300 Hours "Not Too Lenient"

[Whiskey88]

I am absolutely gobsmacked. Gary McCourt has killed 2 cyclists and the sentence passed in the latest case was 300 hour community service and a 5-year ban.

Rightfully so, the Crown appealed the sentence, stating it was too lenient. The judge has disagreed and upheld the sentence.

This is the reasoning released by the court. It is absolutely shocking and I'm hoping the judge never gets to sit on a case involving a cyclist again: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2013HCJAC114.html

 

[glasgowcyclist]

That is disappointing in the extreme.

Why can't the courts (and society in general) understand that even clipping a moving cyclist can result in very serious injuries and, rather than excuse the driving as a momentary lapse, it should be regarded as highlighting just how much danger a motorvehicle presents to us and pedestrians?

Otherwise the message to drivers is that killing people with a car is an occupational hazard for which they'll get a sympathetic hearing.

GC

 

[cd365]

I've just read this on the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-24240127
What a disgusting decision

 

[sidevalve]

Sorry but as a m/cyclist and a cyclist it's just more of the same. The fines / punishments handed out to those who injure or kill m/cyclists are usually equally pathetic. The helmet law [no lets NOT get too involved in that one here] was forced through [just as it will be sooner or later for cyclists. Minority groups of any sort carry little weight and sadly this is the result.

 

[benb]

British justice - the finest in the world.

 

[mcshroom]

At least the appeal decision was clear that the fact that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet was not an acceptable item for mitigation.

 

[glenn forger]

Audrey’s family said:

‘We are lost for words. There was a unanimous vote in Parliament earlier this month to strengthen the enforcement of road traffic law, to ensure that driving offences - especially those resulting in death or injury - are treated sufficiently seriously by police, prosecutors and judges. The police here did an admirable job for us but the Scottish justice system appear to have had complete disregard for Government policy. Scotland led the way in the smoking ban and minimum pricing on alcohol. The decision to allow Gary McCourt and drivers like him to drive again suggests that the judiciary are frightened to grasp the nettle and make decisions which would make our country a safer place to live.’

 

[gavintc]

I know this will bring response from some commentators on here. But, the obvious conclusion from the remarks made by the judge is to 'wear a helmet'. There have been a few of these cases in which the injured cyclist has been deemed negligent by not wearing one. I quote:

"In my view, the accident was the very type of incident for which safety helmets are designed to give protection to cyclists' heads. In my opinion, failure to give significant weight to this factor in sentencing would have been wholly unjust and contrary to paragraph 24 of the Guidelines"

 

[glenn forger]

You are quoting the original sheriff, not the report linked above:

No evidence was led before the sheriff as to the effect of not wearing a cycle helmet, and whether or not this may have caused or contributed to Mrs Fyfe's death.

No submissions were made to the sheriff by either party in this regard.

It is clear from the material placed before us that there is a degree of controversy as to the efficacy of cycle helmets in preventing death. We consider that the sheriff was wrong to regard this as a matter of judicial knowledge.

The view which he reached was based not on evidence but on speculation, and in this respect he fell into error.

He should not have treated the fact that Mrs Fyfe was not wearing a cycle helmet at the time of the collision as a mitigatory factor.

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2013HCJAC114.html

 

[Buddfox]

Yeah there's some confusion here I think (and I have seen this in a lot of the reaction I've read today). The one positive thing that came out of the judgement was that they concluded that the original Sheriff was incorrect to say that the lack of helmet was relevant, and recognised that there were studies that questioned the efficacy of helmet protection. I have already seen one solicitor today flag it as a relevant judgement to refer to when fighting cases for damages where courts attempt to use the lack of helmet as reason to apportion more blame to the cyclist.

The shocking element I think is not to have over-ruled the position on momentary inattention - which was really the problem here. The guy freely admitted he didn't look when he turned right, when he was stopped. As was argued, this was not momentary inattention, but bad driving. I cannot find fault in that assessment, but the Court did (for reasons which are not explained, other than he did a detailed review and I agree - seems like balls to me).

Had that part of the judgement been over-ruled, then it would have been a minimum 36 week jail sentence and a life time ban (per the Cycling Solicitor on Twitter), because it would have moved up the scale of seriousness.

 

[Cycling Dan]

|Shame this is not Russia as there would be a truck round the next corner for him.

 

[Davidc]

The car is king. Long live the king.

Disgusting.

Gutless, spineless judges. Again. They offer no protection for the vulnerable in the UK. They provide no deterrent to wanton killing of innocent people.

 

[gavintc]

You are quoting the original sheriff, not the report linked above:




http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2013HCJAC114.html

Point taken,

 

[glenn forger]

sorry if that was abrupt gavin. This just depresses the hell out of me, remember the first death this man caused was when he was uninsured, and he ran away. This time he pleaded Not Guilty because he said he wanted the family to hear his explanation. wtf?