Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Dangerous driver who killed cyclist fails to have 10-year driving ban overturned

Andrzej Wojcicki was jailed for five years in August 2014 for killing cyclist Owain James

A minibus driver jailed for causing the death of a cyclist has failed in an attempt to have his driving ban overturned. The rejection of his appeal has been welcomed by the charity Cycling UK, which has consistently called for longer driving bans for motorists who kill.

Andrzej Wojcicki was jailed for five years and banned from driving for 10 years in August 2014 for causing the death by dangerous driving of cyclist Owain James.

Wojcicki had been taking photos of vintage cars on his mobile phone as he drove a left-hand drive minibus at Newbridge, Gwent on 21 July 2013.

> Five years in jail for motorist who killed cyclist while looking at pictures on mobile phone

At his trial at Cardiff Crown Court, Judge David Wynn Morgan told him: “It is bad enough when a person is driving an ordinary car, but you were driving a three-tonne minibus – Mr James did not stand a chance.”

Wales Online reports that Wojcicki was back in the same court on Monday, making an application for his driving ban to be set aside.

He had originally been granted leave to appeal against the ban in March 2015, but struggled to find a new lawyer after his solicitor was struck off.

He was released from prison in late 2016 and deported from the UK the following year, fighting successfully to have that order overturned and returning to the country in September 2017.

The 50-year-old from Blackwood, who runs a business that converts petrol and diesel cars to run on LPG, said he wanted his licence returned for family reasons and so he could pay a full role in the business.

However, his application was rejected by Judge Jeremy Jenkins, meaning that Wojcicki will have to serve the full, 10-year ban and will have to take an extended driving test afterwards to regain his driving licence.

Judge Jenkins quoted the sentencing remarks of the judge at the original trial, who said: “Nothing the court can do by way of sentencing can return Owain James to his loved ones.”

He acknowledged that the length of the ban might cause Wojcicki some “hardship” but, rejecting his application, added: “It must never be forgotten that a life was lost in this dangerous piece of driving.”

Cycling UK's head of campaigns, Duncan Dollimore, told road.cc: “Cycling UK have repeatedly called for greater use of driving disqualifications, longer bans, and the closure of the ridiculous exceptional hardship loophole, which leaves over 10,000 people driving on our roads each year with more than 12 points on their licence.

“Too often, the hardship potentially caused through a driving ban seems to trump road safety or deterrence, and consequently in the last ten years we’ve seen a 54 per cent reduction in the number of disqualifications, despite a 3% increase in the number of offences committed.

“Only five of the 63,342 people banned from driving in 2018 were disqualified for life and only 11 for between 10 years and life, so lengthy bans are only imposed in the most appalling cases.

“It’s therefore a relief to read that in this case the Judge wasn’t hoodwinked by the hardship cry, but rather acknowledged that the hardship was proportionate with the offending.

"“The Sentencing Council are currently consulting on the guidance for driving disqualifications, and Cycling UK will be responding to make it clear that greater use of disqualification powers is a quick, simple and cost effective way to focus attention on the consequences of irresponsible behaviour on our roads,” he 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.

Add new comment

11 comments

Avatar
HoarseMann | 4 years ago
5 likes

He lives less than 4 miles from his place of work. Not much of a hardship getting his wife to drop him off. He could easily cycle it...

 

Avatar
brooksby replied to HoarseMann | 4 years ago
10 likes

HoarseMann wrote:

He lives less than 4 miles from his place of work. Not much of a hardship getting his wife to drop him off. He could easily cycle it...

I don't imagine that he'd want to ride it - I hear there are some total incompetents driving around on our roads...

Avatar
Christopher TR1 | 4 years ago
9 likes

Alone the fact that this worthless turd had the cheek to apeal his driving ban after killing someone (!) shows the type callous individual he is. Certainly not someone I want to be sharing a road or a country with. Can't we just hang him, judge?!

Avatar
Daveyraveygravey | 4 years ago
4 likes

Why was he released from prison in 2016?  He'd served about three years from when he committed the offence, did they lock him up straight away?

How come he was allowed back in the country after being deported?  What the hell is wrong with this country?  This proves that all the clowns who voted to leave the EU thinking it was going to "solve the immigration" problem know nothing about what really goes on. 

His solicitor was struck off.  This case is almost a black comedy.

And I would hazard a guess that the murdering scumbag is still driving around.

Having said that, at least the judge didn't fall for the lame hardship story.  Driving is not an automatic right, you have to earn that right and then maintain it by showing you are able to drive in a careful and considerate manner.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Daveyraveygravey | 4 years ago
11 likes

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

How come he was allowed back in the country after being deported?

Especially when you consider the recent actions of the government in deporting anyone foreign who had committed a crime; if they weren't white, that is.

"What the hell is wrong with this country?"

That's a pretty big question, but briefly, it is ruled by a greedy elite who all drive cars.

Avatar
brooksby replied to eburtthebike | 4 years ago
2 likes

eburtthebike wrote:

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

How come he was allowed back in the country after being deported?

Especially when you consider the recent actions of the government in deporting anyone foreign who had committed a crime; if they weren't white, that is.

"What the hell is wrong with this country?"

That's a pretty big question, but briefly, it is ruled by a greedy elite who all drive cars.

I think they're going to start calling it the Sabrisky Principle 

Avatar
NZ Vegan Rider replied to eburtthebike | 4 years ago
0 likes

"if they weren't white, that is." No examples to back that stupid statement up.

Avatar
brooksby replied to NZ Vegan Rider | 4 years ago
11 likes

NZ Vegan Rider wrote:

"if they weren't white, that is." No examples to back that stupid statement up.

Cough cough "Windrush" cough "Hostile environment" cough "You've lived in the UK since you were six, and don't know anyone in Uganda? Tough!"

 

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to NZ Vegan Rider | 4 years ago
9 likes

NZ Vegan Rider wrote:

"if they weren't white, that is." No examples to back that stupid statement up.

I can only think that you have been living under a rock for the past year, and have missed all the stories about people who have lived in the UK for fifty years being deported to Jamaica because they committed a crime 45 years ago.  Strangely, none of them were white; just a coincidence I'm sure.

The rock beckons; please crawl back under it and remain silent.

Avatar
hmas1974 replied to NZ Vegan Rider | 4 years ago
3 likes
Avatar
tonyleatham | 4 years ago
13 likes

I just read the report on Walesonline, and I had to grind my teeth when I got to the bit that said: "The cyclist, who was not wearing a helmet or any high visibility clothing, later died in hospital." - why did they need to mention the no-helmet or hi-viz in the sentence that reports the man's death??? The implication is that the cyclist was somehow at fault, even though the driver was taking pictures on his phone and swerving from side to side. This sort of report is unfathomable. Grrrrrrrr.

Latest Comments