A driver has been sentenced to eight and a half years in jail and banned for ten years for killing a cyclist in Wolverhampton last year and failing to stop.
Rider George Searle, 74, was riding on the A449 Stafford Road, Wolverhampton when he was hit by Kile Straker, 24 who was driving ablack Seat Leon.
Straker had been travelling at speeds averaging 60mph in the 40mph zone just after 12.30pm on Thursday 11 July 2013. A white van pulled out to overtake Mr Searle, a lifelong cyclist who had raced alongside Wolverhampton legend and TV commentator Hugh Porter, but Straker, undertook the van and hit the rider, inflicting fatal injuries.
Passers-by rushed to Mr Searle’s aid, but nothing could be done to save him and he was pronounced dead at the scene.
Straker failed to stop at the scene of the collision and the damaged car was recovered later that day at a local garage. Straker was arrested just over six weeks later after enquiries by collision investigators. He was charged with causing death by dangerous driving and causing death while uninsured.
On October 10, Straker pleaded guilty to the charges and was yesterday sentenced at Wolverhampton Crown Court to eight and a half years in prison and disqualified from driving for ten years.
After the sentencing Mr Searle’s family said: "We would like to take this opportunity to thank everybody who helped George on that tragic day, the people who stopped and helped him, the Ambulance Service and the police.
"No sentence will ever bring our Dad, Husband and Grandad back. We will forever miss George, he was a true gentleman, a kind and loving man."
The Express and Star reports that Emma Wynne-Owen, Senior Crown Prosecutor from West Midlands Crown Prosecution Service, said: “Kile Straker was fully aware that he was banned from driving, but knowing this and the fact he had no insurance, he still drove his car at high speeds carrying out illegal and dangerous manoeuvres along a busy road in Wolverhampton, which ultimately resulted in him colliding with and killing George Searle.
“After the collision, rather than stop and seek emergency help for Mr Searle, the defendant drove off in order to escape the fact that he should not have been driving on a public highway.
“He was traced as the owner and driver of the car, but he denied being the driver of the car. However, today he has been found guilty of causing the death of Mr Searle.
“Our thoughts are today with the family and friends of Mr Searle.”
PC Claire Byrne, from the Collision Investigation Unit, said: "This collision has had a devastating effect on the family of Mr Searle, who not only had to deal with the loss of their loved one, but also had to endure a lengthy process to bring Straker to justice.
"We are pleased with the sentence today, which will give him time to contemplate the consequences of his actions."
Commenting on the sentence, CTC campaigns manager Roger Geffen told road.cc: "When passing sentence, the judge had to take into account that Straker was uninsured at the time of the collision due to a previous driving conviction; that he was performing a dangerous ‘undertaking’ manoeuvre at speed (60mph on a 40mph road); and that he fled the scene of the crime. On the other hand, he pleaded guilty, which entitles him to a one-third discount off the maximum 14 year sentence. So his 8½ year jail term is not far off the maximum he could have been given.
"CTC’s Road Justice campaign would question though whether his 10 year driving ban is long enough – especially since much of it will coincide with his time in custody. It is longer than most – the UK courts rarely impose bans of more than three years. Yet a person with his track record surely ought to face a life-time ban, so he knows he will go back to prison if he ever drives again."
35 thoughts on “Killer driver jailed for eight and a half years”
I don’t understand how his
I don’t understand how his guilty plea gets him a discount. He didn’t stop and denied driving the car for some time by the sounds of it.
It sounds as if he only pleaded guilty once backed into a corner with no way out. That doesn’t deserve a discount in my opinion.
Good he’s going to prison but it should be for the maximum no discount, also the last ban didn’t work, why will this one?
George Searle, RIP.
29erKeith wrote:I don’t
The discount applies because that’s the normal system. And most people who plead guilty do so only when they are backed into a corner and because their lawyer tells them that the case against them is a slam dunk and they will be convicted. But every citizen has the right to have the case against them heard and to challenge that evidence. It doesn’t matter how hopeless their case may appear they have the right to their day in court or as the parlance goes to “put the prosecution to proof”.
And if there is no benefit to a guilty plea then the logical thing for defence counsel to advise is to take their chance in court and make the prosecution prove their case. There might after all be a technical issue that arises, some contamination of evidence, or a witness becomes unavailable or some such like. It may be unlikely but without the discount system then it would be a logical thing to do. It would costs them nothing to roll the dice and they wouldn’t benefit one iota by saving everyone the bother of running the case. They’d have nothing to lose or gain so they may as well put the prosecution to proof. That’s horrendously expensive and ties up the police and CPS far more than a guilty plea.
