- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Statue of Justice, Old Bailey (licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr by Ronnie Macdonald).jpg“No evidence” drug-driver caused teen cyclist’s injuries, says CPS
The Crown Prosecution Service has defended itself from not bringing charges against a drug-driver who left a teenage cyclist seriously injured.
George Pennick, aged 74, was found to have more than four times the permitted limit of benzoylecgonine, a by-product of cocaine when police tested him after he was involved in a collision with the 13-year-old cyclist in Stockton last July, reports the Northern Echo.
The youngster, who has not been named, sustained a brain injury as well as several fractures, contusions and lacerations and a damaged left leg.
Pennick pleaded guilty on Wednesday at Teeside Magistrates’ Court to driving while above the drug-drive limit and was fined £120 plus costs of £85 and ordered to pay a £32 victim surcharge. He was also banned from driving for 12 months.
However, no charges were brought relating to the standard of his driving or the injuries the teenager sustained, with a spokesperson saying there was “no evidence” that the motorist was at fault.
"When deciding what charges to bring in any criminal case, the decisions of our lawyers are taken in strict adherence to the code for crown prosecutors,” the spokesperson said.
“This means that, to charge someone with a criminal offence, they must first be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.
“In this case, two independent witnesses stated that they had seen the injured party ride his bike into the path of George Pennick’s car, despite nearby traffic lights showing a green light to road users.
“There was no evidence to suggest that the manner of the defendant’s driving was at fault but, as is standard procedure for all drivers involved in road accidents, he was subsequently subjected to a blood test.”
The spokesperson added: "The results of this test showed that the defendant was driving while above the specified limit for the controlled substance Benzoylecgonine, a breakdown chemical indicating previous cocaine use, to which the defendant pleaded guilty at first hearing."
The victim’s family described the sentence as “very lenient” and called for tougher sentences against drug-drivers.
“Being four times over the legal limit to drive under the influence of drugs should be regarded as an extremely serious offence, but the sentence in this case seems very lenient indeed,” they said after the trial.
“We understand that this is the law as it stands, but we strongly believe this should change to act as a deterrent so no-one else ever thinks it is acceptable to get behind the wheel having consumed drugs.
"We are deeply saddened at the very poor choices of the driver of the car which hit our son, the consequences of which have had an indescribable impact on our family and will do so for years ahead as our son bravely continues with his recover.
“Having seen our son in hospital, lying gravely injured and being warned he may not pull through, is a trauma which will be with us forever.
"We consider ourselves blessed every single day that he survived, and are so eternally grateful to the wonderful medical staff who saved his life, including an off-duty nurse and doctor who happened to be on the scene and whose role was crucial in ensuring he is still with us today.
"His road to recovery will be long and very difficult, but he has a loving family around him to support him every step of the way,” they added.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- TedC 1 sec ago
Same here - they maybe working together.
- David9694 55 min 29 sec ago
Tensions escalate over violations in Devon no-car zone...
- David9694 1 hour 57 sec ago
Car ploughs into Fair Oak home and crushes couple's cars https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24762662.car-ploughs-fair-oak-home-crus...
- Another_MAMIL 1 hour 1 min ago
Who spends £55 on a bucket hat?
- Rendel Harris 9 hours 18 min ago
It's Haigh in the long coat.
- HoarseMann 13 hours 48 min ago
Not quite the same scenario, but has some similarities......
- HoarseMann 14 hours 6 min ago
“It all happened so fast,” the bus driver said in his statement. “To my horror I saw a male laid on his back with a mobile phone on his chest and...
- wtjs 14 hours 52 min ago
no one cares enough to fix it...
- wtjs 15 hours 57 sec ago
I won't be getting anything on Friday...
- IanGlasgow 18 hours 5 min ago
CHPT3 is in receivership. Their website replaced by this notice. https://chpt3.com/
Add new comment
26 comments
Anybody else find this sentence utterly bewildering ... and frightening?
"In this case, two independent witnesses stated that they had seen the injured party ride his bike into the path of George Pennick’s car, despite nearby traffic lights showing a green light to road users"
What exactly does "nearby traffic lights" mean?
And WTAF does said lights "showing a green light to road users" mean?
Chilling.
That the lights were red for pedestrians and green for traffic on the road.
A 2 yr ban seems more or less standard these days for drink driving regardless of whether there is an accident or not, surprised this fella got away with 1 yr.
Also, did the cops stage an Aliston-type, highly-dubious, "reconstruction" to work out if the guy could conceivably have stopped in time had he not been under-the-influence? Or do they only do that for cyclists?
Nah, no need, they are already drivers so just know that it couldn't have been the driver's fault.
In this case, the Police arrested him on Causing Injury by Dangerous Driving, and evidence at the scene of the accident was taken as per some of the pictures show. The "blame" is on the CPS for deciding they wouldn't be able to prove that the drugs caused the accident due to the independent witnesses statements so not trying.
Struggling to get my head round this.
If I were a defence lawyer I would be trying to use this as case law for the next drug / drunk driver I was defending.
Only if the circumstances were the same.
Looks like it was hard to demonstrate that an normal driver would have managed to avoid the collisioon. I doubt that is the case in nearly all other d&d incidents.
Leaving the collision out of it, that sentencing for being four times the legal limit, is pretty poor.
I presume that with his age it would be an automatic re-test after his disqualification period?
