A “cowardly and callous” hit-and-run driver who killed a 15-year-old cyclist in 2021 and was sentenced to three years and four months in prison and a three-year driving ban has been jailed again for 22 months following his release having led police on a 100mph pursuit through 40mph zones in a stolen vehicle.
Leo Meek appeared in Chester Crown Court this week, having pleaded guilty to charges of dangerous driving and handling stolen goods, the judge sentencing him to one year and 10 months in prison and a 47-month driving ban.
The 25-year-old was, in 2021, sentenced to 40 months in prison after pleading guilty to causing the death by dangerous driving of cyclist Jack Jones, Meek driving at speeds of between 52 and 55mph in a 30mph zone when he hit the teenager who was cycling to his aunt’s house.
Meek fled the scene, getting a taxi home, prosecutor Peter Hussey telling Liverpool Crown Court three years ago that “it is unlikely Jack knew what happened” due to the severity of the collision and at “no stage did he [Meek] report the collision to the police or even the ambulance service”.
Having served time for causing the teenager’s death, Meek will return to custody for his latest offences, an officer in an unmarked police vehicle spotting him driving a stolen vehicle on 19 July 2023. A chase ensued when Meek made a sudden turn and accelerated away, refusing to stop.
Cheshire Police released a video of the pursuit and reported the dangerous driver overtook multiple vehicles, tailgating them to force them to pull over, and picked up speeds of more than 100mph along winding narrow roads, more than double the 40mph speed limit.
Meek crashed the vehicle into a bridge above the M53 and fled the scene on foot. He was confirmed as the driver thanks to DNA recovered from the steering wheel airbag and subsequently arrested. Officers discovered three sets of registration plates in the boot of the car and it was confirmed the heavily damaged BMW had been stolen from the Manchester area a week earlier.
It was from the incident that killed Jack that Meek’s DNA was already registered on the Police National Computer System, PC Cooling from Cheshire Police saying he “clearly had not learnt” from his previous conviction.
“Despite already causing the death of an innocent teenager through reckless driving and speeding, Meek clearly had not learnt from this tragic incident,” they said. “It is a miracle that no other collisions occurred as a result of Meek’s driving on 19 July. He put innocent members of the public at risk, reaching alarming speeds in excess of 100mph and eventually losing control of the stolen vehicle.
“Thankfully the bridge barrier prevented the vehicle from falling onto the motorway below, but the damage to the car and the barrier shows just how dangerous Meek’s driving was. Even after the collision, Meek continued to try and evade police by fleeing the scene, showing no regard for the safety of his passenger. Just as he fled the scene after hitting the young cyclist in 2021, he again failed to stop and was only concerned with getting away.
“However, his efforts were to no avail. Thanks to DNA left on the airbag, officers from the Roads and Crime unit along with crime scene investigators confirmed Meek had been driving, tracked him down, and he is now behind bars for his actions. This highlights that there really is nowhere to hide – we will use every resource available to us to hold people to account. I hope this also serves as a reminder to those who commit crimes on Cheshire’s roads that you will be caught.”
Back in 2021, ahead of his sentencing for the death of the 15-year-old cyclist, Meek wrote a letter to the judge saying he took “full responsibility” for what had happened and that he “found it hard to come to terms with the harsh reality that Jack lost his life solely through my actions”.
Sentencing Meek for the causing death by dangerous driving offence, Judge Andrew Menary QC called the driver “cowardly and callous” and said the “most likely explanation” for the collision was that he had given the cyclist “little or no room as you were overtaking him”.
“A private hire vehicle just passed Jack, rather than pause to allow it to pass you attempted to squeeze through the gap,” the judge said. “This was very bad driving in any view and Jack and his family have paid a terrible price.”
Following her son’s death, Jack’s mother, Marjorie said he “had his whole life ahead of him” but “all our hopes and aspirations for Jack have just gone”.
“A nightmare you cannot wake up from and know you will have for a lifetime… no words will ever be enough to express how much this hurts and what a huge loss we all have to come to terms with,” she said.
