A driver who killed a cyclist spent a week trying to cover up the fatal crash – but has been spared jail by a judge.
Scott Walker, aged 43, died from “catastrophic” head injuries sustained when Ian McFarlane knocked him off his bike on the A917 Elie to St Monans Road in Fife on 8 July 2019, reports Courier.co.uk.
McFarlane, aged 76 and from Dundee, pleaded guilty last month at Dundee Sheriff Court to failure to stop and report the collision and to driving while uninsured, the only offences with which he was charged in connection with the fatal crash.
The court heard that the wing mirror of the car he was driving was found at the scene by police, who identified it as belonging to a Vauxhall Astra made between 2005 and 2009.
Extensive enquiries led officers to McFarlane’s estranged wife, in whose name the vehicle was registered. He had visited her immediately after the collision, but in the following days denied involvement in the crash.
Police discovered that he had visited two garages in the week after the incident to try and have the car’s damaged bodywork repaired and the wing mirror replaced.
When he was eventually tracked down by police, he claimed that he had intended to hand himself in the following day.
Sentencing McFarlane to 225 hours of unpaid work and banning him from driving for nine months, Sheriff Gregor Murray told him: “Extensive publicity was given to police efforts to trace you and your vehicle.
“You failed to contact the police. You implemented a scheme to prevent your identity being discovered. Only diligent police work enabled your identity to be revealed.
“The public requires to be protected from those who seek to interfere with the administration of justice. A custodial sentence would be wholly justified.
“The maximum period of imprisonment I can impose for the failure to stop is six months. That would not adequately reflect the gravity of the offence.
“I must take into account other factors. There is no suggestion the collision was as a result of the driving on your part.”
McFarlane expressed no remorse for his actions and failed to apologise to the victim’s family.
After he was sentenced Mr Walker’s sister, Sharon Iddir, said: “We were let down in there. It’s not what we were expecting and it’s not what should have happened.
“He knew what he was doing. He has showed no remorse whatsoever,” she added.
58 thoughts on “Hit and run driver who killed cyclist spent a week trying to cover up crash”
WTAF. Reading between the
WTAF. Reading between the lines the judge wanted to throw the book at him but was restricted by the charges the Procurator Fiscal brought. Un-fucking-believable.
Unless theres more to this case than meets the eye the prosecution should be tried for misconduct in a public office, although I bet that doesnt cover wilful failures like here. Would love to know whose f*ck up meant more serious charges were not brought.
The killer quote in the judge
The killer quote in the judge’s words seem to be “There is no suggestion the collision was as a result of the driving on your part.” Yet another driver taking up police time , and will be driving again by next spring if he chooses to and getting on with his life in the meantime.
I pointed out above, the
I pointed out above, the wording the judge should have actually used was “There is no proof the collision was as a result of the driving on your part.”. The UK legal system does work on Innocent until proven guilty. He was proven to have left the scene and lied about it initially to people. Unfortunaltey we know a cyclist isn’t really invisible or prone to swaying out in front of legally driven cars with drivers paying due care and attention. However without evidence from cameras, or eye witnesses which state the driver just plowed into the cyclist who did nothing wrong, the prosecution cannot prove he did.
The exact sentencing here is why Ryans Law is being asked for but they are asking for assumption of another crime (Death by Dangerous Driving) when they should be asking for leaving the scene to be seens as more covering up a crime and be given a lot more power of sentencing then 6 months, especially if deaths are involved.
Exactly.
Exactly.
If you’re an amoral POS then leaving the scene of an accident is currently the perfectly logical thing to do.
Until the law is changed we’ll see more and more of this sort of nonsense.
This is why I run a camera
This is why I run a camera constantly.
Incredible.
But he wasn’t charged with an
But he wasn’t charged with an offence relating to the standard of driving, so there was no chance to prove it (or not).
If he had been charged as such, Scotland has an additional ‘not proven’ verdict. That’s basically: “Look, you know you did it. We know you did it. We can’t actually prove it to the required standard, but everyone will know…”
In practice, ‘not proven’
In practice, ‘not proven’ usually means ‘not guilty, but ethnic minority’ these days. Hence the longstanding campaign to abolish it.
