A judge has told an unlicensed and uninsured driver who seriously injured a cyclist than fled the scene that he had escaped jail “by the skin of your teeth.” In response to the case, the national cycling charity Cycling UK has repeated its call on the government to make good on its pledge to reform sentencing in road traffic cases.
The male cyclist sustained life-changing injuries when he was hit by a car driven by 23-year-old Brandon Tate in Washington, Tyne & Wear on 16 June last year, reports the Sunderland Echo.
The motorist, from South Shields, failed to stop but reportedly returned to the scene on foot shortly afterwards to ask how the victim was faring, but failed to call the emergency services, South Tyneside Magistrates’ Court heard.
He then left again, and sent his step-sister and her two children, all of whom had been passengers in the borrowed Peugeot car at the time of the crash, back to the scene.
The step-sister, who was described as “distraught,” took 15 minutes to call 999, with the court told that she possibly delayed through not wishing to implicate Tate.
The cyclist sustained injuries to his foot and leg, including a damaged artery, and was in hospital for 12 days afterwards.
Grace Taylor, prosecuting, said: “He decided to hold back and not take the bend. The Peugeot came around the bend on the wrong side of the road and collided with him.
“The first contact was the front bumper, which hit his knee, and the wheel hit his foot.
“He was ejected from the bike, and came to rest on the other side of the road. The Peugeot was nowhere to be seen.
“He was crawling along and he saw the defendant walking, and he asked if he was alright. [The victim] said that he needed an ambulance.
“He said he then heard the sound of car wheels screeching. He then saw a woman and two children.”
Tate, who had no prior convictions, admitted failing to stop after an accident, driving without insurance and driving without a licence.
District Judge Kathryn Meek sentenced him to an 18-month community order and ordered him to undertake 250 hours of unpaid work.
She told him: “You leave for your own reasons, your own cowardly reasons. There’s so many things that you have done wrong here, and I don’t mean bad decisions, criminally wrong. It must have been clear to you there were significant injuries.
“You panicked and you panicked because you knew you shouldn’t have been driving the car, you knew you shouldn’t have been in the car.
“You went off, leaving the injured person and two young children and your step-sister at the scene, having to deal with it.
“Your step-sister was, presumably, torn about how to deal with the situation,” she added. “You are so lucky this wasn’t worse.”
Tate was also banned from driving for 18 months, and was ordered to pay costs of £85 and a £95 victim surcharge.
Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at the charity Cycling UK, told road.cc: “It’s nearly seven years since the [fthen] Secretary of State for Justice Chris Grayling promised a full review of road traffic offences and penalties, but there’s been scant action to progress this since.
“Tougher penalties for ‘hit and run’ drivers who leave the scene of a collision where they knew, or ought to have known, that the collision was likely to have resulted in serious or fatal injury, should have been looked at within this review, and is something Cycling UK has repeatedly called for.
“The maximum penalty for that offence is six months custody, which is perfectly adequate in most cases, but where a victim is left in need of urgent medical attention yet the driver flees without calling for assistance, delaying the provision of a breath test, the courts should have greater sentencing powers.
“There has to be consequences for running away rather than remaining at the scene, calling for help, providing a breath test and co-operating, otherwise there’s almost a perverse incentive to leave.
“The government can take the first step to fixing this and other anomalies with our road traffic laws by doing what it promised in 2014 and reviewing traffic offences and penalties.
“Over 12,000 people have died on our roads since they made that commitment, and further delay is simply disrespectful to the victims of road crashes and their families,” he added.




-1024x680.jpg)


















64 thoughts on “Hit-and-run uninsured and unlicensed driver who seriously injured cyclist avoids jail”
Good gawdm not even a
Good gawdm not even a suspended sentence to ensure he gets locked up next time he gets caught. He has already proven that he doesn’t believe rules of law (you need a licence and insurance) or society (The victim is injured and the pair of them take over 15 mins before calling an ambulance) apply to him. The quicker selfish scum like this are made to understand that they cannot opt out of society then the better the world will be for all
18th month driving ban? For
18th month driving ban? For someone who doesn’t actually have a license? Absolute joke.
Surely should be a decade-long driving ban
Institutionally anti-cyclist.
