A drug driver who killed a cyclist before fleeing the scene and setting fire to his car in a bid to destroy evidence has been jailed for 14 years.
Jonathan Knight was sentenced to 11 years for driving offences and three years for perverting the course of justice. He was found guilty of causing death by driving without due care/consideration when under the influence of drugs, causing death by driving while unlicenced, causing death by driving while uninsured, driving a motor vehicle dangerously and perverting the course of justice.

The charges were in relation to the death of cyclist Anthony Smith who was hit and killed as he used a dedicated cycle crossing on a dual carriageway in Loughborough shortly after 8pm on Friday 7 June 2023.
Knight, who did not have a driving licence or insurance and was deemed to be six times the legal drug driving limit for cocaine, was driving at 47mph on the 40mph route when he hit Mr Smith.
The Leicester Mercury was in court to hear the judge’s sentencing remarks, Judge Timothy Spencer KC telling Leicester Crown Court: “Such was the force of collision that he [Mr Smith], having initially been carried on your bonnet, was projected airborne, before landing at the side of the road — in all probability already dead from the head injury he sustained from the impact.”
East Midlands Ambulance Service and an air ambulance attended but the cyclist died at the scene.
Following the collision, Knight did not stop or help his 47-year-old victim, instead fleeing the scene and continuing to drive his badly damaged Audi S3 through Loughborough. His windscreen was so badly damaged that Knight put his head out the driver’s side window to see where he was going.
“You showed no compassion — desperate to get away — driving off at speed. And have continued to do all you can to shirk responsibility since,” the judge continued. “You drove to your mother’s. The shameless behaviour continued. You drove the car to an alleyway and took with you something to ignite a fire. You set fire to it. I’m quite sure you intended to completely destroy it — wipe the traces.”
Knight was arrested at 4am the next morning, the judge saying he had seen the police’s body-cam footage and the drug driver was “shaking, refusing to get up off the sofa, self-pitying, selfish — displaying all the attributes of the coward you are described as”.
“When questioned you lied, claiming a mental health episode and deficient memory. I am quite satisfied you knew perfectly well what you had done and were perfectly able to remember it. Your attitude of refusing to face up to the reality of what you did continued with ‘no comment’ interviews.”
A key part of the investigation involved forensic examination of broken glass. Mr Smith’s jacket was recovered and found to have ten fragments of glass on its surface. On arrest, Knight’s sweatshirt was seized and was also found to have 50 glass fragments.
Following forensic examination of all the samples recovered, it was the scientific opinion that Anthony had been struck and had been in recent contact with the breaking and or/broken glass from the windscreen of the damaged Audi and that Knight had also and had been in recent contact with the breaking and or/broken glass from the windscreen of the same damaged Audi.
The investigation also managed to place Knight through his mobile phone in the vicinity of the collision scene at the time it occurred.
An expert toxicologist, with 47 years’ experience, suggested Knight would have been six times over the legal limit for cocaine.
“You should never have been behind the wheel because of the cocaine you had taken. Nor should you have been behind the wheel because you were uninsured,” Judge Spencer concluded, jailing Knight for 14 years and banning him from driving for 13 years and eight months.
“Nor should you have been behind the wheel because you had no licence. You approached the crossing along a straight road. You should have seen Mr Smith on his cycle. You did not because you were impaired by the drugs. For no good reason, you were in the outside lane of the dual carriageway.
“You began braking – too late – when you were too close to the crossing. Your speed was 47mph – the speed limit was 40 mph, so you were speeding. You struck his rear wheel. Had you been driving in the nearside lane, he may have made it across in front of you.”
The judge noted Knight had “no difficulty in brazening out your defence” during the trial and suggested his remorse, expressed on the morning of sentencing “has a very hollow ring coming so late”.
The judge also said he was “satisfied on the evidence there was a female in the front passenger seat” at the time of the collision but “it’s not possible to know who”.
“You were or have been in relationships with at least three women. Whoever she was – and you know who she was and she knows who she was – she bears heavy moral responsibility for your failure to stop or report the collision.”
Leicestershire Police confirmed a 40-year-old man and a 31-year-old woman who were previously arrested on suspicion of assisting an offender and perverting the course of justice were released with no further action.
Detective Constable Paul Hicks, who was the investigating officer, said: “We had no witness to the actual collision which from the start made the case more challenging and gave it an added level of complexity.
“However, through some detailed detective work and excellent forensic evidence, we were able to place Knight as the driver of the vehicle, which hit and sadly killed Tony. Given the clear attempts to destroy any possible evidence by abandoning and setting the car alight, Knight was additionally charged with perverting the course of justice, another offence which strengthened the overwhelming case against him.”

