Any evidence of this being a
Any evidence of this being a racially preferred verdict. It’s news to me.
(The last well known ‘not proven’ was Alex Salmond).
The petition will now be
The petition will now be debated in parliament. Waiting 19 days so far. When (if) the debate is announced may be we all need to write to our MP’s and give our opinions. Examples like this would be useful but if we could agree on what we would ask for it might help. As AlsoSomniloquism says, knowingly leaving an injured person by the side of a road without calling for and waiting for and ambulance should be the offence, punishable with a serious maximum sentence. Even if fault couldn’t be proved the fact that a victim was left to die would be the crime.
“knowingly leaving an injured
“knowingly leaving an injured person by the side of a road without calling for and waiting for and ambulance should be the offence”
I’m pretty sure failing to render aid _is_ a crime in such circumstances, at least in E&W. But I tried googling it, and half an hour later was still reading unrelated Wikipedia pages…
“I must take into account
“I must take into account other factors. There is no suggestion the collision was as a result of the driving on your part.”
happened by magic did it? This is why we need presumed liability.
Moist von Lipwig wrote:
That wouldn’t (I think ) make any difference in this case. Presumed liability is tort or civil law, based on balance of probability. The civil courts only award compensation.
This would be a criminal case to establish guilt, so PL wouldn’t apply.
Shouldn’t facking need it in this case anyway. The case to me is beyond reasonable doubt…..
But we could have PL for
But we could have PL for anyone who fails to stop, couldn’t we, on the assumption that if it wasn’t your fault you had no reason not to stop?
Rendel Harris wrote:
Again, PL in its purest sense isn’t criminal law, and I’m in favour of it in civil cases regarding collisions. But this is a criminal case, and the acts of the culprit go far beyond screwing up on the road.
Make no mistake, in my view the execution of this case is a joke, and principles haven’t been applied correctly – it’s not the system that’s the problem here it’s the d1ckhead who was heading it up in this instance
Let’s say (and for the
Let’s say (and for the avoidance of doubt I agree this would be a ridiculous position to hold) that the collision was entirely the cyclist’s fault – why would that be any mitigation for the crime for which the driver was convicted?
Because the seriousness of
Because the seriousness of failing to stop takes into account the offences being fled, rather than the consequences of the accident, presumably.
Dave Dave wrote:
it shouldn’t do it should take into account the condition of injured parties at the scene.
i.e. if someone is injured and unconscious and the only party able to call for medical assistance flees the scene, this should be treated more seriously than fleeing the scene when the victim is well cared for by others, regardless of who was at fault in the original crash.
Because this action can be a major contributing factor in the death of someone.
“The maximum period of
“The maximum period of imprisonment I can impose for the failure to stop is six months. That would not adequately reflect the gravity of the offence.”
Yet he isn’t doing six months ??
Because the maximum is
Because the maximum is without anything mitigating. His “ill health” and, as Moist pointed out below, the assumption that he did nothing wrong in his driving (lack of proof/eye witnesses to accident). So because it was the cyclist fault he was either invisible or deliberately cycling directly out in front of cars coming behind him, some of that 6 months also has to be removed.
A (very) quick internet
A (very) quick internet search suggests the Sherrif is a f**king shambles most of the time
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/outrage-after-church-minister-jailed-8764191
Jail for keeping ones children away from a killer and now litter picking for the killers.
twinklydave wrote:
Jesus Christ. She didn’t even disobey the court order. The kids refused to interact with him. WTF???
twinklydave wrote:
That is one of the worst things I have ever read! How on earth is he allowed to carry on making judgements that have huge consequences on other people’s lives?
Where is the charge of
Where is the charge of perverting the course of justice ?
A bigger question was why did
A bigger question was why did the defending solicitor insinuate that the cyclist would have been here today if he was wearing some polystyrene on his head after being struck by 1-2 tonne of metal at 30mph.
It doesn’t count as ptcoj.
It doesn’t count as ptcoj. Well, not enough to matter. I don’t know Scot’s law, but that would be true in England & Wales, anyway.
It’s rare people get charged with ptcoj rather than whatever more serious offence they were trying to get out of. Usually it’s idiots who’ve committed a crime to try and get out of speeding tickets.
