A motorist who overtook a bus on the wrong side of the road and hit a 10-year-old cyclist while banned from driving has been handed a suspended 12-month prison sentence, following what his own defence lawyer described as a series of “spectacularly stupid, immature, and reckless decisions”, which left the youngster with ongoing physical and psychological problems.
Abdul Sabhur, then 19, was driving on Ripponden Road in Oldham on 15 June 2024 when he struck the child, who was riding his bike across a pedestrian crossing at the time.
CCTV footage of the crash, which was played in Manchester’s Minshull Street Crown Court, shows Sabhur driving on the wrong side of the road as he overtook a double decker bus before heading straight through the pedestrian crossing, the Manchester Evening News reports.
The boy, a successful gymnast, was thrown into the air in the collision, leaving him with ongoing aches and pains which have impacted his mental health.
Sabhur was disqualified from driving at the time of the crash, following a speeding offence three months prior. The court heard that the teenager pulled over and gave the boy a lift home, where he exchanged contact details with his mum to keep up to date with his condition.
Reading from the mum’s victim impact statement, prosecutor John Richards told the court: “He was a successful confident gymnast, he represented the northwest with his team winning first place. He had full flexibility to perform gymnastics with ease.
“Since the incident he has struggled and all actions are causing pain and discomfort. This has impacted his competing, his self-confidence, and his mental health.
“The week after he was due to take part in a northwest novice competition. He spent months training and working hard and it was taken away from him, which is not his fault. He has been left anxious and conscious when out on the road.”
Defending the motorist, Simon Leong admitted that Sabhur had made a series of “spectacularly stupid, immature, and reckless decisions” leading up to the crash.
“He has not shied away,” Leong said, describing his client as “deeply remorseful” for his actions. “He was interviewed and he admitted what he had done. He hasn’t sought to shy away.”
Sabhur, now 21, admitted dangerous driving and driving whilst disqualified, and was handed a 12-month prison sentence suspended for 18 months.
He was also banned from driving for 12 months, and must complete 20 days of rehabilitation activity requirements and 180 hours unpaid work, while finally being ordered to pay £2,000 compensation to the cyclist and his mum.
“You shouldn’t have been behind the wheel as you were disqualified at that time,” Judge Kevin Slack told the motorist in court.
“You took the boy home to his parents and left your contact details even though you knew you were a disqualified driver. I accept that remorse is entirely genuine.”
22 thoughts on “Banned driver avoids jail after hitting 10-year-old cyclist while overtaking bus on wrong side of road in series of “spectacularly stupid, immature, and reckless decisions””
His remorse last time wasn’t
His remorse last time wasn’t enough to stop him from driving whilst disqualified. Why does this judge think this time will be different? Ban should have been much much longer for starters and other punishment should have been more severe.
Why would he have remorse at
Why would he have remorse at being banned from driving? You usually have remorse for your actions that have hurt others. I doubt remorse is a word you would usually hear when it comes to people caught speeding.
People genearlly see bad driving and dangerous driving as a victimless crime, largely because it is…most of the time. The issue is that we treat it very similarly when it does cause harm. We don’t assume that someone is a bad driver and it was just a matter of time before that manifested itself in harm to someone, we pretent that the person involved just had the misfortune (oh the irony) of being caught out because of a momentary lapse and other such crap.
I admit that it does seem like the guy was genuinely remorseful for his actions both immediately after the incident and probably still is but the point remains, we have downplayed the danger of driving in this country to the point where people simply don’t consider it dangerous until they hurt or kill someone and even then, most people seem to accept that its just a fact of life and something that happens. Its not, its a direct result of leniency in sentencing and an almost complete lack of consequences and enforcement of the rules on our roads.
On a 1km walk to the local nursery I see probably 30% of people going dramatically over the 30mph limit despite there being absolutely no benefit due to traffic. I see people consistently cut corners on the wrong side of the road and generally drive dangerously. Its epidemic. This is why everywhere built up should be a 20. Because drivers can’t be trusted. Not even a little. Treat them like naughty children. You can’t be trusted to drive safely at 30 so you need to drive at 20.
mctrials23 wrote:
It isn’t – it’s just that most of the time the harm is indirect and hard to measure. It comes in forms like people restricting their behaviour / activity in order to allow for the likelihood of such driving, or extra costs of installing infrastructure attempting to restrict or mitigate it, etc.
Thats getting into the weeds
Thats getting into the weeds somewhat and something that the vast majority of people don’t remotely consider and wouldn’t care about if they did.
Well quite – but all the more
Well quite – but all the more reason for those of us that do consider and care about it to challenge the narrative that no collision = no harm.
mctrials23 wrote:
I’d disagree with that, I have several dozen friends who say they would love to cycle to work but they won’t because they think it’s too dangerous because of bad drivers. Those people are doing exactly what MDF said, restricting their behaviours and activities, not to mention paying a considerable financial penalty in terms of running a car or using public transport and missing out on considerable health benefits, because of these “victimless crimes” of which they are, essentially, victims.
