Five years in jail for drugged and drunk hit-and-run driver who killed cyclist

It is clear that she did not lead a blameless life previous to this incident, and should therefore have to be brought back to court for re-sentencing, taking into account her previous convictions and demonstrated anti-cyclist behaviour.

Amazing how many people charged with serious crime often apparently have "blameless lives" or were "never in trouble" before their first appearance in court...

If you do enough trawling you'll find out she is a waste of space since adulthood and probably before. Drugs and thugs. 

Frightening to think you can take every precaution to stay alive and then you come across these sorts of people on the roads. 

Rick_Rude wrote:

If you do enough trawling you'll find out she is a waste of space since adulthood and probably before. Drugs and thugs. 

Frightening to think you can take every precaution to stay alive and then you come across these sorts of people on the roads. 

True - but actually you'll be just as dead if you're hit by a careful and considerate driver. Same as some bollards and bridges are trashed by "wrong'uns" but lots are bumped because driving a car is a tricky activity involving constant alertness and humans are very fallible in this regard.

Don't get me wrong, there are clearly plenty of people who are - if not malevolent - at least criminally unconcerned about others and should be disbarred from using vehicles on public health grounds. For me that's not sufficient to reduce the needless death on the roads.  That will involve improvements in street design and engineering, improved training and more effective checks that drivers are still operating vehicles in a safe manner. Practice makes ... habit, after all.

pockstone wrote:

Is it also a coincidence that an Emma Moughan of similar age was sentenced to 200hrs community service in 2011 for drug dealing

That I think really is a coincidence. There appears to be two Emma Moughan's in the Selby area. The one you refer to with the existing drug conviction is a couple of years younger and has younger kids. They also once had an off-coloured egg mcmuffin - nasty!...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4009652/dad-bites-into-mcdonalds-egg-muffi...

Thanks for that. Comment edited.

marmotte27 wrote:

"Wearing hi-visibility clothing and with front and rear lights visible on his bike, it is estimated that he would have been visible to the motorist for 600 metres, or 20 seconds."

Maybe a case of the "moth effect"?

Is that "Oooo - look at the pretty lights!"

I think it only works if you are also high on cocaine.

hirsute wrote:

I think it only works if you are also high on cocaine.

That's only when you're driving that train.

lllnorrislll wrote:

Is it coincidence... further confirmed on the comments for the tour de Yorkshire?

Mercifully, there is no coincidence, of course; at least there's only one killer driver with that name. 

Some prophetic comments from friends, too. 
 

Good sleuthing, I bet that wasn't brought before the court, but it should have been. Clearly demonstrates a negligent attitude towards cyclists, if not a desire to cause harm.

I think you're right about that attitude, Hoarsemann. 
 

If only her husband Paul had taken the keys off her that night. I suspect he didn't because, far from leading a blameless life, she was a habitual drink driver and illegal drug user.

The law changed a few years ago. The ban starts after she leaves prison.

I thought I had read somewhere that although that change was passed through parliament, because a general election was called before it was finished it didn't happen so it would have to start again

no it was set in the Criminal Justice Courts Act 2015, section 30, which received Royal assent before the general election had been called, the date which it applied from was after that parliamentary session finished because of the general election, but it is current law afaik.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

I was googling for the sentencing guidelines and came across an interesting snippet

"At the time of writing, the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving is 14 years in prison. However, the government is seeking to increase the maximum penalty to life imprisonment. This legal reform is included in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021"

Probably about the only good thing in that bill.

Yes... but they could increase the maximum to transportation to Mars and I doubt that would make much difference in the majority - or maybe any - cases:

• Lots of these don't come to court.
• When they do, the CPS is often (with reason) reluctant to go for the big charge.
• ...because it's hard to get convictions.  Everyone except the victim is a driver, everyone is prepared to countenance "the cyclist fell off / swerved", "the sun was in my eyes", "I didn't see them" as legitimate defenses.
• There seems to be a bimodal distribution of penalties which allows us to keep our intuitions about drivers in general: a) "otherwise blameless driver, moment of madness etc." ones which get minimal sentences. b) monster in human form (deliberately ran into people, drink, drugs, didn't stop, unlicenced, uninsured, no remorse, bad attitude and general toe-rag) - these get heavier sentences although to my astonishment I am not aware of any one that's within a few years of the maximum (I think 10 years is the highest I've seen).

Minimum amount to show reliably in lab tests

It's on most of our money, gets absorbed through the skin, traces could be found in most of us.