A driver who ran a red light and killed a cyclist who was riding on a pedestrian crossing has escaped jail after being found guilty of causing death by careless driving.
Rouguiatou Fofana was sentenced to nine months in prison suspended for two years at Coventry Crown Court on Friday for causing the death of Craig Mulligan.
According to the Coventry Telegraph’s Daniel Smith and Sam Dimmer, Fofana, 34, was originally charged with causing death by dangerous driving after hitting 34-year-old Mr Mulligan on November 1, 2012.
The court heard that she was travelling at 32-38mph in a 30mph zone and made no attempt to slow down when the lights on the crossing turned red.
Mr Mulligan was hospitalised with severe injuries and died five days later.
Fofana maintained that the lights were green when she drove into Mr Mulligan and has never fomally apolgised.
Ian Crooks, of West Midlands CPS, said: “A prudent and careful driver would have had time to see the victim crossing the road and they would have stopped or swerved in order to avoid colliding with him.
“From police investigation as well as witness statements, it became apparent that Fofana was travelling above the speed limit and when the cyclist came into her vision.
“This situation arose due to the fact that Fofana did not have her full attention on the road at those few seconds before the collision.”
Ben Williams, defending, said: “It’s a fact of the rules of the road that a cyclist should not be using a pedestrian crossing.”
But Judge Phillip Gregory was having none of it. “So what?” he said. “It might have been a child using the crossing and been wiped out by your client.
“I have never seen an expression of regret from her.”
Mr Williams said: “She may not have expressed remorse during the trial but to people known to her and a third party she has expressed remorse.
“She has suffered sleepless nights and cannot get the moment of the collision out of her mind.
“Both the offender and her husband have prayed for the victim and his family.
“She would like to say sorry and seek their forgiveness. She knows an apology would not make up for what happened.”
Handing Fofana a suspended prison sentence, Judge Gregory said the court was not there to “take revenge” on her.
He said: “The court can not do anything to make up for the evil of that night by sentencing you.
“What I am required to do is impart justice for the victim, his family, to you and to society at large.
“On balance I can properly deal with you in the way recommended by the probation service.
“I’m satisfied you feel remorse. By your nature you are a caring and responsible person.”
The court also ordered Fofana to carry out 100 hours unpaid work and meted out a three-year driving ban, plus £2,000 costs.
44 thoughts on “Coventry driver escapes jail after killing cyclist on pedestrian crossing”
Disgusting, should’ve been a
Disgusting, should’ve been a custodial just for truing to blame a cyclist for using the crossing!
“What I am required to do is
“What I am required to do is impart justice for the victim, his family, to you and to society at large.”
Yeah, would you please do just that, impart justice? That “sentence” is utterly ridiculous.
Ben Williams, defending,
Well said by that Judge. =D>
So why not do it at the trial? Sounds like she is just callous.
This should have been a life ban from driving.
Speeding, running a red
Speeding, running a red light, and killing someone at the crossing? All at the same time?
Whenever these awful cases happen, we should all be asking ourselves if the accident would have still been just as likely to occur if a mandatory lifetime driving ban existed.
My gut feeling is that most people would drive more carefully.
She and her husband have
She and her husband have prayed for the victim and his family.
So that’s all right then, isn’t it?
Mrs Fofana has fatally
Mrs Fofana has fatally demonstrated that she is not capable of safely operating a car – so why should she ever be allowed to drive again??
I don’t think a short custodial sentence would do much to protect the public – but a lifetime driving ban certainly would.
Why are these not mandatory in all “death by careless driving” cases? If the driver is “careless” enough to kill someone then they shouldn’t be driving!
GrahamSt wrote:Mrs Fofana has
Sadly got to agree. I really, really don’t understand why someone like this should ever be allowed to drive any motorized vehicle again. I suspsect that she probably should not be allowed to use a bicycle either.
Was it a Toucan?
How many
Was it a Toucan?