I am only surprised that
I am only surprised that Judge Meek did not require the cyclist to write a sincere letter of apology to the court for all the trouble and inconvenience he has caused.
So on the one hand you have
So on the one hand you have life changing injuries and on the other you have “please don’t drive for 18 months”. To my mind, someone who panics after a collision and only thinks of themselves is not mature enough to drive – let’s keep them off the road permanently as they had their chance to follow the rules.
hawkinspeter wrote:
“Please don’t drive for 18 months cos, after coming close to killing someone, you have to be asked politely not to do the thing that you were doing illegally when you inflicted the injuries on the victim”
Did that sentence not make sense? Much like the judge’s then…
Time and time again we see
Time and time again we see the same things: the joke community order, the trivial ban, the exceedingly weak condemnation which is simply laughed off because no serious penalty has been imposed. It will be the same when you are knocked off, assaulted, generously given ‘life changing injuries’ which are deemed unimportant because not punished: this is a war we continue to lose.
He escaped punishment and
He escaped punishment and justice. District Judge Meek couldn’t have a more apt name.
Banned from driving. Not licenced, probably won’t be in near future.
Take the car away, curfew him and fit him with an ankle bracelet.
Step sister took 15 minutes to call 999 AFTER the time to return to scene and should also be punished.
I don’t understand the logic
So the judge takes the licence he didn’t have. What does that change? And how is it a punishment?
Happens all the time on those
Happens all the time on those ‘Super Police Interceptors’ type programmes (usually narrated by John Thomson or Jamie Theakston).
(my daughter likes watching them – don’t judge me!).
Seriously, most of the time when someone gets caught out for antisocial/dangerous/careless use of a motor vehicle, the little ‘and finally…’ at the end tells you how they got a xx months ban for driving while disqualified, etc.
Because clearly they have so much respect for the fact that they were already banned…
Hit and run, + no licence and
Hit and run, + no licence and insurance … and still no jail … that is truely amazing.
I don’t know where to start
I don’t know where to start with this one. I’ve said it here many times, I’m not of the “bang’em up” brigade but as already said this should at least have got a suspended sentence. The 18 month driving ban is a sick joke. Should be at least 10 years if not a lifetime ban. As for driving without insurance I don’t know what sort of compensation the injured cyclist will get but the uninsured driver should be made to pay it from his earnings at a percentage until it’s all paid.
I think there is some sort of warped idea that not being able to drive a car is such a harsh punishment that it should only be metered out in small doses. The fact is that many people do not drive and manage perfectly well. However people who clearly demonstrate that they cannot or will not behave responsibly behind the wheel of a car should not be given that priviledge.
There is a fund for claims
There is a fund for claims against uninsured drivers. I can’t remember the % on everyone’s premium, but it was more than I expected.
https://www.mib.org.uk/making-a-claim/
I was going to comment, but
I was going to comment, but words fail me.
Here’s a contrast: https:/
Here’s a contrast: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/man-fined-after-driving-e-4983704
Souhail Somrani was driving the e-scooter in a park near Brandon Hill on April 18 last year when he was stopped by police.
In a statement, Avon and Somerset Police said the 44-year-old was reported for driving without insurance.
Somrani, from the Redfield area, was also reported for driving a mechanically propelled vehicle otherwise than in accordance with a licence, the statement added, due to the fact that he was stopped while riding on a public footpath.
He received six penalty points, as well as fines and costs totalling £1058, after being found guilty of the offences by Bath Magistrates Court on Thursday, February 4.
Richard McKiernan, of Avon and Somerset Police traffic management unit, said: “This case demonstrates there can be very real consequences for those who are found to be using an electric scooter illegally.
A man will be forced to pay
A man will be forced to pay out more than £1,000 after driving an electric scooter in a Bristol park
He should have hit a cyclist when he might have been congratulated, or a tiny fine at worst.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I wonder if he would have been fined quite so much if he was called Smith or Jones.
Perhaps next time he does
Perhaps next time he does this, the judge will ban him from driving for two whole years. That’ll show him!.
I’ve said this before, I’ll
I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again. Disqualifying/banning/revocation of licence is not punishment, it is mitigation of public risk, and so should be applied separately to sentencing.
