A defence lawyer successfully kept his client, a taxi driver who hit and killed a cyclist in a midnight crash, out of jail after asking the judge to consider the cyclist’s lack of reflective clothing and flashing lights.
At a sentencing hearing at Oxford Crown Court, Michael Goold argued Robert Mallinson had been “very difficult to see” when his client, Daniel O’Donnell, knocked him down at a Didcot crossroads in the early hours of 8 August 2020.
Go Green Taxis driver O’Donnell was driving from Didcot station to pick up a fare when he hit Mr Mallinson, whose bike had front and rear lights and reflectors.
At an earlier hearing, O’Donnell pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving, and was sentenced to 10 months in prison, suspended for two years.
The Oxford Mail reports the court heard how O’Donnell’s Toyota Prius slowed to 14mph as it approached the junction of Lydalls Road from Haydon Road, but appeared to speed up as he hit the cyclist riding the correct way down one-way Lydalls Road.
The professional driver stayed at the scene, with witnesses saying he was “shaking like a leaf”.
Mr Mallinson, a “loving, caring man” was cycling home from seeing friends when he was struck, and was taken to hospital where, despite the efforts of intensive care doctors, he died two weeks later on August 23.
28-year-old O’Donnell said he had not seen the cyclist, something Judge Pringle said he should have done, especially considering his profession.
“As a taxi driver and someone familiar with that road you should have been concentrating hard to your right, looking out not just for headlights but for any other road users,” the judge said.
However Judge Pringle opted to suspend the sentence, noting that O’Donnell had no prior convictions, would “seriously struggle” in prison, had strong mitigation and could likely be rehabilitated.
Defence lawyer Goold said his client was “deeply, deeply remorseful”, and argued the cyclist’s lack of reflective clothing had made him difficult to spot. O’Donnell was also banned from driving for two years and will have to pass an extended retest if he wishes to drive once the ban passes.
In a victim personal statement read to the court, Mr Mallinson’s wife Janet said: “He was a wonderful, loving, caring man. [O’Donnell] has taken away the love of my life, my soulmate, the man I wanted to grow old with.”
Mr Mallinson’s brother, John, said the death was “needless”, and the defendant had showed a “complete disregard” for his sibling’s “physical vulnerability on a bicycle”.
66 thoughts on “Taxi driver who killed cyclist avoids jail after lawyer’s hi-vis and lights defence”
I know defence Solicitors are
I know defence Solicitors are paid to do a job, however the road was lit AND the cyclist had lights on. Flashing lights are not a requirement by law and can be actually be more dangerous in the dark then constant on lights. It is strange that they always seem to get away with victim blaming.
It seems the Judge mentioned Personal Mitigation, anyone know what that was as it seems nothing to do with the cyclist. Normally it is medical or other reasons which mitigate the actions. If he was medically or emotionally unfit to drive, but still did, then surely that is more of a factor for enforciing a stronger sentence?
“Judge Ian Pringle QC said O
“Judge Ian Pringle QC said O’Donnell ‘simply never saw’ Mr Mallinson.”
Didn’t look in other words – the cyclist had lights, so why didn’t he see him?
Did they do a reconstuction of the scene?
Yeah, this is the bit that
Yeah, this is the bit that stinks from me – if there was footage or forensic evidence that showed, for example, that the lights were running low on battery and were not bright, and that the reflective bits were caked in mud and not really reflecting, then I might buy the whole “invisible cyclist” thing, to some extent.
But otherwise, it just stinks of prejudice, and of acceptance of rubbish driving standards as ‘normal’.
It’s more likely to be
It’s more likely to be mitigation as regards custodial sentencing. There’s a pre sentence report if custodial is considered where you can essentially put down the effects on you and others of you going to prison.
similar to the EH plea for totting up in some ways.
This will be a bit of a worry
This will be a bit of a worry for some car drivers. I have heard rumour that some of them are painted in dull colours like grey and their lights often do not flash.
And then wait til they find
And then wait til they find out even cars that are hi-vis with flashing lights still get hit by other cars
Illuminated retroreflective
Illuminated retroreflective bollards mumble mumble.
Well… if they’re not gonna
Well… if they’re not gonna make themselves more visible..