Lawyers are bound ethically to provide their clients with advice which is in their clients’ best legal interests. The discount scheme allows the lawyer ethically to counsel that the client’s best interest when the case is overwhelming is to plead guilty at the first possible opportunity. Without the discount system the best legal advice in their client’s interest may well be to play for time and hope for a prosecution cock-up.
So the system works like this. If you plead guilty at the first reasonable opportunity then you may receive a one third reduction in your sentence. If you plead guilty after a trial date is set but before the court communes then you may get a one quarter discount. If you plead guilty literally at the door of the court you may get a 10% discount (because you’ve wasted a lot of time by then. If you actually plead not guilty and have your day in court and are convicted then you get no discount from the guideline sentence.
And no! Logically you can’t increase a penalty for pleading not guilty. You have a right to put the prosecution to proof (you are innocent until they actually prove you guilty – remember). And it would be perverse to punish people for using their right to defend themselves in court.
This system works pretty well.
A life ban from driving would
A life ban from driving would be appropriate for the offender. He demonstrated that he is not fit to be trusted with a vehicle, ever. At least he received a suitable sentence. None of that will bring back the victim however and the impact on his family will still be tough.
OldRidgeback wrote:A life ban
Agreed – this is the #1 change we should be requesting to the law in our country – the ability for a judge to impose a lifetime ban in “Death by …” cases
The driver was already
The driver was already banned, but was ignoring the ban,. So I wonder whether it really matters how long his ban is.
Hopefully his prison sentence, and the knowledge that his reckless actions have resulted in an innocent persons death, will be more effective at preventing him being a danger to others on the road.
To plead guilty with no
To plead guilty with no remorse and to gain a reduced sentence is playing the system. The full term should apply with a reduction being gained by good behaviour.
I don’t know when the guilty
I don’t know when the guilty plea was indicated, nor whether he expressed any remorse but credit for guilty pleas is enshrined in statute. Its 1/3rd off the sentence calculated by the judge taking into account all mitigating and aggravating features if entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity. You can look up sentencing guidance council and their guidance on guilty plea sentence reduction.
antonio wrote:To plead guilty
Which is a clear demonstration that it is the system that is, and has been, wrong and needs addressing.
At least he’ll have a good few years to contemplate whether driving on a ban is worth it.
Thoughts with family and friends of the victim.
Sounds like a crash test
Sounds like a crash test dummy in waiting.
Lets just say that if a
Lets just say that if a certain person had been given an appropriate custodial sentence for a previous serious conviction then they wouldn’t have been able to get behind the wheel of a car whilst serving a suspended prison sentence.
This raises a serious
This raises a serious question. What do you do with these people who disregard the laws of the road and ignore driving bans. A lifetime ban in reality is ulitmately futile if they’re going to ignore it.
He should not lawfully be allowed behind the wheel of a car again however. Is this a case of where we need technology to offer solutions – not sure what mind.
Sadly unlikely he’ll have learnt anything when he comes out of prison so all that has happened here is the needless loss of life.
The laughable factor is that
The laughable factor is that his 10 year driving ban wont stand anyway. He can apply to have it back early if he can prove he needs it for work and other pish lame excuses. I just dont know what it will take for lifetime bans to be introduced in cases like this, with a mandatory 4 year jail sentance for anyone caught breaking the ban.
http://www.dudleynews.co.uk/n
http://www.dudleynews.co.uk/news/11591769.Drug_dealer_jailed_for_hit_and_run_which_killed_Dudley_cyclist/
Why do they allow driving
Why do they allow driving bans to be concurrent with prison sentences? He should do his 8.5 years THEN face a 10 year driving ban, rather than being banned for a paltry 18 months on his release.
Or, more sensibly, he should never be allowed to drive again.
timfearn wrote:Why do they
There is a change in the law, which I don’t think is yet in effect, for driving bans to start on release from prison.
timfearn wrote:Why do they
Not sure about Down in England but up here in Scotland we could be out in 4 years 2 1/2 months, on parole.
“He was traced as the ‘owner’
“He was traced as the ‘owner’ of the car”
A bit of an obvious Policing intelligence issue here – isn’t it a bit odd to be a car owner (and no SORN on the car – so it must had VED ..and the owner must have a valid insurance policy to get this?).
It also shows the need to change the system which has a special sort of killing that euphemistically calls it causing death by rather than manslaughter/murder, as it would be if he had been riding a bike, or using any ither machinery.