Road traffic laws are very
Road traffic laws are very similar in Scotland as they are in England.
Failing to stop and / or report road crashes are effectively statutes analogous to the common law crime of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
and there’s the handshake
and there’s the handshake from the judge for removing another pesky cyclist
Useless Judge wrote:
Yes, it must have been 100% the cyclist’s fault, which is why this danger to society left the vulnerable road user for dead, didn’t report the collision, spent a week trying to cover his tracks and didn’t hand himself in to police.
Not just the family of Mr
Not just the family of Mr Walker who have been let down badly, but also the Police Officer(s) who conducted the investigation and acquired sufficient evidences to bring the case to court.
I agree. They did alot more
I agree. They did alot more then some forces have in the past for investigations as serious as this and to have it all end up with a seeming acceptance of “I was coming to see you tomorrow after trying to hide all the evidence first” must have been gutting for them.
Yeah credit where it’s due
Yeah credit where it’s due here. The police did their job pretty well. They must be just as gutted at the pathetic sentence as the family are
This, and other cases we have
This, and other cases we have seen on here, shows what we and our families can expect if we, or anyone we know’ are killed out there on the front line. The ‘authorities’ will fall over themselves in the attempt to find insufficient evidence, that it was a tragic accident and nobody was to blame. It’s not an attractive prospect, because the absence of significant penalties for killing cyclists leads all those drivers of killing machines to carry on with business as usual. Forget all this ‘PL’ stuff, what we have is ‘presumed innocence’. Put that way, it sounds reasonable and in keeping with the justice system. The problem we have is that we know the police predilection for ignoring evidence that they think will cause them work!
If nicmason turns up here I
If nicmason turns up here I will be agreeing with him that people are having a go at the police for no reason.
If you read the story, the police did a lot of work – they got from a single wing mirror to find the actual driver and as AlsoSomniloquism says “There is no proof the collision was as a result of the driving on your part.”.
It’s hardly a populated area so where were they going to magic up witnesses from ?
If you read the story
If you read the story
If you read my comment…
You put
You put
“The ‘authorities’ will fall over themselves in the attempt to find insufficient evidence, that it was a tragic accident and nobody was to blame. “
But that isn’t what the Police did here.
Yes, that’s why it says ‘the
Yes, that’s why it says ‘the authorities’, not ‘the police’.
You also put
You also put
“The problem we have is that we know the police predilection for ignoring evidence that they think will cause them work!”
Who do you consider to be the ‘the authorities’ then ?
This is getting a bit wearing
This is getting a bit wearing. I know the police ignored this black Range Rover F2 YNY crashing the lights at 60 1.4 seconds after they changed to red, and lots more like it- it’s a serious offence. That, in Lancashire at least, is a predilection.
The ‘authorities’ are the entire police/CPS/Courts system.
I have a lot of respect for
I have a lot of respect for ‘presumed innocence’ – but if he had stopped and reported the collision, he would have been required to give a breath or blood sample – if he had refused, he would have been penalised the same as if he tested unfit due to drugs/alcohol. So if he avoids an alcohol/drugs test by failing to stop, it surely only makes sense to presume he was over the limit – he has discarded the opportunity to prove that he wasn’t.
No, because it’s a reasonable
No, because it’s a reasonable assumption – to the extent people are greatly surprised to find it isn’t true – that mowing down cyclists gets you in serious trouble.
People who aren’t drunk flee when they shouldn’t often enough.
Look at all the fuss about Anne Sacoolas. People think she should be extradited for something that would have been taken slightly more seriously than a speeding ticket if she hadn’t fled. She, and they, all think that mowing down cyclists must be a big problem. They’re all wrong.
(TBC, I’ve been calling for a change in the law for, crikey, since last century. I’m not suggesting the current law is a good thing, I’m trying to get everyone to understand how useless it is so we can get it changed.)
jh2727 wrote:
No, failing to give a breath test when asked I think is an offence in its own right, there is no presumption of other offences.
FFS, etc and so on. See you
FFS, etc and so on. See you next week for more of the same!
