A hit-and-run driver who jumped a red light “at speed” in his Audi A4 — colliding with a schoolgirl cycling across the junction on her way home — before fleeing the scene and abandoning his car without helping the injured child, has avoided jail.
Layla Shepard was 10 at the time of the collision which happened at around 6.49pm on Saturday 16 October 2021 on the Wigan Road in Deane, Greater Manchester, and was left with a fractured cheekbone, a broken nose, as well as an injury to her leg that needed surgery.
The girl’s statement said the incident has left her “overwhelmed” and diagnosed with PTSD. She has not been able to ride her bike since the collision and “regularly” suffers flashbacks that “keep me up at night”.
At Bolton Crown Court, having pleaded guilty to causing serious injury by careless driving and failing to stop after an incident, Farhan Musaji was sentenced to a 12-month community order and must complete 200 hours of unpaid work, ordered to pay £900 compensation to his victim, a £400 fine and £300 in costs. The 26-year-old is also banned from driving for a year.
The offence of causing serious injury by careless driving was introduced in June 2022, in response to a government consultation on driving offences and penalties launched in 2016. At a crown court, as in this case, the conviction has a maximum penalty of two years in prison, while at a magistrates’ court the maximum sentence is one year.
A witness account was heard in court, Mr Downey explaining how he had emerged from a chip shop on the parade of shops next to where the hit-and-run occurred, when the 10-year-old “flew in the air before landing a short distance down the road”.
Anna Bond, prosecuting, said: “She arrived at the puffin crossing and started the ride over to the other side of junction.
“Mr Downey had just emerged from a chip shop nearby and went to the traffic lights on the other side of the crossing. He saw the defendant’s car come through the red lights at speed and hit Layla off her bike.
“Layla hit the windscreen of the car and flew in the air before landing a short distance down the road going towards Wigan town centre. Instead of stopping, the defendant drove on and abandoned the car a short time after. The police later discovered there was no registration plate on the car.
“As a result of the collision, Layla was left with significant swelling and a fracture to her knee, which required a brace. She was later discharged from hospital on October 22.
“Greater Manchester Police received a radio transmission about the collision and attended the defendant’s address. The defendant rang his father to tell him about the collision and he then confirmed this to the officers when they arrived. However, the defendant was not present at the address at that time.
“On October 17, the defendant and his father attended Bolton police station for interview. He later returned on October 20 with his solicitor.”
“Absolutely disgraceful”
The judge, Elliot Knopf, said Musaji had “ran off” rather than “turning back and seeking to provide assistance and comfort to the girl with whom you had collided and who had been injured significantly by your actions”.
Calling his actions “absolutely disgraceful”, the judge then accepted that the defendant feels “genuine remorse” and is a “hard-working young man” and people “speak highly of your ability and honesty”, sparing him jail.
Musaji had one previous caution for cannabis possession in 2022 and in his defence Peter Malone said he could “not stress this enough” how much remorse his client feels “and his regret for coming before you today”.
“This whole case is unfortunate, and he realises he is wholly to blame for it,” Malone said. “He just did not see that individual when he was driving. What happened next was sheer panic, and he did drive off and went home to his father where they both contacted the police.
“There has been no repetition of this kind of behaviour since, he has kept out of trouble. He has not driven since the incident and now relies on public transport to get to the pharmacy where he works. He is a pharmacy technician, meaning he assists the lead pharmacist to gather medication and discusses medication with customers.
“Since he was 16 he has been working his way up with this pharmacy in Bolton. He sends his sincerest apology to Layla and her family and hopes she can forgive him.”
Musaji had been charged with causing injury by dangerous driving but the charge was changed to careless driving. He faced up to two years in prison, but was spared a custodial sentence.
53 thoughts on “Hit-and-run driver ran red light “at speed” and hit 10-year-old cyclist, avoids jail”
Next time someone says that
Next time someone says that cyclists can run red lights with impunity, I’ll point them in the direction of this case.
A one year revocation of the license is an abomination int hsi case
“Absolutely disgraceful”
“Absolutely disgraceful”
That’s right Judge Elliott Knopf, the only thing more disgraceful is the slap on the wrist you gave this dangerous driver and the £900 you spat in the face of the injured child.
