sideroad without looking at all: dangerous.  Tailgating at high speed: dangerous.  Miscalculating your stopping distance or being momentarily distracted just as the guy in front brakes: careless.  Changing lines without thinking, thereby bringing down the whole peloton: careless.  Ducking under the level crossing barrier and barely mising the TGV: dangerous

The charge here would have made no difference to sentence and careless is easier to prove and more likely to avoida trial (which is extremely traumatic for witnesses and relatives, as well as a great drain on public funds), so this was absoutely the correct charge.

A few other points people have made:

No, disqualification will not stop this guy driving again.  But until we have the sci-fi device that RafRafRafRaf suggests, at least this way any time he is seen driving he can be sent to prison.  And will be.  And yes, that does happen.  It  just doesn't make the papers dreadfully often.  The other reason to impose a disqualification is that it's mandatory for this offence.

For all those saying that he shouldn't get the discount for pleading guilty because the evidence was overwhelming, please do share with us your in-depth knowledge of the evidence.  Please don't say that the few lines in this report mean that you know how many witnesses there were, how good a view they had, how reliable they were and how many there might have been saying something else.  Please don't say that.  I like thinking that people aren't that stupid, so please tell me that your comments about the strength of the evidence come from actually knowing something about the evidence?  

Same for the comment correcting the judge's comments.  That's the judge who'd read the case and heard full opening and mitigation before making his comments.  I assume that to correct those comments you have some knowledge of the case beyond the few lines of this article?  

It was a shame that when he was hospitalised he didn't loose some limbs which might of prevented him from being able to drive again when he gets out.

Alcohol is an aggravating factor for dangerous. It's part of the offence of careless (under the influence). It's correct that it should be taken into account in the former. But it doesn't affect credit, that's separate and gets taken off when all other factors have been "totted up." As I explained above this is an offence that was given around 11 yrs and 4 months or so in reality. 

Never mind the current sentence, this scumbag should have been permanently removed from our society long ago.

What's the point of giving him another driving ban? It obviously means nothing to him and he does't even have a licence anyway. We can only hope that, after release, he kills himself in a car crash before he kills someone else.

only seven years? THE FUCKER KILLED SOMEONE!! WTF??

In terms of sentencing and charge, HERE, there's not much difference.

If you believe, withouth knowing what evidence there is other than drink, that this is dangerous driving then it could be a level 1 with a starting point of 8 years and a sentencing range of 7-14 years. If you charge with dangerous driving then alcohol is an aggravating factor rather than part of the offence. There's no information here of the manner of the driving. Without knowing that it's hard to say. Could be level 2 (5 year entry and 4-7 years). 

Contrast the "lesser" offence of causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence. That offence's levels are based on blood alcohol readings. Anything above 71ug, where the offence falls just short of dangerous, has a sentencing starting point of 8 years and a range of 7-14 years. Exactly the same as causing death by dangerous driving (without alcohol). 

In this case he's got credit of about 1/3 (as would be usual, but it's not clear from the reports). Essentially the main part of the sentence was around 11 1/2 years or so. That's very high indeed. 

I suspect, in this case, that there was insufficient evidence to charge dangerous driving other than because it was with alcohol. But, I also think that charging the alcohol related offence arguably achieved a better sentence overall.

Why isn't it manslaughter?

From the facts given, careless driving seems to be the wrong offence for this person to be charged with, and convicted of.  It should be a more serious offence.

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

He told police he had drunk three Stellas the previous night at a friend’s house, but had driven away after that person attacked him.

He really needs new friends.

You don't get that reading or carnage from drinking 3 stellas the previous night.

I'd hazard a guess at the twat having been on an all-night bender and being a dishonest liability who only pleaded guilty as damage limitation. He should be locked up for longer and banned from driving for life, with violation landing him back inside.

Quote:

He was found to have been two and a half times the legal alcohol limit with a reading of 207mg per 100ml of blood. He told police he had drunk three Stellas the previous night at a friend’s house, but had driven away after that person attacked him.

rubbish... he'd had a heck of a lot more than just three Stella's the night before...

where the heck were the police to make sure he was caught whenever he was behind the wheel while disqualified?

It seems they have a greater chance of winning the lottery than being stopped by the police these days.

Someone should go round and inflict the same injuries to him that he inflicted onto Yvonne Wyeth, let him feel some of the pain she had to endure during her last moments.  Obviously not the dying part as that would then be murder...  Oh hang on!!  

People like this will never obey the drink drive rules, which is why the lowering of the DD limit in Scotland bugs me so much, it's only hurting the people who'd just have one with their lunch/dinner and then drive home.  The real offenders still won't care two shits.  

And breathe....

Given that prison is meant to protect the general population from people who are dangerous, and this guy's previous actions show as clearly as anything ever could that he absolutely will repeat his offence the very first chance he gets with no regard for bans or anything else, clearly he remains dangerous and the only way to protect the public from him seems to be to keep him in prison, given that the probation service can't possibly keep him from getting straight back behind the wheel.

What a waste of skin.

They need to design an electronic tag that acts as an immobiliser on any vehicle he sits near the ignition of...

Jacobi - i concur whole heartedly.

It wuld have been preferable if the cyclist had lived and Taylor had died of his injuries - that's just my opinion though.

I really can't understand why sentences run concurrently

Unfortunately the wrong person was killed, should have been this piece of low life scum masquerading as as a human being. Seven years, joke.

I can't help but think that it was all the things added together which led to a jail sentence.  As we all know, you have to be very bad before you get jail for killing a cyclist because it's just 'careless' and not something that falls too far short of what the average motorist would do.  Even drink driving on its own doesn't fall that far.

That said

Quote:

He told police he had drunk three Stellas the previous night at a friend’s house, but had driven away after that person attacked him.

He really needs new friends.

And

Quote:

Addressing him, Judge Robert Fraser said: “It was almost as if she hadn’t been seen; she wasn’t there. You drove through her almost. She had done absolutely nothing wrong.”

No, your honour: it was exactly as if she hadn't been seen.  He did drive through her (not 'almost').  But yes, she had done nothing wrong.

The article says that

Quote:

31 previous convictions for 74 offences – eight of which were for driving with excess alcohol and six for driving while disqualified. He had never held a full licence and had last been disqualified in January 2015.

This bloke should be banned from being out in public, let along from driving a car. What possible difference is a driving disqualification going to make if he's totted all that up and never held a full licence???

> disqualified from driving for nine years.

Apparently being allowed to drive a car is now a human right.  What does it take for a judge to ban someone for life?

Pitiful. The only solution for people like this is to throw away the key. Reduced for pleading guilty, that was big of him considering the carnage and evidence. Pleading guilty in those circumstances should have no effect on the sentence handed down.

How long before he maims or kills again, because he will.

Quote:

Death by careless driving

Yep - because there's nothing dangerous about drink driving, running over and killing cyclists before colliding head-on with a 17 tonne lorry. That's just a bit careless 

Quote:

Taylor had 31 previous convictions for 74 offences – eight of which were for driving with excess alcohol and six for driving while disqualified

Quote:

He was given a 10-and-a-half year sentence which was reduced to seven years, taking into account his guilty plea.

Pitiful. He'll be out in under 4 years.

Quote:

he was also disqualified from driving for nine years

Given that he's never held a full licence, and has already had eight drink drive offences,  and six for driving whilst disqualified, something tells me this isn't going to prevent him from driving.