Home
Judge ruled self-employed driver Michael Gibbins, who broke a cyclist's shoulder and leg 'in a blind rage', should keep his licence to pay compensation to victim...

A man who attacked a cyclist, fracturing his shoulder and leg, has been ordered to pay £10,000 in compensation.

The road rage driver, Michael Gibbins, became angry when the cyclist moved into the centre of the road to cross a narrow bridge near Kibworth, Leicestershire.

Gibbins, a self-employed driver, drove his Mercedes ‘intimidatingly close’ to the cyclist, before pushing him off his bike, reports the Leicester Mercury. The judge ruled Gibbins should keep his driving licence in order to pay compensation to his victim.

Tony Stanford, Prosecuting, told Leicester Crown Court: "The defendant lowered the passenger window and shouted something, with animated waving of his hands.

"He pulled up ahead of the cyclist and opened his door as he was passing. A witness said it looked as though the driver was deliberately trying to knock the cyclist over as he passed.

"The defendant then accelerated away and stopped further down the road.

"He got out of his vehicle and ran at the cyclist and either shoulder-barged or pushed him, knocking him off his bike, causing him to fall heavily on the floor."

The victim who was described as fit and healthy, with 40 years’ cycling under his belt, was in hospital for three weeks, off work for two months and walks with a limp after the incident left him with one shorter leg.

The Mercury reports the victim is no longer able to cycle long distances, and is still undergoing physiotherapy.

Gibbins was given a 16 month jail sentence, suspended for two years, with 210 hours of unpaid work. He was ordered to pay £10,000 to his victim within 12 months, and £250 court costs.

Judge Philip Head said: "This was road rage.

"He was an active man whose life you've impacted upon gravely.

"You were in a blind rage because of the affront you felt you'd suffered.

"He avoided your car door when it opened and you accelerated away, pulled up ahead of him, got out and raced over to push or shove him, propelling him off his bicycle.

"You stood over him saying he shouldn't have been mouthing off – even if he did say something to you, it was you who started this and you were the one who resorted to violence.

"You have no previous convictions and I accept it was an isolated incident – but you have to keep a lid on your temper.

"The public is best served by you continuing to earn a living and being able to pay compensation to your victim."

Mara Silva-Romefort, mitigating, said: "He left the scene only after he was told to leave by others who felt his presence was causing further distress and he didn't try and evade the police – he fully expected to be contacted.

"He has, right from the start, said he wanted to admit his wrongdoing.

"It's not a case of his having a lack of remorse, he's trying to understand why he behaved in this way and he is remorseful.

"He's a cyclist himself and that's why he felt able to remonstrate with the cyclist.

"He also drives for a living.

"He doesn't seek to excuse his behaviour."

 

46 comments

Avatar
ktache [696 posts] 1 year ago
28 likes

You aint no cyclist, Bro, you aint no cyclist

Avatar
Plasterer's Radio [362 posts] 1 year ago
12 likes

GBH and a custodial surely?

No driving ban for deliberatly knocking a bloke of his bike?

Judge and driver are both at fault here.

Avatar
FrankH [83 posts] 1 year ago
3 likes
Plasterer's Radio wrote:

GBH and a custodial surely?

No driving ban for deliberatly knocking a bloke of his bike?

Judge and driver are both at fault here.

I understand what you're saying but if I had been the victim I think £10,000 (if it gts paid) would be worth more to me than the perpetrator spending 16 months in jail.

A shame it can't be both though.

Avatar
Barraob1 [33 posts] 1 year ago
9 likes

10 grand for a physical impairment for life? In Ireland recently a kid got 12 grand for a cut knee. The judge is delusional, that lunatic needs a jail sentence. He's only 10,000 out of pocket and a bit of free labour, oh the hardship.

Avatar
Daveyraveygravey [563 posts] 1 year ago
12 likes
FrankH wrote:
Plasterer's Radio wrote:

GBH and a custodial surely?

No driving ban for deliberatly knocking a bloke of his bike?

Judge and driver are both at fault here.

I understand what you're saying but if I had been the victim I think £10,000 (if it gts paid) would be worth more to me than the perpetrator spending 16 months in jail.

A shame it can't be both though.

The victim has been left with one leg shorter than the other and can't ride long distances any more. If that was me, £10k is NOWHERE near enough. Never mind the psychological damage. And the perp is also a cyclist?! That's a bullshit defence desperately trying to minimise the sentencing

Avatar
ianrobo [1219 posts] 1 year ago
6 likes

this is why people get angry ... 

this was attempted murder in my book using a car to deliver what could be a fatal blow and just 10K for that ...