The legal requirement for
The legal requirement for bicycle lights, as I understand it, is that after dark a bicycle must show SOLID lights front and rear and that flashing lights alone are in fact illegal. They may be used in conjunction with solid lights. I note that the judge did not appear to accept these arguments in his comments.
The regs have permitted
The regs have permitted flashing lights (including flashing lights on their own) since 2005.
However, there’s a wrinkle – if your flashing light also has a steady mode, and that steady mode doesn’t satisfy the standard for a steady light, then running it as a flashing light doesn’t satisfy the legal requirement, even if it meets the requirements for flashing lights. Go figure.
Thank you for clarifying.
Thank you for clarifying.
Although, in a normal court
Although, in a normal court of law, the breach pof the law would have to be demonstrated to have had a material impact on the incident.
In other words, would the availability of the steady mode have made a difference to the fact that it would have been a valid light without and would remain the driver’s responsibility to take effective observations.
That is the test that should have been applied to the argument by either the prosecution if given the opportunity or by the judge coz… he’s a judge.
.
.
Yup, those for ken Tories, eh?
.
2005, yeh?
.
Oh, hang on.
.
What are you dribbling on
What are you dribbling on about?
Where would you like us to
Where would you like us to send your prize for ‘Most Irrelevant Comment of the Month’?
Doubt there is any space left
Doubt there is any space left on the mantlepiece.
Bicycle lighting regs are a
Bicycle lighting regs are a bit of a mess.
Last time I checked it was not possible to go into Halfords and buy a set of lights labelled as meeting the British Standard. The available lights may actually exceed the BS in some respects.
If only the defense lawyer new the cyclist’s lights didn’t meet the BS, he could have got his client off scot free!
I’m not sure the headline is
I’m not sure the headline is particularly appropriate here. While it’s technically true, it’s giving the misleading impression that the sentence was suspended because of the defence’s line about hi vis and lights, whereas in fact the judge appears to have rejected that argument and it was due to unrelated factors.
.
.
Yeah, but it wouldn’t get as many clicks if they reported non-sensationally, neh?
.
Does feel very much like the
Does feel very much like the judge all but put a friendly arm around the offender, patted him warmly on the hand and said “there, there, you poor dear”. Not even a slap on the wrist.
A sentence of ten months suspended for two years, running concurrently with the pitifully short driving ban. He’d get as much for being drunk and driving into a lampost. For pity’s sake, a life was taken. Through negligence. There should be more recognition of this than a minor inconvience to the offender.
That is a horrible crossroads
That is a horrible crossroads. Far too many drivers go straight across it without stopping – as it sounds like this taxi driver did. Though of course this does not excuse his actions one little bit, nor does it make his sentence appropriate.
You’ve talked yourself into
You’ve talked yourself into irrelevance there.
Don’t mess with the “that’s a horrible junction/ dangerous area” bit. It readily translates into “he/she (vulnerable party) shouldn’t have been there” and then into yet another light/non-custodial sentence for a killer driver or other perp.
Sometimes. In practice of
Sometimes. In practice of course you can have “extremely dangerous junction design” AND “driver should have looked” at the same time but yes currently this is often an excuse in the UK.
Seriously?
Seriously?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – two moving obects on a converging course that remain on the same relative bearing to each other will collide. Put another way, if a driver only slows on their approach to a junction, but continues to move, they will hit the cyclist that is hidden behind the A pillar of the car.
I suggest the driver did not see the cylist becuase they did not look properly; neither better lighting nor reflective clothing would have helped because, the driver saw only the A pillar and not what was behind it.
Constant Bearing Decreasing
Constant Bearing Decreasing Range
It’s been well documented and umderstood for a very long time, but somehow drivers get away with it.
https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11573764
Repeating myself as I bust
Repeating myself as I bust the link in my earlier post but the classic from Bez has you covered: https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/collision-course/
Jesus this is grim.
Jesus this is grim.
How would hi viz and reflectives have helped one single bit ?
Reflectives only work when the headlights are pointed at them. He was only pointed at the cyclist when he actually impacted him.
Hi Viz in the dark ?