69 thoughts on ““Cowardly” hit-and-run driver who killed teen cyclist jailed again after leading police on 100mph chase following release”
We need to start bringing in
We need to start bringing in lifetime driving bans. Absolutely no reason why this low life should be drving a car on on our roads again
a1white wrote:
Exactly.
If you’re found at fault for ending someone’s life whilst driving, then it’s been absolutely demonstrated that you are not suitable for holding a driving license ever again.
This is a clear demonstration of our justice system being not fit for purpose.
I am all for stronger
I am all for stronger sentencing of those that kill or seriously injure through dangerous driving, I am not sure a life ban from driving is going to be effective for idiots like this. Given he chose to drive a stolen car full of stolen goods, I am thinking he wouldn’t have worried about not having a licence.
I was about to say: what
I was about to say: what difference will a driving ban make to this person? He was driving while banned, the second time he was arrested.
LeadenSkies wrote:
All the more reason to stop him having a license so that anytime the police spot him in a car, they have cause to stop and arrest him.
Is it effective though? They
Is it effective though? They should already be stopping stolen vehicles / uninsured drivers / no MoT etc and they are far easier to spot than the identity of the driver in a moving vehicle. My thoughts, for the little they are worth, are that we need to introduce a more effective deterrent. Longer and more consistent sentencing. He killed a child, how did he get to even be out again less than 5 years later to commit the second offence? Taking a life by dangerous driving should have a mandatory life sentence just the same as murder.
LeadenSkies wrote:
Just because some parts of a system are ineffective is a poor excuse for not doing the bits that we can do though.
If we take the attitude of “there’s no point banning him from driving” and allow him to keep his license, then that one less reason to put him behind bars in the future when he’s caught again.
It’s like saying that we shouldn’t have speed limits on roads as most drivers will ignore them.
You are right, it is a poor
You are right, it is a poor excuse but I am fed up with dealing with the devastation caused by dangerous driving. Watching innocent people die a horrible death in front of me, as I have done again recently because some idiot thought he was Nigel Mansell on a public road, and being powerless to do anything about it takes a mental toll and promotes production of my “hang em high” hormones.
Hmm… this is one for a
Hmm… this is one for a thoughtful approach here so we don’t get into the same territory here as the “dangerous cycling” offenses.
As I understand it there are several components to “justice” – among which deterrence, desert and public protection from the offender (under which consideration of reform).
Increasing the punishments does not deterrence make – because:
a) we all know you need to be caught, brought to court and actually convicted first. In the case of road offenses and specifically for driving each of those steps has an issue. You’re unlikely to get caught for many offenses; evidence can sometimes be an issue; CPS tend to go for lower charges, because juries seem to have a bias to accept “accident” or “there was nothing I could do” or even “yes, it’s wrong but we all know the law and how we all drive aren’t the same thing”.
b) some offenses aren’t necessarily attended by a lot of forethought
c) some criminals may be prone just to take chances when it comes to driving (especially because (a) )
In terms of “desert” e.g. “got what they deserve” the outcomes tend to weigh heavily on people. e.g. “Killing someone on a bike is no different than doing so in a car”. Yes, people should also be considering the decisions e.g. choosing to drive recklessly is arguably more dangerous than choosing to cycle dangerously. But again I think there are biases so the “normal” activity (driving) isn’t seen as aggravating and the “unusual” one (cycling) may be.
Incarcerating someone should cover “protecting the public” but if we ever let people out again it’s pertinent to consider the rate of reoffending (though that’s a whole other can of worms).
I take your points on board.
I take your points on board. Motor normativity definitely influences jury decisions and by extension CPS charging decisions and addressing the definition of dangerous driving to be a much more objective definition would be a good starting point. It would also make enforcement simpler and more clear cut.
I also agree that the deterrence factor of any punishment is hard to measure and even harder to get right. Long prison sentences may just make me feel better without deterring and make me no safer in reality. They may even backfire by making people more likely to risk all to avoid capture.
