A London property developer has been jailed for two years and three months after he deliberately ran over a cyclist in a road rage incident. Clifford Harper then got out of his BMW and told Peter Corfe, “I will run you over again if I have to.”
Mail Online reports that Harper and Corfe had traded insults while in slow-moving traffic in Marylebone, central London on March 31.
Harper then swerved into Corfe, who suffered a broken back as a result of the collision.
Cynthia McFarlane, prosecuting, said one passer-by recalled hearing a male voice saying: “Watch where you’re going” and then a car accelerating and a screeching noise.
“That was this defendant’s red BMW, deliberately driven by this defendant into the cyclist knocking him off his bike.
“As the witnesses walked over to the cyclist, the driver of the red BMW, the defendant, gets out of his car, walks over to the cyclist and says: ‘I’ll do it again’.”
Harper left the scene. He was identified from CCTV footage and photographs of the car taken by witnesses.
When arrested on April 12, he told police that scratches on his car that were sustained in the collision ‘had been there for years’ and offered no comment when shown the CCTV footage.
He subsequently admitted causing serious injury by dangerous driving at a hearing earlier this month.
Southwark Crown Court heard that Harper had temporarily ‘lost his mind’ due to pressure in his personal life.
Sarah Iskarous, defending, said that Harper, the company director of a firm employing 150 people, was the sole provider for his wife and daughter and was paying for the private care of his sick parents. He had been on his way to see an ophthalmologist after being diagnosed with cataracts and has a metal heart valve giving him a current expected life span of six years.
Judge Philip Bartle, QC, said: “I have seen the CCTV of the driving in question. It is truly shocking. There isn’t any doubt at all that what you did was to deliberately drive at Peter Corfe.
“As a result of that deliberate intention to drive at Mr Corfe you knocked him off his bike and he fractured his spine. It was, as I say, a deliberate, shocking, appalling piece of driving which has had devastating consequences for Mr Corfe.
“I have read his victim impact statement. He records that he was in excruciating pain as a result of the injuries which you caused. He was in hospital for nine days and it has taken considerable time for him to deal with those injuries.”
After accepting that the incident was out of character and taking into account Harper’s health problems and reliant relatives, Bartle sentenced Harper to two years and three months in jail and ordered him to pay £5,000 compensation to Corfe.
He was also banned from driving for three years, handed six penalty points and ordered to take an extended retest.
Commenting on the verdict, Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s Head of Campaigns said:
“If Clifford Harper’s annoyance with another road user was all it took for him to lose his mind and fly into a rage, you have to ask whether he has the right temperament to be allowed to carry on driving.
“Merely suspending that entitlement for three years, even with a re-test requirement – which will assess his ability to drive rather than control his temper – sends the wrong message. Why should someone who deliberately drives into someone, threatens to do it again, and then leaves his victim seriously injured on the road, be trusted to behave more rationally in three years’ time?
“Time and time again road safety campaigners from diverse organisations implore the Government to look again at the use of longer and lifetime driving disqualifications. Time and time again nothing happens. Unless and until drivers with anger problem are banned either for life, or until they can show that they have addressed their problem, all road users will continue to be placed at unnecessary risk.
“The Government talks about taking road danger seriously, but if this was the case then we would not still be waiting for its review of all road traffic offences and penalties promised three years ago.”




















51 thoughts on “Two years for motorist who deliberately ran over cyclist before threatening to do so again”
How on earth was he only
How on earth was he only prosecuted for causing injury by dangerous driving.
What about GBH or even attempted murder?
Once again, if the assault had used an iron bar instead of an iron car, the charges would have been entirely different.
How many bloody excuses does
How many bloody excuses does the guy have?
Also, if he had been diagnosed with cataracts, why was he allowed to drive? He may be stressed that he might only have 6 years to live, but he nearly killed a cyclist!