This w£nker has been allowed to walk free from a heinous crime. No one can pretend that they are unaware of the horrific results of dangerous driving, whether you have a licence or not. This c_nt knew this and then drove in a high-risk manner. He was aware that he was unqualified, and therefore incompetent, knew what the likely outcome was, and not only continued to pursue this course of action, but after inflicting this utterly predictable outcome on an innocent member of the public, left his victim for dead.
What possible grounds are there for showing leniency?? Even the summing up comments show how trivial the judge saw this – “escaped jail by the skin of your teeth.” He escaped nothing, the judge made a conscious decision not to punish.
> I’ve said this before, I’ll
> I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again. Disqualifying/banning/revocation of licence is not punishment, it is mitigation of public risk, and so should be applied separately to sentencing.
It might be a mitigation of risk – if the driver actually held a licence at the time.
When someone has already demonstrated that they are willing to drive without a license and without insurance, what exactly does anyone expect a ban to achieve?
Will he ever take a test? Possibly.
Will he ever be able to afford insurance if he declares his history truthfully? Unlikely.
Will he ever drive again? Definitely – he probably drove home from the court (he certainly wouldn’t be the first).
If the cyclist had thrown his
If the cyclist had thrown his bike and crash helmet into the hedge away from view, this driver would have got a proper penalty because it wasnt a cyclist he nearly killed. It’s getting fucking absurd, and if this government is serious about increasing cycling / walking they need to address this prejudice. So many people want to cycle but don’t because it’s too dangerous and anti-cyclists literally hate them when they get on a bike.
Muddy Ford wrote:
literally hate them and will deliberately bully, intimidate and attempt assault using their vehicles as a weapon…
The failure to drive with due
The failure to drive with due care and attention is founded in the belief that the cyclist will cause little or no damage to the motor vehicle, so logically cyclists should equip themselves to be an equal hazard to the motor vehicle in order to be treated equally. If video evidence has no effect, stronger deterrents are required…
Quote:
Except he had been breaking the law everytime he got behind the wheel of the car which should have also been taken into account. It is not an accident and not a first time. Also how come him and his sister wasn’t charged with endangerment of he children she allowed in his car. Surely she knew he wasn’t legally allowed to drive and knew how he drove if he came “around the bend on the wrong side of the road and hit him head on”.
Does anyone know what
Does anyone know what ‘Community Service’ these days actually involves?
Round here, litter picking is a voluntary, community affair – well over 100 volunteers and over 1,000 bin bags full in the past few months.
What do they make these wretched little shites do? Cleaning and painting CS7 blue again by hand would be a decent punishment :o)
Does anyone know what
Does anyone know what ‘Community Service’ these days actually involves?
No, but my guess is that it’s working from home on virtual litter picking.
The sentence is a fucking
The sentence is a fucking joke.
They’d had got longer for downloading a movie off the internet.
Very unclear why he escaped
Very unclear why he escaped jail. There must be some reason, because everything here is damning of the individual concerned. There’s no ‘you did everything you could once you realised you had hit the cyclist’ bullshit mitigation to this one. From beginning to end it is a litany of actions of someone who does not give a toss about anyone or anything (even his own family).
All the wrong messages, to everyone, all the time.
Very unclear why he escaped
Very unclear why he escaped jail
It’s clear to me! The police, CPS and courts do not see offences against cyclists as ‘real offences’; as far as I can make out, the logic is that the offence could not have taken place if the cyclist had not been on the road so it must be largely the cyclist’s fault. As soon as the police hear about such an offence their main focus is on finding reasons to not do anything about it. This even, in Lancashire anyway, extends to offences witnessed by cyclists, such as crashing traffic lights at red, or mobile phone use at the wheel. They used to be able to dodge these by sneering ‘if only we had evidence, sir…’ Now they have impeccable evidence, and they don’t like it at all.
PS Before someone points out that the police/ CPS were not guilty in this case, I do realise that. This time the villain was the judge.
wtjs wrote:
But the judge was very critical of the driver and could have imposed a much harsher sentence but chose not to. The judge probably would have been less critical of the driver if they had a bias against the cyclist. The question remains, why? The likely answer may be in the full transcript of the judge’s summing up.
OldTom wrote:
His teeth have very thick skin.
Or maybe his dad is in the same lodge as the judge.
Or maybe the judge hates cyclists.
