A motorist who used his car “as a weapon” when he drove onto a pavement to knock a cyclist from his bike and allegedly said, “Sorry, wrong person” afterwards has been jailed for 13 months after admitting causing serious injury by dangerous driving.
The male victim, who was not named, was knocked unconscious in the crash in Bishop Auckland on 20th August last year, only coming round in hospital the following day reports the Northern Echo.
He also sustained injuries to his right shoulder and leg as well as a fractured cheekbone, scarring above his right eye and a severe laceration to the right side of his face.
Durham Crown Court heard that the cyclist turned round when he heard Jason Brunskill, who was driving a Subaru Forester, revving his engine behind him, but did not recognise the driver.
Prosecutor Anthony Pettengell told the court that Brunskill – whom he said “drove into someone deliberately, using the car as a weapon” – came back to the scene approximately 50 seconds later.
The cyclist was already being tended to by members of the public, and one witness heard someone say, “Sorry, wrong person.”
Brunskill, aged 25 and from Bishop Auckland, who denied that he had made the remark, got back in his car and drove off.
He was later traced by police through his vehicle registration, which was captured on CCTV, and admitted he was the driver, but said he had turned around to go back home to get his bank card, which he claimed he had forgotten.
In mitigation, Shaun Dryden told the court that Brunskill, who had no prior convictions, was “a hard-working family man, who has always in employment, with no criminal history,
“For someone like this to find themselves in this type of incident is really weird,” he added, describing the incident as “15 seconds of madness.”
When Judge James Adkin put it to Dryden that his client “Must have some reason in the background for him to hurt this individual, unless it was mistaken identity,” the defending barrister replied, “Why he did it remains a mystery.”
Sentencing Brunskill, and also banning him for driving for two years, the judge said: “This is an odd case as to your motivation for attacking a complete stranger, an entirely innocent other road user.
“What we are dealing with here is what appears to be some form of opaque or mistaken identity and the sentence has to be immediate,” he added.
18 thoughts on ““Sorry, wrong person” – Jail for driver who “used car as weapon” to knock cyclist from bike”
So reading between the lines,
So reading between the lines, he probably got more punished on the Judge’s suspicions of what else he had been up to than for half killing the cyclist. Which explains the somewhat better sentence than usual.
Whats the betting this is one of those people who “is known to the police”.
I don’t think that six months
I don’t think that six months in prison (and less if he spent any time on remand) is an appropriate punishment for trying to murder someone.
Fursty Ferret wrote:
“The law was very firm, it
Took away my permit
The worst punishment I ever endured.
Seems they had a reason,
Cows were out of season
And one of the huntsmen wasn’t insured.”
(C) Tom Lehrer
“Prosecutor Anthony
“Prosecutor Anthony Pettengell told the court that Brunskill – whom he said “drove into someone deliberately, using the car as a weapon””
So why wasn’t he prosecuted for assault? Which would have resulted in a much heavier sentence. This wasn’t a road traffic crime, this was plain and simple assault with a deadly weapon, and the sooner our completely out-of-touch judicial system recognises this the better.
“For someone like this to
“For someone like this to find themselves in this type of incident is really weird,” he added, describing the incident as “15 seconds of madness.”
And it reads as if the defence kind of agrees, they don’t appear to have claimed it was an accident or that he lost control. If someone has a similar “15 second of madness” whie they happen to be carrying a baseball bat or a knife then they would be on attempted murder (or at leasst serious assault) charges, should be the same here.
eburtthebike wrote:
attempted murder would also be fair, I think it’s reasonable to expect hitting someone from behind with 2 tonnes of car will have fatal consequences. Given given the nature of the injuries an assult charge would have to be GBH I would think, even if not attempted murder.
eburtthebike wrote:
The “serious injury” part of causing serious injury by dangerous driving is the same level of injury as for GBH. The maximum sentence is 5 years for both, so I don’t think the outcome would have been any different if he’d been convicted of GBH.
The driving ban should have been a lot longer though.
(CPS guidance – https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-charging)
Tom_77 wrote:
Thanks for the info, very interesting. The maximum sentences may be the same but are the sentences similar for both crimes? I suspect not but can’t be arsed to do the research.
eburtthebike wrote:
Looking at the sentencing guidelines for GBH I think this would be the middle category for both culpability and harm. Starting point would be 2 years with a range of 1 – 3 years.
Currently there are no sentencing guidelines for causing serious injury by dangerous driving, I’d expect a similar approach (i.e. consider victim’s injuries and offender’s behaviour). I’d expect GBH would tend to attract higher sentences than causing serious injury by dangerous driving as the level of culpability would usually be higher.
the defending barrister
the defending barrister replied, “Why he did it remains a mystery.”
Well if the defendant doesn’t know why he did it, it’s probably best if he is never allowed to drive again. Do you think anyone would be allowed a shotgun licence after shooting someone and then claiming they didn’t know why they did it?
I suspect that legally that’s
I suspect that legally that’s all fine. It might help you to express remorse at some point but in general you can’t go too far wrong with “I don’t recall”.
However I really can’t see why as others have said the licence thing shouldn’t be a more “administrative” issue e.g. suspend it as a standard measure after a serious (fatal?) “accident” while awaiting investigation, remove it as a default on conviction of driving offenses, have the normal “extended retest” requirement universally and then essentially a “licenced on licence” period where if you screw up again it’s back to the start – another retest required. And again if you’re caught driving when you shouldn’t during this period it’s an automatic penalty, no waiting for it to go back to court again. (I hesitate to say prison because the evidence shows that short-term sentences aren’t good value for anyone).
It’s not a right, people. No-one’s depriving you of the right to move – there’s your legs, bikes, taxis, boats, buses.
chrisonatrike wrote:
My view (a teh risk of repeating myself ad taedium) is that removal of licence or points should be seen as discrete from punishment and are a public safety mitigation.
If someone is not fit to drive, they are not fit to drive. That conclusion cannot be tempered by involving hardship, remorse, or any other plea.
Captain Badger wrote:
I was probably infringing your copyright there Cap’n, true!
chrisonatrike wrote:
Not at all my friend, we’re simply in agreement.
The reason that folk often see the revocation of licence as a punishment is that they believe it to be a right. The reason we have licences is that it is recognised by society that cars are inherently dangerous when driven, therefore the operator must be capable of driving at a certain standard to minimise risk to the public. Where it is demonstrated that the individual does not drive to t those standards the logical process is to take steps to prevent that risk from being realised.
It is utterly non sensical for a judge to state ” the risk to the public is great enough to prevent you from driving, but your Aunty Myrtle would like a visit, so the public must bear the risk. Try your best not to kill any children”
I am also in agreement here.
I am also in agreement here. public safety has to be a priority.
That is why I firmly believe that “driving while disqualified” should carry a term of imprisonment, not as a punishment but as an assurance that the public are not exposed to the perptrators driving for the time prescribed in the original ban
Captain Badger wrote:
The best summation of the situation I’ve ever read; thank you, and I’ll be stealing it.
eburtthebike]
’tis freely given
I would have thought if he
I would have thought if he drives his car at a stranger at speed, but claims he has absolutely no idea why he did it (moment of madness, etc) then (if he cannot be jailed) then he ought to be made to go through some very serious mental health assessments…