A motorist who was jailed for six months for careless driving for her role in a crash which killed a cyclist, has lost her appeal. Emily Wilkinson’s legal team argued she had been harshly treated as she was only 19 at the time, was a comparatively new driver and did not know the road well.
In June 2017, Wilkinson pulled out of a side road in Romsley, Halesowen, and hit a Ford Transit van being driven by Balvinder Sangha.
The van spun into cyclist David Fawthrop, known as Ross. Despite paramedics arriving on the scene within eight minutes, he could not be saved.
Sangha, who had been speeding, was convicted of causing death by careless driving. He was sentenced to 12 months in jail and given a three-year ban from driving.
Wilkinson was also convicted of causing death by careless driving. She was jailed for six months and disqualified from driving for two years.
Worcester News reports that her appeal was heard this week.
Representing her, Sophie Murray said she had been “deeply affected by the accident” and had suffered PTSD, anxiety and depression.
“She had written letters to the family and the judge expressing her deep remorse and demonstrating that it had weighed very heavily on her.”
Murray argued that Wilkinson had been too harshly treated as she was only 19 at the time, was a comparatively new driver who did not know the road well, and had now been left facing the possibility her dream career as a teacher would be over before it had even started.
Dismissing the appeal, Justice Spencer said that an early guilty plea “might well have made the difference”.
“The fact remains that she drove into the path of the approaching van without ever seeing it,” he said.
“It was the clearest case, in our view, of careless driving. She chose to contest the case because she was not prepared to accept her responsibility for this fatal accident.
“We hope very much that this aberration on the part of Emily Wilkinson will not have adverse consequences for her career.
“We would like it to be brought to the attention of those who need to know these things that that is our view.”
16 thoughts on “Careless driver who caused cyclist’s death loses appeal after arguing she was only 19 and didn’t know the road”
“Did not know the road well”
“Did not know the road well”
Translation
“I was not able to drive to the standard required for even a basic road user”
So just because you’re on a
So just because you’re on a road you’re not very familiar with she wants a get out of jail free card ?
Every road I’ve driven has been new to me at one point – I’ve not killed anyone though.
And why would her teaching career be over ? Shes only 19. Isn’t she at Uni ? If it’s teaching practice – then I’m sure a city centre school is reachable by bus or god forbid bike.
I’m glad her appeal was turned down.
What’s her age got to do with
What’s her age got to do with it? If you are old enought to drive then you are old enough to take responsibility for what you are doing.
Or did I miss the bit that says you’re allowed to kill a few people before you’re 20.
I mean, only a cyclist.
My deepest sympathies to the family and friends on David Fawthrop.
This is a person who doesn’t
This is a person who doesn’t look down the road and see a Ford Transit for goodness sake, but not only does she contest the case, she then appeals it too.
Good, tough. Pay more
Good, tough. Pay more attention in future.
Fucking lawyers really are
Fucking lawyers really are the scum of the Earth.
She got away with it easy
She got away with it easy enough as it was. The van’s speed at that time probably just played into the unfortunate timing that took out the cyclist. She still caused the initial accident. Without her not paying attention the speeding van would have just been a speeding van.
Quite why he got 12 months and her less, I don’t know?!?
Two sentences that are a
Two sentences that are a disgrace yet again. I hope that someone brings up how wank this all is AGAIN and use the sentencing of Alliston to show how either Alliston was unduly harshly treated or motorists are yet again fucking getting away with murder.
Families must feel sickened by this crass action, I hope she gets her payback in spades, both of the guilty parties in fact.
@Zebulebu everyone is
@Zebulebu everyone is entitled to a defence. The lawyer has to take the case on the cab-rank principle and do their utmost for the client. To expect otherwise would be unjust.
Hamster wrote:
The lady’s current problem? She lied, to herself and the court. She chose a lawyer/barrister who pandered to her lies. And she’s caught.
Her teaching career is no jeopardy for a traffic incident … but it sure as hell is, because of the way she’s chosen to deal with it.
And I cannot find words strong enough to express my utter disgust that she should somehow find it possible to equate her “PTSD, anxiety and depression”, with utter grief of the family and friends of David Fawthrop.
Fucking disgusting … and it’s that selfish callousness that should debar her from any career in teaching, or any related career.
Hamster wrote:
I agree on that.
I would question on what grounds was there an appeal, as the reasons put forward are pathetic and not related to points of law or new evidence.
I’m not talking about the
I’m not talking about the point of law of having a lawyer represent you. I’m talking about the sort of person who would actually do it. I maintain – scumbags
Zebulebu wrote:
Because everyone arrested is clearly guilty.
Zebulebu wrote:
You’re missing the point. If you let lawyers pick and choose which defendants to defend, then you can end up with people accused of unpopular crimes and no-one to defend them.
Imagine if you were suddenly accused of say, producing squirrel porn and it turned out that lawyers are particularly anti-furries. You could be completely innocent and yet sent to prison as you had to defend yourself and didn’t even know how to address the judge correctly.
Lawyers that defend the indefensible are doing a very important job and should be respected for that.
Scumbag lawyers. You tend to
Scumbag lawyers. You tend to get that at dinner parties, how on earth could you……
There are two branches of the profession. In this case it’s more probable than not the solicitor was the duty solicitor at the time. The rep in the Court? A barrister, here’s an explanation of the cab rank rule…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab-rank_rule
How can they do it? Pretty easy really. Before conviction, everyone is entitled to have a fair trial, there’s some convention on that somewhere. 😉 After conviction, well, if a client is entitled to make an appeal then they still have a right to representation. It’s pretty easy really, they put forward their client’s arguments under the law, and the Court is able to accept or reject it.
It weighs heavily on her…
It weighs heavily on her… except she pleads not guilty… and then appeals the sentence. Sounds like some good arguments to increase the sentence.