A man who admitted causing the death of a cyclist has walked away from court with 190 hours of unpaid work, a nine-month curfew, and a 12-month driving disqualification.
At Jedburgh Sheriff Court, Sheriff Peter Paterson described the case as “tragic” but concluded “the court can do little in these circumstances to repair or help” before sparing Keith Halliday a custodial sentence.
Halliday had previously admitted causing the death of Ian Methven on Christmas Day 2020 when he struck the cyclist on the A6105 between Duns and Chirnside.
Mr Methven, 30, had gone out for a Christmas morning ride after opening presents with his partner, but never made it home.
His bike had front and rear lights and the court heard it could be seen from 150 metres away, but Halliday’s defence team blamed a loss of concentration for the collision, and argued their client had not seen the cyclist.
The 50-year-old had responded ‘no comment’ when interviewed by the police, something Mr Methven’s father Alan said leads him to the conclusion anything the motorist could have said “would only have made things worse” and “the whole family feels he’s getting away with something”.
After the fatal collision the cyclist was found dead at the roadside by a passing motorist, his bike 10 metres away with a damaged rear wheel, and had to be identified by his DNA records.
Witnesses reported seeing Halliday sobbing, saying “oh no, oh no”, and described him as distressed. The court heard there was no evidence of speeding or mobile phone use.
The police investigation concluded the incident unfolded due to Halliday “failing to carry out sufficient visual checks and failing to react to the presence of Mr Methven on his pedal cycle.”
Sheriff Paterson told the court: “With such tragic consequences to measure against a momentary loss of concentration, to balance these two factors out is never easy. But I view a prison sentence is not appropriate in this case. Cases like this are tragic in every sense.
“Tragic that a young man has lost his life. Tragic for his family, and tragic in fairness to Mr Halliday as well who will have to bear with this for the rest of his life. The court can do little in these circumstances to repair or help.”
Halliday was ordered to carry out 190 hours of unpaid work and was given a nine-month curfew between the hours of 7pm and 7am. He was also banned from driving for 12 months.
Speaking to Radio Borders outside the court, Alan Methven (Ian’s father) told Radio Borders he “doesn’t know what to make of the sentence” as, while he did not want Halliday to go to jail, “the fact that he has never said anything makes it very difficult for me to form an opinion.”
“I don’t understand how the judge can form a proper opinion either, because nobody knows,” he added.
“Keith Halliday is the only one who knows why this tragedy happened, and he’s refusing to say. So, from that, I can only conclude that had he said anything, he would only have made things worse for himself. And, consequently, the whole family feels he’s getting away with something.
“He [Ian Methven] was a great lad. Apart from being my son, he was a really good friend. He was fit, he was healthy, he enjoyed life — and it’s just been taken away from him. It’s devastated the whole family.
“The fact that it has taken almost two years to get to this stage has not helped. I just really hope we can move on from here, but I really don’t know how.”




















46 thoughts on “Community service for driver who killed cyclist on Christmas Day”
A shameful verdict and
A shameful verdict and sentence.
Clearly no concept of a
Clearly no concept of a sentence as a deterrent, or as some restitution for the family of the victim. Terrible.
I cannot for the life of me see why “momentary loss of concentration” is different from momentarily losing self control and strangling someone.
Yes. I think this is a
Yes. I think this is a rather wild but interesting analogy. It links our ideas of “normal behaviour” or “a reasonable person” that our legal system enjoins juries to consider. That is: driving is utterly normal and quotidien. We’re maybe aware that driving in all kinds of conditions e.g. distracted, emotional, looking at phone, not paying attention and even nodding off … is actually not unusual either. Even if we may disapprove or deny doing that ourselves. So a defense of “I don’t know how that happened” or even “I’m not really a great (competent) driver”? That’s fine.
Cycling on the road however? Not usual. Putting yourself in harm’s way. It’s unlikely the jury will understand the reasons for what you did or didn’t do and whether you were doing it competently. They’re likely disposed to think you were at least ill-advised, if not a bit reckless or fundamentally incompetent.
Also there seems still to be a need for juries to read in some “intent” or “knowing recklessness” into driving offenses. Just the fact that “someone died while I was driving” was likely an accident otherwise. And that driver’s contribution has to be pretty obvious and/or socially “unusual” e.g. someone who was already a criminal or engaged in other illegal acts at the time or who had got pissed or otherwise intoxicated. Juries seem to recognise that that is beyond the pale and disapprove. However, speeding, driving wildly in the dark / fog? Could happen to anyone, mate. Just bad luck you were cycling there at the time.
