Lorry driver 'oblivious' when he hit cyclist in Hessle Road, On trial

[Zanelad]

Alternative employment might not be as easy as you think it is, if driving is his only skill-set and given his age. You then make a false equivalence. His driving is likely to be much more cautious as a result of this horrific incident. The point of restorative justice is to try to find the best way of dealing with a crime. It may be to disqualify him from driving. It might be to force him to retake his tests. It might be a permanent ban. But his circumstances are still valid. You have no idea about his family, who relies on him and for what. On the other hand he might not want to drive again anyway, he's close to retirement age. In which case banning him serves no real purpose.

It might be that he has no dependents. It might be that he has a severely disabled son / daughter / mother / father and the money he earns pays for treatment and care. There is a whole spectrum of circumstances that a Judge takes into account to determine the appropriate sentence. Throw him in prison? That's expensive. Is his attitude going to be any different when he leaves prison, or is he already contrite and devastated by his own actions?

This is why Judge's take great care when sentencing and consider all factors. Otherwise you end up like America and just throw everyone in prison for ever.

If his livelihood, and that of his family depend on his licence, then his driving should be above reproach. It boils my piss when people rack up points and then play the hardship card.

It's not that hard to drive within the law and carefully.

 

[raleighnut]

The driver still should have stopped at the 'stop line', not been 'creeping' out onto the main road.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

I don't understand the whole case here, forget the legal part for a minute, just concentrate on the moral issue, giving the driver a leap of faith & using the logic that it is possibly physical (however unlikely) that as the driver approached the junction that the victim was obscured by the drivers right mirror. As the driver continued to move forward in a left arch the victim continued to cycle forward he stayed in the 'blindspot' up until the point of impact. Forgetting the fact that the driver should have seen the victim prior to this point had he been paying correct attention, afterall the van behind the lorry did, I think if it was me who had caused somebody's death I would plead guilty, after all there is no doubt he killed the cyclist.

The driver still should have stopped at the 'stop line', not been 'creeping' out onto the main road.

Is there a 'stop line' there are very few in the UK, most are 'Give Way' which if they are clear has no requirement to stop, in the drivers mind there was no need to stop as the junction was clear (although it wasn't)

 

[Bazzer]

Is there a 'stop line' there are very few in the UK, most are 'Give Way' which if they are clear has no requirement to stop, in the drivers mind there was no need to stop as the junction was clear (although it wasn't)

Google Maps at August 2018 and July 2017, (the dates are different at each end of Wiltshire Road), show only the broken double white Give Way road markings.

 

[raleighnut]

I don't understand the whole case here, forget the legal part for a minute, just concentrate on the moral issue, giving the driver a leap of faith & using the logic that it is possibly physical (however unlikely) that as the driver approached the junction that the victim was obscured by the drivers right mirror. As the driver continued to move forward in a left arch the victim continued to cycle forward he stayed in the 'blindspot' up until the point of impact. Forgetting the fact that the driver should have seen the victim prior to this point had he been paying correct attention, afterall the van behind the lorry did, I think if it was me who had caused somebody's death I would plead guilty, after all there is no doubt he killed the cyclist.

Is there a 'stop line' there are very few in the UK, most are 'Give Way' which if they are clear has no requirement to stop, in the drivers mind there was no need to stop as the junction was clear (although it wasn't)

Even if the junction was 'un-marked' you'd have thought the driver would have stopped instead of running someone over.

 

[DRM]

I don't understand the whole case here, forget the legal part for a minute, just concentrate on the moral issue, giving the driver a leap of faith & using the logic that it is possibly physical (however unlikely) that as the driver approached the junction that the victim was obscured by the drivers right mirror. As the driver continued to move forward in a left arch the victim continued to cycle forward he stayed in the 'blindspot' up until the point of impact. Forgetting the fact that the driver should have seen the victim prior to this point had he been paying correct attention, afterall the van behind the lorry did, I think if it was me who had caused somebody's death I would plead guilty, after all there is no doubt he killed the cyclist.

