Suspended sentence for Bristol driver who punched cyclist unconscious

[Baldy]

Maybe he's a free mason, that could be the reason he didn't go down!

Really you weren't in court, you haven't heard what mitigation he gave. So, you can't say whether the sentence is fair or not.

 

[matticus]

Really you weren't in court, you haven't heard what mitigation he gave. So, you can't say whether the sentence is fair or not.

What sort of thing do you have in mind?

"He was looking at me in a funny way." ?

 

[mjr]

What sort of thing do you have in mind?

"He was looking at me in a funny way." ?

More likely "he was dressed provocatively in Lycra, like a wrestler"?

 

[Andy in Germany]

I haven't a clue about the trial or the circumstances.

I do know that mental health support for men is very difficult to access in the UK. There's a long list of long term mental or psychological issues that can show up with poor anger management.

If there is such an issue, and it hasn't been diagnosed dealt with either due to lack of access in the first case, or a slow system, this could cause recurring anger issues which unfortunately then harms other people.

 

[Baldy]

What sort of thing do you have in mind?

"He was looking at me in a funny way." ?

I don't have anything in mind, I haven't heard the evidence and neither have you.

That was my point.

Until you've heard All the evidence from both sides, you're speaking from a position of ignorance.

 

[Arjimlad]

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/van-driver-punched-cyclist-road-7664325 this report mentions a two year driving ban.

 

[Badger_Boom]

I haven't a clue about the trial or the circumstances.

I do know that mental health support for men is very difficult to access in the UK. There's a long list of long term mental or psychological issues that can show up with poor anger management.

If there is such an issue, and it hasn't been diagnosed dealt with either due to lack of access in the first case, or a slow system, this could cause recurring anger issues which unfortunately then harms other people.

Mental health services for anyone are difficult to access and chronically underfunded in the UK. Mind you I don’t think they’re better in most other countries unless you can afford to pay.

 

[Arrowfoot]

Until you've heard All the evidence from both sides, you're speaking from a position of ignorance.

Nearly everyone with one exception formed an opinion on what they read and frankly there is a shared concern. Its a reasonable position to take based on information available.

The judge cannot say that she was personally not present during the incident and she can’t trust the victim, witnesses or the Police as she does not know them personally to trust their versions, so no view to form a opinion. She obviously made some assumptions to convict him.

You are the second person in 2 weeks that called member/s ignorant for forming a reasonable view.

 

[Lozz360]

Nearly everyone with one exception formed an opinion on what they read and frankly there is a shared concern. Its a reasonable position to take based on information available.

The judge cannot say that she was personally not present during the incident and she can’t trust the victim, witnesses or the Police as she does not know them personally to trust their versions, so no view to form a opinion. She obviously made some assumptions to convict him.

You are the second person in 2 weeks that called member/s ignorant for forming a reasonable view.

I agree with your first paragraph. Contributors to this thread are entitled to be concerned given the information available.

However, it is certainly not obvious that the judge made assumptions to convict the perpetrator. A judge will make a judgement based on evidence formally presented by both sides. The evidence is then cross examined. Guilt is determined by a jury using the beyond reasonable doubt test. The judge will then decide the sentence/punishment based on any mitigating or aggravating factors relevant to the case. Assumptions shouldn’t come into it. So while people are entitled to have an opinion on a court case based on a newspaper article, that opinion is without all the facts and could be described as uninformed (maybe “ignorant” is a bit harsh).

 

[Brandane]

The prison route does not work, lock em up is not the answer.

Yes it does; it's quite difficult to assault a road user whilst locked up in a prison cell. Lenient sentencing also sends out entirely the wrong message to other drivers who might be tempted to do similar.

Pathetic sentencing apart - from the video of the incident, it looks like the whole incident could have easily been avoided if the cyclist had moved to his left and slowed down a little to use the gap before the car parked on the left side footpath. Instead he chose to come into conflict with the van driver, who was (in his defence) as far in to the parked cars on his side of the road as he could be. Doesn't excuse what followed though.

 

[Brandane]

Guilt is determined by a jury

Is that how it works in England?
In Scotland, there is no way this case would have gone to a jury trial. It might not even have made it to the Sheriff court (where the case would have been heard by a single Sheriff, no jury involved). More likely it would have ended up at the local district court in front of a Justice of the Peace.

Sheriff and Jury trials are reserved for more serious cases as the sentencing powers are increased. The real bad asses are sent to the High Court, again with a jury.

 

[Lozz360]

Is that how it works in England?
In Scotland, there is no way this case would have gone to a jury trial. It might not even have made it to the Sheriff court (where the case would have been heard by a single Sheriff, no jury involved). More likely it would have ended up at the local district court in front of a Justice of the Peace.

Sheriff and Jury trials are reserved for more serious cases as the sentencing powers are increased. The real bad asses are sent to the High Court, again with a jury.

Yes, if it is a Crown Court, which this was according to the linked article. Less serious offences are tried in a magistrates court where there is no jury. The three magistrates will decide on guilt and sentencing.

 

[Alex321]

Is that how it works in England?
In Scotland, there is no way this case would have gone to a jury trial. It might not even have made it to the Sheriff court (where the case would have been heard by a single Sheriff, no jury involved). More likely it would have ended up at the local district court in front of a Justice of the Peace.

Sheriff and Jury trials are reserved for more serious cases as the sentencing powers are increased. The real bad asses are sent to the High Court, again with a jury.

Any crime for which the sentence is likely to be more than 12 months imprisonment will be tried at crown court in England & Wales, as that is the maximum sentence a magistrates court can impose.

And if it is tried at crown court, then in general it will be a jury trial (there are some exceptions, but not for this sort of case).

A magistrates court simply could not have imposed the two year sentence (even suspended) that he was given.

 

[Andy in Germany]

Mental health services for anyone are difficult to access and chronically underfunded in the UK. Mind you I don’t think they’re better in most other countries unless you can afford to pay.

They are somewhat better here but from experience inside the sector the level and type of support on offer tends to be more for women. Then when something goes wrong because men are struggling, such as men committing suicide or harming someone else, the man concerned is condemned for it.
Again, I'm not saying this was the case here, but it is an issue; when health resources are squeezed it's mental/psychological heal that often gets squeezed first, and men's mental health seems in any case to have a lower priority.

 

[Alex321]

Nearly everyone with one exception formed an opinion on what they read and frankly there is a shared concern. Its a reasonable position to take based on information available.

The judge cannot say that she was personally not present during the incident and she can’t trust the victim, witnesses or the Police as she does not know them personally to trust their versions, so no view to form a opinion. She obviously made some assumptions to convict him.

She didn't convict him, he plead guilty to the charges. That guilty plea, BTW, will have significantly reduced his sentence from what would have been imposed if he had been convicted by a jury.

You are the second person in 2 weeks that called member/s ignorant for forming a reasonable view.

That is not an insult, it is simple fact.

We don't have access to all the evidence presented to the trial, therefore we are ignorant of the facts.

We can of course, form a reasonable opinion based on the facts we do know. But we can't dogmatically say she was wrong, because we simply do not know what additional factors may have lead to her sentencing decision. We can be reasonably sure it will have followed the Sentencing Council guidelines though.

The guidelines for Assault causing actual bodily harm are here
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...-harm-racially-or-religiously-aggravated-abh/

And this is for Dangerous driving (that wasn't at a level which would have gone to crown court by itself).
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/dangerous-driving/

Reading those, the sentence is fully in line. The only question is why she felt it appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence. We really don't have sufficient evidence to know the answer to that.