Banning someone from driving for life seems a good thing but only if people are going to stick to it. Given most people who are banned have already significantly and often repeatedly ignored one or more driving laws, are they going to obey a ban? Does banning them aid enforcement? Where do we go if they don’t obey the ban? And most importantly to me, what do we say to the mother of the next child killed by a banned driver? I have seen the devastation caused by dangerous driving first hand on too many occasions. I think it will eventually be the thing that draws the curtain on my career as each time it takes more of a toll and a big part of that is because I feel powerless and society refuses to take the problem of road deaths seriously.
I don’t have the answer, but I do know we aren’t getting it right at the moment.
This sort of scumbag won’t
This sort of scumbag won’t care if he is banned.
You may be right but to make
You may be right but to make policy on this basis is a counsel of despair. There is no reason why this person should be allowed to drive a motor vehicle again. So therefore don’t allow it. If he then flouts that ban, punish him for that. It doesn’t mean we just say “oh well, he won’t comply, so sod it.”
a1white wrote:
A lifetime driving ban will not stop garbage like this. Having already shown a complete disregard for the law, a ban will not stop him. He needs to be put down before he kills someone else.
And it’s dangerous cycling
And it’s dangerous cycling that’s the main issue of our time….
Why is he being allowed out
Why is he being allowed out again ?
Should have a permanent tracker, banned from driving for life and have to account for all journeys.
This sentence would seem to
This sentence would seem to be more appropriate: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3ggrz2d21zo
12 years jail and 13 year ban.
My feeling would be a
My feeling would be a lifetime ban unless the gentleman can provided very compelling evidence that his attitude has changed fundamentally.
john_smith wrote:
If only they’d given him a ban after he murdered a cyclist he wouldn’t have done it again . . . . oh, wait . . .
john_smith wrote:
How? Write another letter describing how sorry he is? Mitsky has the right idea.
delthebike wrote:
how is a ban going to stop someone who drives stolen cars? Until we require that cars will not start without a valid driver at the controls, individuals like this can only be stopped by locking them up.
People like this make me
People like this make me question my allegiance to the human rights convention. In light of the displayed inhumanity of Meek, cruel and unusual punishments seem more justifiable.
To what end?
To what end?
I’m vehemently against
I’m vehemently against capitol punishment, but further custodial sentences are a waste of effort and tax payer funds if rehabilitation is the aim, and will only result in an equally sociopathic person with a more adept criminal skillset.
In cases like these, a novel form of punishment seems fitting.
My own suggested novel
My own suggested novel punishment (per my earlier comment):
“This is why, in extreme cases like this, I advocate that the criminal has shown such mindlessness that it should have its taste buds and libido permanently removed.
People may not agree with the expensive choice of long prison terms so only with the risk of loss of those liberties might such things reconsider their actions.”
You haven’t explained what
But you haven’t explained what you hope to achieve by it.
Perhaps by “cruel and unusual
Perhaps by “cruel and unusual punishment” they mean “actually stopping them driving”. That’s currently seen as a very severe imposition – it will not only inconvenience you but it could change your social status!
You may have to change how you get to your work, or indeed change your job. It may alter things for your family (you may not be able to move people / things around as you used to). Same for your social / leisure activities.
All those have the potential to change your relationships.
Obviously going to prison isn’t seen by most as an acolade, good for your employment prospects or social standing either. However when you come out you can start to build your life again. I suspect some people can’t see beyond the bonnet in the driving ban case though – “I can’t live my life without a car”!
It’s not really that severe
It’s not really that severe an imposition. If you had a medical condition that rendered you incompetent to drive, you would have to accept the consequences. If you have an character defect that renders you incompetent to drive, you should accept the consequences too.
Anyway, given the reference made to the convention on human rights, I suspect the “cruel and unusual punishment” was intended to go beyond a mere driving ban
john_smith wrote:
I suspect this was a slightly tongue in cheek reference to the reluctance with which we seem to ban people from driving; and the ease with which we seem to accept exceptional hardship pleas.
I’m sure it was tongue in
I’m sure it was tongue in cheek, but there was some truth in the arguments put forward.
