A court has heard driver who killed an 83-year-old cyclist went back to the crash scene and feigned being an innocent bystander, reports the Liverpool Echo.
Stephen Shaw, aged 51, was caught because a witness had written down his Vauxhall Corsa’s registration number, at the scene of the crash in Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside, which was also caught on CCTV.
John Dykes, who was riding an electrically assisted bike, died from injuries sustained when Shaw struck him as the pair pulled away from traffic lights on the afternoon of 9 February last year.
Shaw was charged with causing his death by careless driving and change his plea to guilty as his trial was due to begin at Liverpool Crown Court yesterday. He had already pleaded guilty to charges of failing to stop and failing to report the incident.
Prosecutor Ian Whitehouse told the court: “The defendant pulled away at the same time as Mr Dykes but the prosecution say the defendant failed to afford priority and sufficient time and space to the victim and thus prevented him from manoeuvring, positioning and indicating his intentions to other road users.
“Both vehicles as a result came together and the collision took place in the centre of the road. Mr Dykes fell to the floor and smashed his head with some force. He was not wearing a cycle helmet and he received a severe head injury.
“He lost consciousness and unfortunately never regained it. He died on February 16 and the cause of death was severe blunt force head trauma.”
Shaw failed to stop at the scene and returned later on foot, but left before the arrival of the emergency services.
When police visited his house around two hours after the collision he told officers he had spent the entire day at home, only admitting he had been the driver of the vehicle involved when they told him there was CCTV footage.
At a subsequent interview, he said that seeing Mr Dykes in the road and the visit of the officers to his hone had caused him to panic.
Judge Clement Goldstone, QC sentenced Shaw to 24 weeks’ imprisonment suspended for 18 months.
He told Shaw that Mr Sykes “was passionate about cycling and while indulging his passion, albeit with a little electrical assistance to which he was well entitled at his age, he met his death.
“It was caused by your carelessness in the way in which you drove your car when you had both been waiting for the lights to change.
“Quite simply, being aware of him and having seen him, you failed to give him a sufficiently wide berth when he turned effectively across your path from the cycling box.”
He said that in going back to the scene, Shaw acted “as if you were a complete bystander.”
Besides the suspended sentence, Shaw was also told to undergo 20 days of rehabilitation activities and pay £500 costs within six months, as well as being placed under curfew for 12 weeks.
The judge told him: “That is meant to infringe your liberty and it is to remind you, if reminder is needed, how close you came to a sentence which would have resulted in you going to prison immediately.”
The victim’s daughter, Sandra Woods, said her father had been cycling for 70 years.
“He was a loving husband, father-in-law, grandfather and great-grandfather,” she said.
“His sudden and unexpected loss has impacted on generations of the family. He was known for being kind-hearted and generous.”
Cycling UK reaction
Duncan Dollimore, senior road safety and legal campaigner at the charity Cycling UK, told road.cc: “The driver’s careless driving in this case was compounded by his failure to stop and then report the collision, offences for which he was also convicted.
"All too often leaving the scene, particularly when someone has been seriously injured, does not appear to be treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing.
"Cases like this, where drivers seek to avoid the consequences of their own actions, flee the scene and deny involvement, were exactly what Cycling UK had in mind earlier this year when responding to the Government’s consultation on motoring offences and penalties.
"We asked the Government to consider increasing the penalties for those drivers who fail to stop leaving someone in need of urgent medical attention. Such drivers need to realise that there are real and substantial penalties when they make that choice, and that the calculated risk to simply carry on driving is not worth taking."
Neither the Liverpool Echo's report nor one in the St Helen's Star mentions a driving ban, and Dollimore added: "The reluctance of the courts to disqualify drivers, with driving treated as a right rather than a privilege, is another issue Cycling UK asked the Government to review.
"We still await their response, which is now delayed until after the election, but this case is tragically just the most recent in a long list of cases which demonstrate why a holistic review of how the justice system deals with bad driving is sorely needed.”
Add new comment
28 comments
Huh, I've ridden through that junction a fair few times. Weird when it's close to home, so to speak.
Baffling that there was no charge of perverting the course of justice given he lied about being there.
direction by judges is often extremely poor in cases regarding injuries. We already know that in previous head injury cases materials experts have basically told insurers trying to wangle out of a payout to fooking do one with their victim blaming nonsense.
As we know, a helmet cannot by design prevent derious head injuries, it simply is not physically capable of doing so. best case on the top section we're looking at around 70 joules
here's one example, Griffith Williams J in Smith v Finch [2009]
The judge actually makes several errors in summing up including "there can be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury", which is complete bollocks and simply not true, but he further went onto state which was critical to the outcome
"However it remained for the defendant to show that the particular injuries suffered would not have occurred if the claimant had been wearing a helmet. In this case he had not achieved that standard: ‘the injuries responsible for the Claimant’s residual disabilities were caused by a contre-coup injury – an injury from which a helmet would not have protected the Claimant"
it is not for the claiment to prove a helmet wouldn't have made a difference/prevented injury but the defendent to prove that it would and given what we know and what pretty much any nuanced legal team should know from previous cases is that those trying to prove a helmet would make a difference are going to come unstuck because the evidence is simply not there, even the manufacturers won't/can't make claims about effectiveness as a safety aid because it would be spurious at best but actually just downright lies.
