A van driver who killed a cyclist while using his phone at the wheel for a “significant amount” of time, to the extent that he was unaware that he had been involved in a crash, believing instead that his engine had exploded, has been jailed for nine years.
Matthew Marston, who had previously totted up 12 points on his licence, six of which were for phone offences (escaping a ban after pleading exceptional hardship), was also banned from driving for 13 years this week, following a collision which killed 40-year-old father-of-two Aran Potkin.
Potkin, from nearby Farnham, was cycling on the westbound A31 near Runfold, Surrey, just before 8.55pm on Tuesday 23 October 2023 when he was struck by Marston, driving a Renault Trafic van. Police were called to the scene by a member of the public
This week, Kingston Crown Court heard that a witness had seen the van driver travelling on the carriageway’s inside lane, before suddenly swerving to the right.
Officers who attended the scene could not initially see the van or its driver, but eventually found the vehicle, with damage to its front, 800 metres from the scene of the collision, where Marston was also perched on a roadside barrier.

Speaking to police, Marston said that he was unaware that he had been involved in a collision and had assumed that his engine had exploded.
However, a subsequent examination of Marston’s phone discovered a “significant amount of use” around the time of the fatal crash.
Meanwhile, CCTV footage, analysis of the collision site, and a reconstruction of the road also concluded that Potkin would have been visible for up to 200 metres, due to the hi-visibility clothing he was wearing and the lights on his bike.
In police interviews, Marston was given the opportunity to explain how he had been able to unlock and use his phone, including searching on Google Maps and sending several WhatsApp messages, while at the wheel. He responded “no comment” to all questions.
Following a report by Forensic Collision Investigators, the 41-year-old was charged with causing death by serious driving, to which he pleaded guilty in October.
At Kingston Crown Court on Wednesday, he was sentenced to nine years in prison and disqualified from driving for 13 years. Following the end of his ban, he will be forced to take an extended retest before driving again.
According to the judge, Marston’s previous driving record, including six penalty points for using a mobile phone while driving, proved an aggravating factor in his sentence. The court also heard that at the time of the collision, the 41-year-old van driver had accrued 12 points on his licence, but had avoided a ban under the ‘totting up’ process due to the “risk of potential hardship”.
Following the sentencing, Investigating Officer Charley Spriegel, from Surrey Police’s Serious Collision Investigation Unit, warned of the “harrowing” consequences of using a phone while driving.
“My thoughts are with the family of Aran Potkin, who have been left heartbroken by this avoidable tragedy,” Spriegel said in a statement.
“They have remained so incredibly dignified throughout the police investigation and court hearings. Today’s outcome will not change the fact that Aran’s life was cut so unfairly short.
“This should serve as a harrowing reminder to everyone who drives on our roads, that using a mobile phone behind the wheel can have horrific consequences.
“You may think it will never happen to you, but the stark reality is that you could be the reason why a family is mourning the loss of a husband, father, son and brother.”

Potkin’s wife Poppy, with whom he shared two young children, described her husband as “caring and fun”, and said “a version of us who were left behind died that night too”.
“For two years now I have felt intensely home sick, a feeling I know my children share too. I’ve realised that the ‘home’ we miss isn’t a place, it’s a person. It’s Aran,” she said.
“The evening the police knocked at the door to tell me Aran had been killed, a version of us who were left behind died that night too. It was end of Aran’s life and the worst day of ours.
“Aran was incredibly smart, challenging and absolutely gorgeous. He was caring and fun. He didn’t have an ounce of arrogance about him. Happy to be laughed at, happy to lend a hand, happy just to make others happy.
“He was a natural sportsman who never met his true calling as a professional athlete – perhaps because he lacked the arrogance that so often goes hand-in-hand with that level of success.
“I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about how hard he must have tried to stay alive. I wonder what he thought about in those last few moments. I am certain it was our children.
“I’d also like to thank Andy (our Family Liaison Officer), Charley, and all the police involved in this case from the bottom of my heart. Thank you for your diligence, hard work, commitment, your patience and consideration with us as a grieving family. You never met Aran, yet I feel like you knew him. Thank you for treating him not just as a case, but as a person. The full of life dad, son, husband, big brother, and uncle that he was.”

























47 thoughts on “Phone driver who was unaware he killed cyclist jailed for nine years – after previously avoiding driving ban for phone use due to “risk of hardship””
The highway code clearly
The highway code clearly states that if you suspect your engine has blown up while travelling in the nearside lane, you should swerve violently to the right.
Clearly fully aware that he had hit the cyclist.
What a stupid, selfish arse. Fully merited sentence. Pity he won’t serve 9 years.
Am I right in thinking that
Am I right in thinking that the driving disqualification only starts once he leaves prison?
The response to the hardship defense should be ‘you should have thought of that before you got all those points:.
100%
100%
Driving is a priviledge not a right.
Anyone who wants to complain about hardship should be told:
“Well you shouldn’t have done this, should you? Duh.”
Hardship should be part of
Hardship should be part of the punishment.