A V Lowe wrote:”He was traced
The DVLA does not register who owns or is driving a car but who the registered keeper is. That may be a company. I am the registered keeper of a Smart Car that my wife drives to work, but she is the main driver for insurance purposes. Ipso facto if my wife triggers a speed camera then it’s me that gets the notice of intended prosecution and it’s at that point that I have to say it was her driving not me. Then she gets the notoce of intended prosecution.
And that’s with people that are kosher and aren’t playing the system. Small cheap cars change hands for a few hundred quid, less than that sometimes. It’s property so it has legally changed ownership on the shake of a hand and the cash being paid. That may happen dozens of times. It’s why you have to pay attention when selling a car that you transfer the V5C properly.
So yes the police may well have taken several weeks to establish that the vehicle was the one involved, that it belonged to and was driven by this dickhead. That he was without doubt the driver at the time of the collision. And no, there may have been no official document to show any that. It may have been registered to someone else and changed hands for cash many times since the last registered keeper filled in a form. He may have been driving with insurance for another vehicle but like mine with third party coverage for any vehicle with the owner’s permission.
Before we criticise the cops again just think how difficult it is to do all that and in such a methodical fool proof way that a defence lawyer can’t find one error in the trail nor any part of that trail that may fall down if pressure were applied. That is not easy.
They should have done him for
They should have done him for perverting the course of justice as well after they found the car at a garage being repaired.
Following sentence tells me
Following sentence tells me all i need to know to get angry one again:
“CTC’s Road Justice campaign would question though whether his 10 year driving ban is long enough – especially since much of it will coincide with his time in custody.”
Why bother handing this down at all then?
oozaveared- ok cheers for the
oozaveared- ok cheers for the explanation, you’re clearly a lawyerin a legal profession of some type.
I see the value of the discount for “the system” and those within it such as yourself, in time and money, but not for the victim and the family.
“The first opportunity”, his guilty plea was far! from the first opportunity. It sounds as it it was weeks or months into the process. The first opportunity was at the scene, the second when he got home after hiding the car and realising what he did, he could have handed himself in……
Not weeks or month later after the police had caught him, then he’d denied it until he had no realistic choices left.
At that point perhaps a discount but not a third! and to call it “the first opportunity” to me is nonsense!
29erKeith wrote:oozaveared-
Saving police and court time is not a trivial thing. If all these slam dunk cases took their full course in court sooner or later you start running out of prosecutors or police officers or court space or judges not to mention juries. What happens next is that cases start getting looked at again to see whether they are worth the candle. If that becomes the case then it really will be worth holding out on a “not guilty” plea in the hope that the prosecution gives up runs out of resources, cocks something up. And lawyers and clients can easily add to that burden. Go sick on a court date and that’s more time wasted, ask for documents at a week’s notice and then when the CPS deliver them even a fraction late ask for the adjournment. And that means it’s harder to be convicted as a criminal. So in the end you send a lot fewer criminals to jail. None of us want that. Imagine for example that every speeding motorist didn’t take the FPN 3 points and the fine. That they all went to court and pleaded not guilty and required the police officer dealing to turn up in person to give evidence and maybe call the civilian evidence collator to turn up in person and testify on oath that this picture has not been interfered with and provide proof that the camera is properly calibrated and in full working order. How many cases could the court deal with?
The first opportunity for lay people means a confession to a cop on the spot. But you haven’t been charged yet. You can’t actually enter a plea until you have been charged. The CPS can’t charge you until the police refer the case. Your first opportunity to plead therefore is when the charge is laid. In this case that’s what he did.
You can’t actually plead guilty to a charge that hasn’t been laid or put to you. That might seem odd but it is also logical. If you could just say to a police officer “it was me, I did it” ie a confession. and that was regarded as a guilty plea to a notional charge on which a sentence could be passed it would cause mayhem. What if what you thought what were pleading guilty to was one thing and the police said it was another. ie if this guy stopped at the time and told the first police officer he saw, that he killed the guy. it was his fault. What actual charge is he pleading guilty to? Is it due care? or Causing death by CD Causing death by DD? and even if that was clear to all was it the offence seriousness 1, 2 3 or 4.