Were there no expert witnesses here ?
fenix wrote:
Indeed, because the cyclist was travelling on a one way road, the taxi would have been pointing away from him as either turning right, or crossing the staggered crossroads which wold also be to his right. The cyclist was on the left, and was using lights.
wycombewheeler wrote:
It’s quoted the taxi was travelling away from the station and this tallies with the judge stating the driver should have seen the cyclist to their right. So, this must have been the view of the driver crossing the junction:
https://goo.gl/maps/55oitCwfzAp8RWAe8
The road only becomes one-way to the left of the junction, but this meant the driver only really needed to look to the right for traffic. There is a hedge that would obscure that view until close to the junction. An approach speed of 14mph would give very little time for observations, the prosecution should have done a reconstruction with expert witnesses such as a driving examiner.
At a guess, the cps budget
At a guess, the cps budget for the prosecution was low. Having a senior prosecutor friend, this often happens. So while they would love to do more, if no one will pay an expert witness they won’t turn up.
HoarseMann wrote:
There are lots of reasons to look to the left for traffic coming contra-flow from the left, including pedestrians (as of right), reversing vehicles (potentially careless) and other offending drivers (illegal). The duty on the emerging vehicle is to give way to traffic on the major road; it’s not conditional on whether they should be coming that way or the driver expects them to be.
Indeed, and I think the truth
Indeed, and I think the truth lies in the statement “you should have been concentrating hard to your right, looking out [b]not just for headlights[/b]”.
I’ve often heard it said, driving at night is safer because you can see the headlights coming round a bend. There’s an easy assumption that if there is no pool of light approaching then there is nothing coming, almost as if “you don’t need to look”.
My bet is the driver never even looked right.
Grim indeed.
Grim indeed.
If you do not see something as big as a person, with a bike overlayed, with lights on AND reflectors on that reflect headlights (which you must have on), then this clearly proves beyond reasonable doubt that you did not look. If you do not look you will also not see flashing lights or retroreflectives.
Kill someone through carelessness and get away with it because “it’s only a cyclist” and it’s somehow the cyclist’s fault they got hit while doing nothing wrong.
A nonsense argument from the
A nonsense argument from the lawyer and one that the judge rejected apparently, so the click bait title and heading of this article is incorrect..
‘A defence lawyer successfully kept his client, a taxi driver who hit and killed a cyclist in a midnight crash, out of jail after asking the judge to consider the cyclist’s lack of reflective clothing and flashing lights.’
I wouldn’t dare cross a
I wouldn’t dare cross a junction at 14mph on my bike. If I hit something I get killed, rather than the other way around…
The taxi slowed down to 14mph
The taxi slowed down to 14mph which suggests to me suggests to me the driver made, at best, the merest of glances before pulling out of the junction. I’ve never been to Didcot so don’t know what that particular road is like at night, but in general I do find that late at night drivers often get complacent and assume roads will be virtually empty.
I would also suggest hi-viz clothing would have made absolutely no difference – fluorescent colours don’t work in the dark and reflective bits are only good if caught in the beam of headlights. At junctions like this, the cyclist won’t be in the vehicle’s headlights until it is far too late.
That said, I’m not generally in favour of an excess of incarceration and I’m not entirely convinced it would be helpful in this case. But I would very much like to see lifetime driving bans in order to reduce the risk to the public in future (which would be more palatable if we also made society less car dependent).
The taxi slowing to 14mph is
The taxi slowing to 14mph is just another way of saying he did not stop and could not have had enough time to check both ways. Reckless surely ?
fenix wrote:
it’s a one way road, he only needed to check his left (where the cyclist was)
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6095983,-1.2449171,3a,88.1y,358.2h,97.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2cg9GaWaPqbfQF9Eo-mZYQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
It’s careles or dangerous ,
It’s careles or dangerous , they dint have a third category.
dangerous is a much tougher standard to prove, and is a stat alternative to careless hence most of the time they go for careless.
Yes, what galls me here is
Yes, what galls me here is not so much the lack of prison. It is the acceptance of the arguments. Instead of “failed to stop” it’s “slowed to 14mph”. Instead of “failed to look” its the cyclist who didn’t make himself visible.
‘would “seriously struggle”
‘would “seriously struggle” in prison’
Isn’t that the whole point?
The victims family must have
The victims family must have been through absolute hell during two weeks of his life hanging in the balance, and then a whole new hell afterwards. And the killer (that’s what he is) gets basically a warning. It’s not okay.
I wonder, do all these motorists complaining about the close pass conviction in the press this week think it’s okay?
How on earth does a judge think it’s okay?