I understand its concurrent,
I understand its concurrent, so pointless where there is a long prison sentence. Needs to follow prison release. Also need short sharp shock type bans for first offences, not just a few points. I understand these changes are proposed in forthcoming new Road Safety Strategy – it’s gone a bit quiet so will be writing to my MP soon to see why.
SaneRebel wrote:
That’s just the way sentencing works, it’s slightly odd but not pointless; in the normal course of events with a nine-year sentence he will be out in just over three-and-a-half years so he will face nearly ten years of being banned from driving when he’s out. The sentencing guidelines (now, used not to be the case) instruct judges to take into account the number of years that will be served when calculating the ban.
“causing death by serious
“causing death by serious driving” ??
Is that some new offence?
Clearly this individual hadn’t learnt from it’s previous convictions and so should never be allowed to drive again.
And an entirely preventable death caused in part by the massive failure of the law/courts in not revoking it’s licence previously to send a serious message to this inidividual and others.
Another serious case whereby I advocate the criminal lose their taste buds and libido (due to this inicident and previous) as an example to others.
“Clearly this individual hadn
“Clearly this individual hadn’t learnt from it’s previous convictions and so should never be allowed to drive again.”
Sadly he did learn. He learnt that the laws which are meant to protect vulnerable road users and their implementation are a joke so no need to adhere to them.
Yet another case where long
Yet another case where long before this happened, he should have been told ‘sorry but driving’s not for you’.
Exactly that. When are the
Exactly that. When are the stupid police and magistrates going to get it into their thick heads that it’s very rarely a moment of madness or stupidity. It’s almost always a pattern of behaviour and attitudes that culminates in the one instance when they didn’t get away with it and kill or seeriously injure someone. That close pass at 60mph that you dismiss? Well in 10, 20, 30 40 or 50 or at some point that is likely to be the end of an innocent person’s life.
When are the stupid police
When are the stupid police and magistrates going to get it into their thick heads that it’s very rarely a moment of madness or stupidity
On present evidence, given that the NMoTD count is approaching 1000 and very few people seem to be able to present believable evidence of genuine police action against offenders, never! There are almost zero court cases for close-passing
Close passing is just one
Close passing is just one example though of terrible driving that isn’t a moment of madness but part of a pattern of behaviour.
And yet, and I have shown
And yet, and I have shown these examples on here several times, the police (I have to admit that I only know about Lancashire Constabulary) refuse to act on indisputable evidence of mobile use while driving. This is essentially because there wasn’t a collision so the mobile phone use must have been OK- which is also the ‘logic’ behind the police refusal to act against close passing.
Not my job
“Not my job”
open_roads wrote:
Correct. It’s their job to go to the houses of the dead and tell their loved ones that they’ve been killed because the police and magistrates won’t enforce the law.
eburtthebike wrote:
Unfortunately it’s not even that – sometimes they see it as their jobs to go and explain that it was an accident, or worse that it was the fault of the victim – even when they don’t actually have the full information.
Can’t find it right now but Roadpeace did a video with some harrowing cases: one where a child had been crushed into the wheel arch of a lorry. Police initially said “she must have run out” … through the parents persistence there was eventually further investigation and the driver was convicted (he was on the phone at the time).
FFS! Yet another vulnerable
FFS! Yet another vulnerable road user killed by some cunt who clearly should not have even HAD a driving licence in the first place.
An identical collision
An identical collision occurred further along on the A31 about 10 years ago, when van driver Christopher Gard killed Lee Martin who was cycling.
Mr Gard had 8 previous convictions for phone use while at the wheel, yet not a single magistrate thought it serious enough to revoke his licence. On his 9th conviction he was finally jailed for causing death by dangerous driving, but is out again now & living his life.
In my opinion it’s the magistrates/judges who deal with these cases who have blood on their hands. They must ban these drivers. It’s time the plea of exceptional hardship was disallowed, & ALL phone use behind the wheel should lead to instant disqualification from driving, no ifs, no buts.
alchemilla wrote:
— alchemillaThis, a thousand times this.
Using a phone while driving is like firing a gun randomly in the street: how would someone who did that be treated? I don’t think claiming “exceptional hardship” would get much traction.
In my opinion it’s the
In my opinion it’s the magistrates/judges who deal with these cases who have blood on their hands
Those cases are ‘the tip of the iceberg’ when all the cases blithely ignored by the B*****d Police are considered. With GPS timing, I give the BP a time when the driver was ‘on the phone’ accurate to within 2 or 3 seconds
The police should be more
The police should be more open about things like fines for speeding, using phones etc. Its a money making scheme which, tbh, are always avoidable so you cant ever complain if youre caught. Let the police use it as a means to make money out of ignorant selfish drivers. Maybe they will be more ready to follow up offenders. So long as its evidential and not just their word vs drivers. you get caught on cam I have zero sympathy if you get points and a fine
Oh the irony
Oh the irony
Exceptional hardship should
Exceptional hardship should never have been allowed in the first place. That’s part of the punishment.
That’s a human being ? This
That’s a human being ? This kind of attitude needs to END it’s grown over time…it’s killing people! respect to the family and Mr Potkin ?
One hopes that this van
One hopes that this van driver slips in the prison showers.
