Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to news
news
Crime & Legal
Drunk driver who killed Plymouth cyclist sentencedJustice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)

Drunk driver who killed Plymouth cyclist sentenced

Driver, who had been at nightclub, set off on wrong side of road with lights off
by Alex Bowden
Sat, Apr 23, 2016 12:29
34

A Plymouth drunk driver who set off on the wrong side of the road and went the wrong way round a roundabout has been sentenced to four years in prison after he hit and killed a cyclist on his way home from a club.  Sonny Richards, 24, hit Nathan Dale as he was cycling home from Plymouth lifeboat station where he was a volunteer.

The Plymouth Herald reports how Plymouth Crown Court was shown CCTV footage of Richards leaving Jesters nightclub and walking up Octagon Street to his car in King Street in the early hours of March 12. He was said to have initially set off on the wrong side of the road, without lights, before switching them on and going around a roundabout the wrong way.

Dale was cycling along Outland Road wearing a helmet and four lights, all of which were on, when he was hit from behind by Richards’ Ford Fiesta.

Paramedics were called at 3.10am, but Dale was pronounced dead at Derriford Hospital an hour later.

Richards did not stop and drove another two miles before texting his mother to say: "let you down, big time".

When she asked what he had done, he replied: "been drinking, taking sniff. Drove the car on the way home. Hit somebody. He hit the windscreen. I'll have to go tomorrow and own up".

His mother told him: "You need to grow up and own up straight away".

After a short phone conversation, Richards’ mother sent another text at 4.42am telling him: “Phone police immediately”.

By this point, Richards had, admitting his offence and meeting with officers at the scene.

Richards pleaded guilty to causing death by driving without due care and attention while under the influence of alcohol and to failing to stop after a road collision.

Jailing him, Judge Ian Lawrie QC questioned "how on earth you managed to get into the car when you were considerably over the limit and possibly with drugs in your system."

Making reference to Richards having taken care of his father after two strokes and a broken hip, he said: "You are clearly not a bad person, it was never your intention to cause harm. You are clearly caring, thoughtful, you cared for your ailing father. You have expressed a profound sense of remorse. If you had been sober, Nathan would be alive today."

Richards was also disqualified from driving for five years and had his license endorsed.

Sonny Richards
Nathan Dale
drink driving
Alex Bowden

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

34 comments

Avatar
L.Willo replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 8 years ago
0 likes

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
L.Willo wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
L.Willo wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I'm sure I read somewhere that guns (ie. Specifically designed to kill) don't kill as many people in the US every year as do motor vehicles. Just saying...

Sounds reasonable.  I guess there are many more motorised journeys made every year than shots fired at heads ... which I am sure you will agree, skews the statistics somewhat.

What we need is a comparison of KSIs per deliberate car journey versus KSIs per bullet deliberately fired at a person. Just a hunch, but I guess guns will turn out to be spectacularly lethal and cars, relatively harmless.

Which is why there is really no point comparing the two.

But you also need to take into account how many of those car journeys were strictly necessary.

You really don't. Apart from the inbuilt bias that will be built into this research by the person deciding what is and isn't 'necessary' ... it is an irrelevance. I don't know of laws in any country that insist that driving is only valid for essential journeys.

Nothing you say here relates to the point.

You don't really have a point that is credible to anyone outside some of the extremist loonies in this site. 

If your point is that an individual car is as dangerous, or even comparably as dangerous as a gun when both are operated correctly for the purpose for which they were designed ... Wow, just wow.

Using motorised transport is a normal, reasonable thing to do be that for business, pleasure, leisure or convenience. Waving a gun, sledgehammer, axe etc around indiscriminately is not a normal, reasonable thing to do at any time.

Courts and juries take these factors into account. This is normal. If you disagree, I would advise you to stop drinking the KoolAid served up frequently below the line.

