Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Texting driver who killed cyclist fails in appeal to have sentence reduced

Cycling UK urges government to close "exceptional hardship loophole" that allowed Christopher Gard to keep driving...

A driver who was jailed for nine years after he killed a cyclist while texting at the wheel has failed to have the sentence overturned today at the Court of Appeal.

Christopher Gard was sentenced last September for causing the death of cyclist Lee Martin, who had been taking part in a time trial near Farnham, Hampshire in August 2015.

His trial heard that Gard had a string of convictions for mobile phone use while driving, and that after the collision that claimed Mr Martin’s life he attempted to delete text messages he had been sending a friend to arrange a dog walk.

Six weeks prior to the fatal crash, he had persuaded magistrates to let him keep his driving licence when he appeared before them on yet another charge of driving while illegally using a mobile phone.

Reacting to today’s news that Gard’s appeal had been unsuccessful, Duncan Dollimore, senior road safety and legal officer at the charity Cycling UK called for the government to close the loophole that allows drivers to keep their licences by pleading “exceptional hardship.”

He said: “Christopher Gard appealed his nine year prison term because he thought he was treated too harshly, and his sentence was excessive. As many families of other victims of road crashes will know however, Lee Martin’s family’s sentence will last a lifetime.

“Whilst the Court of Appeal has reviewed and agreed with the original sentence, it is a tragedy that nobody will review the earlier decision which allowed Gard to continue driving with six previous convictions for driving while using his mobile phone.

“The exceptional hardship loophole, and the reluctance of the courts to take people off the road before they destroy the lives of others, must be reviewed urgently. Cycling UK has repeatedly asked the Ministry of Justice to look at this within their review of motoring offences and penalties, but so far we have been ignored.”

He added: “If Justice Secretary Elizabeth Truss won’t listen to us, she should heed the worlds of Lee’s brother Darrell, who reminded the Daily Mail yesterday that ‘driving is not a right, it’s a privilege’. That means looking again at more frequent and longer disqualifications, not just the length of the prison sentence in the worst cases.”

After his brother’s killer, who has also been banned from driving for 14 and a half years, was sentenced in September, Mr Martin said the courts could have prevented Gard from driving earlier.

He said: "There were opportunities to stop the man from driving around. Just six weeks before he had persuaded a magistrate not to take his licence away and promised to lock his phone in the boot."

He added: "The text message – think about how inane this is – it was about meeting his mate later and taking his dog for a walk. That's what killed my brother."

> Number of drivers fined for using mobile phone plummets

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.

Add new comment

18 comments

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will | 7 years ago
3 likes

Man, this thread has gone off subject... 

Avatar
Jacobi | 7 years ago
3 likes

This guy should have been banned after his second offence. The courts really need to clamp down on these people who show complete indifference for other road users. How many cyclists/pedestrians  killed or injured does it take to make politicians get off their arses and bring in stricter legislation?

 

IMO anyone caught twice using a mobile or computer while driving should get an automatic one year ban. Caught three times should bring at least a 5 year ban - More than that should bring imprisonment and a lifetime ban as the person has shown complete disregard for the law.

 

 

Avatar
Martyn_K | 7 years ago
1 like

I suspect that the appeal was not only instigated by the defendant but also the lawyers of said individual. The framework of UK law allows someone who has been convicted to appeal said conviction and the sentence given to them.

Lawyers encourage an appeal even if it is destined to fail, as it is a means to generate more income. 

As the public with no personal attachment to the case we should be very angry about this appeal as it is likely that the tax payer has footed the legal bill by way of legal aid.

Avatar
Russell Orgazoid | 7 years ago
1 like

Hope you get bum-raped Mr. Gard.

Avatar
beezus fufoon | 7 years ago
5 likes

fool me eight times, shame on you - fool me nine times, shame on me... erm, hold on, wait, that's not quite right...

Avatar
Gweeds | 7 years ago
2 likes

Christopher Gard can get in the fucking bin. 

Avatar
Sevenfold | 7 years ago
1 like

This is one driver I suspect would ignore any ban received. 9 years & out in 4.5 is in no way sufficient punishment. I would also like the magistrate in the last case where he pleaded 'exceptional hardship' to face the deceased's family & explain how they let this scum keep their licence.

Avatar
Grahamd | 7 years ago
2 likes

Now we need the magistrate that allowed him to retain is licence originally to face some repercussion. 

Avatar
j@n | 7 years ago
4 likes

I can't believe after 6 convictions for driving whilst using a mobile phone, AND killing somebody, that this guy can ever be allowed near a motor vehicle again. Disgusting.

Avatar
davel replied to j@n | 7 years ago
2 likes

j@n wrote:

I can't believe after 6 convictions for driving whilst using a mobile phone, AND killing somebody, that this guy can ever be allowed near a motor vehicle again. Disgusting.

This does beg the question: exactly what does someone have to do to get a lifetime ban?

Avatar
Bluebug replied to davel | 7 years ago
1 like

davel wrote:

j@n wrote:

I can't believe after 6 convictions for driving whilst using a mobile phone, AND killing somebody, that this guy can ever be allowed near a motor vehicle again. Disgusting.

This does beg the question: exactly what does someone have to do to get a lifetime ban?

Nothing unless you are locked in prison for life.

If you ban people for life the people who get banned would simply drive without a licence and insurance.   There aren't enough police to catch them hence it is better to "rehabilitate" them and let them drive legally even if they have to pay a few extra k on their insurance premium. 

Avatar
schlepcycling replied to Bluebug | 7 years ago
2 likes

Bluebug wrote:

davel wrote:

j@n wrote:

I can't believe after 6 convictions for driving whilst using a mobile phone, AND killing somebody, that this guy can ever be allowed near a motor vehicle again. Disgusting.

This does beg the question: exactly what does someone have to do to get a lifetime ban?

Nothing unless you are locked in prison for life.

If you ban people for life the people who get banned would simply drive without a licence and insurance.   There aren't enough police to catch them hence it is better to "rehabilitate" them and let them drive legally even if they have to pay a few extra k on their insurance premium. 

He's already shown his contempt for the law with the 'I'll lock my phone in the boot' comment to get off previously what makes you think that he can be rehabilitated enough that he'd pay the increased premium, if you say that he'll drive while banned surely he'll drive uninsured.

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 7 years ago
6 likes

Hope the cell next to his is reseved for the magistrates who failed to remove his licence at earlier opportunities.

Avatar
gazzaputt | 7 years ago
3 likes

I agree with comment above. The fact this scumbag appealed his sentence shows the total disregard he has for human life. It should have been increased and he should have a lifetime driving ban.

I hope his life is destroyed the same as the victims family has been.

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 7 years ago
10 likes

Surely punishment causes 'exceptional hardship' otherwise it's not, well, a punishment?

What next? Points mean prizes or something?!?

Avatar
WolfieSmith | 7 years ago
10 likes

If you take a life through careless or dangerous driving you should be banned for life. That's what I would like to see as law.

Avatar
PaulBox | 7 years ago
8 likes

Good - His sentance should be increased because he appealed. His opinion that he had been treated too harshly says it all really...

Avatar
jasecd | 7 years ago
21 likes

Good - The very fact that he appealed is an insult to the family of Lee Martin. 

Latest Comments