“I must take into account
“I must take into account other factors. There is no suggestion the collision was as a result of the driving on your part.”
In other words, you didn’t commit another offence so you get let off this one.
philbarker wrote:
Let me fix that…
In other words, there is no evidence that you didn’t commit several other offences – we can’t prove that you were over the limit because you didn’t stick around to be brethalysed, we can’t prove that you didn’t intentionally kill him so we’ll take your word for it, there were no witness or recordings to show that your driving was careless or dangerous – so we’ll let you off the few things that the police and CPS have (despite your best effforts) managed to prove.
No, in other words it’s
No, in other words it’s perfectly legal to mow down cyclists as long as you stop, wait for emergency services, and say you didn’t do it on purpose.
Well, not necessarily legal, but not a serious offence.
The youth of today, eh? Oh:
The youth of today, eh? Oh: hang on…
I find the reporting very
I find the reporting very frustrating. There’s no detail about the collision itself, so it’s hard to put the “no suggestion the collision was a result of your driving” in any context.
Does this mean that the police was completely unable to establish how the collision happened, or does it mean that the police actually reconstructed it but found that the driver did not cause it?
Why do journalists rarely seem to feel the need to report any actual facts and write up only lots of disconnected soundbite quotes from various people? Surely the reporter of the Courier must have been in court and actually heard the evidence, so why not report that? (I’m not criticising road.cc of course as they can only base the article on the original news article).
The magistrate was commenting
The magistrate was commenting on what was put before the court, presumably.
Dave Dave wrote:
Sure, but I would like to know what was put before the court. The court proceedings are public, are they not? So why can’t the reporter report what the actual evidence was?
This is about more than just about finding somebody guilty or not. In many other settings, eg. industrial incidents, any incident that leads to an injury or death is investigated with a view of finding out what can be learned and what, if any, procedures or environments have to be changed, and detailed reports are published. But for roads we just accept some waffly “no suggestion that …”. Nothing will ever change if we don’t publish incident reports and learn from them.
He should have been sentenced
He should have been sentenced to a LIFETIME ban and in his case, if i were the victim’s family, I would hope that would not be that long…
The guy was very lucky not to
The guy was very lucky not to be sent down. He should be thankful for having a great judge. Its mostly because the old fart is about the same age as Ben Nevis that he didn’t go to prison. You can imagine what the other prisoners would do to an old codger so the judge had to make a judgment call here. Sending him to jail would effectively be sentencing him to death, which isn’t a thing anymore.
Titanus wrote:
No, it wouldn’t, that would suggest that prisons are not under the control of the authorities, and that the authorities openly accepted that, neither is actually the case. It’s not the judge’s role to protect offender from legal consequence, it’s to sentence each conviction according to guidelines.
This issue is not only the crash, but the perversion of the course of justice. This was a deliberate premeditated and massively serious offence that should definitely have invited a bit of porridge.
As for the “great” judge. This guy’s got previous “greatness” to his name. Check out the link from TwinklyDave below.
If someone where to kill one
If someone where to kill one of my family in this way and get a way with it like this i would take the matter in my own hands…
Keesvant wrote:
Make sure you kill him with a car so you get a reduced sentence. Bonus leniency if he’s on a bike when you kill him.
Is there any appeal system
Is there any appeal system that the family can pursue? This is such a gross injustice.
So the police catch a man who
So the police catch a man who killed someone through good detective work.
A man who was so morally corrupt, drunk or whatever he didn’t stop to help.
A man who tried to hide his crime whilst driving illegally and he doesn’t go to jail.
The judge or the system isn’t fit. There has to be consequences for killing people.
So the justice system focussing on the rights of the criminal.
So a justice system run for criminals, paid for by you and me.
So if someone wanted to get
So if someone wanted to get away with murder they could beat their victim to death with a baseball bat, and dump them by the side of the road next to a broken bicycle. The absence of the bicycle would mean police are investigating a murder, the presence of the bicycle mean they are investigating an accident.
“Sentencing McFarlane to 225
“Sentencing McFarlane to 225 hours of unpaid work and banning him from driving for nine months” !!!! Nine months !!!! How can anyone have confidence in a justice system that punishes a crime like that so unbelievably leniently ?