A woman who deleted a record of a phone call she had made while driving after hitting a cyclist has been convicted of causing his death.
Julie Watson, aged 36 and from Kinross, hit cyclist Alistair Speed on the A91, near Gateside in Fife, in September 2013, reports BBC News.
The victim died from severe head injuries, with his sister, Mhairi Laffoley, saying his death had caused a "horrendous" effect on their family.
She said: "My parents died within 12 weeks of the accident."
She added that her brother was “a very, very competent cyclist" who was "very steady” and “didn't take risks."
Judge Lord Kinclaven remanded Watson in custody pending sentencing next month.
He told her: "In the circumstances I am not satisfied bail should be continued."
He added: "The use of a mobile phone, especially calling out, is a conscious, wilful act. The use of a phone when driving, a hand-held phone, is an offence."
The verdict comes in the same week that a survey from road safety charity IAM found that illegal use of hand held mobile phones is the greatest concern that drivers have about other motorists.
34 thoughts on “Court convicts driver who deleted record of phone call after killing cyclist”
My guess is 2 years jail
My guess is 2 years jail time.
bobby_brains wrote:My guess
I think longer. That’s why bail was refused. This is a level 1 offence of Causing death by DD
Nature of offence: Level 1
The most serious offences encompassing driving that involved a deliberate decision to ignore (or a flagrant disregard for) the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others
Starting point: 8 years custody
Sentencing range: 7-14 years custody
The starting point therefore is 8 years and the judge then looks at any mitigating factors or aggravating factors that either will reduce the sentence or lengthen it. The offence was making an outgoing call on a hand held mobile. That makes it Level 1. An aggravating factor is the deletion of the call record on her mobile. That’s perverting the course of justice.
No mitigating factors have been mentioned in the article so I don’t know but I doubt she’d be remanded if there were. The sentence is likely to be 9 – 10 years. It doesn’t say if she pleaded guilty or when. So there might be 25% discount or not. But even then that would put it in the range of 7 years.
oozaveared wrote:The sentence
Fat chance. Courts DO hand out sentences that are shorter than the minimum in the guidelines.
Maybe the sentence should be 10 years, or maybe more!
However, I bet the sentence is around 5 years, or less. I predict an outbreak of “genuine remorse” being used as an excuse to cut the sentence.
Lets hope that Judge Lord
Lets hope that Judge Lord Kinclaven follows up with an appropriate lengthy sentence, it looks likely considering his comments and his removal of bail.
6 months inside
6 months inside (consideration taken for time served), 18 month revocation of license and 250 hours voluntary work.
Really hope I’m wrong and that Judge Lord Kinclaven decides to make an example of her.
Surely the added crime of
Surely the added crime of trying to pervert the course of justice, which in itself is supposed to be serious.
Off with her head!
Off with her head!
Trying to delete the call
Trying to delete the call record is very telling. Well done to the police* for putting in the effort to check the with the mobile carrier to find out about this call. That’s really pleasing to see that they didn’t just blame the cyclist for being there and drop the whole thing. Now a good long sentence and many year loss of license. The driver actively called out whilst driving and tried to hide from their actions. That shows a huge disregard for the law and for the attitude that even after breaking the law and causing death, they shouldn’t be punished.
*I assume it was the police who investigated to find this information out.
SNS1938 wrote:Trying to
I think theyd have to anyway to prove the phone log was accurate, why I dont get why the article leads with the point about “deleting the call” because she didnt and couldnt delete it, because the source data of the phone call will always be with the phone companies providing the service, and their timings and records are legally not disputable.
Awavey wrote:SNS1938
I doubt the person knew this and just deleted ti off her phone, the naive person …
Hope she rots. Selfish cunt.
Hope she rots. Selfish cunt.
The Police could really make
The Police could really make examples of these cases to warn other motorists that its not acceptable to drive whilst using a hand held cell phone
I’ve just ridden home through London during rush hour, and the amount of drivers in private vehicles, company vehicles, public transport vehicles all busy tapping away on smartphones and tablets, or busy talking on the phone, whilst driving in heavy traffic, simply beggars belief.
Especially when traffic slows down, it seems like an excuse to whip the phone out and quickly check their facebook status or send a text.
Until the wider driving public realise its unacceptable to behave in this manner, like perhaps happened with seat belts and drink driving, unfortunately we will see more cases like this being reported on road.cc 🙁
I think they should give out
I think they should give out automatic bans to people caught using mobiles say 3 months, if caught twice in a year a 1year ban ..etc and see if that helps
djfleming22 wrote:I think
Ban is nothing. They just continue doing it. Give a huge fine like £300.