But where does this loss of
But where does this loss of concentration come from ?
He refused to answer questions, so how does the defence get to plead this? Surely it should be disregarded if he won’t give evidence.
Does not make sense to me.
A court case with a jury is a
Presumably in this case since he made a guilty plea to something everyone accepted that (rather than spend money / risk losing contesting a more serious charge).
If it had been contested the prosecution can use his lack of answers but they still have to “prove” things – the defence doesn’t. So saying nowt is likely often a good idea (and better than lying) since the other side might fail to come up with much else.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Unfortunately on balance the right to silence is a good thing. The downside is that is it then requires a really watertight case from the prosecution and a willingness to be charged with the full weight of the law. In this case it seems a guilty to death by careless driving was enough to to sweep a death under the carpet with minimum efforts made on all sides.
A caveat is that none of the reporting that I have seen on this case is of stellar quality – there could be more to be considered than we realise.
I’m not disagreeing with
I’m not disagreeing with right to silence but if you take that approach you can’t claim momentary lack of concentration as that isn’t maintaining silence.
Sheriff Paterson told the
Sheriff Paterson told the court: “The court can do little in these circumstances to repair or help.”
Yes, the court could only do stupid pointless things like punishing a murderer, giving the grieving family justice, making the driver think twice before doing it again and showing other dangerous drivers that they may get a serious punishment if they do the same thing.
As the Sheriff very wisely implied, what would be the point of a court getting involved with trivial nonsense like that?
I agre, a mindless comment
I agree, a mindless comment from the Sheriff. The purpose of the sentence is to indicate to society at large that this behaviour is totally unacceptable.
Instead a weak punishment sends the message, its OK, can happen to anyone, just a simple mistake, crashing into stuff is just normal.
It feels worse that he
It feels worse that he equated the tragedy of the family losing their son and a partner, to the tragedy that Halliday feels for causing that death. Part of the mitigation seems to be just he feels bad about it.
If the driver has no ability
If the driver has no ability to see a cyclist in front of him, or offer any explanation, then why on earth is he ever allowed to legally get behind the wheel of any motorised vehicle.
A one year ban seems ridiculously and woefully pathetic.
The big lie is the “momentary
The big lie is the “momentary lapse of concentration” narrative. That plays straight into the idea that it will happen, and could have happened to anyone, pity the poor motorist that it happened to him.
A momentary lapse could account for hitting a child who runs unexpectedly into the road, the moment’s inattention unfortunately coinciding.
But to hit another ordinarily present road user visible from 150 metres? No way is that a mere moment’s inattention. For the judiciary to conspire in this lie is shameful.
I would say that the article
I would say that the article doesn’t explain the road layout so it’s not fully clear how relevant the 150m is, but the rest of it sums up how worthless the current laws are and how pathetic some of our judiciary are. It’s not their job to potificate but to pass sentence according to the guidelines.
I though they had leeway to consider refusal to testify as a negative consideration. Possibly the guilt plea mitigates that.
Either the distance allowed a
Either the distance allowed a driver to easily see that there was someone ahead or if it were winding then the driver failed to drive at a speed where he could stop within the distance he could see to be clear.
This article states the
This article states the collision occurred on a very long straight bit of road where there is a slight bend, between Brieryhill and Manderston:
https://goo.gl/maps/b7NitcXTkWXPxWo57
Given that the paramedic could only place a blanket over the victim as his injuries were not compatible with life and identificaton had to be done by DNA, excessive speed does seem to be a strong possibility. Surely a stronger possibility than ‘failed to carry out sufficient visual checks’.
From that map link if you
From that map link if you look towards the direction of Duns, you can actually see a cyclist and how theyd look on that road from a distance
Found some more details about
Found some more details about the collision:
https://www.cyclestreets.net/collisions/reports/2020991010115/
That cyclist you can see on the streetview link is almost at the same location as the collision. They are travelling in the same direction, but a little bit further up the road. The collision occurred just after the bend following the very long straight section of road, just after the entrance to Briery Hill.
Having read the report it
Having read the report it actually looks like Ian hadn’t even reached the bend as he was travelling in a SW direction so the driver would have had even more time to see.
giff77 wrote:
It’s not the very sharp 90 degree bend further up the road, but the almost imperceptable kink in the road just past the Briery Hill entrance.
Not even a bend really, the sort of curve you could take without slowing down.
But with the length of road leading up to that slight curve, there would have been ample opportunity to observe Ian on his bike go around the corner.