31 thoughts on “Hit-and-run driver jailed for 14 years for killing cyclist before torching car to destroy evidence”
“would have been six times
“would have been six times over the legal limit for cocaine”
There’s a non zero legal limit for a class A drug? Blimey.
Otherwise, he got off lightly. Again, no lifetime ban from driving!
That legal limit for drugs
That legal limit for drugs always amazes me, especially when folk talk about zero limits for alcohol on work sites etc
The linen paper money was so
The linen paper money was so contaminated with cocaine that if you were touching it, you were absorbing it. Minute quantities mind. Don’t know if the plastic folding is as bad.
And poppy seed bagel anyone?
ktache wrote:
… leaves forensically detectable traces of avocado? (Smoked salmon for me, when I can get it…)
Should be a lightly toasted
Should be a lightly toasted onion bagel with smoked salmon and avocado, lightly dressed with pepper and lemon juice
StevenCrook wrote:
It is a “zero tolerance” limit which effectively says that if you take any cocaine and drive whilst still under the influence you’ve broken the law. The average line of coke is apparently 32 mg and that will produce a blood concentration of up to 80 micrograms, eight times the legal limit. The limits for all drugs aren’t set at absolute zero in order to make sure that people who have suffered accidental contamination, e.g. passively inhaling someone else’s cannabis smoke, or those who took drugs long enough ago that they couldn’t be impairing their driving, e.g. you can still test positive for trace amounts of cocaine in the blood up to 48 hours after taking, aren’t unfairly charged.
Which is an interesting one..
Which is an interesting one… my girlfriend doesn’t actually drive, but she has a medical cannabis prescription. Which is allowed under the RTA 1988, there’s a defence to the specified limit of a controlled substance if it’s prescribed, and you follow doctors’ orders vis-a-vis driving.
Of course, driving impaired would remain an offence (just as cyclists aren’t subject to a prescribed alcohol limit, but if you’re actually drunk it’s still an offence).
Whereas my experience with Cannabis is a couple off occassions where I’ve been exposed to 2nd hand smoke billowing out of cars, and actually felt affected by that (probably just me, but the first time I didn’t even know what I was smelling, so unlikely psychosomatic).
As has come up in a previous
As has come up in a previous discussion there does seem to be a failure of joining dots given that a) the amounts prescribed medically seem either vague (“ad lib”) and/or extremely variable and b) measurement of driving impairment may not correlate well with e.g. concentrations in body, the limits set in law (if any) or people’s opinions of their fitness to drive. IIRC there is has been some research done suggesting that – contrary to popular opinion – there can be some significant impacts on driving ability even at “moderate” doses (whatever those are…).
That’s not to say this is limited to cannabis and doesn’t affect other legitimate medications also.
The verdict seems to be (e.g here) that they’d have to be smoking something with chemical-weapons levels of potency before you’d be affected by a brief exposure to 2nd hand smoke. Or you’d need to be sat in the car with them for a while as they really went for it. The former (perhaps synthetic cannibinoids?) would possibly render them unable to drive or indeed coordinate body movements.
Solocle wrote:
You definitely can get an effect from secondhand smoke, especially if the smoker has chosen a strong variety such as skunk. Having occasionally smoked it myself, although having given up about three decades ago, I do sometimes recognise the beginnings of intoxication when I’m in an environment where lots is being smoked (living in South London there’s quite a lot of it about).
Indeed? But are you sure it
Indeed? But are you sure it’s not the “contact high” effect?
OTOH I’ve no idea what is being smoked out there now. Certainly sometimes when cycling past people I think “Chip pan fire? Compost heap gone wrong?” for a second before I clock that it was probably from a joint. Perhaps they’re making the equivalent of superpowered “soap bar” these days…?
chrisonabike wrote:
Fairly sure, walking through certain outdoor events in South London is not dissimilar to walking through a forest fire except it’s not pine trees burning…
Apparently, according to the Internet, cannabis flavours now fall into three main categories, earthy and herbaceous, woody and nutty and floral and fruity. Spoiled, these youngsters are: in my day you just took whatever the gentlemen in the Soho jazz clubs had to offer and hoped you hadn’t just been sold an oxo cube or the contents of a split open herbal teabag.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Stone the crows! We’ll be seeing a new range of “(Pass the) Dutchy originals” at Waitrose next!