Hopefully he doesn’t return to the road after his pitifully short sentence.
WillRod wrote:
I truely hope he dies in prison with a broken bottle up his arse. But not beofore all his family are killed by a speeding BMW driver. Harsh, I know, but I’m just fucking sick of this.
[/quote]I truely hope he dies
[/quote]I truely hope he dies in prison with a broken bottle up his arse. But not beofore all his family are killed by a speeding BMW driver. Harsh, I know, but I’m just fucking sick of this.
[/quote]
I don’t normally agree with violence, but I make an exception in this case. This was attempted murder, and it is only by the grace of whatever deity you worship that the victim isn’t dead. I wonder if the driver would have received the same sentence if it was a pedestrian he nearly killed. There must be cases of drivers deliberately driving at pedestrians, I might just do a little research.
Dropped wrote:
I get that you’re angry. But talking about violent rape as a means of punishment is pretty offensive, whatever the context. It’s an open forum – maybe worth an edit?
CasperCCC wrote:
More offensive than the legal system deliberately trivialising attempted murder by treating it as a piece of not terribly good driving? Dear gods, even the Daily Masil commenter s can spot that this nutter deserves a proper punishment.
oldstrath wrote:
More offensive than the legal system deliberately trivialising attempted murder by treating it as a piece of not terribly good driving? Dear gods, even the Daily Masil commenter s can spot that this nutter deserves a proper punishment.— Dropped
No, not more offensive. But still pretty offensive. There are plenty of ways to talk about how totally broken our justice system is without talking about violent rape as a punishment method.
CasperCCC wrote:
No, not more offensive. But still pretty offensive. There are plenty of ways to talk about how totally broken our justice system is without talking about violent rape as a punishment method.— Dropped
No you’re wrong, venting anger on an open forum and wishing someone ill because people in your group are being murdered and maimed daily by their type is fully acceptable. In fact inciting hatred and killing cyclists is totally okay, as has being witnessed many times in the media by people who are piblicly known.
The ‘injustice’ system is frankly abhorrent, it has a massive impact on the safety of everyone, not just people on bikes, it lowers the acceptable level of behaviour in society, it allows criminals off scott free, saying that is less offence or equal to someobe venting over a disgusting act/yet another miscarriage of justice is way off the mark!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
More offensive than the legal system deliberately trivialising attempted murder by treating it as a piece of not terribly good driving? Dear gods, even the Daily Masil commenter s can spot that this nutter deserves a proper punishment.
— oldstrath No, not more offensive. But still pretty offensive. There are plenty of ways to talk about how totally broken our justice system is without talking about violent rape as a punishment method.— CasperCCC No you’re wrong, venting anger on an open forum and wishing someone ill because people in your group are being murdered and maimed daily by their type is fully acceptable. In fact inciting hatred and killing cyclists is totally okay, as has being witnessed many times in the media by people who are piblicly known. The ‘injustice’ system is frankly abhorrent, it has a massive impact on the safety of everyone, not just people on bikes, it lowers the acceptable level of behaviour in society, it allows criminals off scott free, saying that is less offence or equal to someobe venting over a disgusting act/yet another miscarriage of justice is way off the mark!— Dropped
I don’t think its acceptable either. And more likely to harm than help the cause.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
I disagree. I don’t think it helps to vent anger at one crime by treating another lightly. Part of the reason prison rape is so common (at least in the US) is because people treat it as a jokey punchline. Send killers to prison, but rape is not a legitimate way to punish people.
FluffyKittenofTindalos][quote
Even assuming he was just venting, I just don’t think that wishing sexual violence on someone is a good way to vent. Look at the amount of rape threats that high-profile women get on social media. I don’t think anyone should be contributing towards the normalisation of that kind of language, even when the person you’re wishing it on is totally reprehensible.
