An unaccompanied learner driver who ran over a cyclist, causing her serious injuries, has avoided jail after being handed a suspended prison sentence.
Paulina Galantkiewicz, aged 34 and from Raheny, pleaded not guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to dangerous driving causing serious bodily harm to Thames Aline Tavere, also 34, in the crash on Oak Road, Clondalkin on 1 June 2018, reports thejounral.ie.
Galantkiewicz was convicted of the offence by a jury last month, and has now been given a two year suspended prison sentence, and banned from driving for four years.#
She had failed to stop at a junction before hitting the cyclist, and claimed at trial that she had panicked and hit the accelerator pedal instead of the brake.
Judge Martin Nolan, who presided over the case, said that Ms Taveres had sustained “incredibly serious injuries” as a result of the crash, and acknowledged that it had caused significant trauma for the victim and her family.
But while he also noted that the defendant had admitted not seeing the cyclist, there were no other aggravating circumstances, such as speeding, or using a phone, on the part of the driver.
The motorist had earlier been accompanied by a qualified driver when she drove to a job interview, but was alone in the vehicle when the crash happened.
Agreeing with mitigation submitted by defending council, however, Judge Nolan said that it was “probably unlikely” that the collision would have been avoided had there been a licensed driver in the vehicle.
25 thoughts on “Unaccompanied learner driver who ran over cyclist avoids jail”
No aggravating circumstances?
No aggravating circumstances? Made a conscious decision to drive whilst uninsured, unlicenced and unqualified – that’s sounds very aggravating to me.
Is it arguably the case that
Is it arguably the case that those things we not “aggrevating” factors but viewed as components of the offence convicted – i.e. it was dangerous driving BECAUSE she was unlicenced and unqualified.
A licenced driver might have got away with careless driving, or even got away scot free.
“Agreeing with mitigation
“Agreeing with mitigation submitted by defending council, however, Judge Nolan said that it was “probably unlikely” that the collision would have been avoided had there been a licensed driver in the vehicle.”
How the flying fuck does this sort of shite go unchallenged?
Woldsman wrote:
I logged on to say the same. It isn’t much comfort that the law in Ireland is just as corrupt as that in the UK.
eburtthebike wrote:
This particular judge has previous in issuing inappropriate sentencing. Some are actually calling for his removal from the bench. Here’s a link highlighting some of his cases. One case saw him jail somebody for six years for improper importing of garlic while he was handing out suspended sentences for assaults and the likes. .
https://www.irishtimes.com/topics/topics-7.1213540?article=true&tag_person=Judge+Martin+Nolan
You weren’t kidding either
You weren’t kidding either
Judge Martin Nolan said it seemed to him that Keogh had ample time to see the man crossing the road and would have seen him if she was paying proper attention.
“This could be termed an accident in the true sense of the word,” said Judge Nolan.
They seem to be saying that a
If they are agreeing that a passing the test would make no difference to this woman’s competence to drive then for the safety of herself and others she ought not to be allowed to drive at all.
Not sure it needs challenging
Not sure it needs challenging based on the context. How would a licensed driver in the passenger seat have changed things?
This exact scenario is why motoring school vehicles have dual controls.
How does the supervising
How does the supervising person help in any car without dual controls?
In this case, the learner “failed to stop at a junction” and “admitted not seeing the cyclist” – the supervisor should have insisted she stop at the junction (there by ensuring adequate opportunity to look for oncoming traffic) and the supervisor should also have helped check it was clear to proceed.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
When learning, once I was driving with my Dad supervising. In similar circumstance, he pulled on the hand brake suddenly bringing us to a dead stop.
Would we have collided if he hadn’t? I don’t know, but his experience lead him to take that action, and potentially avoid a collision.
In that case wrongly or rightly ( the exact circumstances is somewhat hazy now) my dad acted, rather than alerting me – it may be that was the appropriate action, maybe not, and that maybe an argument that learners should never be supervised by anyone but an ADI. However, in that situation, the fact remains that there was a more experienced qualified driver present to supervise and take action if necessary
I remember not being able to release the handbrake afterwards…..
I did something similar
I did something similar supervising my son as he learned.
