A motorist who left a 51-year-old former army major “for dead on the side of the road” has had a 12-week prison sentence overturned on appeal.
61-year-old William Jones, from Burton, Staffordshire, has instead been given a suspended sentence and was banned from driving for a year after leaving Cathal O’Reilly critically ill with a broken back, protruding leg bone and other serious injuries in a hit and run incident in September 2021.
According to Staffordshire Live, Jones, who submitted a positive breath test in the hours after the collision (though blood analysis put him below the legal alcohol limit), must also undertake 200 hours unpaid work and attend 20 rehabilitation days.
O’Reilly, a former major in the Irish Guards who later worked as a business consultant, was cycling on the A55 near the village of Valley, Anglesey, when he was struck by Jones on 19 September last year. The 51-year-old was riding to Holyhead from his home in London, in order to catch a ferry to Dublin to visit his parents, a 32-hour trip he’d undertaken previously.
In a victim impact statement, O’Reilly said that after being struck by Jones, he had been “left for dead on the side of the road”. He was taken to hospital in Bangor before being transferred to the Royal Stoke University Hospital’s major trauma centre, where he underwent 22 hours of surgery in two days, and remained in a critical condition for five days.
He suffered a broken back, protruding leg bone, and required a skin graft, along with multiple other injuries. O’Reilly’s DNA was also found on flesh embedded in the damaged car belonging to Jones, who failed to stop at the scene.
Police later found Jones’ car at a Premier Inn in Holyhead. The 61-year-old, who was also preparing to board a ferry to Dublin, was breathalysed by police and returned a positive test, though later blood analysis showed that he was below the legal alcohol limit.
Branding Jones a “despicable coward” for leaving him with devastating injuries, O’Reilly said that following the incident, “My life has changed beyond recognition. I am lucky to be alive”.
Jones admitted to careless driving, failing to stop after the incident, failing to report it, and driving an uninsured car.
He stated in court that when he struck O’Reilly, he assumed he had hit a bollard, a claim which a Caernarfon Crown Court judge said “beggars belief”.
The 61-year-old was originally ordered to serve a 12-week prison sentence. But after appealing that verdict on the grounds, according to Jones’ barrister, that there had been a “conflation of penalties” by the original court, the jail term was suspended for one year. He was also banned from driving for 12 months.
Despite telling the court that “it would be inhuman not to have a huge sense of humility and sympathy for the victim in this case”, Jones’ barrister Simon Killeen claimed that the motorist was of good character, had serious health concerns, and was well under the drink-drive limit according to later calculations, before pointing out that instances of careless driving did not carry a prison term.
Recorder Neill Owen-Casey allowed the appeal, noting that the original sentence appeared to have been imposed based on the gravity of O’Reilly’s injuries and the effect on the cyclist’s life, and that there was no specific offence related to causing serious injury by careless driving.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
63 thoughts on “Hit-and-run driver who left cyclist “for dead” has prison sentence overturned”
If he was of good character
If he was of good character and was under the limit how come he was driving an uninsured car?
It seems more likely he’s a multiple offender who just hasnt been caught before.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Absolutely! The way driving is handled by the police and justice system in this country really is a travesty.
I suspect he was only under
I suspect he was only under the limit because they found him some time later and he presumably still had a liver. I’d venture that had he stopped and been breathalised there and then, then he would have been over the limit…
The fact is that clearly
The fact is that clearly couldn’t be proved. Presumably no point in bringing in further evidence to demonstrate that point because the “I had a drink at my destination to calm my nerves” will probably be enough to throw doubt on any work proving it.
As with others – it seems a case of “falling between charges / penalties” – he very definitely did do some illegal things and those should have been enough for prison – you’d have thought…
Roll on the road safety review – broken record, more enforcement, more use of suspension of licence and a real need to enforce that too.
The guy is clearly a liar and
The guy is clearly a liar and an absolute scumbag.
Why would he need a drink to calm his nerves, after all he had just hit a bollard.
In addition to that, if you are so incompetant / unaware of your surroundings that you can genuinely hit a cyclist and think it was a bollard then you shouldn’t be anywhere near the roads in the first place.