Car Delenda Est wrote:
That judge should be held jointly responsible for any subsequent injuries caused by that coward.
A one year ban is not long
A one year ban is not long enough for this kind of behaviour.
Someone who thinks that hitting a 10 year old child (or anyone) and driving off then removing his car reg plate is going to stop him being identified is not the brightest spark. I hope he isn’t given too much responsibility in his career as his judgement is particularly ropey.
Quote:
Not only responsibility, but he could be handing medication to his victim, that she requires to help her work through the pain he caused her.
For determining criminal
For determining criminal guilt the legal system judges each case in isolation. I think that’s a fair principle. However once we come to sentencing we should be looking at any previous. This chap has previous for a drugs offense. I don’t know if any testing was done following the collision? It’s also possible that there were things in the car which he didn’t want the police to find.
The law shouldn’t speculate but let’s be honest – “otherwise law abiding” and “first time this has happened” just mean “first time they were caught”. With egregious behaviour like this there have almost certainly been previous incidents which by chance just didn’t have catastrophic outcomes or did not come to court.
As regards his job: person has a responsible position providing health care to the public. Person also displays no regard for the wellbeing of members of the public outside his job. You might see a contradiction here.
I’d prescribe a bike and more than a year off driving.
There seem to be massive
There seem to be massive probity issues here which I’m sure his professional regulator will have Views on.
“This whole case is
“This whole case is unfortunate”
Understatement of the year.
To be fair, the punishment
To be fair, the punishment does feel fairly appropriate for the initial crime… running a red light at speed and hitting a child.
What surprises me, is that there seems to be no attempt to hold the defendant accountable for the ‘hit and run’ element of the incident, not the attempts to ‘pervert the course of justice’ by abandoning the car after removing its identification plates.
These actions paint a different picture to that of the hard working honest man the judge sided with. You have to be grateful to the defendants father for talking sense into the boy so at least a degree of justice could be served.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
I agree although I think the punishment would still be generous if he had stopped as speeding through a red light should count as dangerous driving (not that juries may agree though). For not stopping and attempting to pervert justice, he’s demonstrated what kind of person he is and I don’t want people like that to be driving – revoke his license permanently would be far more appropriate before he ends up killing someone.
A disgraceful and shameful
A disgraceful and shameful sentence.
In any area of society, if a grown man had left a ten year old child breaten and broken like this he would be jailed (and probably beaten in jail). Because this twat was driving a car he gets let off with having to pick up litter for 200 hours and a pathetic fine. The 12 month driving ban is utterly innapropriate, this man has shown he does not deserve to hold a driving licence by running the red light, hitting a child and then even though she bounced off his windowscreen he left the scene. Driving should be a privilege in this country and NOT a right.
Even IF we don’t want to send people to jail (because they are critically full) then there are other ways to punish criminals, such as much harsher financial penalties, revoking of driving licence for far longer, forever or create an insurance category which prices these idiots off the roads.
Couldn’t agree more with your
Couldn’t agree more with your comments. The education of the judge, life experience and ability to fulfil their pretty obvious role should be called into question – the legal system that favours motorists is not fit for purpose in a society where all members of the public need protection.
+Auction the vehicle to give
+Auction the vehicle to give extra compensation to the victims
I’m struggling to see the
I’m struggling to see the justification now (if there ever was one) for having separate categories of offence for injuries/deaths caused using a car. If you kill someone with a knife or a gun or an anvil perched on a clifftop, it’s murder or manslaughter depending on (to simplify) intent: I don’t see the logic of differentiating the offences because the killer happened to be driving.
Differences in circumstance can be picked up through sentencing guidelines, giving judges more leeway (and a greater chance of appealing unduly lenient sentences when Mr Justice Toad was presiding). If the criminal here had been practising his golf swing when he failed to see a child and then legged it, he’d have been done for GBH and would be in prison now.
Quote:
This would be a pretty shoddy thing to say even if Ms Bond was the defence brief searching for mitigation, why on earth does a prosecutor feel the need to say that when it is totally irrelevant, given that the child was on a crossing? Would she have mentioned lights and high viz if the driver had mounted the pavement and hit her? It’s pretty much equivalent, when the lights are in a pedestrian’s favour the crossing becomes effectively an extension of the pavement. Really bewildered as to why the prosecutor would mention this.