So you don’t like my choice
So you don’t like my choice of word. Let me restart, the ban from driving clearly didn’t make him think hard enough about the potential consequences of his actions enough to stop him. Not only did he continue to drive whilst banned, he continued to drive like an utter idiot in a way that was likely to lead to devastating consequences and bring him to the attention of the legal system again. So, I repeat my question – why does the judge think it will be any different this time?
Judge Kevin Slack should be
Judge Kevin Slack should be suspended from driving for his ignorance. I’m sure the remorse in the courtroom at the time of sentencing was indeed “genuine.” Why would anyone expect it to be different? But you don’t sentence people for how they think or act in the courtroom. You sentence them for how they think and act outside of the courtroom, and Abdul Sabhur’s decision to ignore the original driving ban is a testament to his view that “I don’t give a sh– what happened in the courtroom.”
Banned ‘motorist’, knocks kid
Banned ‘motorist’, knocks kid over, thankfully kids ok, and gets a BAN ?? – maybe I’ll go out and kill someone (I wouldn’t) and only get a slapped wrist ?
Welcome to the UK driving ban
Welcome to the UK driving offense sanction system.
If you thoroughly prove you are a terrible AND dangerous (in the common meaning) driver you *might* get a very serious sanction – a driving ban. (Don’t panic – I am not aware of anyone who has ever been banned for life!)
And the system deals harshly with those who fail to obey such a serious sanction or take it … er … seriously (eg. by completely ignoring it).
… then – if the offender is ever detected and brought before the court – they will solemnly and sternly tell them not to do it again, on pain of being told not to do it again, again!
Aside from surviving the
Aside from surviving the collision, the kid is definitely NOT ok with ongoing physical and psychological trauma.
Banning someone who has
Banning someone who has already proved that they will ignore the ban seems guaranteed to fail. The driver has proved beyond any doubt that he is a dangerous driver with contempt for the law: at the very least his right to drive a killing machine should be removed forever. And if he was ever caught driving again, he should go to prison for a long time and be tagged on release.
I have said several times on
I have said several times on here that a driving ban should be treated a bit like a suspended sentence, breach the ban and go dorectly to jail, for the full duration of the original ban not just the remaining period. If society has been promised 18 months without the idiot on the road then the court system needs to gaurantee it as soon as the trust has been broken
If caught driving while
If caught driving while banned, they should get a suspended sentence. If convicted of a dangerous/careless driving offence whilst banned, it should mean jail without suspension and permanent loss of driving licence. Public transport is available for these people.
This is another example of
This is another example of why I advocate for loss of taste buds and libido in serious cases like this as the only serious deterrent.
And I look forward to the update of the government’s road safety review (or whatever it is called), which will “deal” with this sort of thing.
But i won’t hold my breath.
And I look forward to the
And I look forward to the update the government’s road safety review (or whatever it is called), which will “deal” with this sort of thing
We’ve already got it, and Praise Be the Lord, Lilian Greenwood is in charge of implementing it!
I hope they took his car away
I hope they took his car away. And every car he drives while banned in the future as well.
How, just how, did he not
How, just how, did he not get put behind bars?
How, just how, did he not
How, just how, did he not get put behind bars?
Through the inexplicably pro-driver attitudes and gullibility of UK courts, which willingly fall for the tripe emitted from the backside of the Shyster Defence Lawyer, in which every action by the offender is distorted into a justification for sainthood: “He has not shied away,” Leong said, describing his client as “deeply remorseful” for his actions. “He was interviewed and he admitted what he had done. He hasn’t sought to shy away.”
That’s an offender caught on video and in front of numerous witnesses!
The clue is in the judge’s
The clue is in the judge’s surname.
Utterlt ludicrous sentencing.
Utterlt ludicrous sentencing. Contrast with the 18 month prison term given to Charlie Alliston who collided with a pedestrian who stepped in front of him whilst staring at her phone and unfortunately sustained injuries which led to her death a week later.
Both men involved were young and not conforming with the law. Alliston was riding a fixie without brakes and Sabhur was driving recklessly whilst banned. The victim in Alliston’s case did not take responsibility for her own safety by stepping into a road without looking being too foccussed on her phone. The victim on Sabhur’s case was on a pedestrian crossing with the reasonable expectation that it should be safe.
Apart from the outcome for the victim and the differing levels of remorse displayed by the perpetrators the Sabhur case seems worse in terms of recklessness and potential for causing harm so why the vast difference in sentencing?
jamesha100 wrote:
Although your point still stands, you’re not entirely accurate about the Alliston incident. There was no evidence that Kim Briggs (the pedestrian) was looking at her phone, but I would agree that she wasn’t paying full attention to the traffic. Alliston did have one brake on his fixie, though that’s not considered sufficient and very suspect evidence was submitted to court about his supposed stopping distance due to not having a road-worthy bike.
Alliston did attempt to slow/stop, but after shouting at Briggs, he then decided to just go for the available gap instead. However, Briggs responded to the shouting by stepping backwards and into his path.
Alliston didn’t do himself any favours by disparaging Briggs on social media and he put forward his opinion that she was using her phone, but the CCTV evidence did not show that.