Cyclist mown down by raging man in a camper van

[albion]

...you have to prove what was in the defendant's mind....even: "If I intended harm I would have slammed into the back of him at speed."

Maybe a bit like firing a loaded gun and saying "'But I aimed to the right of the heart."

 

[Cycling Dan]

I think the sentence is just what i would have wanted. Hes banned from driving and would have to take his tests again. Also rather than prison he has a curfew and its doing 200 hours of community service. So rather than us tax payers paying for this guy to get free food extra he is giving back to the community instead. Even with jail he would be out in 2 months or so.In addition if he then does anything, even speeding in the next 18 months he goes to jail so. Personally I would be happy with this result. I find it much better than jail in this case.

 

[veloevol]

...rather than prison he has a curfew and its doing 200 hours of community service. So rather than us tax payers paying for this guy to get free food extra he is giving back to the community instead.

A fine point Dan but a month in the big house would give him time to reflect on his actions.

 

[Cycling Dan]

A fine point Dan but a month in the big house would give him time to reflect on his actions.

True, but the 200 hours of picking up dog shoot and taking graffiti off walls will also at a lesser expense.

 

[benb]

Not fussed about the lack of a custodial sentence, but I would have preferred a longer driving ban.

 

[CopperCyclist]

Like others, I picked up the most on the judge saying "If he could bang on the side of your van, you were too close."

Judge Mettyear, R v Burnell - I'll be remembering and possibly quoting that!

 

[ManiaMuse]

Fair sentence I think given that the cyclist was not seriously injured.

Will deter him from doing likewise again else he goes to prison, he has a criminal record, has do do something for the community at his own expense, has a curfew so social life will be ruined and a driving ban + extended retest is not a petty inconvenience.

 

[CopperBrompton]

if he then does anything, even speeding in the next 18 months he goes to jail so

Our resident cops can no doubt provide a definitive answer, but I *think* he only goes to jail if he commits a crime, rather than a driving offence - I don't think speeding would do it (the law distinguishes between offences and crimes).

But I agree with the majority here that this was a decent outcome.

 

[CopperCyclist]

Our resident cops can no doubt provide a definitive answer, but I *think* he only goes to jail if he commits a crime, rather than a driving offence - I don't think speeding would do it (the law distinguishes between offences and crimes).

But I agree with the majority here that this was a decent outcome.

Best off asking a lawyer, I have little input after they've been sent to court so don't know exactly how it works!

I've assumed assumed most suspended sentences were paper exercises anyway, as I've seen plenty of 'precons' (list of previous convictions) where people appear to have committed offence whilst within their suspended sentence period, yet still don't get a custodial...

 

[jarlrmai]

I think this is a decent outcome, I'd like to hear from the cyclist involved to see what he thought.

 

[ufkacbln]

Not that I am being judgemental.....

but one look at that photo says "nutter"

 

[Pale Rider]

Our resident cops can no doubt provide a definitive answer, but I *think* he only goes to jail if he commits a crime, rather than a driving offence - I don't think speeding would do it (the law distinguishes between offences and crimes).
.

The phrase often used is 'the suspended part of sentence may be activated if you commit another offence punishable by imprisonment'.

Thus another dangerous driving would do it, but a careless would not.

As CopperCyclist says, activating the suspended sentence is by no means automatic.

The courts tend to take a dimmer view if it's like offending.

Thus someone on a suspended sentence for violence might stay out if his next offence is, say, minor drugs possession.

But if he fills someone in again, he will likely go inside, often by recall before the courts get their hands on him.

 

[400bhp]

I think this is a good outcome. The incident sounds terrible for the cyclist. It is not in any way good that the motorist drove as he did, but I find the outcome and the way it was reported positive.

I think it is likely to have a calming effect on the road behaviour of those who read it. It doesn't fan the flames of the infantile 'them and us' mentality that exists in some motorists and cyclists.

As a road user, I find the outcome, the judge's comments and the reporting of the case positive.

Aye - the other thing is that the prosecuter chose the words from the cyclist very carefully. It reads as the cyclist was defending himself at all times.

 

[Cycling Dan]

You would still have to shown intent. As the CPS offered no evidence for a charge of attempted GBH (he had been charged with that offence) then they obviously felt they were no in a position to secure a conviction. The reality is, proving the intent would have been difficult, given the circumstances of the case.

I see your point. No point wasting time and effort if there is not a large chance of a conviction. I would have seen driving at the cyclist in an attempt to knock him off would be enough intent for me if not GBH the lesser one of which its name has left me. Naturally if you knock someone off their bike their is a huge chance of them getting hurt of which would have been considered at the time I would have thought and he chose to continue. Just my viewpoint.

 

[albion]

You would have to show the intent was to kill for it to be attempted murder.

Like firing a fun or severing an artery with a sword there is always a fair chance it will happen anyway.