The most obvious way to
The most obvious way to punish these bastards is to use their £85 fines and buy them an Apollo bike and drive at them, very fast!
alansmurphy wrote:
Cruel and unusual punishment.
And what would you do with the change?
Compare and contrast with
Compare and contrast with this, seen in the Sunderland Echo after following the link in the story.
https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/crime/dangerous-driver-jailed-after-car-crash-leaves-passenger-life-changing-injuries-3121118
A tragic outcome for his passengers, but they did make the choice to be driven in a stolen car by the defendant. No such choice for the cyclist not to be met by a dangerous driver on the wrong side of the road.
Five years jail as opposed to community service (No fine!??), differences being stolen car, disqualified as opposed to unlicensed driver, perverting course of justice as opposed to making the conscious choice not to phone an ambulance, and leaving the scene, even after being asked to dial 999 by the victim…Oh, and ‘cyclist’.
This does not add up.
or this one https://www.eadt
or this one https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/crime/man-rugby-tackled-cyclist-off-bike-7302354
I feel I take a balanced view
I feel I take a balanced view on these cases. I am a cyclist and also ex-police. I understand the workload they are under (though this article is in respect of the courts) and most people would not belive the volume of crap they have to deal with. I also am aware that sometimes cyclists are in the wrong, or there is simply a lack of evidence.
However, a potential 10 years in prison for not being honest about a Covid test (not that any court would impose that), versus this outcome. Madness.
velochris wrote:
Not sure your comment has any relevance here – the police did their job in finding and arresting the driver, the driver pleaded guilty, there is no suggestion that the cyclist did anything wrong or that evidence was lacking. The sentencing is the only problem. How would you take a “balanced view” of these facts?
Um – you seem to have missed
Um – you seem to have missed the key part of the comment.
mdavidford wrote:
Um, it would be useful if people were honest enough to admit they’ve edited their comments to ensure they are relevant after others have commented on their lack of relevance. The words “versus this outcome” were not present when I commented.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Well either there’s a rift in the space-time continuum, or you’re mistaken, because it was definitely there when I first read the comment, and your response didn’t appear until some time later.
And it wasn’t just the “versus this outcome” bit you omitted – you left out that entire paragraph, which was the substantive part of it. The rest of it, which you quoted, was basically just so much preamble, which could have been summarised as “I’m by no means a raving cycling fundamentalist, but…”.
When I read the comment the
When I read the comment the last sentence ran: “However, a potential 10 years in prison for not being honest about a Covid test (not that any court would impose that), madness.”
I quite accept that wasn’t what the poster meant to say and s/he subsequently edited it to say what s/he meant, but that was what it said when I read it.
Must be time travel involved
Must be time travel involved then – velochris went back in time to before you replied in order to edit the comment. Or possibly you just misread it?
I take a balanced view of
I take a balanced view of these cases – ie those involving varying outcomes of incidents involving car and cyclists. I think sometimes, as cyclists, we often assume the cyclist is never at fault. Not that I said that, but was highlighting that it takes a lot for me to comment on such cases.
I specifically stated that the issue is with the court in this case.
The relevance of the post, which others have understood, is that I do find the outcome quite unbelievable, particularly when compared with other polar extremes of potential sentences.
velochris wrote:
Slightly inaccurate. As a car driver, I take the view that the rider is never at fault. If I hit someone in my car it is down to me not taking enough care.
This situation is nothing to do with that though
Maybe not often at fault, but
Maybe not often at fault, but not always without fault. However, it would be good to see legislation, similar to some other counties, which places the onus the driver of a car to show they were not at fault in an incident with a more vulnerable road user.
A cyclist going through a red light?
velochris wrote:
Like you, I am keen to see presumed liability, and let’s be fair, I’m a driver myself
A cyclist going through a red light is an action where the rider is at fault indeed.
My driving experience is that people (drivers, riders, peds) break red lights. So if I approach a junction/crossing/whatever in such a way that I don’t mitigate that possibility, then I am at fault for my part. Dwelling on whether other people are at fault moves us towards a more risky style of driving
So, when I am driving, I approach it that the more vulnerable is never at fault, and I should attempt to mitigate all possibilities. Their actions are only a risk due to my presence.
A cyclist going through a red light is an action where the rider is at fault indeed.