He didn’t get a hill start right at some temporary traffic lights. Pulled on the handbrake to prevent us rolling back into the car behind.
I felt responsible for his safety and all other road users when I was in the car with him.
Does that happen with other
Does that happen with other forms of transport? Does a learner for an HGV, Bus, JCB get trained up on the roads with a family member or friend. Can they go out with any operator of that vehicle type or are they only allowed out with approved training people within or external to the company? Genuine question.
In an aeroplane, training is
In an aeroplane, training is by a qualified instructor, and the instructors have to get through a lot of testing before they qualify. But practice may be done solo, as long as the instructor has authorised the flight. Motorcycling on L plates is solo by law – you cannot carry a passenger. So the car rules are not a complete outlier.
It would be interesting to know the stats on collisions caused or aggravated by learners under amateur supervision.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
I think you know the answer.
My point was that although the Garlic Judge seemed to think that presence of a supervisor was “probably unlikely” to have made a difference, I believe this to be false. That doesn’t mean that I believe that the status quo is acceptable (hence
)
rather that qualified supervision of some sort is a bare minimum.
Not related to this case, but
Not related to this case, but on the subject of bans. It appears that permanent bans can be applied to e-scooter riders for being a fuckwit whilst scootering, so why not similar permanent bans for being a fuckwit whilst driving?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-59103961
I think you already know the
I think you already know the answer to that. People often claim exceptional hardship to avoid a car ban, whereas renting an escooter can’t possibly produce the same hardship.
Top lawyer Nick Freeman has already implored government to change the rules on hardship with regard to this, so the best thing to do is throw your support behind his campaign.
Nigel Garage wrote:
But hasn’t “top lawyer” Nick Freeman made a career out of exploiting those very rules on hardship? I can’t see him wanting anyone to cut off the hand that feeds him…
It’s precisely because he
It’s precisely because he knows how easy the hardship rules are to exploit that he wants the law to be tightened.
Everyone is entitled to the best defence they can get if they are accused of a crime, and Nick is the best of the best, but that doesn’t preclude him from wanting bad laws changed.
brooksby wrote:
But hasn’t “top lawyer” Nick Freeman made a career out of exploiting those very rules on hardship? I can’t see him wanting anyone to cut off the hand that feeds him…— Nigel Garage
Maybe “Top Lawyer” Nick Freeman wants this easy loophole closed, so he can prove his value over other solicitors by exploiting other more obscure loopholes.
If any man and his dog could walk into court and claim hardship (apparently even for the daughter of a duke) then how can he justify his own high fees?
Nigel Garage wrote:
There are plenty of things I’d like to throw at Nick Freeman, my support is not one of them!
Mungecrundle wrote:
I got fed up with idiots on Wind scooters zooming past me on the pavement, often with more than one person on them, a few months back, and reported one of the more dangerous ones to Wind via email, witht he time and number plate in the email. They don’t give a shit. The reply was blunt – tell the police next time. Wind should not be allowed to offer scooter trials if they don’t plan on enforcing their own rules, and should potentially be prosecuted for allowing lawbreaking. It’s not like people aren’t being injured during these trials, and the operators have both a duty of care and for enforcement – since they’re providing the vehicle.
Mungecrundle wrote:
There was that other story where students in Newcastle were banned from driving because they were drunk on a scooter. This being true then I would think other driving offences by a scooterist could lead to points on their licence and a ban from all forms of motor vehicle.
The question then is why is this not happening? Of course we all know the answer. The Police don’t give a f*** / don’t have the resources (delete as you see fit).
IanMK wrote:
In fairness, in this case the police and CPS equivalent did bring it to court. It was the courts, and the “judge” especially that failed in their duty here
M’lud wrote:
Knowingly driving whilst unqualified is not an aggravating factor?
Knowingly driving whilst incompetent (by dint of not being yet at a stage that they are able to pass a test) is not an aggravating factor??
Jesus wept….
On reading
On reading
I could see an argument that a qualified driver giving instruction might not have made a difference, but
Surely a second pair of eyes, with more experience would have been quite likely to identify the cyclist earlier and alert the learner.