Is there a 'stop line' there are very few in the UK, most are 'Give Way' which if they are clear has no requirement to stop, in the drivers mind there was no need to stop as the junction was clear (although it wasn't)

The bottom line here is he’s local, I go into Hull a couple of times a month & I know it’s full of cyclists using bikes as ordinary transport, therefore if he doesn’t know, or drive accordingly then he’s a complete a*seh#le that’s not fit to be on the road at all

 

[icowden]

I think if it was me who had caused somebody's death I would plead guilty, after all there is no doubt he killed the cyclist.

I agree with you re the sentiment. However, in a court case you are represented by your Solicitor and Barrister. They will advise you on how to plead. If you choose to ignore their advice, they may then choose not to represent you. The not-guilty plea isn't really about the accused and what they think they should plead, it's what the legal brief will have recommended. They will be aware that the not-guilty plea carries a risk in that it puts the family of the deceased under additional strain and if found guilty, there will be no sentence mitigation for an early plea of guilty.

It follows therefore that they must believe that they have a reasonable chance of achieving a not-guilty plea.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

It follows therefore that they must believe that they have a reasonable chance of achieving a not-guilty plea.

I presume you mean verdict, I just can't see how it can be achieved unless they have managed to assemble a cycle hating jury.

 

[raleighnut]

It follows therefore that they must believe that they have a reasonable chance of achieving a not-guilty plea

Or making a bunch of money out of the case. Let's face it they're gonna get a bunch of Wonga come what may.

 

[icowden]

Actually probably not. If it's a fixed cost trial, they make very little money. It's one of those myths that the Daily Mail like to peddle. A top Queens Council Barrister with a juicy libel trial - tonnes of wonga.

If the accused is on legal aid (seems likely), his barrister is likely to be a junior and could be on course for maybe £200 for the whole trial and preparation. Some barristers make less money than baristas. The state are paying the costs of this and the cost-cap is pretty draconian.

A good illustration is here:


View: https://twitter.com/c0unse1/status/1151383194010312705


or here:


View: https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1139149228645736448

 

[classic33]

Actually probably not. If it's a fixed cost trial, they make very little money. It's one of those myths that the Daily Mail like to peddle. A top Queens Council Barrister with a juicy libel trial - tonnes of wonga.

If the accused is on legal aid (seems likely), his barrister is likely to be a junior and could be on course for maybe £200 for the whole trial and preparation. Some barristers make less money than baristas. The state are paying the costs of this and the cost-cap is pretty draconian.

A good illustration is here:


View: https://twitter.com/c0unse1/status/1151383194010312705


or here:


View: https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1139149228645736448

A man was killed and you come down on the side of the person who killed him.

Spare a thought for the family of the deceased. Nothing can bring back what they have lost.

 

[winjim]

A man was killed and you come down on the side of the person who killed him.

Spare a thought for the family of the deceased. Nothing can bring back what they have lost.

Whatever happened, he's in court and is entitled to proper legal representation. Those providing that representation are entitled to proper remuneration. That's not taking sides, quite the opposite.

 

[icowden]

A man was killed and you come down on the side of the person who killed him..

As @winjim said - I'm on the side of justice not the accused. He has a right to a fair trial. Proper legal representation is part of that fairness, as is proper Judgement and sentencing.

The whole "he should go to prison for ever" lobby annoys me. If he is found guilty then the Justice system should find the best way of dealing with that guilt. Prison is rarely the best option. If you want an example of punitive justice without sense look to the USA where if you are black and in possession of a joint you can go to prison for most of the rest of your life, but if you are white and defraud a company you can be out in a few years.

 

[classic33]

As @winjim said - I'm on the side of justice not the accused. He has a right to a fair trial. Proper legal representation is part of that fairness, as is proper Judgement and sentencing.

The whole "he should go to prison for ever" lobby annoys me. If he is found guilty then the Justice system should find the best way of dealing with that guilt. Prison is rarely the best option. If you want an example of punitive justice without sense look to the USA where if you are black and in possession of a joint you can go to prison for most of the rest of your life, but if you are white and defraud a company you can be out in a few years.

And as you've already said you want no part in such a system.

He killed an innocent person.

 

[Origamist]

Not guilty:

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/new...ter-sanderson-craig-beharrell-verdict-3201421

Judge Paul Watson told the jury after the verdict that their “knowledge and experience of the world and their experience as drivers” helped them make their decision.