My driving experience is that people (drivers, riders, peds) break red lights.
Sorry, folks! Can’t let this one go. The problem is that the police, in Lancashire, at least view this as ‘not a real offence because everybody does it’. It’s not the questionable ones where they’re immediately in front of the stop line when it turns red, it’s the ones where they’re far in the distance when it turns amber, still way back (behind this photographer, frequently) when it turns red and up to 3 seconds after it turns red when they speed over the stop line- these drivers always speed up when amber comes on. Still the police contrive to do nothing.
wtjs wrote:
Hello wtjs. I certainly understand your frustration. My view is how other people’s likelihood of infraction influences my driving style, not whether they should be ignored by the the rozzers. If I had a dashcam, I would also use that to report on folk being dicks.
However, break lights people do (mmhhhmm, young paduan). I can’t treat the fact that “nobody should” as “nobody will”. I just don’t want a crash, no matter how little it is my fault, particularly with someone who is more vulnerable than me.
velochris wrote:
Shame you didn’t say that originally but then edited to make it look as though you had. Standard copper behaviour I suppose, editing the notebook after the fact!
I think I edited a typo, that
I think I edited a typo, that is all. No changes of any words.
Your streotyling is much akin to the stereotyping applied by many parts of the media towards cyclists.
velochris wrote:
What’s streotyling? You’re absolutely correct, you didn’t change any words. You did add some, however.
“Typical copper behaviour.”
“Typical copper behaviour.”
As mdavidford said, you seemed to have missed the point of the post, which I think at least we agree on, a disgraceful outcome.
Condolences as well to the rider. Must feel like an extra kick whilst down.
velochris wrote:
And as I said, you edited your post after I’d commented to add the point I supposedly missed.
I still want to know what streotyling means.
I still don’t know what part
I still don’t know what part of the apparant edit you mean. You did quote most of my post, which explained that in this case the issue was with the courts. As stated, my point was observed by others.
The stereotyping, referred to the “typical copper” reference.
Anyway, at least we both agree on the fundamental point of the article.
velochris wrote:
Oh I give up, it’s just not worth it. I promise never to streotyle anyone in future.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Oh I give up, it’s just not worth it. I promise never to streotyle anyone in future.— velochris
I thought it best, given the context, not to edit a typo this time, so left it as it was.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Wow! What a lovely person you must be!!
velochris wrote:
Okay… but on a single track road, what exactly can a stationary cyclist do (or fail to do) that would have caused this collision? (I can’t think of anything)
What possible reasons could there be for not charging the driver with causing serious injury by dangerous driving (or at the very least careless driving). Why is the punish less than would have been for drink driving when the driver didn’t submit to a breath test (should fleeing the scene should be considered equivalent to refusing to give a sample).
velochris wrote:
It’s HORRENDOUS that you seem more concerned about cops having it ‘hard’ (by complaining the “workload they are under” and “volume of crapp they have to deal with”) MORE THAN THE POOR VICTIMS OF DANGEROUS CALLOUS DRIVERS – who often have little to fear from cops on vast number of cases despite submission of compelling evidence, as published on Road. cc and else where.
I’d just like to thank you
I’d just like to thank you for giving us the perspective of an ex policeman. I can accept that police officers are overworked and always try to be polite when I submit footage and I am always grateful when they get back to me. I’m not sure that this is a satisfactory situation however as I believe we should have a right to get feedback on our submissions. I was just wondering if you have any practical suggestions on what we could do to improve this situation.
This sort of outcome is why
This sort of outcome is why after 3 years of commuting by cycle into work, I will be buying a car later this year.
RedRocket wrote:
Illegitimi non carborundum
District Judge Kathryn Meek
District Judge Kathryn Meek sentenced him to an 18-month community order and ordered him to undertake 250 hours of unpaid work
What we need on here are some authentic but trustworthy crims who can tell us how ‘community orders’ and ‘unpaid work’ are enforced at pandemic time.
Cor blimey guv, strike a
Cor blimey guv, strike a light, trustworthy crim here honest as the day is long. Anyway, one Saturday there was a party doing grass cutting in a country churchyard, dressed all in orange and some had COMMUNITY PAYBACK stamped on their backs.
David9694 wrote:
Does your honesty vary during the year? what happens when the clocks change?