All this stuff is actually logical when you think about it.
oozaveared wrote:
The first
Apologies if I’ve misunderstood your post but he actually changed his plea to “guilty” about 3 or 4 days before the trial was due to start which was 15 months after the “accident”.
dts3_1999 wrote:oozaveared
I think Roger Geffen (CTC ) who speculated that the 8.5 years was nearly 14 (maximum) minus a third might have been wrong. Some people think the discount is always one third for a guilty plea. But a plea after a trial date is set but before the court is convened is a 25% discount. So it’s far more likely that the sentence was actually 11 years 4 months minus a 25% discount rather than 12 years 9 months minus one third. I can’t find the sentence notes anywhere to check and therefore I may be wrong on the calculation as there is room for the judge to adjust the formula in special circumstances but it’s rare. These are only guidelines mind but judges stick to the formula like glue because to depart from it opens the chance of appeal upward or downward.
My bet is that it was an 11.3 – 25% rather than a 12.75 – 33%.
oozaveared wrote:
I think
So I guess, what more would the convicted have to have done to get the maximum sentence???
mrmo wrote:oozaveared
It’s really quite hard to get the maximum sentence for anything. In theory (and logically) it means that there were no mitigating factors at all (and there were none here that I can see). but that all the possible aggravating factors were present. So if he was also drunk for example. It’s a logical thing because let’s say for example that someone did the same thing next week and did all of this (so in English common law should receive the exact same sentence) but somehow or another the police were able to prove that the driver was also drunk at the time. He should logically get a higher sentence because he had an additional arggravating factor to consider. If they both got the maximum then that wouldn’t follow a logical path that more aggravating factors trigger higher sentences. In effect the drunk driver would have paid no additional penalty for being drunk as well. That’s why the absolute maximum doesn’t get triggered that often. It’s logically tricky unless every single aggravating factor that could possibly exist is present.
Every time a trial or an
Every time a trial or an accident is reported on road.cc people come on here calling for tougher sentencing, and I completely sympathise with that. Just the other day I had a near miss with a bus and the driver started accusing me of being at fault and throwing all the hackneyed cliches about cyclists being reckless for simply being on the road at me. If he had knocked me off and injured me I certainly would have wanted the strongest punishment possible under the law. But every time an accident happens which causes serious injury or death the tragedy has already happened and no matter how strong the punishment the dead victim isn’t going to be brought back. It’s far more important we do things like put in a cycle awareness course into every driving test or even make all drivers cycle for a day in traffic, or provide segregated lanes and advance stop areas for bikes on the roads, to prevent future tragedies.
rliu wrote:Every time a trial
Unless you have a camera to prove otherwise drivers will continue to lie about what happened knowing full well that without footage it will be your word against theirs. Having no witnesses in most cases seals the deal shut in favor of the driver and many have been getting away with “it” for years so they know how to game the system in their favor.
I am one of those people who wears a camera. As result of an accident where the driver stated i swerved into them.
California where i lived for 20 years just implemented a 3 foot passing rule which is something that this country needs desperately.
Passing us with inches to spare leaving us no room to maneuver and then claiming we swerved into them when we avoid dangers such as pot holes, glass, man covers is insulting to us.
Another scumbag locked up.
Another scumbag locked up.
Are these kinds of offences covered by the ‘Undue leniency’ scheme?
oozaveared, i can see where
oozaveared, i can see where your coming from, just makes me a little uneasy that the system seems to be saying it could be worse, however bad your actions, someone else could have done worse.
Bit like saying to Cambodians the khmer rouge was bad but Mao killed even more. Or saying to the Chinese well the Khmer rouge killed a greater percentage than Mao so they had it worse.
But missing the point that both were horrific.
The best sentence for this
The best sentence for this cunt would be to be stood up against a wall and shot X( .
Note he was disqualified from
Note he was disqualified from driving when he killed the man. The sentence is not to rehabilitate but to protect the public he’ll be out in 3 years driving while disqualified again. I cycle my kid’s and wife cycle we walk. Not good enough!
JamesSpears100 wrote:I cycle
I understood everything you wrote…up until that point. :/
Harold Shipman – Medical
Harold Shipman – Medical licence? No.
Ian Huntley – Job as a caretaker? No.
Myra Hindley – Baby sitter? No.
Pilot with an alcohol problem fly you on holiday? No.
So…Kile Straker back on the roads? Why have the courts even permitted it?
Double standards and insane leniency as always.
ironmancole wrote:Harold
Part of the problem is that because driving is seen pretty much as a right in this country, ‘banning’ is treated as a punishment. If we regarded driving as a privilege, and revoking the license not as punishment but simply as protecting the public, we could remove the issue from the courts and make it simply administrative.
The other necessary step would be to use biometric technology to ensure only license holders drove.