This whole thing is a horrible example of why people drive like utter bellends in this country, safe in the knowledge that no matter what they do they will be treated like they have just made an oopsie.
The breathyliser was over the
The breathyliser was over the limit at the hotel, it was the blood test which showed him as “sober” which could be explained away as having a drink in the hotel.
In the local paper:
In the local paper:
Explaining his health, Mr Killeen said Jones had an “old” high level of drinking.
Clearly likes a drink, so easy to sell to a ‘jury’ that he’d had a drink at the hotel.
That does seem to be a weird
That does seem to be a weird description as the blood test is actually more “historical” then a breathlyser which can be fooled with mouthwash etc. They actually mention health issues in the “reasons not to send my client to court” reasonings so I thought he was explaining away that.
Quote:
I wonder what that even means…?
It should be treated the same
It should be treated the same as failing to provide. If you leave the scene and are found to have alcohol in your system, it should be a default assumption you were over the limit.
HoarseMann wrote:
Absolutely, in some states in the US you don’t even have to be over the limit later, if you leave the scene it is the default assumption that you have refused a test and are over the limit.
Apologies if I’ve told the story on here before, I have a feeling I have, but a cousin of mine was run over and nearly killed on a zebra crossing on the Kings Road, an incident which left him in a coma for three months and the effects of which are still with him nearly twenty years on – cognitive difficulties, blind in one eye, mobility problems etc. The driver fled the scene, parked up at his house nearby then returned, telling the police he had panicked and was sorry. Breathalyzed, he was more than twice over the limit, he claimed he’d been so panicked that when he got home he’d knocked back several large scotches to cope with the shock. Unbelievably, because there was no proof that he was over the limit at the time, he got off with 6 points, £600 fine and a short (can’t recall exactly how long) ban for careless driving. My cousin did get a very substantial payout from the driver’s insurers, but the driver should have unquestionably have done time.
That’s terrible Rendel.
That’s terrible Rendel.
It’s also criminal that this loophole is still open to be abused 20 years later. Whether it’s a default assumption of intoxication, or a more severe penalty as @hawkinspeter suggests, something needs to be done.
HoarseMann wrote:
The problem there is that you can’t prove that they were over the limit at the time, so you have to presume innocence. I’d rather that leaving the scene carried a penalty more severe than being over the limit for drink and/or drugs so that it provides an incentive to stop and give help no matter how wasted you may be.
Disgraceful.
Disgraceful.
If you do actually think that you’ve hit a bollard, then take a minute to check that you haven’t left someone for dead. This is exactly the kind of person that needs to be permanently banned from driving.
Even if they had hit a
Even if they had hit a bollard, who wouldn’t immediatley pull over to check the car’s safe to drive?
Once again, this failure of
Once again, this failure of the legal system to deal with dangerous, callously indiffernt drivers will be addressed by the comprehensive review of road law; due any day.
Hit a bollard
Hit a bollard
https://twitter.com/WorldBollard/status/1533912387887284232
Drive uninsured, hit someone
Drive uninsured, hit someone who you think was a bollard (how bad is your eyesight if you think a cyclist is a bollard? Altenratively, they might just be a despicable coward, and the bollard thing was a lie), seriously injure them and leave them for dead.
AND BE BACK ON THE ROADS 12 MONTHS LATER?
Surely this is worth a serious revocation of license – 10 years, maybe?
It seems the problem here is
It seems the problem here is two-fold. There is currently no offence of causing
deathserious injury by careless driving so he couldn’t be charged for that. The CPS and courts (aided by the Police) have reduced the standards of driving so much that riding through and over a cyclist thinking it was only a bollard is seen only as careless.Don’t think the cyclist died
Don’t think the cyclist died but was ‘left for dead’
The major had captained Sandhurst and army rowing crews at Henley. He branded Jones a “despicable coward” for leaving him and going to a Premier Inn at Holyhead where police found the car.
“My life has changed beyond recognition,” the victim added. “I am lucky to be alive.”
Yep, mis-typed and now edited
Yep, mis-typed and now edited. The government is trying to add that sentencing into Law along with increasing causing Death by Dangerous Driving AND the weird misnomer of causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs. The latter is a perfect example of poor laws against drivers as in my eyes, that should be dangerous driving.
