A dangerous driver who fled the scene after killing a cyclist — and took documents with him in an attempt to cover his tracks — has been jailed for one year and three months and banned from driving for three years.
Police found videos on George Ivers’ phone showing him filming himself speeding at 60mph through the centre of Sheerness and deliberately skidding his car, Kent Police saying he had clearly “put others at risk” multiple times before the fatal collision.
In the early hours of 2 May 2022, Ivers hit and killed a cyclist on Lower Road, in Teynham. Having caused the 19-year-old cyclist catastrophic injuries, Ivers fled the scene in his badly damaged vehicle, before abandoning it and taking documents linking him to the car when he fled on foot.
Kent Police roads policing officers tracked him down and arrested him later that morning, the investigation finding the videos on Ivers’ phone from late 2021 and early 2022.
Now aged 22, Ivers was charged with dangerous driving and perverting the course of justice, Kent Police not charging him in relation to the collision itself. He was also charged with two counts of dangerous driving in relation to the footage found on his phone.
Sergeant Christopher Oliver said Ivers made multiple efforts to deliberately mislead and prevent the police from obtaining evidence. Ultimately, he pleaded guilty and was this week jailed for one year and three months at Maidstone Crown Court, a deprivation order obtained to seize the vehicle involved and a three-year driving ban also issued by the judge.
“Ivers made multiple efforts to mislead and prevent the police from obtaining the evidence they required to fully investigate the fatal road traffic collision,” sergeant Oliver said. “What’s more, the footage found on his phone showed he had driven dangerously on at least two previous occasions, putting others at risk.
“As well as securing guilty pleas in relation to his driving, we have obtained a court order seizing his car, and we will continue to seek orders of this kind where vehicles have been driven recklessly. I urge motorists to take responsibility for their actions whilst behind the wheel and help us prevent fatal accidents like this, which cause devastation to victims and their families.”
31 thoughts on “One year in jail for hit-and-run driver who killed cyclist before trying to cover his tracks”
Can’t understand why he wasn
Can’t understand why he wasn’t charged with death by dangerous driving? He would have come into culpability A and a long sentence of up to life imprisonment and a 5 year ban, starting after release.
Would need a full trial but that seems proportionate, rather than just what he admitted to.
Any idea what drivers
Any idea what drivers actually have to do/destroy to qualify for that charge these days?
There’s something funny about
There’s something funny about this case thats not being well reported. It reads like they were either unable to get the evidence that he caused the death or there are other complicating factors in the death which could have mean it wasnt the primary cause.
Wierd and vexing because as you say on the surface it should have be a Death from DD charge.
More info here
More info here
https://www.kent.police.uk/news/kent/latest/policing-news/driver-jailed-for-dangerous-driving-in-sheppey/
and here
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/sittingbourne/news/coward-driver-who-left-teen-cyclist-for-dead-in-the-road-b-325888/
As far as I can make out he was charged with perverting the course of justice due to trying to hide his connection with the vehicle. Three counts of dangerous driving, 2 on his phone and one when he drove the car in a dangerous state after the COLLISION (not accident). He was not charged in relation to the cyclists death presumably because it could not be proven. The car was seized in addition to the sentence.
So basically as far as I can see there was no punishment for the hit and run which is why drivers often leave the scene of a collision, nothing to lose, everything to gain.
In the end the police should be praised for getting the result they did, he could easily have got away without any punishment.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Thank you for the links, I really don’t understand this though. There seems to be no confusion or argument about the fact that the driver did hit the cyclist so even if it’s impossible to prove that he was at fault why has he not as a minimum been charged with leaving the scene of an incident? Presumably there is a good reason for this but nobody seems to be explaining it.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Plea bargain maybe. He did plead guilty to the charges if I’ve understood it correctly.
If this was the case wouldn’t
If this was the case wouldn’t Road CC and other news media be liable for publishing “driver who killed cyclist”?
Not necessarily, since that
Not necessarily, since that would be ‘balance of probabilities’ rather than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
Not necessarily, firstly he’d
Not necessarily, firstly he’d have to have the cash to get a solictor to sue, secondly the burden of proof in that civil case would be much lower.
It sounds like there is enough circumstantial evidence that he’d have no chance of winning a civil case.
I really feel for the family.
I really feel for the family. When my friend was killed, his wife and children were/are devastated but it helped that the driver admitted what he’d done. For her, remorse was more important than punishment. By the trial, I’d come round to her view.
This seems the opposite of that. For the family, the fact he’s ‘got away with it’ without any repercussions must be gut wrenching.
I feel only loathing for this destructive young driver
Bungle_52 wrote:
Thanks for this. Reading the second article it also suggests there were passengers who kept quiet for him. I wonder if all claimed the other was driving. Boils my piss.