Very depressing!
I’ve just noticed that at
I’ve just noticed that at some point in time, the priority of this junction appears to have changed. You can see in the streetview image from 2008, a give way marking in the direction the cyclist was travelling has been removed.
Perhaps the decision to change priority of this junction should be re-evaluated and possibly speed humps or a raised table junction installed to reduce the approach speed.
https://goo.gl/maps/HbfWPqHhxHBYeuh68
It also appears from those
I don’t see an obvious reason that the change in priority would have made the junction more dangerous – this incident is simply the result of a failure to look properly.
If anything was going to be changed about the junction, I would suggest a good place to start would be to reduce the corner radius and remove the wide splay that encourages drivers to take the junction at speed.
Whilst this incident is
Whilst this incident is definitely due to careless/dangerous driving, the priority of the junction could have a bearing on overall risk in general.
If the road with the highest traffic flow has priority, then the frequency of vehicles having to give way is reduced. If a road has to give way to a road that is usually less busy, this can instil an expectation that the road will be clear among frequent users of that route.
It just seems odd that priority has been changed. There must be a reason for it. Maybe there have been other incidents at this junction. Or perhaps it was done as a traffic calming measure, to slow down vehicles on Haydon Rd.
I would guess that the
I would guess that the western expansion towards the A34 resulted in a lot more traffic from that direction using Lydalls Road as a through route, and that’s why the priority was changed.
yes, that could well be the
yes, that could well be the case.
It’s quite simple: the
It’s quite simple: the prevailing view of the police and legal system is that you’re ‘bound to kill the odd one’, and it’s really the cyclist’s fault that ‘I didn’t see him and I didn’t mean to do it’
wtjs wrote:
Worringly, you may have a point there…
I know that the law in the UK
I know that the law in the UK (thankfully) is not divorced from the culture / attitudes and judgements (eventually a fancy word for “opinions”) of everyone and indeed the law makes a principle of “in the judgement of reasonable people” … BUT I think that no small part of this issue is in the law itself. “Below the standard of a careful driver” / “Far below the standard of a careful driver” (I know that’s not the exact working just lazy) – consider that the majority of the population aren’t drivers. (Not even sure the majority of the jury pool would be). How “good” do you think the judgement is going to be? Unlikely we have people who understand cycling on the team. I’m dubious about the quality of the driving judgement. After all we don’t bring in e.g. a driving examining examiner (even as an “expert witness”). Given that even if judge / jury are drivers, that they’re “good drivers” (because everyone knows they are, right?) they have only ever been examined once and likely haven’t checked the rules since them.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Around 75% of UK adults have full driving licences. Are you using some other criteria?
But are UK adults all of the
But are UK adults all of the population though? Anyway I was wrong and you have a good point. It was a lot more than I thought – according the RAC the proportion of driving licenthe holders is about “80 per cent of all adults aged 17 and over in England”. They’re taking that from the National Travel survey mostly. So it does sound like “driving licence holders” are the majority of the population. Are they all regular drivers though? Are the regular drivers actually any good? What percentage would have an accurate recollection of what the highway code actually says? Would they then apply that to a judgement in court which just talks about “the standard expected of a competent driver” (or whatever)?
andystow wrote:
Around 75% of UK adults have full driving licences. Are you using some other criteria?— chrisonatrike
I don’t know the national statistics but certainly here in London 52% of people don’t own nor have access to a car…it’s a very difficult one to quantify, without even thinking about it I could name a dozen friends who have full licences but never drive apart from maybe a rental car when on holiday, does that make them “drivers” or not?
I think it gets interpreted
I think it gets interpreted nowadays as “below the standard of a typical (not a careful) driver”, and any fule kno that the typical driver nowadays appears to not be a very good driver at all…
I have to say that it is
I have to say that it is wrong to equate the hi vis/lights comments with a ‘defence’ it was mitigation; the two are very different. Also the fact that the sentencing judge stated that the defendant had “substantial mitigation” does not mean that all mitigation was accepted. The sentencing is not, sadly, unusual. It is rare for a judge to stop a defence advocate and say that thier mitigation is pants
The actual wording in the
The actual wording in the paper article was “strong personal mitigation”. So not the defences piss-poor victim blaming but something specific to the drivers or his circumstances which seem to be based on the below.