I note that there are no
I note that there are no comments on either of the articles linked… Can’t understand why people wouldn’t want to take the opportunity to express their disgust at the lack of bicycle insurance, no licence plates, dark clothes, garishly bright clothing, no lights, too bright a light, unbridled law braking lycra louts… ooh road tax, I nearly forgot that one…
I’m confused. Did the driver
I’m confused. Did the driver stop ?
It says “After the fatal collision the cyclist was found dead at the roadside by a passing motorist”
It implies he stopped further
It implies he stopped further down the road so wasn’t first back to the scene. Not the greatest reporting on this tbh.
Shockingly my reading of the
Shockingly my reading of the sentencing guidelines suggests this sentence is actually near the higher end of the guidance. ?
(Medium community sentence with a guilty plea)
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/causing-death-by-careless-or-inconsiderate-driving/
An average of 2.5 pedestrians
An average of 2.5 pedestrians are killed in collision with a cyclist every year.
In 2021 – 2 cyclists are jailed due to death of pedestrians after a collision
In 2020 – 1 cyclist is jailed due to the death of a pedestrian after a collision
They seem to have no issue jailing cyclists who kill. Perhaps cyclists are deemed not to be able to suffer momentary lapses of concentration/judgement/care
That’s only 1.5, not 2.5…
That’s only 1.5, not 2.5… but the point you’re making is absolutely valid.
How fast must the driver have been going here that the victim was identified by DNA, so none to very little braking before impact. That’s not a momentary loss of concentration.
When will sentences be seen
When will sentences be seen as a deterrent? This is a slap on the wrist and as near as getting off scott free. Courts need to lock these people up and maybe then others will see that there is a proper punishment that is in relation the to seriousness of their crime, Disgusting waste of tax payers money for a pathetic sentence
killer driver walks free –
killer driver walks free – every bloody week
Why is the killer banned, but
Why is the killer banned, but for only 12 months? The judge seems to be if the opinion that the driver did nothing wrong other than lose attention momentarily (not that I would call 150m closing distance a momentary lapse). What is going to happen in that 12 month period to reduce the risk to other road users? They will be MORE of a danger in 12 months time if anything!
Driver kills other road user
Driver kills other road user and refuses to make any statement about the circumstances. Not even a ‘sun was in my eyes’ type defence.
Judge’s conclusion – Well it it must have been a bit of an accident, I’m terribly sorry old chap, these things happen, but my hands are tied and I have no choice but to hand down the minimal sentence to you, now go sweep some litter and think about what you have done.
I had a real visceral
I had a real visceral reaction to this story. The simple truth is that anyone of us could go out next Christmas morning and be wiped out never to return to our loved ones. For the judge to be so blase in his sentencing. For the family that will continue to be victims of another mans negligence for so much longer than the sentence. For the guilty man not to make a statement to allow at least some sort of closure. Absolutely sickening.
Yes – as RoadPeace point out
Yes – as RoadPeace point out “Society tolerates road danger and road crime is not treated as real crime”.
It’s very unlikely to happen to you personally but statistics suggest that this year, and next year and likely the one after that, over 100 cyclists will die on UK roads. Most of these will be men, 30-60 years old but both sexes / people of all ages will die.
Statistics are no comfort
Statistics are no comfort though if you happen to be the one that’s killed.
Reading about that cyclist who was killed the other day on a road I’ve ridden enough to probably know the exact location and way it came about, would I have been any luckier placed in the same situation as they were ?
And I know when a rider who was someone I recognised as a person I’d met a few times, not just another name in a newspaper, was killed, every time a car or van approached for a while afterwards I was always thinking is this it? Is this the one that gets me?
As I’m doing all I can to stay safe but are they texting, playing with facebook or just momentarily distracted.
190hrs community service doesnt really seem to fit the crime here,or give confidence to the community at large justice has been served.
Yes. Ultimately we’re not
Yes. Ultimately we’re not interested in the generalities and statistics. It’s ourselves and our feelings (including feelings for others). That’s also part of why only a few of us are cycling or letting our children cycle anyway. (“It doesn’t feel safe / pleasant around cars” or “I worry about what would happen to my child”).
Worse – when someone is killed society will spend more time / money on the perpetrator (still there, needs “dealing with” but also has potential to change / contribute to society) than the victim (dead) or even those who care about them.
That’s my motivation for being interested in solutions which avoid this happening in the first place. Keep the motor vehicles away from the vulnerable road users as much as possible. Where they must interact impose more controls to make that interaction safer. That’s in addition to driving needing to be taken more seriously. Which means better training, much greater enforcement (chance of getting caught) and finally the sanctions of the legal system.