"My feeling is that juries are increasingly unwilling to convict full stop on causing death through careless driving charges, when the injury is a fatal head injury and the deceased was not wearing a helmet. I broadly agree with that position. As a juror, I would expect testimony from an expert that the injuries were so severe that a helmet would not have made a significant difference before feeling comfortable about a guilty verdict".
You can never prove the difference the helmet would have made in a specific case. However, if the driver had not been dangerous (or careless if one prefers) the cyclist would not have died that day...
Not wearing a helmet does not cause a driver to hit you. Pretty frickin' simple. Otherwise, you could say not being inside a car is a mitigating factor as it could have protected you from injury.
On the other hand if you kill your joyriding passenger a jury is likely to jail you for over a year...
"A 19-year old man has been jailed for 15 months after being found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving.
Coree Lee Amonn from Longfield in Falmouth was convicted by a jury at Truro Crown Court."
So you think the sentencing should have been the same if he had ran over a pedestrian who wasn't wearing a helmet?
No mention of loss of his driving licence?
There is a petition asking for "A lifetime disqualification if convicted of causing death by dangerous driving". Please take a look here:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/191856
What a insult to the word justice , they really dont give a flying fook !
\I put my car back on the road on the 1st after laying it up for 3 months, I'm going to make a hit list of people I can 'carelessly' kill because frankly for the mickey amount of the fine and a suspended it'll be very very well worth it.
That's even IF plod can be bothered to do anything at all or don't think it's my fault, because i'll lie, i'll be sneaky as furk about it (natch) and I have an extensive checklist of excuses that I know work 100% that i can run through before i hit the magic phrase and bingo, I'll have hit the jackpot and a free murder for the price of a few hours in the dock tops.
Not only a criminal act by the driver by a criminal act by the judge, he is culpable for future deaths and serious injuries because he perpetuates the feeling that you can do what you like in a motor even to the point of killing another human without any real detrrant so will not have to think or act in a proper way.
This is not just an insult to the family and to the deceased but an injustice to society!
You know what REALLY gets me about this case (and others like it) . . Just recently an angry woman, who had an argument with a cyclist and "allegedly" made a gun shape with her fingers got a jail sentence. Multiple cases where drivers have killed with nothing less than dangerous driving (heading off home and coming back on foot, then denying it is not "careless" ) leaving families without loved ones and incomes in many cases get a slap on teh wrist, a suspended sentence and a "don't do it again"
What is the significant difference in the cases ? One was a TV "personality" . . .
Under Norwegian road laws, if you kill a pedestrian or cyclist with your car, and are deemed at fault, you can pretty much ring up and book your bedspread colours at jail, because you will he going there. Sure Norwegian jail's are a bit more modern for "low risk" offenders but it is a custodial sentence.
Just a month or so ago, a driver in his late 20s had his driving licence revoked for the 3rd time for causing a fatal collision, and after each case he spent some time in jail. This time (having looked behind his tractor to check the trailer and then driving straight over an oncoming car) he's been given more jail time and lost his licence for life. The fact he's a farmer and "needs" to drive was not deemed mitigating circumstances, he has to find someone else to drive if the tractor is going on teh publis roads at all.
To answer your specific point, one difference in the Jeremy Vine case was that her actions were held to trigger an existing suspended sentence i.e. it was the previous crime that was deemed serious enough for prison, the further incident just meant that punishment came into effect. Of course who Mr Vine was may have an effect as well.
In this case as well, although this is only a suspended prison sentence, in theory any further criminal offence during while the suspended sentence is active will send him to prison.
I don't personally accept that justifies a suspended sentence here for one moment though - leaving the scene means that prison was the only possible sentence in my view. I don't excuse careless driving either, but leaving the scene (and returning while trying to remain anonymous...) is a deliberate choice.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have worked though if this is his third go.
Perhaps, but civil rights are just that. To argue that one individuals civil rights are greater or in some way more deserving than anothers is surely propogating the status quo to the detriment of everyone?
Having visited the Lorraine Motel last year I do get the differences between black rights and to what some may seem as a decision to which we can opt out, namely to cycle or not to cycle, but ultimately one group of people are being repeatedly repressed, killed and maimed by another group of people with levels of injustice that regardless of cause result in widespread disbelief and offence.
Either way, loss of life and continued lack of injustice amount to an attack of your civil rights, everything else is surely semantics? Change is surely needed, we do not have to be as great as Dr. King to ackowledge that something is very very wrong.
You do realise many African tribes already had systems of slavery in place before Europeans turned up? Dragging from lands and raping was well underway before whitey.
Do agree that comparing cyclists to American civil rights movement is a bit of a stretch though.
Indeed. And there are several passages in the Bible that tell Christians how much they should pay for their slaves, how they must treat them and how to beat them without actually causing death. We have inherited a wonderful world.
