A cyclist in Scotland has raised concerns with the courts’ “very obvious issues with road violence justice”, his complaints coming after the wife of a former Scotland footballer accepted six penalty points and a £255 fine for using a mobile phone while driving, that sole punishment coming despite the cyclist also providing video footage of a close pass and the driver jumping a red light moments earlier.
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service confirmed Cheryl McGregor — wife of former Scotland, Rangers and Hull City goalkeeper Allan McGregor — received the fine and points after a deal was struck to ensure a punishment was applied, if only for the mobile phone offence and not for a more serious charge of careless driving or dangerous driving, that cyclist David Brennan believes should have been pursued.
Defending its approach to the case — which stems from an incident filmed by Mr Brennan in September 2023, during which he was close passed by McGregor, before spotting her drive the BMW with a personalised number plate ‘MCG1A’ through a red light and later while using her phone — the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service insisted “the resolution was outcome-focussed” and that “proceeding with the plea tendered [for the mobile phone offence] would have the same overall outcome in terms of sentencing” as pursuing other alleged offences.
Mr Brennan reported the footage directly to the police due to Scotland’s lack of reporting portal for video of roads incidents (although a service offering that is soon to be rolled out). It was due to go to court last year, although having waited all day he was sent home and told the case had been delayed.
Then, it was again due to go to court in the final week of November however the cyclist was told he would not need to attend, Mr Brennan later finding out this was because the prosecutor had done a deal with the driver and her legal team, enabling McGregor to only plead guilty to using a mobile phone and receive six penalty points and a £255 fine.
Mr Brennan stands by his belief the punishment was “ludicrously lenient” and the case should have been pursued for the more serious offence of either careless driving or dangerous driving. He also raised concerns with the courts’ approach to roads incidents, especially those involving vulnerable road users.
“In Scotland the maximum sentencing for careless driving is nine points and up to a £5k fine. Sure, three points extra isn’t much, but a potential £5k fine is more significant, and I’d think, justified in a case of consistently ‘careless’ driving,” he said of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s claim that accepting the plea did not alter the sentencing outcome.
“The sentencing doesn’t have to stop there. There is the option to disqualify a driver under careless driving. It is discretionary but the option is there and I’d argue justified when the driver clearly put a vulnerable road user at risk and drove so dangerously for a significant period of time.
“I’d guess that no weighting was placed on the witness/victim in this situation being a vulnerable road user. Do we not want to protect and encourage active travel in Scotland? Do we not need a justice system that helps achieve that? Do we not recognise how incidents like this can cause serious injury or death?
“The system is not equitable when it considers the vulnerability of an active travel user as the same as someone who is surrounded by a tonne of metal. This has gone on for too long and too many people feel totally let down by the justice system such that they don’t even bother to engage with it. I know countless cyclists who don’t bother to report.
“Do we need new charging guidelines that direct police and PF [Procurator Fiscal] to go for a higher charge when a vulnerable road user is at risk? Do we also need sentencing guidelines that also take this into account? Do we also need a police reporting system that isn’t so time consuming, for both victims and police, i.e. a properly designed properly run online reporting system? I think the answer to all of these is yes. Otherwise there will continue to be no consequences for those that put vulnerable road users in danger and lives will be lost. Needlessly.”
We have some very obvious issues with road violence justice in Scotland as this article highlights. This article specifically highlights the lack of consideration given when a road user endangers a vulnerable road user. How do we change this? Justice needs to provide protection.
— David Brennan (@magnatom.bsky.social) 11 December 2024 at 10:11
When contacted, a spokesperson for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service commented about the case: “Prosecutors have a duty to consider pleas offered by the defence and will accept pleas that are considered to be in the public interest. Any decision to accept a plea is taken following consideration of all the facts and circumstances and involves an admission and acknowledgement of guilt on the part of the accused.”
Last year, the Scottish Sentencing Council published new guidance for judges, outlining taking the life of a vulnerable road user as an “aggravating factor”, something which should see the imposition of tougher penalties. Similar guidance was also issued by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, and it applies to the four offences: causing death by dangerous driving, causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving, and causing death by driving while unlicensed, uninsured or disqualified.
Cycling UK welcomed the uniformity in law across Scotland, England and Wales, the vulnerable road user being the victim also an aggravating factor in some non-fatal cases, such as dangerous driving, causing serious injury by dangerous driving, causing serious injury by driving whilst disqualified, causing serious injury by careless driving, and causing injury by wanton or furious driving.
Another step in the right direction will be that cyclists in Scotland will soon be able to submit dangerous driving footage to an online police portal, a new third-party video evidence-sharing tool finally to be rolled out across Scotland by autumn 2025, following a successful pilot scheme in Dundee.