The presence of a bicycle of
The presence of a bicycle of any kind is totally irelevent to the situation. In all intents and purposes, the child was a pedestrian using a recognised crossing point.
There was a big red light
There was a big red light which he didn’t heed. Why would twinkly lights on the bike have made any difference?
The major problem with judges
The major problem with judges behaving like this is that actually creates an incentive for drivers to leave the scene if they’re intoxicated or have incriminating material in their vehicle. The way to shut down the loophole is to not give scene leavers the benefit of the doubt and instead assume that they were intoxicated as they didn’t take the opportunity to demonstrate that they weren’t by engaging with the police at the time. Thus the penalty for leaving the scene should be greater than the maximum penalty for DUI – it’d be better for everyone if drunk drivers at least tried to phone for help for their victims and the police don’t have to waste time chasing them down.
Absolutely, in many states in
Absolutely, in many states in the US and also in Canada any driver leaving the scene of an incident is automatically assumed to have been DUI and punished for that on top of the punishment for leaving the scene and any punishment for responsibility in the incident.
I’ve told the story before on here but a cousin of mine was knocked down by a speeding driver on a zebra on the Kings Road twenty-odd years ago, the driver left the scene and returned ten minutes later having parked his car at his house round the corner, telling the police he was very sorry, he had panicked. He failed the breathalyser but explained that he had had several swigs of whisky when he had got home to calm his nerves and, unbelievably, he didn’t even have to defend that in court, he was only charged with careless driving for which he got a few hundred pounds in fines and costs and six points on his licence. My cousin very nearly died, was in a coma for more than three months, and is still suffering severe physical consequences.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I don’t think the punishment for leaving the scene of a collision should be high on the basis of assuming intoxication (sounds a lot like “guilty until proven innocent” to me) but rather because leaving the scene of a collision is such an abhorrent thing to do.
Regardless of whether you cause a collision or not (and whether due to your own ignorance, danger or intoxication or not), fleeing the scene of an accident and not checking that a fellow human being is alive or dead should be treated as demonstration of refusal to be a citizen of a civilised society.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Presumably you agree with the law that says that refusing to submit to a drug or alcohol test is treated in the same way as if you failed said test? Someone leaving the scene of an incident is, de facto, refusing to be tested and so should face the consequences of that.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Presumably you agree with the law that says that refusing to submit to a drug or alcohol test is treated in the same way as if you failed said test? Someone leaving the scene of an incident is, de facto, refusing to be tested and so should face the consequences of that.— ShutTheFrontDawes
Why on earth would you ‘presume’ that based on what I said above?
In any case, it isn’t treated the same. Failing to provide a sample is a different offence.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
The penalties for failure to provide are absolutely identical to those for drink driving: mandatory minimum 12 month ban (up to 60 months possible), fine of up to £5000 and/or maximum six months’ jail.
Rendel Harris wrote:
The penalties for failure to provide are absolutely identical to those for drink driving: mandatory minimum 12 month ban (up to 60 months possible), fine of up to £5000 and/or maximum six months’ jail. — ShutTheFrontDawes
They are not only different offences but they have different sentencing guidelines. You are not prosecuted for failure to provide a sample because you are guilty of drink driving. They are different offences.
Admit when you are wrong.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
They are not only different offences but they have different sentencing guidelines. You are not prosecuted for failure to provide a sample because you are guilty of drink driving. They are different offences.
No only that but the £5000 limit has not been in place for the last 8 years. Do keep up Rendel.