Without knowing how cocaine breaks down I don't know how readily you can interpret 4x the limit as you might 4x the blood alcohol limit.
Whilst I sympathise with the family in such a lenient sentence, the burden of proof is on the CPS to prove something, and they obviously could not. Especially as precedent has been set somewhat with the arsehole son of a copper who killed two pedestrians the other year. However I wonder if they had charged him whether he would have actually contested it or done the guilty plea.
But it sounds as if the family's complaints are not about proving something more, but about the leniency of sentencing for what the guy is proven to have done.
The guidance for that on the government web page:
"If you’re convicted of drug driving you’ll get:
a minimum 1 year driving ban
an unlimited fine
up to 6 months in prison
a criminal record"
£120 seems a weak interpretation of 'unlimited'. And "up to 6 months" clearly includes "no time in prison". He also got the minimum driving ban. So in every respect he got the absolute minimum possible penalty that can be applied. And the family seems to be saying they think that minimum is too minimal.
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/family-schoolboy-life-c...
The above link gives more context to the crash, from the cone markings it appears -
1. It was a temporary light set up
2. The CHILD was crossing at a pedestrian crossing
3. The car took a fair distance to stop and was there for travelling at speed or clearly had his reactions impaired by drugs.
The child on a bike would have been clearly visible and even if he had stepped in to front of the drug driver, any driver should be aware of this as a hazard and been prepared to take appropriate actions if required.
It is time to change the liability laws in the UK!
The comments on that Teeside News article are frightening.
So many people who seem ready to support the driver and lay the blame for the crash entirely with the child.
Their hatred of cyclists, even child cyclists, seems to obscure the glaring fact that a drugged up driver SHOULD NOT have been on the road.
Potentially he could have caused another accident, gone through a red light himself, driven onto a pavement, not have reacted to a pedestrian stepping in front on him.
Amazing that the same sort of people were ready to wholeheartedly condemn cyclist Charlie Alliston's inability to stop for an adult woman who walked straight into his path!
What about the highway code's section about looking out for vulnerable road users?
People driving should be aware of their surroundings and try to anticipate what other road users could do. In particular, I believe every adult should feel a certain duty of care towards children.
Probably he's the local police chiefs dealer.
Even ignoring that the driver was off his tits on coke, imagine if it had been a cyclist who hadn't anticipated that another road user would do something unexpected ...
Oh, wait, we don't have to imagine:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cyclist-knock-over-woman-phone-compensation-court-london-a8969731.html
As I remember, that case wasn't as clear cut as that article infers. There were pedestrians already crossing the road and the cyclist after going through a green light shouted and used an air horn for the peds to get out of his way and didn't slow down. One of the peds was focussing on her phone and didn't successfully leap out of his way and thus they collided.
The judge determined that the cyclist and the ped were equally responsible (which makes sense to me), but crucially, the cyclist was representing himself whereas the pedestrian had a legal professional. Due to a quirk of the law, the cyclist ended up being responsible for the legal costs which were claimed to be £100,000.
The lessons are to attempt to avoid colliding with other road users (even when you believe that you have priority) and get legal representation.
^^This (post by Vonhelmet).
Imagine the same situation but make abstraction of the positive cocaine test. Would the accident still have happened and if yes, was the driver of the car at fault? If the reasonable answer to that is that yes, it probably would have happened but the driver is not at fault then the drug use was not a contributing factor. Which doesn't mean it should go unpunished. Technically it's sound reasoning but it's easy to understand how it feels like a slap in the face to relatives / the public.
If the driver had been 4 times over the DRINK drive limit there would be no discussion.
Don't know about the UK, but over here in Belgium it's possible to be over the alcohol limit when breathalyzed and be punished for that, whilst not being punished for being drunk. Being drunk=evaluation based on observations by police, e.g. slurred speech, bloodshot eyes etc. Conversely, if the machine says that you're under the limit but police determine that you're drunk, you can still be convicted for being drunk, just not for being over the limit. Obviously, the latter case is rare. But if they determine this and note it in their report, the driver is essentially toast, as all official police reports are legally presumed to be correct until proven otherwise, which is all but impossible to do under normal circumstances. Not sure if this is also the case in the UK though.
The penalties for drug driving and drink driving are almost identical.
They would have been done for drink driving but as has been pointed out, it seems the probability is the collision would have occurred if sober.
Impressed as I may be at coke snorting pensioners, also horrified that they should feel the need to drive while coked up.
What I would really like to know is - Had the cyclist established themselves in the carriageway?
It seems more like they're saying that whether or not he was on drugs is irrelevant to what happened. It sounds like the cyclist rode into his path even though he had a green light in his favour. At some point there are incidents that are tricky to avoid no matter how good or well behaved a driver you are, or in this case whether you had taken cocaine at some point in the recent past. There's not much detail, but if the cyclist emerged from a side road or from between parked or just rode off the pavement without warning, then it might have been hard to avoid him no matter what. At some threshold it's not worth criminalising accidents.
Essentially it appears the CPS is arguing that consumption of illegal drugs does not have any effect on ability to drive. So why is there a drug drive limit in the first place?
My understanding is that although the driver had consumed illegal drugs, it wasn't his driving was at fault, but instead the cyclist was at fault for the incident. That in itself makes some kind of sense to me, but I'd rather they took a harder line with drivers and have some kind of automatic liability if you're over the limit for drink and/or drugs.