How many motorists can tell the difference between the different type of crossing when they are approaching them? All they see are Red Amber and Green,
TOUCAN crossings are designed for both pedestrians and cyclists and are typically used adjacent to a cycle-path (Cyclists are not allowed to cross the road using Zebra, Pelican or Puffin crossings).
-not allowed to ride surely they can push bikes across
adriank999 wrote:Was it a
Why does it matter? Are you really saying it’s fine to kill someone if they were breaking the rules at the time. If so, is it fine for me to shoot the next motorist who breaks the speed limit near me? If not, what’s the difference?
oldstrath wrote: is it fine
I’m starting to believe that this might be the case.
Trying to put words in my
Trying to put words in my mouth! Read the post before jumping to aggressive ignorant criticism, the defense were trying to say the cyclist shouldn’t be on the crossing, Toucans are specifically for cyclist to ride across!
Trying to put words in my
Trying to put words in my mouth! Read the post before jumping to aggressive ignorant criticism, the defense were trying to say the cyclist shouldn’t be on the crossing, Toucans are specifically for cyclist to ride across!
‘Careless’ is when you forget
‘Careless’ is when you forget to tie your shoelace. ‘Dangerous’ is going through a red light.
So many disappoints.
Da
So many disappoints.
That’s okay. Say it with scissors. Scissors in one hand, driving licence in the other. If we have trouble understanding, cut it into smaller pieces.
Why you get my hopes up, and then smash them to bits by giving three year ban then? I’m not saying let her rot in prison for life. Just that she not be allowed to kill again the same way.
Why are you still shocked by
Why are you still shocked by this?
Didn’t you know a motorist can never be expected to go to prison and is completely blameless.
This one has to take some
This one has to take some sort of prize
“By your nature you are a caring and responsible person.”
Except that she’s not quite caring enough to avoid killing people when she’s in a hurry. I hope I never meet anyone this judge thinks is uncaring.
I just did a streetview
I just did a streetview wander. All I could find were pedestrian crossings no sign of any bike type crossings. Not that it matters since she ran a red light anyway.
The thing about the victim’s
The thing about the victim’s rule-breaking is that it seems to have had no bearing on the event – I see no reason to think the result would have been different had they been jogging across, say. If a victim’s rule-breaking was a significant contributor to the out-come then it would be relevant to bring it up, but not otherwise.
Something that infuriates me about it is that both the speeding and the failure to stop at red are quite commonplace driver behaviour. That might be why it doesn’t seem to get the penalty it merits when it results in tragedy. Because “everyone does it”.
Maybe if the law on those things was better enforced we wouldn’t get to this point in the first place?
Is that all a human life is
Is that all a human life is worth?
Ben Williams, defending,
Ben Williams, defending, said: “It’s a fact of the rules of the road that a cyclist should not be using a pedestrian crossing.”
He of course failed to mention, it is also a fact of the rules of the road his client should not have been exceeding the speed limit and should have stopped at a red light. A cyclist using a crossing when it indicates it is safe to cross shouldn’t have a fatal consequence, like the two rules of the road broken by his client did!
Unfortunately “google street view” doesn’t work on this computer, but from looking at the satellite view it does appear there are cycle paths either side of the crossing, also the “tactile surfaces” at the crossing suggest it is a Toucan not a Pelican (Pedestrian) crossing.
Just to add to the point on zebra crossings, the highway code does indeed say cyclists shouldn’t cycle across them, but it isn’t a “Must Not” in bold type. So it isn’t illegal to cycle across one and as people have no doubt noticed they are used as crossings where there is a shared-use path either side of the road. There are two such zebra crossings that I use almost every day; I always cycle across them and drivers stop to let me cycle across the same as they would a pedestrian walking across.
The sentence does seem rather
The sentence does seem rather light. That the offender and her husband have prayed for the person who was killed by such dangerous driving neither seems here nor there. A tougher sentence wouldn’t bring back the victim, but a light one like this does seem rather an insult to his family and friends.
100 hours community service
100 hours community service and a three year driving ban is a pathetic sentence.
‘Careless’ to me means causing an incident without breaking any traffic laws.
