- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Martyn Gall (picture via West Mercia Police)Jail for driver distracted by social media apps who killed cyclist and left another seriously injured
A driver who was using her phone at the wheel when she killed a cyclist and seriously injured another has been jailed for four years and six months, with the victims’ families urging motorists to put away their phones when they are driving.
Sania Shabbir, aged 27 and from Redditch, Worcestershire, had initially denied causing the death of Martyn Gall, aged 41, by dangerous driving, and causing serious injury to James Middleton, 33, by dangerous driving.
She changed her plea on the day her trial was due to begin at Birmingham Crown Court in April, two and a half years after the fatal crash on the morning of 14 November 2020 on the A441 Alvechurch bypass.
Besides the four and a half year sentence for killing Mr Gall, Shabbir was handed a two and a half year prison term for the serious injury charge, to be served concurrently.
She has also been banned from driving for four years nine months and will be required to pass an extended test should she wish to regain her licence once her period of disqualification has expired.
After Shabbir was sentenced at Birmingham Crown Court yesterday, the families of both victims issued statements via their solicitors, Leigh Day.
Mr Gall’s widow, Diane, said that while it was “good to finally see justice done today … we could have been spared the distress of a prolonged court process if Sania Shabbir had admitted her guilt two and a half years ago, instead of the day her trial was about to start last month.”
She said that the loss of her husband, with whom she had two daughters aged in their teens at the time of his death, had “ripped apart” his family and friends and that “nearly three years later his loss is still unbearable.”
Mrs Gall also acknowledged the support that she and her family had received from the charity RoadPeace, adding: “I will continue to work with them to campaign for safety on the roads and today I just want to say to all drivers that every day people are killed on the roads. Just think about that and don’t be the person whose driving destroys lives.”
The crash left Mr Middleton with a life-changing brain injury, with his fiancée Antonia Wells saying: “In an instant, one mistake, one lapse in concentration of the driver changed everything.
“James’s injuries were horrific, he will never be able to live the life he had before that day and together we must live with the consequences of the driver’s actions forever.
“Despite that, I know that we were the lucky ones as James survived the collision,” she added. “I want to express our deep sadness that Martyn did not survive.”
Leigh Day partner Bethany Sanders, who represented both families, said: “This is a truly tragic case. Many lives were torn apart by the impact of this road traffic collision, and I hope that this sentence serves as a lesson and deterrent to others who drive whilst distracted by their mobile phones.
“To hear of the messages sent, photographs taken and social media apps used during the course of the Defendant’s journey, was truly shocking.
“Understandably the victims and their families want to raise awareness of the implications of driving when distracted or not giving full focus when behind the wheel.
“Cars are potentially dangerous weapons and drivers should take their responsibility to other road users, especially cyclists, very seriously,” she added.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Pub bike 4 sec ago
The owners of the private car park made reasonable attempts to contact Lime and ask them to remove the bikes that were fly-tipped on their property...
- Pub bike 5 min 21 sec ago
Could be for cyclists with congenitally long arms.
- mark1a 5 hours 47 min ago
I'll put you down as a no then.
- Boopop 7 hours 59 min ago
I find it deeply jarring and disappointing that Sir David agrees with these people not wanting a cycle lane. Whenever I watch one of his excellent...
- chrisonabike 8 hours 8 min ago
May need insurance, tax and a licence. No problem with the lights though.
- Hirsute 10 hours 55 min ago
If you can't see a %^$&ing large tractor what ^%$£"!*ing hope is there that you will see a cyclist ?...
- chrisonabike 11 hours 13 min ago
Well if you *can* interview the original riders at all surely they worked, at least?...
- David9694 11 hours 42 min ago
Live: Car plunges over wall and lands on beach rocks...
- brooksby 16 hours 55 min ago
And finally: I wonder how many of the "more than 3,000" signatures on that petition are actually locals, who live or work there (and are not just...
Add new comment
24 comments
"Besides the four and a half year sentence for killing Mr Gall, Shabbir was handed a two and a half year prison term for the serious injury charge, to be served concurrently."
Can someone explain how the word concurrently works in this situation? As in.. what is her actual punishment?
To me is 'sounds like' her 4.5year sentence 'includes' 2.5yrs in prison.. which doesn't seem like she's been punished at all for the serious injury caused to James Middleton ?
Or am I being really thick and in actual fact she has in fact a seven year sentence.
No, you are absolutely correct: to serve the seven years that she deserves she would have had to be sentenced to serve the second sentence consecutively, i.e. it would not begin until the first sentence was completed. Serving her time concurrently means that 2.5 years into the 4.5 year sentence for killing Mr Gall (or less with good behaviour) her sentence for injuring Mr Middleton will be regarded as discharged. An absolute slap in the face for Mr Middleton and all those helping him to adjust to life with such terrible injuries.
Why does she get to serve her sentence for seriously injuring Mr Middleton concurrently with her sentence for killing Mr Gall? That essentially makes the sanction meaningless.
Not according to the sentencing council. (not my words guv - Im just the messenger). Interesting flow chart though?