And, again, I’m not saying that it’s more offensive than (or as offensive) as our totally broken justice system. But I do think it’s pretty offensive, and unneccesary. And it’s not as if wishing rape on someone is going to change the CPS or juries’ attitudes towards driving offenses. So all you’re doing is making the online world that little bit more toxic.
Anyway, I’ve said my bit. I’ll shut up now.
CasperCCC]
Even assuming he was just venting, I just don’t think that wishing sexual violence on someone is a good way to vent. Look at the amount of rape threats that high-profile women get on social media. I don’t think anyone should be contributing towards the normalisation of that kind of language, even when the person you’re wishing it on is totally reprehensible.
And, again, I’m not saying that it’s more offensive than (or as offensive) as our totally broken justice system. But I do think it’s pretty offensive, and unneccesary. And it’s not as if wishing rape on someone is going to change the CPS or juries’ attitudes towards driving offenses. So all you’re doing is making the online world that little bit more toxic.
Anyway, I’ve said my bit. I’ll shut up now.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
I’m going to take your impressively reasonable post and shove –
ah no, OK. I getcha. As you were.
I know barristers have a job
I know barristers have a job to do, but judges need to send a two finger salute to them when excuses are used to justify wholly unacceptable behavior. If he is only expected to live for 6 years, then jail him for all 6 and put him at the bottom of the list for surgery options.
Every time a bullshit excuse
Every time a bullshit excuse is offered as mitigation is it actually required to be proven in the court or can they just invent any old shit and hope they don’t get called out on it?
“My client is very sorry as he was visited by aliens and had an anal probe leaving him distraught before this incident occured”
Oh well. There’s 2 years out of his 6 done in prison and 3 years of a ban leave him only 1 year to do a resest and get back out there.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
It would seem like they don’t have to provide much proof about their claims.
Not being British, I’m not familiar with the standard of proof required for the claims of the defence. However, as a physician I can tell you that most people with a valve replacement live for longer than that (12 years on average which means 50% live for even more).
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
I wondered the same, so are there an road.cc legal types who can better inform us? If nothing else it might come in handy for my defence when I use the bike lock on the next homicidal driver.
Does anyone know how well the
Does anyone know how well the victim recovered?
About what I expected
About what I expected
As the usual excuse of ” it
As the usual excuse of ” it was unintentional ” can’t possibly apply, how is this not something more serious than just “piss poor (I.e. normal) driving”?
Can someone compile a book of
Can someone compile a book of excuses to use in court when hitting a cyclist, together with the resulting sentences….a stocking filler that would definitely sell!!
I am lost for words.Please
I am lost for words.Please dont engage with these psycho drivers unless you are totally able to look after yourself.I work on the road and the anger from behind the wheel is growing daily.Ride defensively but dont let pride come before a slavering lunatic,take a deep breath and get home safe.
john1967 wrote:
You could be the more talented lovechild of Lennox Lewis and Steven Seagal; if a blob of life-shortened rage drives into you while you’re on a bike, there’s not much you can do.
Anyone who cycles in the UK
Anyone who cycles in the UK meets this kind of knobhead daily.
The absence of justice in the courts could suggest the best option is to dish out your own punishment when possible.
“
“Commenting on the verdict, Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s Head of Campaigns said:
“If Clifford Harper’s annoyance with another road user was all it took for him to lose his mind and fly into a rage, you have to ask whether he has the right temperament to be allowed to carry on driving.”
Duncan is absolutely right, and it is time that there was a pychological element to the driving test, so that pychopaths aren’t put in charge of a lethal weapon. Would we give someone like that a gun licence?
He’s right about the government’s inquiry into road safety and sentencing too, three years and nothing until Charlie Alliston. I’d comment further, but my vocabulary isn’t sufficiently broad or scatalogical enough to cover this government.
Can some lawyer explain why
Can some lawyer explain why the correct answer to all this “plea in mitigation” lark is not ” well if driving is so importtant to you, you shouldn’t have driven like a murderous dick then, should you? “
He used his vehicle ad a
He used his vehicle ad a weapon, not different to carrying a knife or baseball bat. Using it in such a manner should have been an attempted murder charge. What else is 1500 + KG of vehicle going to do to a cyclist or pedestrian. Tickle them. Give them a massage.
