- 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
Drink-driver Vicky Hardy sentenced (Northumbria Police)Woman who drank "five pints and measure of spirit" before killing cyclist on drive home from pub jailed for six years
A drink-driver who drank "five pints and a measure of spirit" during an evening-long pub session before driving home, hitting and killing a cyclist while speeding at 38mph on a 30mph road has been sentenced to six years in prison.
Vicky Hardy was jailed at Newcastle Crown Court for her actions in the early hours of a morning in July 2022, the Sunderland Echo reports, CCTV from The Jolly Potter pub showing the 44-year-old consuming numerous drinks before getting into her car, despite being "unsteady on her feet", and attempting to drive home.
CCTV from a nearby hostel showed Hardy mounting the pavement as she tried to leave the pub's car park, the drink-driver soon after hitting and killing a "beloved" man described as "generous, kind and harmless" by his family.
Ali Reza Ghaisar was cycling on Hylton Road when Hardy hit him at 38mph as she attempted to drive the journey home of just over a mile from the pub she had spent around six hours at, drinking "five pints and a measure of spirit".
Mr Ghaisar was thrown across the road to the other side of the carriageway by the impact, the local press reporting that the court heard he was "fully lit up" but suffered catastrophic injuries caused by Hardy. Members of the public attempted CPR until paramedics arrived, but he died at the scene.
While those at the scene attempted to save Mr Ghaisar's life, Hardy fled but was caught on camera returning to the crash site, before again driving off and returning home.
Prosecutor Kevin Wardlaw told the sentencing hearing: "The defendant had spent the hours before the offence drinking with her partner in the public house the Jolly Potter just over a mile from the location of the incident. CCTV footage from the pub shows defendant arrive just after 7pm in the evening parking in the pub car park.
"Her home address at the time was about one-and-a-half miles from the premises. She remained there to about 1:15, during which time cameras showed her consuming about five pints and a measure of spirits. By the time the defendant left with her partner she appeared to be unsteady on her feet.
"A later analysis resulted in the calculation that the defendant was travelling at a speed of about 38mph on a road which is a 30mph limit. The defendant did not stop, only appearing to brake. The vehicle was seen to continue to travel east towards Hylton Road.
"The defendant called her mother to say she thought she had killed someone. Family members gathered at her address and attempts were made to get her to call police."
Hardy was arrested the following day, when officers were called to her address. Her legal representation, Tony Cornberg, told the hearing she just wants her "punishment to start", the judge subsequently jailing her for six years and adding an eight-year driving ban to the sentence.
In a victim impact statement, Mr Ghaisar's sister-in-law explained how the family had been in Turkey on holiday when a friend told them he had been killed.
"My mother-in-law was in our home country of Iran. I told her to get the first flight to the UK," she said. "I could not tell her over the phone what she was alone as she would have collapsed. When she arrived in the UK I told her her son was no longer with us. It's been two years since Ali was killed and for the last two years my mother-in-law has cried every day for her son. I have noticed a change in my husband since his brother was killed."
The sister-in-law also explained how Mr Ghaisar often met with refugees and members of the public in need, "would always put others before himself" and "would give his last penny even if it meant Ali had nothing".
"From the bottom of my heart, I urge the court to give justice to Ali," she said.
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- Car Delenda Est 1 sec ago
it seems that a lot, if not most, driving instructors teach that you only need to indicate in the presence of other motor vehicles, cyclists and...
- Smoggysteve 2 hours 42 sec ago
Electromagnets. Means you need a power source. Not the same. 🤦🏻♂️
- wtjs 2 hours 27 min ago
She clearly had no idea that she was doing anything wrong and had therefore decided I was being some kind of letch...
- Steve K 3 hours 3 min ago
It's worse than that - it is 50% heavier than they claim
- chrisonabike 3 hours 17 min ago
Thanks for the review! If it's this one it appears to be the Cyclops design (compare that to the Dutch urban cycle-priority roundabout here)....
- Cycle Happy 3 hours 31 min ago
Disable the speaker in two air tags. Very easy to do and numerous How To videos on YouTube. Then put a dead battery in one of the tags and leave it...
- belugabob 4 hours 34 min ago
Tiny little pencils?
- wtjs 4 hours 35 min ago
They were not playing ball at first, but I think saying he was going to go at 11am on Monday forced their hand and made it difficult to ignore ...
- ChasP 6 hours 1 min ago
I would imagine just to be able to sit down, if they wanted to pedal they could just get a bike?
- mdavidford 7 hours 36 min ago
Harsh on Ryan, but OK...