The CPS and courts (aided by
The CPS and courts (aided by the Police) have reduced the standards of driving so much that riding through and over a cyclist thinking it was only a bollard is seen only as careless
Now you see the results of the policy of the police writing out the ‘insufficient evidence- let’s get back to the station for do’nuts’ dodge before they’ve even left the station for the incident where you have just been seriously injured or killed.
Surprised about this one.
Surprised about this one.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-61870184
Sounds the sort of calibre lancs police would snap up !
As I understand it children
As I understand it children had figured out how to get a false +ve by using orange juice.
Ridiculous – he was convicted
Ridiculous – he was convicted of failing to stop (as well as much else) which carries a sentence of up to 6 months’ imprisonment
Sentencing guidelines here:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/fail-to-stopreport-road-accident-revised-2017/
CULPABILITY demonstrated by one or more of the following
Factors indicating higher culpability
Offence committed in circumstances where a request for a sample of breath, blood or urine would have been made had the offender stopped
Offence committed by offender seeking to avoid arrest for another offence
Offender knew or suspected that personal injury caused and/or left injured party at scene
Giving false details
CHECK
HARM demonstrated by one or more of the following
Factors indicating greater harm
Injury caused
Significant damage
CHECK
Category 1 Higher culpability and greater harm
CHECK
Level of seriousness
Category 1
Starting Point
High level community order
Range
Low level community order – 26 weeks’ custody
Disqualification/points
Disqualify 6 – 12 months OR 9 – 10 points (Extend if imposing immediate custody)
Where was the problem???
Alas as with so many things
Alas as with so many things “up to” some number clearly includes zero.
Sounds like some good work on his behalf by the lawyers. Hopefully they’ll be prosecuting next time.
Isn’t saying you thought you
Isn’t saying you thought you hit a bollard the same as saying you were driving where you shouldn’t?
Car Delenda Est wrote:
I’m curious. Why did he think it was a bollard?
Did he see what he took to be a bollard in his path and drive over it regardless? That seems improbable, drivers who see bollards generally don’t then drive over them.
Or, having run over [i]something [/i] did he then casually assume it must have been a bollard without checking (if he had checked he’d have known his mistake). Are drivers entitled to just assume something they hit must have been a bollard without evidence?
Or is it just an outright lie, suggested to him by his lawyer? Are lawyers allowed to coach their clients to lie in order to take advantage of known defences?
Bollard, Deer, Cardboard box,
Bollard, Deer, Cardboard box, Sack of Potatoes, fell off (“If everybody had stayed upright there wouldn’t have been any issue.”)
I’m curious as to why it’s
I’m curious as to why it’s considered a defence to have hit a bollard rather than someone on a bike. Surely if a driver cannot see the difference between a bollard and a person, then their eyesight is not sufficient to drive. Any “excuse” that involves not knowing what they’ve done should lead to a permanent driving ban.
If that is the location of
If that is the location of the incident in the photograph above, …bollards?…where?
DA: Their might have been
DA: Their might have been road works along some of the stretch so bollard = cone. Of course well-lit hi-viz wearing cyclist is very different in size and shape to a cone and the original Judge did seem to indicate his belief levels in that excuse.
Did he see what he took to be
Did he see what he took to be a bollard in his path and drive over it regardless? That seems improbable, drivers who see bollards generally don’t then drive over them
The defence of ‘I didn’t see…’ is accepted with alacrity by the police and courts when there’s a cyclist anywhere in the case. A child in the road is considerably smaller and less visible than a cyclist, but ‘I didn’t see him’ is not going to get you off as it does when it’s a cyclist.
wtjs wrote:
Actually it will.
(I was actually looking for the story of the van driver who reversed and killed a child on the pavement and got off but this seemed to take the recent top spots).
Good point, but (for interest
Good point, but (for interest) have you found any where the vehicle ran into a child when going forwards and got away with it by saying ‘I didn’t see him’
Yes! In these two shocking
Yes! In these two shocking cases:
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/lennon-tolands-mum-slams-police-13199023
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delivery-driver-who-mounted-pavement-12782437
What truly awful stories for
What truly awful stories for this time of the evening.
