Cycle killer walks free from court.

[calibanzwei]

What a f***ing joke.

 

[marinyork]

Your point regarding leaving the scene was in isolation.

No. That's deliberately misrepresenting .

He's up on a charge for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving (which he was convicted of btw). Whether or not he is convicted of that doesn't mean it's in isolation just because it suits you. When I say he should go to prison alone for leaving the scene and not reporting it means exactly that, but that it takes into account the death other aggravating factors and the other charge (whether he is convicted of it or not). It would be silly if it didn't. If you could please add even the smallest amount of thought before reading posts and then quoting one word in isolation to the context of the rest of the posts it would be appreciated.

 

[400bhp]

Yeah right.

Why do I bother.

 

[marinyork]

Yeah right.

Why do I bother.

Something is not in isolation if he's done something else (referred to as aggravating circumstances). Someone died here. There isn't any isolation. Or are you disputing that someone died or disputing that he was prosecuted on another charge? Well?

 

[mumbo jumbo]

Only just seen this. It's an absolutely shocking case. I've not read the whole thread but in case it's not been mentioned, the Attorney General has power to appeal unduly light sentences (only has 28 days to do it though): http://www.attorneyg...es/default.aspx

Problem is, I'm not sure that causing death by careless driving is covered. And "unduly lenient" means more than just lenient. The courts have said that an unduly lenient sentence "falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate". I don't know enough about sentencing policy to know if what the judge handed down would meet this test.

But if enough of us make a stink about this, it might make a difference, hopefully now in this case or perhaps sometime in the future. I'll be emailing the AG's office later tonight.

mj

I only just got round to it but this is what I sent:

"To: The Attorney General

I have recently become aware of a shocking case in which I believe an unduly lenient sentence was handed down. Case details as follows:

Convicted: Andrew Edwards
Court: Burnley Crown Court
Crimes: (a) Causing death by careless driving and (b) Failing to stop after an accident
Date: 5 July 2011


The case came to my attention when someone forwarded me a link to the story as reported in the Lancashire Telegraph on 6 July 2011. Here is the link: http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.u...ient__sentence_for_Pendle_hit_and_run_driver/


I have copy pasted the article at the end of this email in case the link breaks before you have a chance to look at it. The salient points appear to be as follows:

• Mr Edwards drove his van into a cyclist, Michael Isherwood, catapaulting him some 50ft down the road.
• There is no suggestion of any contributory negligence on the part of the cyclist
• 200m down the road, Mr Edwards stops to examine damage to his vehicle
• He drives back down the road, past the dying cyclist, and still doesn't stop. This is callous.
• In court he claimed he thought he'd hit street furniture although on arrest he apparently said he didn't know the cyclist had died. This appears to be a convenient change of story. He knew what he'd done and he appears to have lied in court.
• The court also appears to have somehow accepted his explanation that he momentarily blacked out on account of stress and long driving hours. I find this utterly incomprehensible. It certainly doesn't pass the "sniff test". If Mr Edwards was liable to blacking out at the wheel on account of stress and the long hours he spends at the wheel he should never have been driving in the first place. The explanation actually makes his offence worse. He was an accident waiting to happen and he took the risk. Michael Isherwood paid for that risk with his life.

Some of the details are from other sources but you should have enough to track the case down and access the files.


Driving a vehicle when susceptible to blacking out, killing a cyclist (which Mr Edwards pleaded guilty to) and failing to stop - twice - at the scene (including leaving Mr Isherwood dying in the road) and Mr Edwards walks free from the court with just 200 hours community service to carry out. There's not even reference to a fine. I've "road tested" this sentence with family, friends and work colleagues. Without exception, they all agree that the sentence is unduly lenient.


Please can you confirm that you will take the necessary action to have a custodial sentence imposed on Mr Edwards i.e. removal of the suspension of the 12 month custodial sentence handed down by the judge.


Yours sincerely,
etc"
The email address is correspondenceunit@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk if anyone else wants to do likewise.


mj

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I only just got round to it but this is what I sent:

"To: The Attorney General

I have recently become aware of a shocking case in which I believe an unduly lenient sentence was handed down. Case details as follows:

Convicted: Andrew Edwards
Court: Burnley Crown Court
Crimes: (a) Causing death by careless driving and (b) Failing to stop after an accident
Date: 5 July 2011

The case came to my attention when someone forwarded me a link to the story as reported in the Lancashire Telegraph on 6 July 2011. Here is the link: http://www.lancashir...and_run_driver/

I have copy pasted the article at the end of this email in case the link breaks before you have a chance to look at it. The salient points appear to be as follows:

• Mr Edwards drove his van into a cyclist, Michael Isherwood, catapaulting him some 50ft down the road.
• There is no suggestion of any contributory negligence on the part of the cyclist
• 200m down the road, Mr Edwards stops to examine damage to his vehicle
• He drives back down the road, past the dying cyclist, and still doesn't stop. This is callous.
• In court he claimed he thought he'd hit street furniture although on arrest he apparently said he didn't know the cyclist had died. This appears to be a convenient change of story. He knew what he'd done and he appears to have lied in court.
• The court also appears to have somehow accepted his explanation that he momentarily blacked out on account of stress and long driving hours. I find this utterly incomprehensible. It certainly doesn't pass the "sniff test". If Mr Edwards was liable to blacking out at the wheel on account of stress and the long hours he spends at the wheel he should never have been driving in the first place. The explanation actually makes his offence worse. He was an accident waiting to happen and he took the risk. Michael Isherwood paid for that risk with his life.