Add new comment
31 comments
My thoughts are with the family and friends of Ali.
"It's been two years since Ali was killed and for the last two years my mother-in-law has cried every day for her son."
That's absolutely heartbreaking.
I'm sure this horrible incident will feature heavily in the right wing media in the coming days, just like the drunk cyclist who hit a pedestrian.
Only joking! Of course they won't mention it.
The Motornormativity world (Global Cycling Network have a good video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_4GZnGl55c ); any hazards or risks associated with use of cars, and resulting deaths, are deemed acceptable
Thank you. In that much overused phrase, a "must watch" a fantastic analysis of why we're where we are and how difficult it is to achieve change.
I found that by chance a week or so ago (the YT algorithm recommended it on the sidebar for something else I was watching, IIRC). Very good.
Not to encourage intoxicated cycling - just don't ride or drive when intoxicated. But ... probably 10-15 minutes by bike. Looks like this is all within an urban area also - some mostly flat routes available.
Choices - drive 1.5 miles to get drunk and drive back.
I'd definitely fall off my bike. It's a forty minute walk, good for you after a drinking session.
I definitely don't recommend riding drunk. Personal experience - falling in a ditch drunk when young and who knows what could have happened?
It just struck me - the short distance people are driving, as opposed to other means of transport.
As you say, walking is a good idea (although you may be endangering yourself)... Taxis exist. Sometimes there's even a bus.
Of course then we get into some people (especially women) are wary (sometimes with very salient reasons) of walking alone at night, or even taking taxis. But in this case she had company (unfortunate that the partner failed to prevent her driving).
Her partner was also her drinking partner, so probably as drunk as she was and equally impaired.
she had spent around six hours at, drinking "five pints and a measure of spirit".
I trust the publican lost their licence; afterall it is there duty to ensure that people are not drunk and incapable..... what's that, more interested in profit than a cyclists life...?!
And six years for killing someone. Not enough.
Serving someone a drink an hour isn't exactly grounds for a pub landlord/lady to lose their licence. I could regularly drink twice as much as that in the same amount of time back in my going out days. Granted if they knew they where going to be driving afterwards then yes, there should be some punishment.
The report notes that she was shown on camera to be unstable on her feet.
It's an offence under the Licensing Act 2003, also I think to allow your staff to do so.
"Section 141 of the Licensing Act 2003 makes it an offence to knowingly sell or attempt to sell alcohol to a person who is drunk, or to knowingly allow alcohol to be sold to such a person on licensed premises."
https://www.popall.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Drunkeness-Guide-A4-... page 4.
Level 3 fine.
I have seen people literally fall over when they get off their bikes at the end of a race. Unsteadiness on your feet doesn't imply unfitness to cycle.
It's not "unfitness to cycle"; it's being obvously drunk at the pub.
It does if the unsteadiness on your feet is caused by alcohol.
"By the time the defendant left with her partner she appeared to be unsteady on her feet."
That's the only report of her being unsteady on her feet - when she left, not during the course of her being at the pub.
If there is to be blame on anyone else then the partner should bare it.
I thnk that 5 pints and a measure of spirits is a bit of a telltale ...
A tell tale of what? Are you assuming that the number of drinks is an underestimate or are you saying that the quoted number of drinks is a tell tale sign that they would be in such a state that they shouldn't have been served? Personally, I don't know anyone who could drink at that pace and be showing the level of drunkness to be refused service...I'd get where you were coming from if it was over a couple of hours, but six hours?
And even then the report seems to be from the CCTV footage - there's no report of it happening in sight of the staff, or anyone else at the pub.
That's the thing it states clearly by the time they left, and yet some folk still try to twist the stated facts and invent parts of it to suit their own agendas like some set of rabid newspaper journos.
And she'll be out and about in three years or less. I don't understand why criminals are sentenced to so many years in prison then they're let out after serving just half (or less now). Why not sentence them to the time they will actually serve?
The idea (as I understand it) of automatic early release is to allow for community-based rehabilitation to take place whilst retaining the right to recall offenders to custody in the event of recidivism, so retaining an element of deterrence. The problem is not early release but light sentencing by judges, who know that any sentence they give will be halved. The maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is life imprisonment so the judge in this case had plenty of options, if they wanted her to serve six years they could have sentenced her to twelve. Still not consonant with the nature of the offence, particularly with the alcohol involvement, but at least better than what she did get.
To be fair to the judge involved, as I understand it judges are required to follow the Sentencing Guidelines. It would appear to me (from the scant information reported) that six years is roughly in line with those guidelines (https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/causing-d...