Chip him if travelling at
Chip him if travelling at more than 32mph he gets a shock
ROOTminus1 wrote:
They just need to find a way to put something like that down quickly and painlessly and permanently.
Like you, I am a huge
Like you, I am a huge believer in a justice system that offers redemption and have vigorously opposed capital punishment all my adult life but Christ, cunts (there is no other word) like this really test my beliefs.
This criminal has shown what
This criminal has shown what it thinks of the law, society and how it’s behaviour affects other people’s lives.
It simply doesn’t care.
This is why, in extreme cases like this, I advocate that the criminal has shown such mindlessness that it should have its taste buds and libido permanently removed.
People may not agree with the expensive choice of long prison terms so only with the risk of loss of those liberties might such things reconsider their actions.
Nice idea, but not how we do
Nice idea, but not how we do things in the civilized world.
Where is this civilised world
Where is this civilised world that you speak of?
Right here in Western Europe,
Right here in Western Europe, for a start.
That is a region, not a world
That is a region, not a world.
Whether or not it is civilised is entirely debatable.
I didn’t say it’s a world.
I didn’t say it’s a world. Maybe Mr Putin’s Russia would be more your kind of place?
john_smith wrote:
Or the country that killed 26000 women and children in concentration camps during the Boer war?
What is a civilised world?
What is a civilised world?
everywhere people live in well-organized and developed societies.
john_smith wrote:
Where is this civilised world that you speak of?
You asked the same question
You asked the same question earlier, and I answered it. Are you a bot?
It is almost impossible to
It is almost impossible to stop people like this from getting back behind the wheel once they are not incarcerated.
But there should be a mechanism that triggers that puts someone like this into a longer prison sentence each time they are caught driving.
However, there are further problems with the justice system. It can be so very slow to actually do anything.
I know this is not anything like as serious but I had a car pull out in front of me last early autumn. I could not stop or avoid them in time. I was a bit injured and concussed. The driver blamed me for damaging their car. I had no idea what happened and still don’t. The Police took the opposite view and after examining local CCTV had the collision on Video. They then charged the driver with careless driving the CPS increased the charge to Causing serious injury due to careless driving. They refused to be interviewed voluntarily. They were arrested in February and went to court in April and pleaded not guilty. They asked for the hearing to be in the crown court. The plea hearing was this week.
They pleaded not guilty. The trial date is set for November 2025 so they will be driving for two years after the collision. That seems unfair to both them and everybody else.
They pleaded not guilty. The
They pleaded not guilty. The trial date is set for November 2025 so they will be driving for two years after the collision
I may have misunderstood this point, but can’t he then plead guilty at the last minute and still receive all the benefits of a guilty plea- or does this dodge not apply to crown court cases? The driver must be ‘bang to rights’ or the police and CPS would have binned it- says a resident of Lancashire
I do not know the answer to
I do not know the answer to that.
wtjs wrote:
Benefits/reduction in sentencing for a guilty plea decrease the closer to the court case you make the plea. But there is a solid argument that the discounts don’t tail off agressively enough, especially once the court time has been scheduled.
How is an of that unfair on
How is that unfair on the driver? They get to drive and hope that things will change between now and November so that the charges get reduced/dropped or they change their plea at the last minute.
I would hate to have it
I would hate to have it hanging over me for all that time if the boot was on the other foot, they are currently out on bail which I imagine is an uncomfortable feeling, and if they really believe they are not guilty that is unfair that they have to wait that long to clear their name.
JLasTSR wrote:
That is because you are a decent human being with a conscience. The same can’t be said for the driver that hit you.
If they were a decent human being, they would have :-
Accepted blame before the police took action.
Pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity in the Magistrate’s Court.
Elected to stay at the Magistrate’s Court, plead guilty and have it dealt with there and then (though the bench may have sent it up to a higher court if they thought their sentencing powers were insuffient) rather than put you through the ordeal of having to go to court and re-live the experience.
Please don’t lose any sleep worrying about the driver, I can assure you, they are not losing sleep worrying about you.
Excuse the profanity.
Cunt!
Excuse the profanity.
Cunt!
There’s really no other word
There’s really no other word for it.