Now I have a completely unnecessary car journey to make taking my family to visit my parents for Sunday lunch ... I could take two buses but it isnt very convenient today, what with the London marathon disrupting transport options ... forgive me. 

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to L.Willo | 8 years ago
2 likes
L.Willo wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
L.Willo wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
L.Willo wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I'm sure I read somewhere that guns (ie. Specifically designed to kill) don't kill as many people in the US every year as do motor vehicles. Just saying...

Sounds reasonable.  I guess there are many more motorised journeys made every year than shots fired at heads ... which I am sure you will agree, skews the statistics somewhat.

What we need is a comparison of KSIs per deliberate car journey versus KSIs per bullet deliberately fired at a person. Just a hunch, but I guess guns will turn out to be spectacularly lethal and cars, relatively harmless.

Which is why there is really no point comparing the two.

But you also need to take into account how many of those car journeys were strictly necessary.

You really don't. Apart from the inbuilt bias that will be built into this research by the person deciding what is and isn't 'necessary' ... it is an irrelevance. I don't know of laws in any country that insist that driving is only valid for essential journeys.

Nothing you say here relates to the point.

You don't really have a point that is credible to anyone outside some of the extremist loonies in this site. 

If your point is that an individual car is as dangerous, or even comparably as dangerous as a gun when both are operated correctly for the purpose for which they were designed ... Wow, just wow.

Using motorised transport is a normal, reasonable thing to do be that for business, pleasure, leisure or convenience. Waving a gun, sledgehammer, axe etc around indiscriminately is not a normal, reasonable thing to do at any time.

Courts and juries take these factors into account. This is normal. If you disagree, I would advise you to stop drinking the KoolAid served up frequently below the line.

Now I have a completely unnecessary car journey to make taking my family to visit my parents for Sunday lunch ... I could take two buses but it isnt very convenient today, what with the London marathon disrupting transport options ... forgive me. 

You do realise that a series of assertions doesn't constitute an argument, right?

Avatar
Mark By replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 8 years ago
0 likes
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
L.Willo wrote:

So I suppose he accidentally took his car keys with him when intending to drink and take "recreational drugs"? Or he was incapable of 'phoning for a taxi. His consciousness was sufficient to open the car door, start the engine, and drive away. Finally, did his subsequent behaviour result in a delay in the emergency services being called? If so, then did this affect the victim's chances of survival?

It is quite simple. His drinking was intentional, so was his drug use, so was his decision to get behind the wheel while clearly unfit to drive, but he did not start the car with the intention of finding someone to kill.

But its not 'simple'. It's quite complicated!

The outcome was clearly a likely concequence of the first two choices. If I point a loaded gun at someone's head and pull the trigger, could I really argue that I intended to point the gun at their head, and intended to pull the trigger, but didn't intend to kill, so should get a much lighter sentence?

There's a subjective judgment in there as to how far someone can be held responsible for the concequences of the first two acts (drinking and driving), and I think that judgement is going to be hugely influenced by the attitude to driving (and drinking, for that matter) of the person doing the judging.

Its akin to the way it used to be considered understandable to kill a gay person for making a pass at you. These judgements are always political and dependent both on the distribution of power and the wider culture.

Avatar
davel replied to L.Willo | 8 years ago
4 likes
L.Willo wrote:

...prank you by pulling the chair out from under you...

The prison sentence seems about right for the circumstances (as reported)....

Your prank analogy is a poor one - in that scenario you're 1. moving a chair and 2. intending to do someone some minor harm. In this scenario he operated a machine that kills 1500 people each year in the UK alone while completely mullered... but probably never intended to hurt someone. A better analogy might be staggering out of a pub then running down a street with a chainsaw.

I agree that the sentence is probably about par given current sentencing structure - but that doesn't mean that it's right. There seems to be growing dissatisfaction with light sentences and the perception it creates of society's tolerance of acting like a fucknut while in charge of a machine that causes so much death.

Pages

Latest Comments