- 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
news
Samuel Woolley entering a pub (picture via Hampshire Police)Drunk driver who killed cyclist jailed after police use pub CCTV to prove extent of his drinking
A drunk driver who killed a cyclist and then fled the scene has been jailed for five years and four months at Southampton Crown Court.
Samuel Woolley, 27, from Bartley, pleaded guilty to causing death by due care whilst over the prescribed limit and failing to stop after the incident shortly after midnight on 22 December 2017.
Woolley, who had spent the afternoon and evening drinking, crashed into 32-year-old Richard Gardner, who died in hospital later that day from his injuries.
The prosecution told the court that Woolley drove off because he knew he was over the drink-drive limit. He had left the Old Farmhouse pub in Totton half an hour earlier.
His father went to the scene after Woolley told him he had been in an accident, and when he realised how serious it was told police where to find his son.
Officers from Hampshire Police arrested Woolley at 3.40am on suspicion of impairment and an investigation by the Serious Collision Investigation Team pieced together the extent of his drinking.
His mobile phone revealed he had been in three pubs that day, with officers visiting each of them to retrieve CCTV footage which showed him consuming a number of drinks.
Police established that between 2.50pm and 11.19pm he drank at least six pints of beer and one shot of Jägermeister.
While there were no toxicology tests to prove he was over the limit, there was sufficient evidence for him to be charged, and expert analysis of a breath sample taken five hours after the incident showed he would have been over the limit when it happened.
Besides the prison sentence handed down to him, Woolley was disqualified from driving for six years and eight months, with an extended re-test.
PC Lucy Hawkins, from Hampshire Police’s Serious Collision Investigation Unit, said: “Woolley fled the scene that night leaving Mr Gardner fatally injured by the roadside.
“At that moment all he was worried about was himself and how he could avoid being caught drunk behind the wheel.
“However, what he didn’t bank on was that we would carry out a full and thorough investigation that would clearly prove his drink-driving was the cause of this tragic collision.
“The CCTV clearly shows him drinking several different drinks, which would have put him significantly over the drink-drive limit.
“While our alcohol tests play a significant role in prosecuting drink-drivers, they are not the only way we can prove a motorist is over the limit and this case proves that.
“I hope that this case sends a clear message that we will take all action necessary to ensure that drink-drivers face justice, no matter what attempts they make to avoid it.
“Mr Gardner would still be alive today if Woolley had not made the reckless decision to drink and drive that night. It is never worth the risk – the consequences can be fatal.”
She added: “Our thoughts are with Mr Gardner’s loved ones.”
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
- hawkinspeter 3 min 24 sec ago
Just the other day, Mrs HawkinsPeter remarked that our road seemed a lot quieter without all the rat-running and there's notably more traffic...
- hawkinspeter 23 min 53 sec ago
I would assume that it's the scent of huge profits that pulls in investment that does improve treatments, but we can see the end game of...
- hawkinspeter 18 min 24 sec ago
I was wondering if other countries used some kind of anti-copying technology. One type would be to use something like an RFID chip embedded into...
- Bungle_52 45 min 32 sec ago
Thanks for the info. I still can't find anything on the length of the ban, if he was banned, but I did find this interestng discussion on the...
- slc 1 hour 24 min ago
Doubly galling when, as has been pointed out here in the past, a binary search would efficiently reveal the time of theft. Triply galling when I...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 34 min ago
I have the same having got fed up with losing/breaking/scratching £150+ pairs from Oakley and POC, also with constantly having to change lenses...
- Andrewbanshee 2 hours 35 min ago
I lived a fair distance, 40 ish minutes walk, which I did every day. Only one of my house shares had a car and he walked too. Back then 92 to 95...
- anke2 3 hours 16 min ago
The front one seems a bit useless - what is it protecting, if not the feet, chain(wheel) and entire bottom bracket area? I found that "ToeSavers"...
- Jaijai 5 hours 26 min ago
The vision couldn't have been that good ,they went bankrupt.
Add new comment
32 comments
Tuck Buckford ? There's actually few similarities in speech patterns but i'm reasonably sure they're different people.
Any chance someone could sort the ridiculous sentence :
"Samuel Woolley, 27, from Bartley, pleaded guilty to causing death by due care ..." ??
@Samuel MacMichael ?
Imagine how the dead man's family & friends will feel when they read that.
Being arrested is not kidnap. You’ve really jumped the shark with that one.
It is if the arrest is unlawful, which it was as the grounds for the arrest were trumped up bullshit. Typical para military action by the police.
Nope. Still not kidnap. Don’t be silly.
The grounds for the arrest most definitely were lawful - he had broken the terms of his suspended sentence. Also, he plead 'guilty' to the charge though due to the court not following correct procedure, he will have to go to a retrial.
What information source are you using to determine that his arrest was unlawful?
Being arrested for not being in contempt is kidnap and assault, sorry but those are the facts. Maybe you should rewatch what actually happened, the jury had already sat and passed judgment, there was no way that he could influence the proceedings, this is utter nonsense.
For the Home secretary to allow this bullshit to happen whilst others whom have commited far more heinous crimes go free or ridiculously light sentences then this country will always be fucked.
I don't care for the man however the disgusting way in which he is being treated over a non event should be shocking to you and the diaparity in his treatment is beyond reason.
Sorry, but no.
I don't really want to get into the specifics of this on a cycling website, but being kidnapping would be for an illegal abduction. The judge (rightly or wrongly) judged that he had breached the existing suspended sentence for contempt of court by violating a set of reporting restrictions. Unfortunately, the correct procedure wasn't followed which is why he has just been released, but there will most likely be a new trial that does follow the correct procedure.