Yet another out of touch judge probably merry from sipping too much sherry or port in their chambers.
Because our economy is based
Because our economy is based on psychopaths buying BMWs.
I really don’t get this.
I really don’t get this.
Pilots need a license, would they ever be allowed to fly again if they deliberately flew into someone? They’d probably be labelled a terrorist, given 20-30 years and never even be allowed on a plane as a passenger again.
Why does the court not treat this with the seriousness it deserves?
Amazingly EVERY commentor in the Daily Heil is on the side of the cyclist!
Simboid wrote:
Most of them but not all, and in an act of selflessness that will never be repeated, I’ve read through all the comments on a DM page.
“@geo – knock yourself out, bud. You’re just one inattentive moment from being another stain in the gutter”
“Ban cyclists from the road, then incidents like this won’t happen innit? Bring on your arrows, you sad lycra-wearing fraggles”
“Cyclists are a menace, i am suprised more people dont run them over”
So the stereotypical DM readers are still there, but mostly keeping their powder dry until the next anti-cycling campaign.
I fail to understand why this
I fail to understand why this useless sack of lard is allowed to walk free. He should be sentenced to hard labour.
If there are about 50 million
If there are about 50 million active driving records in the UK and 1% of the population are psychopaths then there are about 500,000 psychopathic drivers out there. On top of that there are about another million drivers with anti-social personality disorder.
If someone broke my back I’d
If someone broke my back I’d like to think they’d get a little brokeback in prison.
The motor car taps into our
The motor car taps into our psyche.
Capable, analytical creatures with intellectual ability & ambition, it is only our physical frailty which lets us down. We have to be cautious, lest we are injured by a stronger animal (& there are many).
Enter the motor car.
Now we are armour plated. Now we have 100kw+ of Power. Invincible. Invulnerable.
“Get out of my way, you inferior being. I am your better. I am more powerful than you”
Our egos are intoxicated with the power. You can see it every day. It’s a wonder there are not more such incidents.
(disclaimer. In spite of being a former card carrying sales rep, I managed to avoid such confrontations. I now manage to survive by only using the 4-wheeled box twice per week. Wish it were less.)
Remember folks, we have
Remember folks, we have “strict laws in place that ensure…” fuck all.
Quote:
Don’t think the judge sets the charge.
For many (in essence, the great majority of this country) – the motor car is held as a symbol of liberty and freedom. This is why the idea of the car is so protected in their minds – it doesn’t matter how many people are lost – freedom must be protected. Any move to curb the use of cars is seen as an assault on liberty.
It is the same situation in the USA with guns.
For us cyclists, we do not share this view, as our symbol of liberity and freedom is the bicycle.
If the victim had been a
If the victim had been a police then it would have been an attempted murder charge.
Hey, don’t knock psychopaths,
Hey, don’t knock psychopaths, we’re not all that bad, sometimes it helps as you keep a cool head instead of being bothered by things happening. Admittedly if I was going to go full on psycho then I wouldn’t bother with ramming someone with the car.
The thing that surprised me
The thing that surprised me is the Daily Mail comments section were mostly supportive and critical of the sentence.
Steve Cooper wrote:
Lock people up forever and support a cyclist over a driver; or go soft on someone whilst putting cyclists in their rightful place in the gutter. What a choice for a DM reader. If the cyclist had been an immigrant then the choice would have got even more confusing.
So let’s get this straight.
So let’s get this straight.
So IMHO the charges should be Attempted Murder or a minimum of GBH, Section 4 Public order offence, leaving the scene of an accident, perjury and driving with a reportable condition.
