A driver three times over the legal limit for a by-product of cocaine use was driving his two children to football practice when he hit and killed a cyclist while distracted and searching for a song on his phone, Matthew Bates this week jailed for three years and nine months for causing the "utterly avoidable death".
A reporter from Leicestershire Live was at Leicester Crown Court on Thursday to hear how Bates killed Colin Banks, 64, and initially blamed the collision on the cyclist having hit the kerb and swerved into his path, something which was later disproved by collision investigators after one of the driver's sons told paramedics: "Daddy was trying to get a song on that he liked. He didn't see a bike and we hit it."
Mr Banks suffered a severe head injury and died in hospital. He had recently retired as a university lab assistant and was hit as he cycled on the B4114 Coventry Road near Sharnford at just before 10am on Sunday 30 January 2022.
After the collision the investigation began, Bates's Audi on its side in a ditch and the driver claiming the cyclist had hit the kerb and swerved, meaning the impact was unavoidable. However, investigators examined the scene and noted that the evidence in fact suggested it was Bates who had made contact with the side of the road and mounted a grass verge before swerving into the road and hitting Mr Banks.
The cyclist was doing nothing wrong and the prosecutor, Victoria Rose, told the court: "If he [Bates] had been looking, Mr Banks was there to be seen and nothing on the road surface or layout were contributing factors in the collision."
The local press reports how the court heard the investigation was assisted by the fact Bates's eight-year-old son told a paramedic his dad had been "trying to get a song on that he liked" and "he didn't see a bike and we hit it". Subsequent analysis of the driver's phone, which was found in a footwell, established there was a Bluetooth connection between it and the vehicle, and the Twitter (X) app, a folder and a music app had been opened and closed between 9.53am and the moment of the collision
Having initially denied causing death by dangerous driving, an offence he was charged with, Bates later pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving while over the drug-driving limit, after it emerged his blood contained over three times the legal limit for a by-product of cocaine use.
The judge Timothy Spencer KC sentenced Bates to three years and nine months in prison and told the court the sentence "is not meant to be a measure of the value of the life of Colin Banks".
"All human life is invaluable and he [Mr Banks] made a particularly valuable contribution to society and to his family," the judge said, banning Bates from driving for five years following his release, expected to come halfway through his 45-month sentence.
Detective Constable Paul Hicks, from Leicestershire Police's Serious Collision Investigation Unit (SCIU) was the officer in the case and commented: "During the investigation, it became evident that Bates was most likely distracted by trying to use his phone while driving. Benzoylecgonine – the main metabolite of cocaine – was also in his system.
"The fact that there were two young children in the car at the time – when his focus was not on the road ahead – is alarming. Sadly, Mr Banks's family are still having to live with the consequences of his actions, but I hope this case serves as a warning to others who think it's okay to use a phone or other electronic device behind the wheel. While you think you're not doing anything wrong, it goes to show that your actions could have fatal consequences."
Mr Banks's sister-in-law Annalisa told the court via a statement that his "untimely and utterly avoidable death" had "devastated his family and his friends" and "words cannot describe the horror we felt on hearing about the brutal nature of his passing".
Speaking about his career (which saw him work for 32 years as a lab technician at Warwick University) and additional role as a popular Scout leader, she added that he "helped shape the lives of hundreds of young people" and said the family had been "robbed of a loving, gentle and thoughtful soul".
Following the arrest, Bates separated from his wife and no longer lived at the family home, moving back in with his mother but maintaining regular contact with his children.
Add new comment
18 comments
I think the most concerning thing here really is that being a) high as a kite; b) using your phone whilst driving - is apparently still only "careless".
Either of those conducts is not just "careless" - they are both inherently dangerous - so dangerous we make it an offence to do either of them even if you don't cause an accident. There should be no scope for pleading to a careless driving offence when alcohol or mobile phone use involved - either the collision was your fault and your conduct should be presumptively dangerous, or the collision was genuinely caused by something freak/unavoidable such that the drivers conduct did not materially impact the outcome.
But a collision caused by someone intoxicated or on their phone...
It's because the police in particular and the legal system in general are of the opinion that you're bound to kill the odd one or two and if cyclists don't like the conditions on the road they should seek an alternative mode of transport (opinion copyright of Blackpool Police)
Indeed - and this is at odds with the CPS' own guidance.
But presumably a) pressure for results / saving money b) possibly indirect pressure because overloaded courts and prison system and c) trials can be a bit of a lottery, and when it comes to road offenses it's one that is not fair.