It's very sad. The person has demonstrated that he is not fit to hold a driver's licence. A prison sentence would have been appropriate also.
In this case, the police and CPS secured a conviction for death by careless, failing to stop and failing to report
True, in this case. I can't help feeling like it's the exception that proves the rule, though...
OK, so the judge wants to bring back partial hangings ? We "suspend" the guilty party for 18 weeks . . preferably by something that'll hurt . . I'm sure they still have those metal cages prisoners were placed in before being hung on the castle walls at the Tower of london, can we borrow some ?
Oh wait you mean he gets to go free "if he doesn't do it again" ? OK, let's find that cage thing for the judge instead.
Suspended?????!!!!......That's insufficient and we all know it.
So no charges were raised for attempting to pervert the course of justice?? (claimed he'd been at home all day, nothing to do with me, until someone pointed out the CCTV evidence...).
Ah, the poor dear, that'll learn 'im: and I think the lesson will be "Do whatever the f- you want , it'll turn out all right so long as you are driving a car".
Man goes to axe shop and swings axe around without looking.
Chops other man's head off.
Runs away.
Comes back later and goes "Oh wow, what's happened?!"
Lies to police about ever swinging an axe.
Perfectly normal behaviour. Everyone just carries on as normal. Ecept the man with the chopped off head, obviously, but he just shouldn't have been in an axe shop really, it's his own fault. Move along please, nothing to see here.
The courts, the CPS, the police, they're a total joke. A contemptable, scummy joke.
In this case, the police and CPS secured a conviction for death by careless, failing to stop and failing to report - so I can't see what else they could have done. They are probably as frustrated at the sentence as everyone else (Daily Mail excepted).
It's the sentencing guidelines that need ripping up and starting again.
Personally I think that being in control of a vehicle should put you in line with the HSE's sentencing guidelines. What's the difference between a car striking a cyclist and a fork lift truck operator crushing a co-worker?
Both require the operator to demonstrate competency to qualify for use of the heavy machinery, both have a duty of care to themselves and others around them, and HSE rules apply to unpaid and voluntary work, not just if someone's being paid for it. I see no reason why equal, fatal violations of the HASWA and the Road Traffic Acts should carry such wildly differing sentence weightings.
In cases where road layout is partly to blame (dashed line 'segregated' cycle paths), the council responsible for installation would have tangible liability, whereas atm town planners are almost untouchable.
but is it that the guidelines were wrong, or just been applied inconsistently here, because I thought leaving the scene of an accident & failure to report it escalated quite quickly when it involved injury to anyone involved, let alone if it causes a death.
so for instance this case http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/police-urge-importance-of-stopping-after-a-cr...
the driver hit a cyclist, appears to have left the scene, didnt report it, caused severe injury to the cyclist but didnt kill them, was located and without any witnesses of the crash was charged with careless driving, failing to report an accident, and was given 20 weeks in jail,with a 12 month driving ban.
The Police and the CPS got the man convicted. They did their job. Don't blame them here.
As I've said many times I firmly believe the kinds of injustices vulnerable road users and bereaved families are routinely expected to tolerate represents one of the latest and great civil rights arguments since the days of the great Martin Luther King and his battle for racial equality.
Until we, as a clearly persecuted group, come together with force and organisation, each of us must simply accept and readily give up our lives on demand.
It is something I am working on at a personal level but when I can get this off the ground can I truthfully say I would expect the full support of my cycling colleagues?
Sadly, I probably could not. It is this casual beligerence to fighting our corner that is, in my opinion, as much of a threat to our lives as those around us in their metal weaponry.
We need to look at how we come together if we stand any chance of becoming more than collateral damage on our road networks.
You know, I agree with you that there is a marked predjudice and unequal treatment of cyclists, but you reduce this good point to something unbelievable when you compare it to the US civil rights struggle. It has similarities in that there is predjudice and discrimination, but the level is nothing like the same, the motivations are different and as cyclists we are in the enviable position of being able to stop being cyclists... opting out is not a possibility for the people whose ancestors were dragged from their native lands, raped, annihilated and then blamed for all the ills of "urban" society.
Again, I get where you're coming from, but if I weren't already sympathetic to the position I think I would dismiss everything you say out of hand or assume that you were trying to parody your position.
Cycling UK are spot on, and this is another insult to justice. Leaving the scene of a collision when someone has been injured should get an automatic prison sentence, as should lying about the collision afterwards.
As far as not receiving a driving ban, words fail me. He has admitted driving so badly that he killed someone, but the courts haven't prevented him doing it again? Literally incredible, and shows that we have to have a radical overhaul of the judicial system, with a much tougher sentencing regime for drivers who kill and injure, and a much more rigorous driving test. Stop careless, incompetent people from getting a driving licence in the first place, and remove the licence from the dangerous drivers who already have one.
In the eyes of the law, as recent cases show clearly, cyclists are not people with family, friends and a place in society, they are some kind of sub-human irrelevance that the justice system treats as of much less worth than the right of a real person to be allowed to drive their lethal weapon.