Admit when you are wrong.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Suggest you’d better tell the Sentencing Council that then, as their guidelines for drink driving:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/unfit-through-drink-or-drugs-drive-attempt-to-drive-revised-2017/
are identical to those for failure to provide:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/fail-to-provide-specimen-for-analysis-driveattempt-to-drive-revised-2017/
Just to make it really easy for you, here are the respective tables for sentencing from those pages. Do tell me where you can spot the differences.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Suggest you’d better tell the Sentencing Council that then, as their guidelines for drink driving:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/unfit-through-drink-or-drugs-drive-attempt-to-drive-revised-2017/
are identical to those for failure to provide:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/fail-to-provide-specimen-for-analysis-driveattempt-to-drive-revised-2017/
Just to make it really easy for you, here are the respective tables for sentencing from those pages. Do tell me where you can spot the differences.— ShutTheFrontDawes
So you’ve correctly determined that there are separate guidelines for the different offences. Good boy. That’s because they’re different offences. You’re getting there. We’re getting closer to the apology, I can feel it.
However, the sentencing guidelines are not the same.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/excess-alcohol-driveattempt-to-drive-revised-2017/
Note that providing a specimen determines a section 5 offence, not a section 4 offence. Your reference to section 4 guidelines is irrelevant.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Agree. However this would then need a careful – and ongoing – balancing of the punishments in each case. Otherwise you lessen but don’t remove the “perverse incentive”.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Yes – not so much assuming that they are intoxicated, but the punishment needs to be set higher than being intoxicated to avoid creating an incentive for them to scarper. Currently, if you’re intoxicated and drive into someone, then you’ll stand to have a smaller punishment if you run away as you can then claim that you had a few drinks to steady your nerves afterwards, but were sober at the time.
You could have something like
You could have something like a ‘failed to demonstrate fitness to drive at time of incident’ which could cover a whole range of potential sins. Implemented as a multiplyer on any sentence handed down.
This would cover the whole ‘I went home and had a few whiskies to calm my nerves’ angle.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Yes – not so much assuming that they are intoxicated, but the punishment needs to be set higher than being intoxicated to avoid creating an incentive for them to scarper. Currently, if you’re intoxicated and drive into someone, then you’ll stand to have a smaller punishment if you run away as you can then claim that you had a few drinks to steady your nerves afterwards, but were sober at the time.— ShutTheFrontDawes
The question is: which one sounds worse, from a societal point of view?
A) I hit someone while driving and drove off.
B) I hit someone while driving while intoxicated.
I think that B is far worse than A, and unfortunately you can’t prove that someone in scenario A was also intoxicated (love that “I thought I’d killed someone so had a few stiff drinks as soon as I’d got home to calm my nerves” excuse – yeah right).
For me, the biggest issue is that both offences carry laughable sentences.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
With a great deal of effort – or at least taking a lot of time – some cultural change has been achieved around drink driving. It’s now generally seen as an unacceptable thing.
Notice all the caveats there though. Also having a joint and driving doesn’t seem to trouble people so much – albeit likely fewer people are getting stoned than drunk.
I’d agree that B) is less socially acceptable. Indeed apparently one of a very few things generally considered “unacceptable” when driving.
In court A) also often requires you to show the driver knew they had hit a person. Drinking is not necessarily simple to show but you can at least have definitive evidence. Showing knowledge of hitting someone is apparently harder. Witness “I don’t know what happened” in a Fife case leading to “Not proven” (admittedly not the same as “not guilty”), or juries accepting it was reasonable for a driver to believe they might just have hit bags of potatoes falling from the sky. “Thought I hit a deer” comes up also – doesn’t always get you off though.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
I find option A worse than option B as intoxication covers a wide range of different conditions and associated loss of ability. There’s also conditions that are very similar to intoxication such as sleep deprivation or general tiredness that can affect almost any driver unless they are particularly strict with themselves (or like napping a lot). Personally, I find that people’s attitudes when driving are a good indicator of how “good” a driver they are. I would rather travel alongside relaxed, slightly intoxicated drivers than angry, sober drivers.
I wouldn’t mind the laughable sentences so much if all the police forces treated traffic crime more seriously and the chances of detection/prosecution were enhanced. We currently have slack sentences and very little chance of catching the drivers too.
I’d suggest fleeing the scene
I’d suggest fleeing the scene should be automatic GBH, manslaughter or similar, according to the state of the victim.
Edit: More or less the second paragraph of Shut the Front Dawes’ reply below.