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/public_guide_tot...
So according to that the judge may have given her a longer sentence for the killing to ensure that she served enough time to reflect the seriousness of both offences. Without seeing the summing up we can't know that, but if that was the case it begs the question of what would he have given her if she had only killed Mr Gall and not injured Mr Middleton? Couple of years? 18 months?
It's difficult to spot drivers on their phone driving at speed. But it's very easy whilst in queues of traffic; just walk along any urban pavement at rush-hour and it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Maybe if police actually did that this woman would already have been banned before she killed and maimed.
100% agree. Perhaps some of the people who call Cycling Mikey and others like him grasses, vigilantes, wannabe coppers et cetera need to think about your point.
The Police don't seem to do realtime enforcement like this anymore. It also seems that they are not allowed to chase criminals conducting illegal activities. They only seem to act (if at all) on evidence collected after the event. This makes the roads very dangerous places to be if you're not in a 4x4 or lorry.
Clearly not because as usual this was just a lapse in concentration. A one off. She definitely doesn't do this all the time and this was just the one time she didn't get away with it.
The whole narrative that "a momentary lapse in concentration" caused someone to lose their life is BS. People who do this will do it all the time. People who are caught speeding to the point of losing their licence haven't been speeding 3 or 4 times, they have been caught speeding 3-4 times. They will have been speeding hundreds of times, probably more.
You shouldn't get to use the excuse of a lapse of concentration when you kill someone. Especially when you are doing something so fucking stupid as driving and looking at social media at the same time.
The scary thing is it's "some people (like her) most of the time, but most people some of the time".
Because of "humans" we know that over the population a great deal of driving is done at an inappropriate level of arousal / attention. Unfortunately that means that the chancers and the irresponsible often get sympathetic treatment by the legal system. Because the police / courts / juries recognise this behaviour in themselves or their contacts. It takes some pretty extreme behaviour to lose the sympathies of the judiciary.
This helps keep the whole system as it is.
Yeah, its ridiculous. I don't know about the rest of you but I reckon on an 35km ride I have about 5-10 passed from cars that are only OK because they are lucky. They are just rolling the dice. Overtaking on blind corners, turning across me etc. The chances of getting caught out are tiny but it will happen to someone. They will be seriously hurt or killed and we will hear the same story about an isolated incident. A lapse of concentration etc.
I see mobile phone use in traffic queues every day, and around twice a week I'll see someone using one while driving. I see more looking down to text and scroll rather than making calls. There seems to be no campaign about getting people to stop? No adverts on buses or billboards etc?
The police (most of them) simply don't care. Especially about cyclists.
https://twitter.com/FamilyByCycle/status/1669647998702219264
"She changed her plea on the day her trial was due to begin" - exactly the sort of behaviour you expect from someone so selfish. What an insult to the family of the bereaved and to the survivor.
If I understand things correctly, if she had pled guilty earlier on, then she would have to submit her driving license until sentencing. The only material difference delaying her plea change was that it meant she was able to drive right up to the day of her trial.
Scum.
She was probably hoping that this would all go away as well. Which, lets be honest isn't an entirely ridiculous viewpoint because people get away with this all the time.
When the wife turned up for court for her witnessing a robbery, the scrote, who had pleaded Not Guilty and was held in remand until the court appearance, pleaded guilty on the day. We asked the lead detective about it and he stated it happens alot as they hope the witnesses decide not to turn up and then when advised everyone is there and the case is continuing, they plead guilty to get some of the sentence removed.
Given what we know of your wife they were very lucky to get away with being nicked...
He happened to be the getaway driver who they traced as he was calling the mobile she forced them to drop to find out why they were trying to get back in. The wife wouldn't have been the witness for him but some lady who noticed him hanging around nearby. I suspect the wife / victim would only be there to testify on what he was an accomplice to.
I read somewhere that - in criminal trials, anyway (burglary, assault, &c) - the accused will often plead not guilty not guilty not guilty until they see that witnesses really are going to turn up, at which case they change their plea.
In this case, perhaps she suddenly realised that it really was going to court and she was going to get cross-examined in court...
enough time has passed that it looks like you read it a couple of comments above....
Happens constantly with road traffic cases, if you ever look at CM's Twitter he's frequently going to court to be told he's not needed because the accused has pleaded guilty once they've heard he's shown up. The difference is that these people have (unlike a burglar or whatever) chosen to go to court instead of taking their points and fine, so deciding not to contest on the day because the witness is there should, in my opinion, be treated as deliberate wasting of the court's time.
While I'm at it, courts really should consider the relevance of having a witness there when they have clear video of the event anyway: the few times I've gone to court in motoring cases I've virtually never been asked anything that wasn't completely covered by the video and accompanying witness statement.
In other, more civilised places, your licence is immediately suspended until the trial and verdict. I'm sure that the comprehensive review of road laws will adopt this when it comes out soon.
I hope she was also charged costs (at the very least), since she was happy to waste everyone's time up to the morning of the trial.