‘Dangerous’ is causing an incident by breaking traffic laws, in this case speeding and not stopping at a red light.
Another example of the poor handling of these types of cases by the judicial system. Firstly dumbing down the offence and then watering down the punishment.
As usual, write to whichever
As usual, write to whichever body you have to write to to appeal an overly lenient sentence…
TheSpaniard wrote:As usual,
I’ve written to my MP in the past. Reply was the understandable refusal to comment on individual cases, plus the bllx about a ‘general review of sentencing’, to be completed on the 15th of Never. Rough translation – we won’t upset the cager vote.
oldstrath wrote:TheSpaniard
It is more effective to write to your MP asking them to write on your behalf to the Secretaries of State at the relevant government departments. The reply will be written by a civil servant and will come from a junior minister (unless your MP is a privy counsellor or other senior figure). MPs do pay attention to their post bag as do Ministers. A number of well argued individual letters (not round robin or standard form campaign letters, which are only seen by civil servants) will be noticed.
I would suggest asking your MP to write to the Home Office and MoJ about:
* lack of policing / disregard of road traffic law and sentancing policy (mention the dangers of plod having opted out of policing traffic and the wider threat to civil society about the law falling into disrepute); and,
Department of Transport about poor facilities, road design etc.
The key to this is that a number of well written individual letters will be noticed. Also, share replies with your local media and with the CTC and roadpeace (perhaps including as cc. to your original letter.)
F*** me, yet another pathetic
F*** me, yet another pathetic sentence! Another failure for the justice system and the victim. What do drivers have to do to be convicted of causing death by dangerous driving? If they are speeding at 70 in a 50, pissed 3 times over the limit, no insurance, drive straight into the back of a cyclist who is well lit and wearing highly reflective clothing, leave the scene, then claim they hit a deer they still only get charged and convicted with causing death by careless driving, same as this killer driver. She didn’t stop at a red traffic light of a toucan crossing but sped through it well above the 30 speed limit which is contrary to what many would consider to be a cautious and prudent driver which this woman is clearly NOT. Many would say her driving was blatantly dangerous but obviously the CPS and judge didn’t agree with. Incredible, absolutely incredible. She should have got 5 years and a 10 year driving ban commencing when she came out of prison. This would send a message to all those drivers and cyclists who blatantly red light jump.
Another sickening example of
Another sickening example of how its ok to kill as long as you do it ‘accidentally’ with the wonder machine.
Time and time again we see one group slaughtering a more vulnerable group and equally we see defence teams scraping the moral bucket looking for any reason, however offensive, to absolve those from any responsibility.
No lifetime ban, yet download a dodgy picture of a child and if she was a teacher she’d be banned from her profession in an instant, no questions asked.
No excuses accepted about hardship or any other life difficulties the perpetrator may face and in that example no-one has even been killed or maimed.
To all MP’s – What the hell has to happen to get any of you to get off your laurels and do something?
Suppose I can sign yet another petition for you to smile at and ignore?
Are we supposed to feel sorry
Are we supposed to feel sorry for her having sleepless nights? The cynic in me says her sleeplessness would be linked to her fear of punishment rather than the offence, which is murder in this layman’s opinion.
Punishment should fit the severity of the offence. Lives (of pedestrian and cyclists) taken away by a motor vehicle are not valued by our justice system.
Please, if you kill someone
Please, if you kill someone while driving and it is your fault, you should never drive again. Then let’s discuss custodial sentences.
pz1800 wrote:Please, if you
Exactly. And anyone feeling genuine remorse would surely never want to drive again.
‘Jail the Judge’
‘Jail the Judge’
antonio wrote:’Jail the
Ok facts of life for you and several others here. The judge does not make up the sentence. He/she applies a set of guidelines on sentence to the person convicted. There is a maximum sentence, there is also a starting point for sentencing usually about half way between maximum and minimum. The judge then looks at the aggravating and mitigating factors.
So if the judge goes outside these guidelines the sentence can be appealed.