2nd Edit: We could do with an offence of “Failing to render assistance” or similar, to be applicable whether it’s hit and run or, say, if scaffolders ignore someone on whose head they’ve (accidentally) dropped a scaff clamp. In other words it’s a criminal action which applies on the roads, not a “road traffic offence”.
I would go further, leaving
I would go further, leaving the scene with no knowledge of the injuries (are they alive or dead) caused or attempts to get suitable help should be sentenced as a “death by …” charge as they could just as easily been dead for all the driver cares
EK Spinner wrote:
Indeed. There have been cases where it was suggested that the victim of a fatal driving incident would have survived if the driver had called emergency services.
on a minor note, why is
on a minor note, why is someone with a cannabis conviction able to work in a pharmacy.
I know very few younger
I know very few younger people who have not at their own admission used illegal drugs at sometime in their youth, but for the inconsistencies of drug law enforcement, our country would have hospitals without medical and nursing staff, law courts without lawyers and severely depleted Houses of Parliament if such a rule was adopted!
Robert Hardy wrote:
sounds good to me!
Robert Hardy wrote:
If you are a registered healthcare professional, you’d likely be struck off the register for a drug related conviction.
schneil wrote:
I doubt it, the Nursing and Midwifery Council states with regard to convictions:
That doesn’t sound as though somebody cautioned for having a spliff in the back garden is going to be struck off. In the list of “serious offences” which will automatically trigger disciplinary procedures it says “serious drug offences” which would seem to imply trafficking or selling, not possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal use. A quick Google for relevant cases only turns up doctors and nurses struck off for drug offences if they were convicted of supplying illegal drugs to their patients or using illegal drugs at work; there are quite a few examples of doctors only being given warnings or short suspensions after being convicted of drug possession in private life.
schneil wrote:
Not necessarily, there are many people working in the harm reduction and addiction field that are former consumers of drugs, and have convictions.
EK Spinner wrote:
Sounds like relevant experience to me, though probably more so if he was caught dealing – handling of money and precise weighing of goods is exactly the kind of skills you’d want for a pharmacy assistant.
I presume the police could
I presume the police could not prove that he was responsible for removing the plates from the car otherwise surely this was in attempting to pervert the course of justice territory. Still a pathetic judicial response to what should be treated as a serious crime against the person and greater society. The child will carry a lifelong burdon, so should the scrote responsible.
Well, as long as you appear
Well, as long as you appear to be sorry and people say nice things about you, punishment s a consequence of your actions obviously doesn’t apply.
Leaving the scene, abandoning
Leaving the scene, abandoning the car and removing the plates provides an insight into a mindset intent on avoiding consequences- in stark contrast to what seems like a coached performance in court.
You just need to look at a
You just need to look at a nearly identical situation involving a cyclist and a pedestrian. Such as the case of Philip Douglas Benwell in December 2013.
Ran a red light on his bike at speed, collided with 9 year old pedestrian, leaving them with serious injuries, they fled the scene.
It will come as no shock to anyone that the cyclist was jailed. IMHO it was a paltry 12 months jail term…. but they found themselves in jail.
That’s an important find that
That’s an important find that illustrates the gulf between different road users.
This case highlights a whole
This case highlights a whole load of problems with the judicial system and driving in this country.
The sentence “He just did not see that individual when he was driving” is just unacceptable. That should be a lifetime ban. It’s a terrible excuse at any time, but to offer it up in court when you’ve gone through a red light and nearly killed a child?!
How many of us whilst riding have had to deal with “SMIDSY”?
If you can’t be bothered to even look, you aren’t safe enough to be let out of your house, never mind in charge of a vehicle.
And don’t get me started on lenient sentences, the likelihood he will pay any attention to the ban, why it wasn’t dangerous driving.
If you want to kill someone, get in your car.
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
Exactly – admitting that is an admission of guilt, not a mitigating circumstance, IMO.
They seem to have completely
They seem to have completely ignored the red light too..l
Yet another case where the
Yet another case where the law seems to be an ass. Still, the comprehensive review of road laws will be out any day now, so that will sort things out good and proper.
He should have been jailed on
He should have been jailed on the basis of leaving the scene. Making it always a jail sentence even if it is later proven to be an accident might deter drivers and reduce the number of hit and runs.