Who needs a car?

LIFE DRIVING BANS NOW & get rid of the points system. Banging him up for 25 years is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Time and time again we get this situation where someone dies because a dangerous driver wasn't permanently removed from the road. Implement an instaban for anything which would usually get 3 points and enforce it with a suspended sentence. First breach leads to 3 months jail time. Next 12 months. Next 4 years, and so on. Ankle monitor them to help enforce it. Can be a Cat C/Open prison or some form of home curfew. Driving is a right not a privilege. They should be rightly mindful of the risk of an offence and if it puts them off driving then so be it. I drove like an absolute &(^()^T&_ as a teenager and I guarantee I wouldn't have behaved that way if there was a risk of jail time and a criminal record.

This tragedy was so avoidable and this case, its outcome and its impacts should be a huge wake up call to the CPS and the wider justice system, including Police. Society cannot keep excusing drivers, through the normalising of dangerous behaviour, for law breaking and the justice system must lead the way. Society must accept that law breaking is wrong, no matter where it takes place. I am under no illusion as the cultural and societal leap is a big one however the situation of excusing law breakers cannot continue.

Shirley "Spalding Business Improvement District" should face some sort of reprimand for bring a meritless case (ie without evidence), thus wasting the local authority's time and potentially taxpayer funds that could be used elsewhere? It might certainly help prevent others doing the same in the future.

Heartbreaking for Michael Mullins' family. Deepest condolences to them.

This case has me seriously thinking about whether I should be riding on the road at all. There are safer ways to travel and to keep fit, and I have two small children at home who need me.

From https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/26690352.driver-sentenced-murder-michael-mullins/ “Richardson has a significant history of driving offences, the court has heard. In April 2011, he was arrested for careless driving and failing to stop or report an accident. He lost control of a vehicle and fled the scene. In July 2012, driving with excess alcohol and driving while disqualified, he once again fled the scene on foot. May 2013: driving while disqualified and without insurance. He gave officers a false name and date of birth; he was suspected of driving with excess alcohol. November 2014: driving with excess alcohol, dangerous driving, failing to stop and no insurance. He tried to drive away from police and fled at speed before crashing into a vehicle and fleeing on foot. He was found to be over the limit. In February 2023, he was convicted of driving without a licence and no insurance. He was stopped, checked, and gave false details to the officer. He remains on bail for affray, ABH, and possession of cocaine in December 2024, and that case is currently listed for trial.” Will there be a review of why he was allowed to remain outside of prison, thus him believing his behaviours were not serious enough to stop now ending up with him killing someone? At what point in a case like this where someone has a list of previous driving offences does the law say “enough is enough, licence revoked, full stop, do anything again end up behind bars for a long time”…? Each instance of his previous dangerous driving would have been a straight fail on a driving test. Yet he was allowed to continue without any significant punishment or deterrent to future offending. If the law had done something more then this murder could have been avoided. But cyclists.

Condolences to Mr Mullins' family. Reading through this article it is beginning to sound like there were opportunities to take Mr Richardson off the road sooner; so many lenient sentences for repeated instances of substandard driving and lawbreaking. The sentences were likely within the rules; perhaps the rules need to change.

@M20MAMIL Thanks. "Richardson has a significant history of driving offences, the court has heard. In April 2011, he was arrested for careless driving and failing to stop or report an accident. He lost control of a vehicle and fled the scene. In July 2012, driving with excess alcohol and driving while disqualified, he once again fled the scene on foot. May 2013: driving while disqualified and without insurance. He gave officers a false name and date of birth; he was suspected of driving with excess alcohol. November 2014: driving with excess alcohol, dangerous driving, failing to stop and no insurance. He tried to drive away from police and fled at speed before crashing into a vehicle and fleeing on foot. He was found to be over the limit. In February 2023, he was convicted of driving without a licence and no insurance. He was stopped, checked, and gave false details to the officer. He remains on bail for affray, ABH, and possession of cocaine in December 2024, and that case is currently listed for trial." Will there be a review of why he was allowed to remain outside of prison, thus him believing his behaviours were not serious enough to stop now ending up with him killing someone? At what point in a case like this where someone has a list of previous driving offences does the law say "enough is enough, licence revoked, full stop, do anything again end up behind bars for a long time"...? Each instance of his previous dangerous driving would have been a straight fail on a driving test. Yet he was allowed to continue without any significant punishment or deterrent to future offending. If the law had done something more then this murder could have been avoided. But cyclists.

@OldTom Good. Nothing much to add to that except to say well done that judge, glad that she acknowledged just how serious the offence was. I hope it might be some tiny crumb of comfort to the Mullins family to know that justice has been properly served. One thing that the case does highlight is that the drink-driving laws are far too soft, this guy had four drink-driving offences on his record including one of drink-driving when disqualified, and given his behaviour and driving at the time of the offence one wouldn't be surprised if he was over the limit then as well, no way of knowing of course. Personally I'd be happy to see drink-driving incur a lifetime ban for a first offence, but I suppose that would be "war on the motorist". At a minimum it should be a five year ban for a first offence and lifetime for a second, if someone has such a problem with alcohol that they are incapable of stopping themselves driving drunk, even when they've previously been banned for it, they clearly are not a fit person to hold a licence to drive on the public highway. Quite possibly it wouldn't have deterred this individual anyway but it might deter some at least.

@M20MAMIL Minimum 25 years. Up from an offence minimum of 15 years due to aggravating factors.