Having done jury service,
Having done jury service, there are plenty of jurers out there who want any excuse to acquit. In one of the cases I was involved with, someone lost an eye as a result of a puch to the face, following which there was a brawl. All clearly visible on pub CCTV. Not guilty as several jurers decided it was not proven that the punch caused the injury.
I should think in 3 years he
I should think in 3 years he’ll definitely have seen the error of his ways and will be ready to join the ranks of law-abiding, careful and considerate drivers. No doubt…
Or perhaps … he’ll continue not to give a stuff? And maybe just decide he can drive anyway so why wait about and spend money on nonsense like tests?
Still … perhaps I’m too cynical and less than 6 months in an overcrowded prison will fix this (if he hasn’t already done that on remand, that is)?
chrisonabike wrote:
Perhaps forcing him to wear an explosive necklace, similar to the one Arnie wore in Running Man. If it senses he is sitting in a driving seat he is given 2 seconds to comply and move out before the charge goes off.
Only thinking out loud!
Assuming the courts can be
Assuming the police and courts can be bothered to deal with cases involving cyclists and they are proportional to these results issued to drivers, we have nothing to worry about.
If he’d taken all the
If he’d taken all the documents and was denying that the car was anything to do with him, couldn’t they have just said “Alrighty then” and seized it as soon as forensics had finished with it? Abandoned car, innit?
I dont understand why the
I dont understand why the documents would make a difference anyway, he’d still be down as the registered keeper, unless these specific documents were his wallet including his driving licence and the receipt of the 4 pack of beer from the petrol station etc etc that proved he was driving the car at the time and it wasnt some random car thief.
I would guess that he might
I would guess that he might have had some thought of claiming that he’d sold the car the day before (to some unknown bloke he met in the pub, for cash, obviously), something that wouldn’t look convincing if all his documentation was still in the glovebox; this might have been part of the “multiple efforts to mislead and prevent the police from obtaining the evidence they required” mentioned by the investigating officer.
“I urge motorists to take
“I urge motorists to take responsibility for their actions whilst behind the wheel and help us prevent fatal accidents like this.”
WTF? How is this an accident? Surely if this d!ck has been prosecuted for it then it, by default, is not an accident?
If anyone is selfish enough
If anyone is selfish enough to drink and drive, use their phone behind the wheel and attemp to conceal the evidence, thinking that that person will suddenly grow a conscience is naive to the point of absurdity.
Sweet. So if I collide with
Sweet. So if I collide with pedestrain whilst “zooming along” on my bike, I can presumably look forward to a maximum of around 30 seconds community service under these new fangled dangerous cycling laws? (which are clearly worth the investment of time & resources)
For the love of god, when is
For the love of god, when is this nonsense going to end?
Lost for words to express my disbelief.
Aye but cyclists eh?
The charges have got nothing
The charges have got nothing to do with the death of the cyclist. Read my post above (below).
That does seem a very light
That does seem a very light sentence.
A classic example of someone
A classic example of someone who should never be allowed to drive again.
hawkinspeter wrote:
FTFY
hmas1974 wrote:
A classic example of someone who should never be allowed to breed.
— hmas1974 FTFY— hawkinspeter
**Francis Galton has entered the chat**
Ivers looks angry and defiant
Ivers looks angry and defiant in his mugshot. And who can blame him. Ridiculous that such a brilliant and talented driver is jailed, while being right at the top of his game.
Could he become the face of one of the motor insurance providers?
“Imprezachick Insurance. Handbrake turns donut up your premium!”
Or maybe he could be used to advertise VW Golf cars.
“The VW Golf! You need to wear a baseball cap and play loud hip hop to appreciate the technology!”
one thing I dont think has
one thing I dont think has been highlighted yet, if thats the picture of the car in the state it was found in, the left front wheel is the space saver spare.
thats broadly half the width of the normal wheel, weigh differently too obviously but that would really muck up the handling of a front wheel drive car if you were ragging it as it sounds like the individual was. Theyre only rated to 50mph and meant for temporary use only to get you home immediately and replace. If you took your car in for an MOT with space saver spare it would fail as deemed not roadworthy.
so the car is deemed legally not roadworthy, he killed a cyclist, has 3 counts of dangerous driving and perverting the course of justice and still only got 15months, no doubt out in 7, jail time.
but cyclists…
Charlie Alliston got 18mths.
Charlie Alliston got 18mths. Daily Mail readers and IDS demand a law change so that sentencing for cyclists is on a par with motorists who kill. Does that mean Charlie will be owed a sentencing review and possible compensation if this law is implemented? Yeah, I’ve seen unicorns..
Perhaps Road.cc and cycling
Perhaps Road.cc and cycling organisations should come together to work out a way to lobby for a change in the law to ensure adequate sentences for people who kill with vehicles, sentences that are a deterrent from dangerous driving, which is what the law is meant to do, after all.
Just as the Daily Snail and assorted r-wing loons are pushing for anti cyclist laws, cycling needs to come together to address this far bigger issue of driving being used as mitigation for murder.