I don;t have the words to say this and who gives a stuff about the job, it was his bloody fault FFS.

this is a clear case where the person injured should ask the the CPS to appeal the sentence.

Avatar
Argos74 [470 posts] 1 year ago
16 likes

"The public is best served by you continuing to earn a living selling your car, house, pension and a kidney and being able to pay compensation to your victim."

 

There we go. That seems fair.

Avatar
oldstrath [953 posts] 1 year ago
8 likes

Maybe if it was 500 k, and then jail once he's paid it. But this, this is just a sick joke by a judge with no interest in public protection or the victim.

Avatar
philtregear [129 posts] 1 year ago
9 likes

my understanding of the law ( based on  being knocked off my bike by a motorist) is that the above relates to the criminal aspects of this matter. there will be an entirely seperate civil claim against the motorist regarding the injuries suffered by the victim. if the driver was insured, his insurance company will pay up. I guess he was insured as he drives for a living. this makes the judges logic  that the public interest will be served by him keeping his license in order to pay criminal compensation  ridiculous in my opinion. i can only hope the drivers insurance premiums for his chosen work are prohibitively expensive and this will keep this dangerous idiot off our roads.

Avatar
Simon E [3206 posts] 1 year ago
11 likes
FrankH wrote:
Plasterer's Radio wrote:

GBH and a custodial surely?

No driving ban for deliberatly knocking a bloke of his bike?

Judge and driver are both at fault here.

I understand what you're saying but if I had been the victim I think £10,000 (if it gts paid) would be worth more to me than the perpetrator spending 16 months in jail.

A shame it can't be both though.

It's the absence of a driving ban.

This dangerous idiot SHOULD NOT be allowed to drive. I don't care if it's his job, he should have thought about that before deliberately putting someone in hospital. There are surely other jobs he can do that don't require a driving license...

Avatar
ianrobo [1219 posts] 1 year ago
7 likes

who cares about his job ?

People have to realise the consequences of their actions and yes the fine is heavy but chnces are he can afford that, so whats the punishment ?

Avatar
DaveE128 [981 posts] 1 year ago
2 likes

So he gets a driving ban after he has paid up?!
No, I thought not  2

Avatar
DrG82 [217 posts] 1 year ago
8 likes

I always thought the reason why the risk of losing your driving licence was such a punishment/deterent was because you could lose your job, it seems that I am mistaken and having a job that you could lose if you lost your driving license it actually a defence against being properly punished for your crimes.

This seems to run counter to the old TV adds where they say you could lose your job for drink drink driving.

Really we know the reason why he's not in prison and only facing a suspended sentence is because the country hasn't got enough prison spaces and the overcrowding in prisons is causing problems.

Avatar
Ush [1054 posts] 1 year ago
3 likes

Important detail not emphasized in the story:  the judge's name.  From the Leicester Mercury piece he appears to trade under the name of "Judge Philip Head".  It might be worth keeping an eye out for other odd decisions from this person who feels that I would like to share the road with someone who assaults cyclists.

Personally I would rather have the vehicle currently misused by the convict sold, the money from that used to compensate the victim (not that it could) and the convict helped to find work that does not involve operating a motor vehicle (from which he should now be banned for life).

 

 

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet [1701 posts] 1 year ago
11 likes

Even if you get awarded this money in a criminal case can you also then have a go at them in a civil case? If so I'd be after his house. Fuck him and his I'm a cyclist.

Avatar
Ramuz [323 posts] 1 year ago
3 likes

Bring back hanging.

Avatar
Simon E [3206 posts] 1 year ago
3 likes
Ramuz wrote:

Bring back hanging.

Nah, too easy.

Make him ride to work on a bike. Every day for the rest of his life.

Avatar
burtthebike [1382 posts] 1 year ago
9 likes

"The victim who was described as fit and healthy, with 40 years’ cycling under his belt, was in hospital for three weeks, off work for two months and walks with a limp after the incident left him with one shorter leg."

"Gibbins was given a 16 month jail sentence, suspended for two years, with 210 hours of unpaid work. He was ordered to pay £10,000 to his victim within 12 months, and £250 court costs."

So that's all right then.

One guy gets put in hospital for three weeks, off work for two months, is physically damaged forever, and the guy that does it just has to pay some money?  Doesn't lose his licence?  Doesn't have his car crushed in front of him?

No F****ng way.  Maybe the judiciary sees this as justice, but I beg to differ.  Surgical removal of driving licence, with certain other useless apendages like the brain, and descending to south of the waistline.

Sorry if I've offended anyone, but I'm sick of people getting away with killing and injuring innocent people and avoiding reasonable punishment.