The jury of one's peers and indeed judge are quite unlikely to understand the difficulties and nuances of riding (or even driving...) on our roads. More - their sympathies may be against the cyclists ("they chose to ride - to put themselves in harm's way") and with the driver ("they had to drive; they were just trying to get from A to B").
As Rendel has illustrated they're going to struggle to see beyond the natural feelings of "but they were both on the road - six of one and half a dozen of the other" or "yeah, I've also done things I'm not proud of while driving" or "it's not right but I've seen worse" or "it's an inevitable consequence of driving" *. This is not helped by the way the law is worded. Nor by the help given to judge things (e.g. why not involve a driving examiner - "would this fail a driving test" would surely be a simple test?)
* Actually in the UK because we have pushed "mass motoring" hard for a few generations AND our systems are actually designed around not impeding motorists after they've passed a single test in their lifetime (and "optimise for maximum flow of motor traffic" etc.) ... "some road death is inevitable" is probably true!
The con is that systems which make this less likely exist. And have been in use for decades. We don't have to accept "it's just a consequence of driving".
I'm convinced these murderous, dangerous drivers believe their own blx. The one time I've managed to to get a court hearing the driver explained to the magistrate the reason he close passed me, hooted and revved aggressively was becuase I was 'weaving all over the place'. And he said this after my go pro footage was shown on a large screen on the court room - and showed me going in a perfectly straight line without any inconsistent 'weaving'. They are so convinced that cycles should not be on the road they are prepared to lie in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
Were they believed? A couple of years ago I was in court as a witness against the driver who missed me by less than six inches at over 30 mph as I was making a right turn that I had begun, after signaling, when he was over 100 yards and six seconds away (this was all shown on the video). His defence was that I had veered out in front of him without signalling when he was a metre away and in fact it was his driving skills which had prevented a collision. He got off because apparently the magistrates were incapable of making the calculation that if he was telling the truth he managed to see my alleged suicidal dive in front of him and take evasive action in 0.07 of a second, something that is literally impossible.
Exactly the response I got from a Chelsea Tractor driver who passed me with inches to spare because he couldn't wait a few seconds for the oncoming traffic to pass. I nearly lost it when I confronted him at the car park a hundred or so yards further down the road.
If the judge thinks a 3 year sentence (out in 1 year) sends any kind of message other than the judiciary are fools he should think again.
MANSLAUGHTER
Could have got a longer prison term for posting the wrong thing on social media!
He's got the maximum.
Why the dangerous driving was not pursued is appalling. I don't think even a jury of drivers would agree that drugged up on cocaine and with 2 kids in the car was somehow 'momentary inattention'.
When I saw on the news that courts would be operating 24 hours a day to give long prison sentences to the thugs on the streets causing violence and damage I thought great, we'll be getting rid of rioters and drivers at the same time.
I wonder if the fact his mugshot looks like Ian Watkins will influence the quality of his stay at His Majesty's Pleasure?
Can't say I'm hugely impressed with 3.75 yr custodial sentence for manslaughter by another name, but that's the shit state of the legal system where motor vehicles are concerned. Personally I think a method of an enforcible lifetime ban with a constant reminder of his failings would be more appropriate than any longer of a stay in prison, but how?
Still (should be) staggering that the CPS / courts accepted a "careless" plea given at least 3 pieces of evidence (eg. drug results and mobile phone plus "witness").
Although given the reluctance of courts to hold drivers accountable even via charges designed specifically for these behaviours (so *not* just murder, manslaughter etc.) ...
(Apparently driving others about in this kind of state attracts no legal notice - that's not just this case either).
A tragedy for all concerned: the cyclist, his family and friends, the driver, his family and friends, all because he wanted a different song.
A sad demonstration of the fact that the cyclist can do everything right and still be the victim of callously indifferent drivers.
Can't wait for that comprehensive review of road laws to finish. Has it even started?
And of course all modern motor vehicles have full entertainment systems included, which can almost guarantee distraction to a lesser or greater degree...
Surely it's about time that it is this sort of behaviour; rather than ficticious 52MPH Strava efforts, that should be the front page banner headlines in the, frankly pathetic, Torygraph.
I've even ditched my Torygraph crossword book, of which I was particularly fond, in protest.
I can think of a few cross words for the torygraph, which won't feature this story, because the victim was a cyclist and the perpetrator was a driver.
Druggie kills upstanding citizen? The Telegraph would love that story. Fighting the good fight as part of the rightful "War on Drugs". Their readers could tut disapprovingly at someone they consider to be "other".
Distracted motorist kills cyclist? Not really newsworthy for a national paper like the Telegraph. That'd be siding with the lycra-louts in the unjust "War on Motorists". Their readers would be forced to consider their own dangerous distracted behaviours. Nah.