But somehow in the CPS’s mind the best course of action is a dangerous driving charge?
craigstitt wrote:
There was never going to be an attempted murder charge, as it requires proving an intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is a higher hurdle to jump than running a murder charge, which only requires proof of an intent to do grievous bodily harm – if that intent results in you killing your victim rather than just causing them grievous bodily harm, then tough luck for you.
That’s why attempted murder charges are so rare. The only attempted murder case I’ve been involved in as a former prosecutor involved the accused cutting his victim’s throat and leaving him for dead in a remote location in the middle of a winter’s night – the intent to kill was pretty clear in that matter.
The CPS could have run a section 18 ’cause grievous bodily harm with intent’ charge, and looking at the sentencing guidelines, there probably would have been a slightly higher sentence if he’d pleaded guilty to such a charge.
However, it’s likely the CPS may have accepted a guilty plea to the lesser section 20 ‘inflict grievous bodily harm’ offence if they’d run a section 18 charge, as the section 20 offence doesn’t require the added difficulty of intent to be proved – a guilty plea to a section 20 charge would likely have resulted in a lesser sentence than what was handed down here.
TerreyHill wrote:
Out of interest, what on earth counts as ” intent” to lawyers? Apparently deliberately hitting someone with 1500kg of of metal, then threatening to do it again, isn’t enough to convince – does it need a sworn affidavit in front of three lawyers?
oldstrath wrote:
I somewhat agree with you, in that I think the law puts too much focus on ‘intent’ (i.e. thoughts in someone’s head) in general, but is it really ‘lawyers’ that are the issue, or jurors and law-makers and Joe Public?
My problem with putting so much emphasis on ‘intent’ is that it doesn’t put enough emphasis on power-differentials. A group with sufficient power don’t _need_ intent to commit harm, they can do it quite casually without having to make any special effort.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Out of interest, what on earth counts as ” intent” to lawyers? Apparently deliberately hitting someone with 1500kg of of metal, then threatening to do it again, isn’t enough to convince – does it need a sworn affidavit in front of three lawyers?
— TerreyHill I somewhat agree with you, in that I think the law puts too much focus on ‘intent’ (i.e. thoughts in someone’s head) in general, but is it really ‘lawyers’ that are the issue, or jurors and law-makers and Joe Public? My problem with putting so much emphasis on ‘intent’ is that it doesn’t put enough emphasis on power-differentials. A group with sufficient power don’t _need_ intent to commit harm, they can do it quite casually without having to make any special effort.— craigstitt
The problem with intent, as you’ve pointed out, is that as the prosecutor you’re inviting the jury to go inside the accused’s mind to determine what he or she was thinking/intending at the time. When the red mist descends on people in road rage cases such as this, it’s very difficult to persuade a jury to accept beyond a reasonable doubt that an accused intended in the moment to kill or do grievous bodily harm, rather than being reckless (which is the test for the section 20 offence, ie. he or she foresaw that some harm would be caused by his or her actions).
How diferent things might
How diferent things might have been had the Harper creature shouted: “Allahu Akbar!” as he drove Mr Corfe down………
Wasn’t the insertion of said
Wasn’t the insertion of said bottle intended to murder rather than ‘r’ word…
I dont know whether the
I dont know whether the Procurator Fiscal woudl try and prosecute it that way, but in Scotland one of the tests for the intent to murder is for your actions to be ‘wickedly reckless’ with someone’s life.
I would say this fits in this frame.
There’s no reason why a
There’s no reason why a replacement heart valve should shorten anybodys expected lifespan, certainly not to just 6 years. (Speaking as somebody with a mechanical heart valve
)
Natrix wrote:
I don’t know what his heart valve has to do with running someone over anyway.
wellsprop wrote:
Are metal heart valves magnetic? Was the cyclist on a steel frame??
Surely at the very least the
Surely at the very least the fact that someone may be able, in a fit of anger, to forgot that driving 1500 kg of metal over a human body will damage it severely is evidence that they should never again be permitted to drive?