I get the anger about sentencing. I am annoyed that sentences for this kind of thing are so lenient. BUT the issue is not so much the judge being lenient it is the fact that the sentences that they can apply and the guidelines used are so lenient. And the whole thing is muddied by the CPS not prosecuting properly on the bigger charge and bringing a more minor charge to assure a conviction. What that means is that all to often dangerous drivers get careless driving convictions. The sentences are quite different. The judge can only sentence you for the crime you are convicted of.
What’s my point. Stop blaming the police and the judges. Start getting the law changed and the sentences increased. (and you may find the police and the judges actually support that).
antonio wrote:’Jail the
Probably more appropriate to jail the CPS. They are the ones who are so reluctant to charge people with “death by dangerous…” rather than “careless”.
Though perhaps one should jail the juries that the CPS think won’t convict on the former charge, or the politicians who came up with this stupid (and rather odd) careless/dangerous distinction, or the voters who elect those politicians.
The blame gets spread and dissipated until nobody is to blame yet the pointless and unnecessary killings continue.
I’m curious how average sentences sit within the range given by the guidelines. If judges disagree with the situation the sentences they give would presumably be knocking up against the upper end of the range. If, on the other hand, they are averaging at the lower end, one could conclude judges are part of the problem.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
The CPS are definitely timid. It looks very much like an accountancy function where the cost of prosecution (roughly the same) is weighed against the likelihood of conviction which is higher for Careless than Dangerous because the threshold of evidence is lower.
On the matter of judges, this particular judge completely disallowed the defence that tried to share blame with the victim.
The maximum sentence for this offence is 5 years imprisonment that would be with a full panoply of aggravating factors. So drugs or alcohol use, previous convictions, a level of carelessness that fell not much short of dangerous driving, not being insured, not having a licence, attempting to evade the scene, not cooperating with the police, making false statements, showing no signs of remorse.
This lady was a first time offender, had no previous, was insured, did not flee the scene, cooperated with the police, siad she was remorseful. The sentence was completely in line with the guidelines.
Should the sentences be tougher? I think they should. Could the judge have given a tougher sentence under the current guidelines? Probably not without it being appealed.
The problem isn’t really the sentence, 5 years for careless and 14 years for Dangerous don’t seem too light to me considering what you get for your regular missionary position plain old vanilla murder It’s the sentencing guidelines that give too much emphasis to mitigating factors and the CPS being too focused on cost benefit and hence risk averse in prosecution charges.
I’ve given up on justice in
I’ve given up on justice in the UK, time after time we hear the same old pathetic judgements made.
No wonder so many people refuse to cycle on UK roads, they are not safe and whats worse the justice system actively defends through lenient sentences drivers who kill.
Keep safe brothers & sisters on the roads.
Leodis wrote:I’ve given up on
Cycling in the UK is generally safe. Just over 100 or so cyclists are killed per year (118 in 2012) According to the CTC Around 8% of the population (3 million people) cycle 3 times a week or more. The mileage cycled in the UK is up 20% over the last 15 years from 4 billion kms in 1998 to 5 billion kms in 2012. On average you need to ride 42 million km to get a fatality.
Even serious injuries are quite rare (and newsworthy) The number of seriously injured cyclists in 2012 was 3,222.
On the same calculation on average you need to ride around a million and a half km to get seriously injured. I’ve been riding the roads properly since 1973 and I doubt I am anywhere near a fraction of that sort of mileage.
And remember those figures are skewed by the high proportion of kids in the figures and the fact that all cyclist deaths and injuries are included. Even when that includes racing and even when they aren’t on the road.
My worst cycling injuries were in races and had nothing to do with motorists. I broke my collarbone jumping a bunker on Queens Park Golf Course in Bournemouth in 1972. Nowt to do with any racing or any motorists.
Cycling is safe (unless you are 11 and just watched Evil Kneivel on World of Sport and decide to have a go at it yourself).
Please don’t add any more fuel to the cycling is dangerous mood. For most people it isn’t. It really isn’t.
Cycling is safe.