Some of the details are from other sources but you should have enough to track the case down and access the files.


Driving a vehicle when susceptible to blacking out, killing a cyclist (which Mr Edwards pleaded guilty to) and failing to stop - twice - at the scene (including leaving Mr Isherwood dying in the road) and Mr Edwards walks free from the court with just 200 hours community service to carry out. There's not even reference to a fine. I've "road tested" this sentence with family, friends and work colleagues. Without exception, they all agree that the sentence is unduly lenient.


Please can you confirm that you will take the necessary action to have a custodial sentence imposed on Mr Edwards i.e. removal of the suspension of the 12 month custodial sentence handed down by the judge.


Yours sincerely,
etc" The email address is correspondenceunit@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk if anyone else wants to do likewise.

mj

I hope you don't mind but I used your letter as a template for mine.

 

[uphillstruggler]

It's shocking to see just how far the courts will go to keep the guilty out of jail. This driver obviously has no regard for other people as demonstrated by him driving back past the dying cyclist.

F@$*ING scumbag

Absolutely shocking but its no surprise unfortunately. Can only hope that karma comes knocking, and soon

 

[Cardiac]

I hope you don't mind but I used your letter as a template for mine.

Me too. Rewrote a few parts to suit my own style, etc. Never wrote to the Attorney General before. Will be interesting to see if there's any response.

 

[Norm]

• The court also appears to have somehow accepted his explanation that he momentarily blacked out on account of stress and long driving hours. I find this utterly incomprehensible. It certainly doesn't pass the "sniff test". If Mr Edwards was liable to blacking out at the wheel on account of stress and the long hours he spends at the wheel he should never have been driving in the first place. The explanation actually makes his offence worse. He was an accident waiting to happen and he took the risk. Michael Isherwood paid for that risk with his life.

I agree with all that you wrote, MJ, but I'm highlighting this bit as I don't understand the mentality of the jury there.

"I was under stress and I might have blacked out (a.k.a. fallen asleep)" isn't a reason to let him off.

It's a reason to find him guilty of murder and, on top of that, also for driving whilst unfit to do so, or whatever the offence might be called.

Being under stress to the extent that you black out doesn't absolve anyone of anything, it makes you even more guilty because you should have known that you weren't fit, but you went out anyway.

 

[benb]

It was the judge, not the jury.
He was found guilty.

 

[Norm]

Sorry, you're partly right that it wasn't the jury but I think he pleaded guilty, rather than being found guilty.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Hopefully your letters will have effect. Do you think that it would help to have someone who doesn't live there to write a letter as well?

 

[Nigeyy]

I would also like to know the judge's rationale for this. Frankly, it seems quite amazing to me -perhaps the only possible question would be whether he knew he hit a cyclist. Though to be honest, if you do believe his story, I do find it amazing that someone can "black out", know they hit something (evidence is that he stopped to inspect his vehicle) and assuming they didn't know what they hit, continued on. Wouldn't an average decent person *minimally* go back to make they had not hit some person, animal or road sign or building? Of course, passing the scene of his "blackout" again and seeing the whole scene, he didn't even stop then either. And this is all assuming we believe his story and the best case scenario.

Has anyone got another side to this story though? I appreciate sometimes the media reports just one way, but still this seems a hard one to take. It does appear the judge took a very strange view on sentencing with this. I really believe that with hit and runs, unless the driver fears for their life, it has to be considered attempted murder at the very least if they do not make an effort to stop and report the accident (just my opinion).

Sometimes it does appear the best way to murder a person is to encourage them to go on a bicycle and then drive over them.

My condolences to the family of the victim.

 

[Ste T.]

Have you noticed that the papers never report, in cases like this, what sort of sentence was available to the Judge? I can't make my mind up if this is a case of lazy journalists just churning out the copy they are sent, or a conspiracy to keep us in the dark about the true nature of sentencing in this country. I wonder how many more years we will have to go on writing in outrage on sites like this, about events like this until it is taken seriously.
When I was a young lad I got into whitewater paddling here in the UK. Some people at the time were paddling illegally on rivers, fed up with waiting for the law to change giving us the equivalent of the right to roam act on water. The majority stayed within the law saying that we should wait for the law to change as we will lose any moral high ground. Thirty years on we still have no more rights than then. Had we had a mass trespass on rivers thirty years ago we would be in a better place now for paddling rights.Some times we need to get bloody angry and do something to achieve a change.
Maybe this is the same. Maybe we have to take the situation in hand ourselves. Maybe a slow rolling road block protest when cases like this happen. Maybe a critical mass event outside the courts that pass these joke sentences. As you can see, I am stumbling in the dark, not knowing the answer myself, but I do know that things will only change if we start to take more aggressive action in response to these sentences. If we don't I could see us posting about the same injustices on here thirty years time.
By the way do we have a posting or do you know of a site that lists these cases, numbers and details?

 

[abo]

Being under stress to the extent that you black out doesn't absolve anyone of anything, it makes you even more guilty because you should have known that you weren't fit, but you went out anyway.

IMHO it is as poor a defence as 'it wasn't my fault officer, I was drunk'. The problem is, it is easy to define a limit for alcohol and to test whether someone is over that limit. More difficult for fatigue as (I imagine) it must be pretty difficult to test whether someone is tired.