The poor families.
I feel for you that you can remember them so as to link to them.
When I first came across
When I first came across these stories, my daughter was about the same age as the little girl and it always concerned me how parents would just bump up onto the pavement on the school run while other small children were walking past. A regular offender was a pickup truck, possibly like the one that killed the little girl.
Capercaillie wrote:
Have we as a society now normalised driving on pavements?
How many more lives will be sacrificed to the gods of oil and industry?
I think we can imagine the
I think we can imagine the furore and media storm that would result if it were a delivery cyclist that killed a small child on a pavement.
I think you know the answer
I think you know the answer to the first. There must be an awful lot of cranes legally lifting cars on to and off the footway in my neck of the woods otherwise. Not forgetting “I have to squeeze through on the left”.
That second one was my
That second one was my memorable one and I was trying to link to that one. I thought it was a van and not a pickup which is why I couldn’t find it.
However as HP noted, they both show that driving blindly on to pedestrian paths is now considered normal driving as one wasn’t even prosecuted and the other was cleared by his “peers” in driving.
They were both horrible and I
They were both horrible and I don’t know what I would have done as a parent – probably something reckless out of pure grief and anger.
At least the comments in one of the articles had people saying driving on the pavement is a clear offence so how did they get off.
In the Liverpool Echo, yes
In the Liverpool Echo, yes the comments are sensible. I first read the story in MailOnline, however, and some people were blaming the mother for letting her daughter go on ahead on her scooter. Someone also said kids on scooters are a menace!
Failing to stop should
Failing to stop should attract an automatic and severe penalty – a lengthy ban (monitored, with jail for those breaking it) and possibly an automatic prison sentence based on a pre-set list of aggravating circumstances.
Surreyrider wrote:
Someone who can’t tell the difference between running over a cyclist and bollard (as well as choses to drive uninsured) should never be allowed to hold a driving licence. They have clearly demonstrated that they are not fit to be behind the wheel of a killing machine.
Surreyrider wrote:
I thought it did!
https://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/motoring-offences/driving-offences/fail-to-stop-and-fail-to-report-an-accident/#:~:text=Fail%20to%20Stop%20/%20Failure%20to%20Report%20Penalties
So I don’t understand the reason he got off the prison time, which seems to hinge on an argument about a different offence.
As earlier
As earlier
hirsute wrote:
The “up to” is not the issue here. The defence seems to have been that[b] instances of careless driving did not carry a prison term.[/b] Indeed so, but failing to stop does. Moreover, where there has been damage caused, the burden is on the accused if they want to play the “but I never even knew I hit anyone, honest”
liedefence.I know of cases where drivers
I know of cases where drivers have been put away for 20 weeks, so more than the initial sentence here, for failing to stop after a collision with a cyclist, and it wasnt a problem that they were convicted of careless driving either.
It absolutely is normally an automatic jail term if there is significant injuries, of which theres no question here. So theres either a bunch of stuff missing in how this case has been reported or theyve got this very wrong.
What the actual fucking fuck?
What the actual fucking fuck??
I’m trying to work it out…
You can kill up to three cyclists a year. Any more and you’ll lose the element of coincidence. Does that sound about right?
Cyclists – Remember
Cameras front and back for all ye road cyclist (with a brain). Let’s get cnuts like this into the chains they deserve. Or. Better..
Go you! All for it for those
Agree – legal systems seems flawed here. So go you! All for it for those prepared to pay and to the work for free. And fight the authorities (see NMOTD ad nauseam) to get something done with it.
But given what happened in this one I’m struggling to see what difference it would have made here? Say we got lucky and the camera shows the driver clearly hitting cyclist and it was recovered. I’m pretty sure they’re fairly positive this happened in this case anyway. Otherwise if doubt, likely no “careless” and likely no punishment at all. So unless the driver aimed / obviously swerved at him (instead of mindlessly driving over him / “brushing” him) what’s different?