That’s one fatality for
It’s like the justice system,
It’s like the justice system, police, judges and juries give these killer drivers a pat on the back and shake their hands “We’re so sorry for you. Don’t feel so bad, it was only a pesky cyclist. Any driver could have done the same. Better luck next time. You’ll get over it.”
put aside the sentence, is
put aside the sentence, is disgusting she didnt feel any wrong doing and the death, the pain to the victim families / friends X( . wheres her moral is gone? is that just example of the society we living now? hope not but these cases just haven’t stop. 🙁
and i cant believe the judge believed she remorse about incident :O if she have any then she wont let the defending blame the cyclist using pedestrian crossing.
Can someone please start a
Can someone please start a campaign for a mandatory life ban for anyone found guilty of causing death by dangerous or careless driving.
I don’t care what organisation champions it, car, bike or political, it is just in the interest of all persons in the UK for this to happen. There are elections coming up and now is the time.
My vote is for sale to the political party that champions it.
Mart wrote:Can someone please
No. For a start these are two different crimes. Across the spectrum that’s everything from someone not checking a mirror on a moped to using an HGV as an offensive weapon to mow down a bus queue.
If you ask whether the sentences should be stiffer. I’ll agree.
If you ask whether the CD by DD should have a sentencing starting point of 10 years (ie only mitigating factors reduce that) then I’ll agree.
I’m perfectly happy with 10 15 or even 20 year bans and even lifetime bans in some cases.
But what you’ve asked for is that a teenager on a moped would be banned for life as a matter of course for making a mistake that resulted in a fatality.
There’s a reason wht Careless and Dangerous driving are treated differently. One is generally omission and the other generally commission having no regard for the circumstances and the facts of a case, the intent or otherwise of the accused is just silly.
Quick idea – “License
Quick idea – “License invalid” make offenders take their driving tests again. Clearly they are not good drivers so probably that will get them off the road for a good while.
Can’t help wondering what
Can’t help wondering what would have happened in a different situation.
Say that instead of blasting through the red light and killing a grown man on a bicycle she had blasted through the red light and wiped out a family or even, god forbid, a school ‘crocodile’.
Would we have seen the same result and public indifference*?
[* I don’t count ourselves as public in this instance as we are an interested party]
Think yet again its time to
Think yet again its time to look at “manslaughter whilst in charge of a motor vehicle”. Ok you didn’t mean to kill anyone but the fact is you did, then let a jury decide based on the evidence.
Whats the difference between careless and dangerous driving, a careless act can be dangerous just by its nature so get rid of them and replace with one charge.
Another poor sentence by a person who if complained about will be “judged” by fellow members of the old boys club.
chadders wrote:Think yet
Well essentially you do have manslaughter while driving a vehicle. It’s just that you have a two specific categories for it that are informed by behaviour on the road.
And there is an obvious and clear difference between Careless driving and dangerous driving. It’s a factor of what the law defines as “mens rea” state of mind or , intent.
If you are racing on the road, deliberately running red lights, excessively speeding, cutting people up ie deliberately doing things that any reasonable person would regard as dangerous then you are driving dangerously.
if you are not paying sufficient attention to what you are doing. ie you are not intending to drive dangerously then albeit your actions may pose a danger that is not your intent. Then you are driving carelessly.
The first is deliberate commission of something that the driver knows is dangerous.
The second is omission of something (due care) without intent to cause danger.
If you kill someone whilst driving dangerously the max sentence is 14 years
If you kill someone whilst driving carelessly the max sentence is 5 years.
There’s a very good reason wht they are separate and that is because it is most certainly not the same crime because there is no intent to cause danger in the second.
Lumping it all together is utterly utterly counterproductive. A perfectly normal person who usually is a good driver but for one reason or another is distracted or momentarily lacks attention and ends up caulsing a collision in which someone is killed has comitted and offence. A serious one. But they are completely differnt in nature to someone that steals a fast car and decides to go joy riding at lethal speed knowing that someone could easily be killed. That’s something else entirely.