(I would have thought this falls under Culpability B; aggrevating factors include the victim being a vulnerable road user and failure to stop at the scene; but mitigating factors (according to the guidelines*) include no previous offences/"good driving record" (at least as far as is mentioned in the reporting) and remorse, along with a discount for the guilty plea).
So I'd probably direct your ire at those in charge of writing the guidelines.
*To be clear, I'm not saying I agree that these ought to be considered "mitigating factors".
Thanks for the link, read with interest. I would say that actually she falls into Category A for culpability for:
Deliberate decision to ignore the rules of the road and disregard for the risk of danger to others
Driving highly impaired by consumption of alcohol and/or drugs
Speed significantly in excess of speed limit or highly inappropriate for the prevailing road or weather conditions
And as you say, from the aggravating factors section:
Victim was a vulnerable road user, including pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, motorcyclists etc
Failed to stop and/or obstructed or hindered attempts to assist at the scene
Enough there for the highest bracket, I would argue.
I don't want to spend too much time/effort defending this woman, but just to explain my logic:
Culpability B includes:
Driving at a speed that is inappropriate for the prevailing road or weather conditions (where not culpability A)
Driving impaired by consumption of alcohol and/or drugs (where not culpability A)
And also bear in mind that this is sentencing for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving - so we are considering where she falls within the scale of that offence. Even the lowest Culpability level was necessarily dangerous, and necessarily resulted in someone being killed, so those facts shouldn't be double counted to push the culpability up.
She was speeding, but I don't see that it would meet the "highly inappropriate" threshold for Culpability A. In isolation, 38 in a 30 zone is considered the lowest level for seriousness (and would normally be dealt with by a speed awareness course).
Similarly for impairment by alcohol - she clearly was impaired and no doubt over the legal limit (it's not reported if any samples were taken) but again, nothing stood out as justifying the "highly" wording (certainly when compared to some of the benders and binges reported in other incidents).
"Deliberate decision to ignore the rules of the road and disregard for the risk of danger to others" is a slightly odd thing to include - I find it hard to imagine the circumstances in which someone is convicted of dangerous driving without deliberately ignoring the rules of the road. Given that speed and alcohol are specified separately, there's nothing else about the manner of her driving that seems to fit this criteria.
Of course it's going to depend on the judge's interpretation but the Culpability B definition regarding speed ("Driving at a speed that is inappropriate for the prevailing road or weather conditions") would appear to me to imply not actually breaking the speed limit but doing something stupid like insisting on driving at 70 mph on the motorway even when fog has brought the visibility down to 50 m. Culpability A encompasses "Speed significantly in excess of speed limit": I take what you're saying about that sometimes being sanctioned with a course, but she was still doing nearly 30% over the speed limit, if I were a judge (and scarily you could do worse and it seems they often do) I would be comfortable calling 30% "significantly in excess of speed limit". Additionally the incident occurred at 1:15 am, so a case for saying that driving at that speed in the dark was indeed "highly inappropriate". Also, I would say that it is possible to categorise her as "highly impaired by consumption of alcohol" as CCTV shows her mounting the pavement as she drove out of the pub car park.
I don't disagree with your interpretation, it is perfectly possible to interpret the guidelines that way, but I would say that if a judge was actually determined to apply higher sanctions, as I think we nearly all agree they should've done, there is enough there in her behaviour for it to be interpreted as meeting the highest level of culpability.
Something else you have to take into account is when her guilty plea was taken. If she pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity the judge can give up to 1/3 off the sentence. So if HH Moreland thought it was worth a nine year sentence, the early guilty plea will reduce the actual sentence down to six years. (The discount varies as to when the guilty plea is taken so a guilty plea just before a trial starts would only warrant perhaps a 5% reduction in the sentence - the judge doesn't have to give 1/3 off either, it is discretionary but they have to give reasons for stepping outside of the guidelines etc. and leave themselves open to appeal if it appears unduly harsh (or lenient) in doing so. Generally 1/3 off is always given for early guilty plea.
There's also a balance to be struck. Giving the maximum sentence leaves no scope for proportionate sentencing for more serious cases.
Well, yes, point taken, but I can't think of anything much more serious than killing someone because you're pissed and speeding down a residential street at 1.15AM.
Killing more than one
There are no easy answers or sentences in this sort of case and no sentence will ever compensate the victims.
What's more annoying / saddening is that (most of the present company excepted) most people don't give a flying fig about this and it won't be the last time it happens as almost nobody will stop, think and change their behaviour.
Pages