• the response to the offence and prosecution (e.g. remorse, acts of reparation, addressing the problems that led to the crime, cooperation with the police)
• the offender’s present and future prospects (e.g. family responsibilities, supportive partner, capacity to address problems underlying the criminal behaviour
As the judge already covered some specific ones, and indicated the “struggle in prison”, I do wonder of there are intellectual limitations involved.
‘Strong personal mitigation’
The only time I’ve seen a Judge take an advocate to task over mitigation has been in respect of sexual offences. This sort of gas lighting should be slapped down as throughly as assertions that a victim was drunk and wearing provocative clothing thankfully now are.
Not too remorseful to blame
Not too remorseful to blame the victim..
I dont see that imprisonment
I dont see that imprisonment is a useful or appropriate response in cases like this but the removal of a licence to drive should be for much longer periods and driving bans should come with a parallel suspended prison sentence for the duration of the ban, such that if a banned driver is caught driving they immediately lose their freedom.
It’s not clear from this
It’s not clear from this article if the cyclist’s lights were actually on. If they were then I see the lack of reflective clothing excuse as a terrible miscarriage of justice.
Jenova20 wrote:
Except that it had no bearing on the eventual outcome – the judge rejected the argument.
Jenova20 wrote:
I think it’s a poor decision either way.
Surely it’s the driver’s responsibility to use their own headlights and eyes to look for other road users and not so much down to the cyclist forcing a driver to see them. It’s all arse-about-tit.
Amen. Most other activities
Amen. Most other activities we do in public spaces it’s on the person carrying out the activity to ensure they don’t harm anyone else doing it. Darkness at night is not unforeseeable (sorry).
It’s just another instance of “although we’ve these rules and laws we just accept that people won’t drive to the conditions”.
In fact normally it’s on you to warn everyone else if you’re doing something potentially hazardous – bring back the red flag act?
I don’t agree. All vehicles
I don’t agree. All vehicles on the road should have lights on at night. Pretty standard law across the board. The lights are their to light the way but also to show other vehicle operators and pedestrians you are around.
In this case unfortunately, they would have made no difference as the driver fixated on not looking, however if the cyclist didn’t have any lights at all, i doubt it would have even made court.
To yourself and Rendel – I’m
To yourself and Rendel – I’m not quite sure what you’re disagreeing with? I’m not aware that I suggested cyclists shouldn’t have lights. Nor was this an investigation of the cyclist because they’d threatened the motorist’s (or anyone else’s) well-being by not giving them sufficient warning.
You’re probably right about exactly what this was. The “slowed then sped up” sounds like “inadequate observation” rather than none. I’d agree it’s not as open and shut as if e.g. they’d been run down from behind. I’m not arguing that it wasn’t more difficult to see them than if they’d been right in front in the headlights. And exactly how difficult might vary depending on their speed, the sight lines, the strength of the lights. Reflectives also would be less effective from the side. I’m also assuming the cyclist’s lights were on.
Even if that weren’t the case though I’m not 100% that some responsibility doesn’t rest with the motorist. What if it was a pedestrian jogging across the road? Is that unforeseeable? To quote:
I’m sure if this were on a massive hill or the cyclist was a pro and capable of going above 30mph we’d hear about it. Or rather wouldn’t as the CPS would pull the plug before court.
So maybe not as clear cut as some but this is still on the spectrum of not driving to the conditions (darkness here). They were a) negligent (not actually looking where they were going) and / or b) not driving to the conditions by going at a speed where they couldn’t observe sufficiently or react in time to something.
chrisonatrike wrote:
But if I’m cycling on the road at night I’m undertaking an activity that could potentially be hazardous to others if they don’t see me, so the principle of ensuring I don’t harm anyone else applies to ensuring I’m visible by having lights.
Not that it applies to this poor gentleman, to answer Jenova’s question I think we can infer that yes his lights were on from the defence’s pathetic attempt to claim mitigation through the fact that they weren’t flashing; had they not been on at all I’m sure they would have made much of that and it might well have got the accused off.
Brought to mind a case when I was a kid, I wonder if anyone else remembers it? Must be thirty or more years ago now, a driver knocked a cyclist off at night, stopped and then before going to his/her aid went and turned off the lights on their bike and claimed they hadn’t been on. Fortunately they were spotted by a witness and got done for that as well as the original offence.