See here for more details: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tommy-robinson-arrest/
But it wasn't a "non-event". He breached reporting restrictions which had not at that point been lifted (regardless of whether the jury had finished, etc). He was released because the case was a c*ck-up and proper procedure wasn't followed: he certainly isn't free and clear, and will face another trial for contempt of court (unless someone else f*cks that up by, I don't know, breaching any reporting restrictions set...
, or unless by that time we've Brexited and the brownshirts are running the country or something...).
Dear Hampshire Police,
I've fixed your statement to reflect what should be the greater priority in this case...
Whilst we (the general public) appreciate the initiatives to reduce the menace of intoxicated drivers, we would be thrilled if you could take the aspects of cases such as these into context. The reason for the campaign against drink-driving was to prevent unnecesary road deaths, and not, as in this case, to be the main offence with which to prosecute.
Sincerely
Increasingly disillusioned Citizens
He drove his car into somebody and killed them, he then fled the scene, you would think that the fact he was drunk would only be part of the reason for a sentence but it seems to be the whole case the police put forward?
That's what I got from the article. The police only seem concerned with having picked up someone for drunk driving without needing the usual breathtest etc. The fact that he hit and killed a cyclist and then scarpered doesn't really seem to enter into it.
Why no lifetime ban? I fail to see how the public benefits from this bloke ever driving again.
Lifetime bans are a complete and utter waste of time as they are impossible to regulate or control.
That sounds like the tail wagging the dog.
Give someone a lifetime ban and then if they are ever stopped for any reason whilst driving, they get sent to jail and do not pass Go.
Just because they may get away with it due to reduced police presence is no reason to not give out the ban. At the very least, a banned driver is going to avoid attracting police attention and I'd rather have a banned driver still on the road than have the same driver legally be on the road.
Indeed; one might as well argue against Driver Licensing altogether if the challenges of enforcement are so insumountable. What's the difference in enforcement terms between catching someone with a life ban and catching someone who never passed the test in the first place?
By same logic..
Therfore any driving bans are a complete and utter waste of time as they are impossible to regulate or control. Therfore any driving licensing is a complete and utter waste of time as they are impossible to regulate or control.
Lets not bother with driving licences at all then, eh?
A pathetic sentence. Perhaps not pre-meditated exactly, but if you get in your car and drive after drinking 6 pints plus, you can be pretty bloody sure that you are going to kill/injure somebody. Therefore it's not unreasonable to expect this to have been treated with the same seriousness as murder by the courts.
Yes, the judge is restricted in which sentence he could pass but the absolute maximum should have been given in this case!
I really hope his time in prison is a total fcuking nightmare for him!
He made a conscious and DELIBERATE decision to drive whilst intoxicated, we know how this effects driving and the end results are known to everyone who drives at the very least.
He made a callous and calculating DELIBERATE decision to leave the scene where he'd mown down a human being leaving them to die.
This 'untermensch' deserves to have his oxygen cut off permanently, or maybe we could slowly gas the cunt instead, slowly dying just like his victim did! it might not stop others but at least we don't have to feed and water or ever worry this pile of excrement ever again.
The sentence should be reprorted to the Attourney General's office but as it was not a 'serious' charge that's a non starter.
Yet people like Tommy Robinson get 13 months for a stitched up 'contempt of court' charge, our country is a fucking joke!
I'll agree with you mostly on most of that, but I'll have to differ on Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, I think. Quote on last night's C4 news: "It was a cock up, not a conspiracy!"
As much as I despise "Tommy Robinson", I agree. I hope he does get a harsh sentence for his contempt of court, but he shouldn't get as much as someone who causes another person's death.
Contempt of court is taken very seriously as it is a disruption of the legal process. Whilst no one will die directly, it is quite possible for someone to walk free because of it. If it is not treated as a very serious crime then things like jury intimidation become more common as does disruption of trials and other actions to cause a trial to collapse. If you do not take it seriosly the whole justice system is at risk.
Absolutely.
The problem is not so much with the harsh sentence for "Tommy Robinson", but the lenient sentences given to drivers who decide to put other people's lives at risk (especially cyclists).
From the statement by PC Lucy Hawkins it appears to me that the police's main concern is the fact that they caught a drink driver and that the fatlity was a consequence of this crime. I see it that the crime is the killing of someone with a weapon as a consequence of drinking.
When we see the latter as the real crime then maybe (just maybe) we will start to see greater sentences given (I don't hold muh hope of this happening).
Insufficient sentence for killing and leaving the scene.
Nice work there Police.
The sentence doesn't seem as harsh as I'd like but it's better than some of late.
Well done the police and CPS, who normally only get criticism on this site, usually quite deserved too! And well done to the judge for a reasonable sentence, not the usual slap on the wrist with "no punishment can bring them back" excuses for minimum sentences.
Are we finally seeing crime against cyclists being taken seriously?
Not really. The two-and-a-half years he will serve seems a modest punishment for his crimes.
The sentence is a joke, the driver of the lorry that killed a family through distracted driving got 10 years, he didn't flee the scene, what has this oxygen waster got off so lightly.
If you think this is a result than I'm sorry I simply don't agree, it's a massive slap in the face for the family/friends and yet another indication that a cyclists life is worth less than a motorvehicle occupent.
CPS should have pressed for a more serious charge and the judge is a cretin, leaving the person you mowed down to die should have seen a massive increase on the base tariff, the sentence is a disgrace, please don't celebrate it just because it's more than zero.
You are right, I was only comparing it with the usual pathetic sentences for killing a cyclist. So progress of a sort, but still a long way to go until cyclist-killers get the same sentences as the drivers who kill real people.
Pages