Jury clears ‘hungover’ Porsche driver of killing cyclist by dangerous driving

hirsute wrote:

If his parents were vulnerable then that was an exception to collect groceries for them.

But not in the course of a fifty mile drive home from a barbeque.

Looks like the party was the law breaking - I don't suppose it matters too much where you start from for the shopping (assuming the shopping bit was true).

If only our lords and masters (and others with an important public role in this) had set everyone a clear example of appropriate behaviour... [1] [2]

Rendel Harris wrote:

But not in the course of a fifty mile drive home from a barbeque.

How about for an eye test?

My biggest issue is we accept the combination of (to paraphrase) "they came out of nowhere", "I didn't see them" and 'they swerved out in front of me so I couldn't react".

Except the first 2 are incompatible with the third. If you didn't see them until the last moment how do you know they swerved;

qwerty360 wrote:

My biggest issue is we accept the combination of (to paraphrase) "they came out of nowhere", "I didn't see them" and 'they swerved out in front of me so I couldn't react".

 

Except the first 2 are incompatible with the third. If you didn't see them until the last moment how do you know they swerved;

Exactly. I'm really surprised that the prosecution failed to seize on this obvious contradiction / lie.

OldRidgeback wrote:

This is an appalling outcome. My sympathies are with the family of the victim.

Don't forget he can still get five years (minus minimum 10% for guilty plea) for the admitted death by careless driving, so hopefully he'll at least do some time, though clearly not enough.

Don't forget he can still get five years (minus minimum 10% for guilty plea) for the admitted death by careless driving

But he won't. My guess is 6 months inside, but out in 3

1/3rd off if he pled guilty at earliest opportunity. 
 

my guess is 8 months 

biker phil wrote:

The jury should be ashamed of themselves. The family need to, and should, appeal this decision. 

Unfortunately you can't appeal a not guilty verdict as it would amount to double jeapordy, once the jury have found someone not guilty that's that. In a limited number of crimes (murder, rape, terrorism) a sentence (but not a verdict) may be appealed if the appellant feels it's too lenient, but that doesn't apply to road traffic cases. The only way this excrescence could face another trial would be if new evidence emerged showing he'd perjured himself, e.g. if he boasted on social media that actually yes he had been looking at his phone.

Key factors: Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving

The following guideline applies to a “first-time offender” aged 18 or over convicted after trial.

When assessing the seriousness of any offence, the court must always refer to the full list of aggravating and mitigating factors in the Council guideline on Seriousness [now replaced by the General guideline] as well as those set out in the guideline as being particularly relevant to this type of offending behaviour.

Disqualification of the offender from driving and endorsement of the offender’s driving licence are mandatory, and the offence carries between 3 and 11 penalty points when the court finds special reasons for not imposing disqualification. There is a discretionary power to order an extended driving test where a person is convicted of this offence.

Since the maximum sentence has been set at 5 years imprisonment, the sentence ranges are generally lower for this offence than for the offences of causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving under the influence, for which the maximum sentence is 14 years imprisonment. However, it is unavoidable that some cases will be on the borderline between dangerous and careless driving, or may involve a number of factors that significantly increase the seriousness of an offence. As a result, the guideline for this offence identifies three levels of seriousness, the range for the highest of which overlaps with ranges for the lowest level of seriousness for causing death by dangerous driving.

The three levels of seriousness are defined by the degree of carelessness involved in the standard of driving. The most serious level for this offence is where the offender’s driving fell not that far short of dangerous. The least serious group of offences relates to those cases where the level of culpability is low – for example in a case involving an offender who misjudges the speed of another vehicle, or turns without seeing an oncoming vehicle because of restricted visibility. Other cases will fall into the intermediate level.

The starting point for the most serious offence of causing death by careless driving is lower than that for the least serious offence of causing death by dangerous driving in recognition of the different standards of driving behaviour. However, the range still leaves scope, within the 5 year maximum, to impose longer sentences where the case is particularly serious.

Where the level of carelessness is low and there are no aggravating factors, even the fact that death was caused is not sufficient to justify a prison sentence.

A fine is unlikely to be an appropriate sentence for this offence; where a non-custodial sentence is considered appropriate, this should be a community order. The nature of the requirements will be determined by the purpose identified by the court as of primary importance. Requirements most likely to be relevant include unpaid work requirement, activity requirement, programme requirement and curfew requirement.

Personal mitigation

Sentencers should take into account relevant matters of personal mitigation; in particular:

Good driving record

This is not a factor that automatically should be treated as a mitigating factor, especially now that the presence of previous convictions is a statutory aggravating factor. However, any evidence to show that an offender has previously been an exemplary driver, for example having driven an ambulance, police vehicle, bus, taxi or similar vehicle conscientiously and without incident for many years, is a fact that the courts may well wish to take into account by way of personal mitigation. This is likely to have even greater effect where the driver is driving on public duty (for example, on ambulance, fire services or police duties) and was responding to an emergency.