Avatar
racyrich [308 posts] 1 year ago
3 likes
philtregear wrote:

my understanding of the law ( based on  being knocked off my bike by a motorist) is that the above relates to the criminal aspects of this matter. there will be an entirely seperate civil claim against the motorist regarding the injuries suffered by the victim. if the driver was insured, his insurance company will pay up. I guess he was insured as he drives for a living. this makes the judges logic  that the public interest will be served by him keeping his license in order to pay criminal compensation  ridiculous in my opinion. i can only hope the drivers insurance premiums for his chosen work are prohibitively expensive and this will keep this dangerous idiot off our roads.

Or more likely the judge knows full well that motor insurance does not cover intentional assaults so awarded some compensation using crimal law (3rd party liability is just that - for damages to 3rd parties. An intended victim is a 2nd party.)  

The cyclist can still sue him for civil damages and if they're awarded then the cowson may well be selling his house and kidney. We can but hope! 

  

 

Avatar
Critchio [240 posts] 1 year ago
3 likes

Judge Philip Head needs to stand down.

Avatar
brooksby [2919 posts] 1 year ago
5 likes

The public is clearly best served by putting this dangerous unstable individual behind bars.

Avatar
Mungecrundle [866 posts] 1 year ago
6 likes

Some people are too stupid for help. Had he stayed in the car and simply run the cyclist over claiming sun in eyes or other mitigating circumstance then he may well have been clear and free. Small fine and his insurance would have picked up the compensation claim. By getting out of the car not only has he put himself at risk of taking on someone who may well have been able to defend themselves but his assault gets treated as such hence the relatively massive fine and suspended jail sentence.

Avatar
CygnusX1 [737 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
Simon E wrote:
Ramuz wrote:

Bring back hanging.

Nah, too easy.

Make him ride to work on a bike. Every day for the rest of his life.

That's not a punishment, that's a blessing (even if it means 'sharing' the road with motorised dicks).

Avatar
atgni [450 posts] 1 year ago
2 likes

Just making people pass the test again seems more reasonable than simply letting them carry on driving. i.e. no ban as such, just put them back to provisional and have to pass both theory and practical again.
You never know it might be lack of training and understanding rather than mentality.

Avatar
oldstrath [953 posts] 1 year ago
1 like
atgni wrote:

Just making people pass the test again seems more reasonable than simply letting them carry on driving. i.e. no ban as such, just put them back to provisional and have to pass both theory and practical again. You never know it might be lack of training and understanding rather than mentality.

 

That may be true of some collisions, but I'm not clear how you think "lack of training" explains a deliberate assault. Maybe "lack of understanding", but not of the sort that a driving instructor could remedy.

Avatar
beezus fufoon [973 posts] 1 year ago
1 like
oldstrath wrote:
atgni wrote:

Just making people pass the test again seems more reasonable than simply letting them carry on driving. i.e. no ban as such, just put them back to provisional and have to pass both theory and practical again. You never know it might be lack of training and understanding rather than mentality.

 

That may be true of some collisions, but I'm not clear how you think "lack of training" explains a deliberate assault. Maybe "lack of understanding", but not of the sort that a driving instructor could remedy.

seems like anger management would be a better option

Avatar
ironmancole [358 posts] 1 year ago
4 likes

Wow.  He keeps his licence 'to ensure he has income to pay for his crime' and the judge feels the very best singular way for this individual to earn a crust is to stay on the road?!

Are there not a myriad of other incomes available that would mean this prick is no longer driving around?

Just what do you have to do to get a ban these days?

Avatar
burtthebike [1382 posts] 1 year ago
4 likes
ironmancole wrote:

Just what do you have to do to get a ban these days?

Run over a judge.

Avatar
RedfishUK [159 posts] 1 year ago
2 likes

Hopefully the fact he received Criminal Compensation does not stop the victim taking the driver through the civil courts for Personnal Injury

And as he was out of his car when he pushed the cyclist, I imagine his motor insurance will refuce to pay out. So the driver could be losing his car and home to cover the costs

Avatar
atgni [450 posts] 1 year ago
1 like
oldstrath wrote:
atgni wrote:

Just making people pass the test again seems more reasonable than simply letting them carry on driving. i.e. no ban as such, just put them back to provisional and have to pass both theory and practical again. You never know it might be lack of training and understanding rather than mentality.

 

That may be true of some collisions, but I'm not clear how you think "lack of training" explains a deliberate assault. Maybe "lack of understanding", but not of the sort that a driving instructor could remedy.

It was a general rather than specific comment. Hence my use of 'people' rather than the criminal's name.
Every court convicted motoring criminal should at least have to prove they know the rules and pass the theory test before simply resuming driving.

Pages