BTW this one’s already stacked in the cyclist’s favour in the way of these things. The victim is clearly a “good egg” / not a “militant cyclist” (military cyclists are probably a positive) and the driver has previous and was committing other provable offenses at the time.
No conviction will fix the victim either. Can we start sorting it so this is much less likely to happen already?
Fignon's ghost wrote:
Yes, there is the technology and enforcement route. Though no national standards despite supposed law and guidance (HWC). So that outcome is uncertain and not much consolation for your loss and injury.
Avoidance is an other route. No loss or injury, just 1.5 metre of plastic pipe for about one pound at your local hardware store. Many hundreds saved on technology and due process.
Secure the pipe to your seat tube, perpendicular on the right side, and no driver will be unsure how to pass, like another vehicle, at least 1.5m away.
No, it’s not structural so doesn’t result in loss of control, as it’s only a plastic pipe, should there be contact. It looks odd, which is on purpose, to ensure attention and avoidance.
When people ask why, tell them and hope they tell people about the odd cyclist they met.
Who knows, the road users may understand that close passing is neither justified nor good for the national health…
In this case though, there
In this case though, there seems no question of the identity of the car/driver, so how would video have helped?
Awavey wrote:
If a rear camera could demonstrate that prior to the incident the driver was weaving around, acting aggressively or speeding maybe it would have been possible to upgrade the charge to dangerous driving, in which case there could have been no argument about the prison sentence.
Leaving the scene, failing to
Leaving the scene, failing to stop, report the crash etc alone in this case should have resulted in jail time, and it’s been done with no video and no independent witnesses previously.
I agree it should have, I’m
I agree it should have, I’m just saying with more evidence of poor driving available the CPS might not have been so unwilling to go for dangerous driving where there would have been no grounds to challenge the original jail sentence.
I don’t usually swear but I
I don’t usually swear but I got to this bit: “Jones admitted to careless driving, failing to stop after the incident, failing to report it, and driving an uninsured car.” and the words For “f***’s sake” spilled forth!
I think having to do appropriate unpaid work is a good thing however the bit that shocks me most is that he will get his licence back in 12 months. He should never have a licence again. Period.
My wife and I abandoned our car two years ago and cycle everywhere. All our 5 grown up children cycle for transport. I sometimes wonder how long it will be before one us is killed by these people.
This all illustrates, again,
This all illustrates, again, how difficult it is to get a “dangerous driving” conviction, so police forces tend to go for “careless driving” instead, a lesser offence with lower penalties. The whole area needs a proper review of the law.
We keep coming across these
We keep coming across these cases where a driver fails to stop after hitting a cyclist and then claims they were unaware it was a person they had hit, they thought it was a bag of rubbish/ sack of potatoes/ bollard/ whatever.
So I’m assuming this is a legal get-out. Simply drive on regardless and claim you didn’t know? Until they can download your memory there’s nothing to prove you’re lying. Presumably the law needs changing so that it rests on the provable facts rather than the (claimed) perceptions of the driver.
Edit: https://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/motoring-offences/driving-offences/fail-to-stop-and-fail-to-report-an-accident/#:~:text=the%20most%20common,that%20an%20accident%20had%20occurred.
The defence barrister states
The defence barrister states that the ‘serious health concerns’ of his client are to be taken into account while at the same time the Recorder states that the ‘gravity of O’Reilly’s injuries’ were incorrectly a factor in the sentence.
So the law is concerned with the wellbeing of the offender but not the victim.
This is the reality for
This is the reality for victims and the documentary that hawkinspeter linked to conveys that strongly.
I think this does particularly affect victims of certain kinds of offenses. Road deaths would seem to be one of these areas.
However – I’m not a lawyer but I believe this is a consequence of an underlying principle of our laws. Or at least it’s their “ideal” – the reality makes it bad for all parties (delays, mistakes etc.). Not just innocent until proven guilty but we’re rather err on the side of the accused. Let 10 guilty folks go free than convict one innocent. Indeed originally courts in the UK (and US) required you to say you’d accept their jurisdiction – by pleading guilty or innocent. (It wasn’t a great option to try to avoid trial by not pleading however).
If his health conditions were
If his health conditions were that serious, he shouldn’t be driving at all.