I think if anything I think the should fine the offense at £300 and then I think the police will be more keen to catch them and slowly people will think twice before using their mobile while driving.
If they can’t pay on the spot then pound the car till they do.
Problem with fines is that it
Problem with fines is that it hurts you more depending on income. A prem footballer would not bat an eye lid, and there for provides no deterant.
UrbanBushman wrote:Problem
Fines ARE based on disposable income. The problem is actually the opposite you think it is. Most crime is committed by the poor – they don’t fear being fined as they’ll be asked for a fiver a week. Which is actually paid by the taxpayer from their benefits (whether unemployed or working tax credits).
The only people actually deterred by fines are the squeezed, law-abiding middle.
Hence I don’t agree with fines. Or prison for that matter, except for remand. Capital and corporal punishment and hard labour all work very well. Punish, deter, humiliate, prevent reoffending. Ideal!
I’d put mobile phone using drivers in the stocks every weekend for a month.
Level 2 Offence. Starting
Level 2 Offence. Starting point 5 years. She deleted the text and never plead guilty, so there is no reason it should be less than 5 years. But as shes a woman so it will be 3 1/2 years and the usual 10 year driving ban that can be revoked at 6 years to allow her to take her best mates, cousins disabled auntie to hospital for treatment on her athletes foot every month.
I hope she gets the book
I hope she gets the book thrown at her- a really f***ing big one!
Death by dangerous drving, perverting the cause of justice: what more is needed?
But as I’ve said before on these pages, not much use having any penalties for using phones etc whilst driving if there’s no police on the roads to catch them.
I do 13 miles up & down A3 inside M25 every day, and haven’t seen a police car in weeks (apart from unmarked ones doing over the ton every other day)
problems with fines is that
problems with fines is that they don’t go back to traffic policing to help the Police increase their numbers and actions to improve the roads – these fines go to general taxation, unless I am completely mistaken?
If the fines could be ring fenced for road Policing, infrastructure projects, driver and cyclist education programmes, then maybe something would change?
hampstead_bandit
A very, very bad idea. Financial incentives such as the one you propose lead to corruption. The police should do their job because it’s the right thing to do and not because it makes them more money.
Peowpeowpeowlasers
A very, very bad idea. Financial incentives such as the one you propose lead to corruption. The police should do their job because it’s the right thing to do and not because it makes them more money.— hampstead_bandit
And there in a nutshell is the problem.
Private sector believes effort and achievement should result in greater rewards. But that can lead to some very dubious incentives and practices.
Public sector thinks doing the right thing as a public service should be reward enough (satisfactory salary still required), but then there is no incentive to achieve better results. If incentive bonuses are introduced in the public sector there’s an outcry. If targets are introduced, working to meet the target becomes the objective rather than do the right thing. As when police were told to make a certain number of arrests – it was easier to catch 10 litter droppers a day than one armed robber a month.
So, it’s not simple. But I do know something is not working at the moment! And people are being killed as a result.
Maybe Scottish justice is
Maybe Scottish justice is better ?
Hang the bitch.
Hang the bitch.
Phoning, texting, internet on
Phoning, texting, internet on a tablet, reading the paper… I see it all the time on my way into work. It just frightens me. All it needs is a policeman, on a bike, with a head cam. They would have a field day.
300 quid fine huge??? I’d
300 quid fine huge??? I’d take that over a 3-month ban any day. I think 1 week salary fine for the first then progressively larger fines plus bans for each after the first.
A big plus 1 for linking
A big plus 1 for linking fines to salary / income. A £300 fine is close to a week’s wages (after tax) for someone on the median income, and a decent deterent. But for someone further along the bell curve it will be just a day or even less.
6 month driving ban, £200
6 month driving ban, £200 fine, 50 hours community work.
Remember its the Crown Prosecution Service who prosecute, not the Police.
muppetteer wrote:6 month
And it’s the judge/magistrates who decide sentence/penalty on conviction.
muppetteer wrote:6 month
Procurator Fiscal in this case / Scotland. Different legal system
So thats another life for the
So thats another life for the sake of a bluetooth speakerphone?
nevster wrote:So thats
Which are really no better than having the phone in your hand.
If we were remotely serious ,
If we were remotely serious , the phone, the car and her freedom would be gone. Unfortunately we’re not even close to serious.
She’s been sentenced to 5
She’s been sentenced to 5 years in jail. No word about disqualification or retest yet. She was also convicted of attempting to defeat the ends of justice by deleting a record of a call on her mobile.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-33347363
Glasgow Cyclist wrote:She’s
from the article
no where near long enough on the sentence or the ban IMO, But regardless it doesn’t bring back the dead, it doesn’t undo her actions.