All the various “death by
All the various “death by driving offences” should be the “privelidge” of a legitimate licensed driver. For someone who is not permitted to drive they should be wrapped up together and summarised as “manslaughter”.
Indeed. And I’m guessing
Indeed. And I’m guessing this chap has been driving without bothering with licence or insurance for more than a day or so.
So who knows how much “previous” (potentially including other collisions, crashes, close passes etc.)? It also points to how likely it is that he’ll get busted for ignoring any driving ban.
On that – one would hope that “being known to the police” and perhaps “people prepared to inform the police” would help. OTOH the people he seems to have driven have turned bashful. Of course seeing as he appears to be such a nice chap they may have good reason.
This is as bad as it gets, a
This is as bad as it gets, a case brimming with aggravating factors. You would expect, surely, a term very close to the maximum – which prior to 2022 was 14 years. Yet now, with the possibility of a life term, the dangerous driving component of the sentence is not even close to the previous maximum. 🤔
Judges will be able to hand down life sentences to dangerous drivers who kill and careless drivers who kill while under the influence of drink or drugs.
The current penalty for each crime is a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.
“Those responsible will now face the possibility of life behind bars,” Justice Secretary Dominic Raab said. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61940351
Unfortunately, the maximum
Unfortunately, the maximum sentence for the crime he has been convicted is not Life as he was no convicted of “Dangerous” driving but instead he was convicted of “causing death by driving without due care/consideration when under the influence of drugs, causing death by driving while unlicenced, causing death by driving while uninsured and driving a motor vehicle dangerously”, none of which actually attract the life sentence. In fairness, considering the lengths he went to in order to avoid responsibility and the work the Police did to get this conviction, I think it is a good outcome overall. Still not good enough mind, but better than many have been lately.
Since 2022 the maximum
Since 2022 the maximum sentence for causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs is life imprisonment. The court has obviously decided that the driving didn’t fall into Culpability A (“just below the threshold for dangerous driving”) but the option of a life sentence for the offence was definitely there.
Causing death by careless
Causing death by careless/inconsiderate whilst under the influence does carry the life term.
You are right it’s a longer sentence than some have received in the past, but it does still fall quite a bit short of what you might expect given the circumstances.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/schedule/2/part/I
That will only apply to
That will only apply to offences after the change – and this offence was committed in 2023, so I would imagine still subject to the 14 year maximum.
You are correct that it only
You are correct that it only applies to offences carried out after the change, but (as has been stated repeatedly in this thread), the new sentencing came into force in 2022, so the offence was committed after the change, and therefore was subject to the revised sentences, including the possibility of imprisonment for life.
Velo-drone wrote:
The law was changed to apply to offences committed after June 28th, 2022, so a life sentence could have been given for this 2023 offence.
HoarseMann wrote:
Judges will be able to hand down life sentences to dangerous drivers who kill and careless drivers who kill while under the influence of drink or drugs.
The current penalty for each crime is a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.
“Those responsible will now face the possibility of life behind bars,” Justice Secretary Dominic Raab said. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61940351
— HoarseMannBut they want to make it life if you’re riding a bicycle.
The CPS need a dam good slap,
The CPS need a dam good slap, they for yrs have enjoyed the fence ride, well it’s time they come down on the side of people respect, due diligence, just reward but most of all karmic justice, if your a crazed killer in this land – TO GET AWAY with murder – use a car !
…and yet the CPS secured
…and yet the CPS secured this defendant’s conviction without the aid of a slap from you; strange but true.
As I usually advocate in
As I usually advocate in these extreme cases, the criminal should have their libido and taste buds removed.
Only with the threat of a serious outcome and change to their lives, not unduly lenient sentences such as this, might others think twice about their own behaviour.
It’s good to see a lengthy
It’s good to see a lengthy sentence handed down to this miscreant. It’s scary that we share the roads with this type of scum.
A fully deserved jail term.
A fully deserved jail term.
However, I would suggest a further punishment.
If Knight is caught driving at any time during his ban, the car (assuming it belongs to him, a relative or colleague and isn’t stolen) should be seized and sold, with the proceeds being donated to charity. Driving bans are meaningless to people like Knight.
I have said several times on
I have said several times on here, driving while disquaified should be a bit like a suspended sentence and incur automatic jail time, for the duration of the original ban (not just whats left)
But only if cyclists paid
But only if cyclists paid road tax and had number plates on their bikes
It’s good to see that the
It’s good to see that the courts are taking this kind of offence seriously.
Luckily the new legislation
Luckily the new legislation to allow life sentences for dangerous cyclists will solve this, of course.