Similar story. Kill people.
Similar story. Kill people. Say nothing. Plead guilty. Carry on with your life.
https://road.cc/content/news/suspended-sentence-careless-driver-287767
Take a life in a car and walk
Take a life in a car and walk away with community service, a 12month ban and sympathy from the judge.
I can’t even see any statements or facts which are remotley mitigating here (killer shows remorse is not a mitigating factor).
It’s disgusting, something is very wrong if taking a life means a perpretrator can walk away with nothing but ‘inconvienience’ as punishment.
I think a community service
I think a community service sentence along with a twelve hour curfew is a reasonably good sentence. It’s better that he has to do something good for society, rather than sitting in a cell at the taxpayers’ expense. but a 12 month driving ban is pathetic.
Life ban no question
Life ban no question whatsoever, community service and half of what they own paid as compensation to the victims family or similar? If that means they have to sell their house / business whatever then fine? Could make people think a bit more…
I agree, a life ban from
I agree, a life ban from driving ought to be considered in cases like this.
They have offered no explanation as to how this happened and therefore no explanation how they could prevent it happening again.
EddyBerckx wrote:
Totally agree on the life ban from driving, but increased punishment rarely works as a deterrent. If your driving is poor enough to kill someone, then you shouldn’t be allowed back on the road in 2 tonnes of speeding metal.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I think we should be trying to promote driving as an exercise in mindfulness. Clear your mind of distractions and concentrate on doing one thing to the best of your ability. If you’re being distracted by your phone or life in general then you’re not safe on the roads. I know it’s not that easy, we all have shit to deal with, but it should be taught in that way. I’m sure most of us can relate to the benefit of cycling as a mindfulness exercise, why not driving.
I’m not a fan of custodial
I’m not a fan of custodial sentences. They are a drain on the public purse and poor at rehabilitation. In this case it’s easy to make sure he doesn’t do it again. A lifetime ban.
But his actions may still be a drain on the public purse hence I would also agree with greater reparations. eg if the victim was a father then it would be relatively simple to go to the CSA and make him pay child support.
It’s ironic how we are happy to make young people pay, through additional taxation, for making a (good) decision to go into further education but seem to be reluctant to do the same for people making bad decisions (criminal behaviour).
If the cyclist was visible
If the cyclist was visible for at least 150m that translates into 7 seconds or more. That is hardly a “momentary lapse” to not see them. That is more like a “checking Whats App” type lapse.
Amazing comments from the Sheriff who seems to go out of his way to minimise the responsiblity of the driver. 12 month ban is pathetic.
sean1 wrote:
Either that or it was a deliberate “buzz” pass gone wrong, there are quite a number of motorists out there who seem to get a kick out of giving cyclists a scare by passing close at high speed on country roads.
Can’t the police tell if a phone was being used at the time through forensic analysis, as in the case of the off-duty police officer killed in Wales recently? Doesn’t rule out a load of other distractions of course, lighting fags, eating, fiddling with satnav or radio…
Can we just be done with
Can we just be done with judges lamenting the lifetime burden a motorist must bear for running over and killing a cyclist? People are amazingly good at rationalization. I’d expect that by now Mr. Halliday might already have convinced himself it wasn’t his fault; that the roads are for motor vehicles, and that there shouldn’t have been a cyclist there in the first place.
I’m not quite sure how the
I’m not quite sure how the judge can ignore the 150m visability bit – it would be easy to work out the time the rider was visible using the NSL for that road as a minimum which should be able to disprove the ‘momentary’ bit.
However – I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the sentence is appropriate under the circumstances that we actually know (what the court would be dealing with). As a former Community Service Supervisor I can promise you I used to make them work hard
so It’s not quite the let off that many people think and at the very least they are giving back to the community. I think we can also safely assume that he didn’t set out intending to kill someone and whilst we all know it was careless in the extreme; I, personally would not like to see another life ruined any more.
Well maybe this is a wider
Well maybe this is a wider point on sentencing than this specific case alone, but having just returned from a ride where I’m equally sure no one had set out to harm or kill me, they sure had a funny way of going about showing it.
And I can only conclude people drive in such a carefree dangerous manner around cyclists, because well theres no danger to them if they make a mistake anyway, but the penalties even if they kill the cyclist are practically meaningless, so why put the effort in.
In Suffolk for community service they send people to clear heathlands of invasive species of plant to stop them growing into woodlands. I’d like to think any life, let alone my own, was worth more than 190hrs worth of heathland gardening, that’s stuff they make girl guides and scouts do to earn merit badges, not atone for taking someones life.