While cyclists and other road users in England and Wales have been able to submit video evidence of road traffic offences via Operation Snap and other police reporting portals for a number of years (though some forces in those countries have only recently signed up to these methods), Scotland is yet to introduce a similar, easy-to-use, third-party digital reporting tool.
10 thoughts on ““Justice needs to provide protection”: Cyclist close passed by wife of ex-Scotland footballer, before filming driver use phone and run red light, criticises Scottish courts’ “very obvious issues” after “ludicrously lenient” punishment”
I suspect that “in the public
I suspect that “in the public interest” in this case means “the public authorities really don’t have the time or money to deal with this properly, so will accept any attempt at a deal”.
Indeed. And that the
Indeed. And that the perpetrator is well connected and has an expensive team of lawyers at her disposal.
The video is terrifying. Calling it a close pass underplays how close she came to hitting the cyclist. It looks ot me like she didn’t actually notice the cyclist until the last minute, at which point she swerved, but only just enough to avoid disaster. My assumption would be she felt invincible in her over-sized heavy car, and that contributed towards her lack of awareness of her surroundings.
I wonder if in cases like these the could be a sentencing option for limiting a licence to only the smallest of vehicles. No more armoured tank, but they can take their life in their hands with the lesser mortals in a Micra, and see if that encourages them to have a bit more awareness of their surroundings. Or better – ban them, and after the ban has expired they are allowed only the smallest of cars for the next two+ years.
Have you seen the size of
Have you seen the size of Micras these days? Now, it it were a Micra from the 80s…
……the Crown Office and
……the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service insisted “the resolution was outcome-focussed”
The outcome in this case being that more people will die because drivers know that endangering other road users will not be punished. I wonder if that’s the outcome that they want? Maybe they need to change their focus onto protecting the vulnerable, not excusing the people who put them at risk.
Money saved is a real number.
Money saved is a real number. Casualties? Well those are obviously unaviodable accidents that are very very sad but what can we do eh.
Accept a plea to avoid potentially going to court and spending tens of thousands of pounds and no one was hurt. In most judges eyes thats an easy decision. It shouldn’t be but it is.
Should be a very clear cut case of banning her for this days work but unfortunately it wouldn’t be.
The outcome in this case
The outcome in this case being that more people will die because drivers know that endangering other road users will not be punished
Which is exactly the point I made and endlessly repeated in my evidence to the informal Parliamentary Group inquiry yesterday, including a link to this topic. Not punishing people who endanger other road users is a specialty of Lancashire Constabulary.
Technically, the police could have issued three FPN’s: Careless driving (for the close pass) £100 & 3 points; Red light infringement £100 & 3 points; Handheld mobile phone use £200 & 6 points
None of those would have happened here- as far as FoI is able to tell, nobody has ever been awarded 3 points for close passing a cyclist in Lancashire, and I have shown the links (too often) to the numerous cases of HHMP use and red light offences routinely ignored in Lancashire- links also sent to the inquiry. Sadly, it’s not going to make any difference or avert the worsening of risks to cyclists, because they could just change the date on the previous report of 2017 and re-issue it, and the police will simply continue to disbelieve and ignore it.
Nice to see Bluesky comments,
Nice to see Bluesky comments, gradually overhauling ones from X. Bikesky seems a lot less toxic, and much, much more pro-active in espousing the general positivity of cycle-based solutions, free of bots and troll armies.
Technically, the police could
Technically, the police could have issued three FPN’s:
Careless driving (for the close pass) £100 & 3 points
Red light infringement £100 & 3 points
Handheld mobile phone use £200 & 6 points
Under totting up, that would have been a disqualification. The driver would have been unlikely to accept that and would have most likely asked for their day in court.
A court has the discretion to consider a number of driving offences as a single incident of careless/dangerous driving. With all things considered, the court outcome is unlikely to have been any worse for the driver than the single FPN for mobile phone use.
It doesn’t seem right – but at least they didn’t get away scot-free.
Driving culture in a nutshell
Driving culture in a nutshell. Dangerous and with tiny/nonexistent penalties.
Seeing the cyclist at the last second and narrowly avoiding killing them wasn’t even enough of a wake up call to put the phone down.
In a perfect world, we’d have
In a perfect world, we’d have a measure of how easily distracted someone is, as part of their driving test.
This would automatically rule out mobile phones in the car (not even hands-free), music for the first two years, and even a windscreen for six months.
Let them drive with the wind in their hair and flies in their teeth, see how close attention they pay, then.