Owd Big ‘Ead wrote:
Not sure if that is actually an insult, now tonsil on the other hand certainly is. Tonsils serve absolutely no purpose.
ErnieC wrote:
Not quite:
Even the appendix is considered to have a function – harbouring beneficial bacteria for when the digestive system gets flushed due to illness.
I’d vote for the coccyx being the most useless part of the human body apart from it’s ability to cause lots of pain if you fall over and hit it.
hawkinspeter wrote:
“What a coccyx!” also has a great ring to it.
andystow wrote:
I think the ring is usually a bit below it
Quote:
Do you want to know what is even more terrible?
This excuse for human excrement only getting a 3 year jail sentence for what he did.
A life sentence isnt going to bring Jack back. Its sad and unfortunate but Whats done is done… A three year jail term is not just a slap in the face, Its a clenched fist. Even more so as the scrote fled the scene.
Three years isnt justice. Its injustice. And to prove it all. He got released then started causing trouble again. Clearly the judge who originally sentenced him to Jail should have a moment of self-reflection and have a tougher stance on those who deems to be upto no good and will never change.
“Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime…”
Not saying or advocating that people should be publicly lynched. But maybe that would serve as good deterrent in lieu of real Justice being served.
The best ‘justice’ would be
The best ‘justice’ would be for those like this awful individual to be rehabilitated and never bother the justice system again. As a society we should be ashamed at the conveyer belt that recycles offenders back to jail time after time. This doesn’t deny or down play Meek’s personal responsibility it’s just that, as anyone who attends court regularly will attest, this is a daily occurrence up and down the land piling misery on individual victims, their neighbours and society at large. Douglas Hurd, former Tory Home Secretary, was right when he observed that prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse.
He still needs to be kept off
He still needs to be kept off the roads to protect the public. What is the alternative to prison that will achieve this ? House arrest? Or something more draconian that would undermine civil liberties for all of us? Cars being linked to personal id and only starting if the person has a valid licence.
You can’t rehabilitate
You can’t rehabilitate someone who doesn’t recognise that they have done anything wrong. This individual drove dangerously, killed a child, left the scene and that didn’t even bother his conscience enough to make an anonymous call to the ambulance service to get some medical intervention. He had three years to reflect on his actions and the devastation they caused but clearly that wasn’t long enough and not only did he get back in a car while banned, he again drove with no reguard for anyone else in an attempt to save his own skin. Prison may make him worse but ten or fifteen years inside would seriously reduce his capacity to do harm in his lifetime and it would send a strong message to others considering doing something similar.
Trouble is that the prisons
Trouble is that the prisons are full so where exactly do you bang up this sort of amoral POS?
Spangly Shiny wrote:
End of a rope/lethal injection/bullet?
A lifetime breaking rocks is
A lifetime breaking rocks is the go; keeps unrepentant miscreants off the streets for good and serves as a warning to would-be miscreants..
jaymack wrote:
Do you think something like that could ever be rehabilitated?
Lyncing sounds appropriate.
Lynching sounds appropriate.
I sincerely hope karma comes
I sincerely hope karma comes to this cunt and he ends up being dragged under the wheels of an HGV. A shame that he wasnt sent through the windscreen onto the road below when he hit that bridge.
Has the likes of Sunak and
Has the likes of Sunak and Briggs been asked to comment?
Or, it it for them basically “move along nothing to see here”.
Anyone else surprised that
Anyone else surprised that this POS didn’t get a tougher sentence for stealing a car than for killing a cyclist ?
Yep. Clerical error?
Yep. Clerical error?
Meek has a mental illness
Meek has a mental illness that is an addiction to reckless driving. Many thousands of drivers have the same addiction across the UK.
The prison system merely skills up criminals, so that isn’t the answer. Cutting off body parts probably not going to get much support from the pro-motorist governments.
I do believe life-time bans should have a lower threshold but again, how to enforce. Ankle tracker is one option but then what if this is no deterrent?
Either way, such driver mindsets should be seen as a mental problem that needs fixing, rather than a law abiding issue.