I’m going to a meeting with
I’m going to a meeting with my MP on Monday, one that he’s called about transport. I might just be raising the utter shambles that is the legal system about driving.
As has already been said, phone driving should be an immediate ban, a week for the first offence, with the vehicle being confiscated for that time, a year for the second offence, and a permanent ban for any subsequent offence, with the vehicle being confiscated and sold.
Of course, all this will be addressed in the comprehensive review of road laws which will be published any day now.
EDIT: I’ve just taken a closer look at the picture above, and I can’t quite believe how bad that cycle lane is.
EDIT: I’ve just taken a
EDIT: I’ve just taken a closer look at the picture above, and I can’t quite believe how bad that cycle lane is
I can. That’s what you get coming into Southport from Preston, although they are, of course, considered by the locals to be long thin car-parks because they don’t know what that funny white symbol means
That meeting with my MP was a
That meeting with my MP was a complete shambles: no agenda, no chairman, no idea, just people telling the Highways chap about their favourite pothole. Ably summed up by one man as “A whinge-fest with no strategy.”
Thanks for trying.
Thanks for trying.
So someone’s potential
So someone’s potential hardship trumps the risk of a driver with 12 points killing someone. The magistrates who except the hardship argument are as guilty as the people who continue to drive with complete disregard for other road users’ safety.
This tragedy should be read by every single magistrate (or judge) before they accept the hardship plea. What is the point of having a system that actually identifies high risk drivers only to allow said high risk drivers to continue driving. What about the hardship they risk imposing on poor families like the Potkins?
I don’t live in the UK, but
I don’t live in the UK, but if I did there is no fkcing way you would catch me riding on the ‘A31 near Runfold, Surrey’.
Especially not in the dark. It looks like pure death. Fuck that.
i live in Surrey and would
i live in Surrey and would never ride the A31.
You should be able to ride on
You should be able to ride on any road without fear of death.
Very aspirational, but there
Very aspirational, but there are human drivers there, you see. Humans, especially plus high speeds and “not expecting cyclists” – I think a certain collision rate is inevitable. (Drivers are driving themselves into immovable objects every day, to their detriment…)
So I’m going to continue not riding on motorways and some A roads, because I do fear death (that I don’t have any fun or thrill in evading) on them.
And if there are such roads which form barriers to me (or the 90- something percent of folks who simply won’t cycle with lots of motor traffic) I will sign up to proposals to make separate space for us. Possibly on a different route, as even cycling beside a motorway reduces happiness!
Use of devices whilst driving
Use of devices whilst driving really needs to be taken more seriously by the police. I reported this one a while ago – didn’t hear anything back so expect it went in the NFA bin…
(yes, the laptop screen was on)
Good work! But it’s a
Good work! But it’s a thankless task isn’t it, working against the police determination to forgive drivers for almost any offence?
The contrast in response to
The contrast in response to when I supplied a bit of information regarding a domestic burglarly is quite amazing. I got two emails, two text messages and a phone call from the neighbourhood policing team thanking me.
Now, a domestic burglarly is a terrible crime – but it doesn’t generally result in death and injury like careless/dangerous driving can (and quite regularly) does ??♂️.
But in Surrey using your
But in Surrey using your phone while in traffic or slow moving traffic isn’t against the law. Or so it would seem.
I got two emails, two text
I got two emails, two text messages and a phone call from the neighbourhood policing team thanking me
But did they actually do anything beyond PR? Such as charge anybody for the burglary?
Not that I’m aware of, yet.
Not that I’m aware of, yet. Hopefully they manage to apprehend the culprits.
Three screens! Three!
Three screens! Three!
Phone driving is basically
Phone driving is basically accepted practice.
It is trivially easy to detect (just stand on the pavement in rush hour) and prosecute (the evidence is easy to obtain and unambiguous, the perpetrator is easy to apprehend).
So the fact that you never see police waving over the perpetrators spotted further up the road and exchanging their car keys for a taxi number tells me that it is the victim of “policing by consent”.
(Ditto MOT/VED infractions, illegal tints, illegal exhausts, illegal/absent number plates)
“I thought my engine had
“I thought my engine had exploded” before continuing to drive nearly a whole kilometer without an engine, apparently.
It’s actually much worse:
It’s actually much worse:
Marston said he was unaware that he had been involved in a collision and instead thought his engine had exploded. Police bodycam footage shows Marston asking “What’s happened?” and “Have I hit him?”
From Slurry, sorry Surrey, Live.
This ‘risk of hardship’ needs
This ‘risk of hardship’ needs to get in the bin. If you can’t do the time (the time being not able to drive), then don’t do the crime. If you rely on driving for your work but insist on putting peoples lives in danger due to your own arrogance then fuck you, Lose your job. This family lost a dad and a husband because of the spineless criminal system.
But the reality is that they
But the reality is that they regularly do the crime, and only rarely do the time. Welcome to cycling in the 20s!
I would agree, only
I would agree. Only I see we have “mass motoring” so we’re apparently not going to do anything like that! The system has set the checks and balances so that pretty much everyone gets to drive. Once you’re in the club (pass a test once per lifetime) you don’t get “harrassed” by the system.
It’s like “pick-your-own”!