Giving assistance at the scene

There may be many reasons why an offender does not offer help to the victims at the scene – the offender may be injured, traumatised by shock, afraid of causing further injury or simply have no idea what action to take – and it would be inappropriate to assess the offence as more serious on this ground (and so increase the level of sentence). However, where an offender gave direct, positive, assistance to victim(s) at the scene of a collision, this should be regarded as personal mitigation.

Remorse

Whilst it can be expected that anyone who has caused death by driving would be expected to feel remorseful, this cannot undermine its importance for sentencing purposes. Remorse is identified as personal mitigation in the Council guideline and the Council can see no reason for it to be treated differently for this group of offences. It is for the court to determine whether an expression of remorse is genuine; where it is, this should be taken into account as personal mitigation.

Well, we don't know what his sentence was yet, do we - sentencing 21st October.

" Howeve"r, any evidence to show that an offender has previously been an exemplary driver, for example having driven an ambulance, police vehicle, bus, taxi or similar vehicle"

Incredible, that this low low bar can be seen as a mitigating factor, In my experience many of the worst drivers out there are taxi drivers.

Apparently the evidence shows the opposite:
From dicklexic above:
A Yorkshire Post article prior to the trial stated this...

The jury will also be shown CCTV footage of an incident in 2018 when Mr Bryan was filmed appearing distracted at the wheel and sent a Notice of Intended Prosecution.

HoarseMann wrote:

The jury should be ashamed of themselves.

So much of this just doesn't stack up. The A168 is the old A1, it runs parallel to the newer road and I cannot understand why you would take that route over the main road during lockdown when traffic would have been light.

Because it's a fun road to speed on with your fancy sports car.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I think the focus on drink, drugs and texting is missing the most important point.

If you are unable to react to a cyclist just proceeding along the road and you drive straight into them then that is indeed 'far below' the standard of a careful and competent driver. Should be automatically found guilty just from that alone.

it seems that this jury disagrees with you

1) straight road cyclist visible

2) text "I am hungover and can't see LOL" shortly before the crash

3) facebook and whatsapp open at time of crash

4) tried to claim single witness suicide swerve but disproved by forensics

5) claimed cyclist came out of nowhere, this alone is proof he wasn't looking. People do not beam down onto the roads, if you think they came out of nowhere it's because you weren't looking properly

Short of actually being drunk at the time it's had to see how this could be worse, and yet this is not considered to be far below the level of a safe and competent driver.

I think juries consider death by careless to be sufficient punishment for any "accident"

So true - it's like: "Oops, just ran over a cyclist. That was careless".

I cannot find anything that allows a bbq with your parents. You could provide them with shopping but nothing beyond that.

hirsute wrote:

I cannot find anything that allows a bbq with your parents. You could provide them with shopping but nothing beyond that.

From the linked report the barbecue was a separate event not connected to his parents, he was on his way home from the barbecue (50 miles from home!) and going to get shopping for his parents on the way back, so even more inexcusable. Both would have been against the regulations, but you could understand someone saying I took my parents some shopping, they were barbecuing in the back garden so I stopped for a quick burger. This specimen thought he was entitled to drive 50 miles for a social event – at a time when people couldn't say goodbye to their dying parents – and drive back still clearly under the influence of the drink and drugs he'd taken (I don't care that he was under the limit at the time he was tested, he could've been over the limit at the time of the incident or a few minutes before, and in any case, he clearly shouldn't have been driving. I'm fond of a pint or two and when I used to ride motorcycles I wouldn't go out on one for a full 24 hours after a good party to be on the safe side).

I never understand why the "came out of nowhere" defence is not automatically self-incriminating. Stage illusionists make a living out of this stuff by forcing us to suspend disbelief, and yet it is accepted at face value in court.

It's the incompetence paradox, isn't it?  "My client - a careful, previously blameless driver - made a mistake / was momentarily overwhelmed by circumstances / just had an unlucky day.  So therefore they didn't mean it.  So it must have been an accident.  Which of us, hand on heart, is a perfect driver?  Who hasn't made a mistake?  Who hasn't seen worse from other drivers every day..."

Nobody is a perfect driver, we have all made a mistake. But making a mistake, and killing a cyclist by ploughing into them at enough speed to kill them instantly, whilst recovering from heavy drinking and drug taking, throwing in to the mix proof that using a phone whilst driving is most definitely not in the same league as making a mistake.