A motorist who killed a cyclist while speeding at up to 51mph in a 30mph zone, and who was found to have traces of ketamine, cocaine, and alcohol in his system at the time of the fatal collision, has been handed a suspended prison sentence and banned from driving for three years, after a prosecutor described his standard of driving as “just below” the threshold for dangerous driving.
Harry Bennett, who had passed his driving test just two weeks before killing cyclist Geoffrey Dean in June 2021, told police that he had not seen the 77-year-old on the road – despite passing him while briefly travelling in the opposite direction – and that he had been in a rush to get home from a barbecue following a “long day”.
Mr Dean was cycling home from his design office in Bideford, north Devon, at round 6pm on 4 June 2021 when he was struck from behind by a BMW driven by Bennett, throwing him in the air and over the roof of the car. After 40 minutes of life support treatment, he died at the scene from multiple injuries.
Bennett, who crashed into a wall after losing control of his vehicle following the collision, admitted causing death by driving without due care and attention at Exeter Crown Court, Devon Live reports.
“For f***’s sake, prison sentence here I come”
According to prosecutor Herc Ashworth, the 24-year-old motorist had attended a barbecue with friends at Kenwith Valley Nature Reserve on the day of the fatal collision.
After drinking two bottles of beer at the barbecue, he left at 6pm, initially driving in the wrong direction, during which time he passed Mr Dean riding on the other side of the road. After turning his car to head north along Northam Road, CCTV footage captured Bennett accelerating over speed bumps above the road’s 30mph limit, and one witness said she saw the motorist speeding shortly before the collision.
A forensic collision investigator also established that as the road turned to the right, Bennett – travelling at between 43 and 51mph – potentially understeered, running wide and hitting the kerb with his wheel.
While there were no witnesses to the crash, analysis of the damage revealed that Bennett hit Mr Dean almost directly from behind, sending him onto and over the bonnet, windscreen, and roof of the car.
There was no indication the driver applied the brakes before the crash, and Bennett later told police that he “did not see” the cyclist, despite the court hearing that the road conditions were good and it was a dry, sunny day.
After crashing his car into a wall a short distance from the collision, Bennett remained at the scene, where he told police officers: “For f***’s sake, prison sentence here I come.”
A roadside breathalyser test produced a reading of 23mg of alcohol per 100ml of breath, below the 35mg limit, while Bennett also told police that he had taken ketamine at 4am that morning. Traces of both that drug and cocaine were found in his system, again below the legal limit.
At Exeter Crown Court, after Bennett admitted causing death by driving without due care and attention, Mr Ashworth described the motorist’s standard of driving as “just below” the threshold for the more serious offence of dangerous driving.
Meanwhile, Judge David Evans said Bennett’s decision to drive at “excess speed” was the result of “arrogant over-confidence”.
“Far too many young people, especially young males, at one time or another make the woeful choice to drive at excess speed to get to a destination as soon as they can,” Evans said.
“In doing so they show a disregard for the obvious risks of driving at speed and it is often coupled with an arrogant over-confidence that it won’t be them that incurs the risks.”
> Drug driver who almost hit cyclist during 87mph police chase avoids jail
The judge told Bennett that he should have been aware of Mr Dean’s presence on the road having passed him while driving in the opposite direction.
Evans also noted that the drugs in the driver’s system may have impaired his ability to a degree, but that they were secondary to the “deliberate” decision to speed.
“As you admitted you were rushing to get home,” he said. “That is the decision that led to Mr Dean’s death. You were driving at greatly excessive speed for that stretch of road and for that bend.”
He sentenced Bennett to 16 months in prison, suspended for two years, and ordered him to undertake 300 hours of unpaid work and rehabilitation days without probation. The 24-year-old was also banned from driving for three years.
“Left a huge void in our lives”
In a statement read to the court, Mr Dean’s son Jeremy described his father as “an extremely kind and caring man” with an interest in helping people.
“His sudden and tragic loss has left a huge void in our lives and will never be replaced. He was the go-to person for advice if ever there was a problem and always knew what to do,” he said.
An engineer and production design manager, Mr Dean established his own design office in Bideford, where had been working late on the day of his death due to a phone call with a Dutch office. His son Jeremy also noted that he was an “ingenious engineer” who was devoted to his wife and family, and loved bikes, sailing, and travelling.
The family say they are struggling to understand what happened on the day he was killed, noting that he regularly cycled that route and was safety conscious.
Remembering advice his father would give him, Jeremy concluded: “The people who succeed in life are those who overcome setbacks and concentrate on the future. Keep smiling.”























42 thoughts on ““Arrogant” speeding driver with drugs and alcohol in his system avoids jail for killing cyclist, as prosecutor says incident was “just below” dangerous driving threshold”
Hit and kill someone with
Hit and kill someone with your bike who steps out in front of you while you don’t have a front brake on your bicycle: 18 months in prison
Hit and kill someone with your car who was cycling while you are speeding, drunk, high, rushing, and not paying attention: No prison time
The media: “THe cOuRTs aRE cOWerIng beFoRE tHE CycLiNg LObbY”
I am not saying the prison sentence for the cyclist was wrong but the lack of reasonable punishment for dangerous drivers is ridiculous.
This should be 14 years for manslaughter.
Patrick9-32 wrote:
Lost count over the years of similar examples of unbelivable hypocrisy.
Kim Briggs was not even
Kim Briggs was not even proerply on a crossing, was not looking and was reported to have had her unlocked phone in her hand. Should have been her who was found at fault for Allisons injuries.
Patrick9-32 wrote:
I don’t think this is what Matthew Briggs has in mind for the end result of his campaign. If he is successful, then the cyclist that killed his wife would not be given a prison sentence.
Edit: sorry. hectic day. cleaned up tense & removed the “s” on cyclist
Patrick9-32 wrote:
Perhaps
a vigilante cyclistthe fair-minded people of Bideford could make sure that the druggy pisshead lowlife scumbag Harry Bennett doesn’t get to drive again.A three year driving ban is
A three year driving ban is simply disgusting.
I really don’t understand how that kind of driving is “just below” dangerous driving. I was under the impression that dangerous driving is for obviously illegal driving rather than e.g. not paying sufficient attention. Surely speeding whilst intoxicated easily qualifies for dangerous driving.
“I really don’t understand…
“I really don’t understand…”
Obviously it was clearly a long bit of short string this time, rather than a short bit of long string.
Remind me again why we even have “causing death by careless / dangerous driving”? Oh yes, because juries wouldn’t convict because obviously there was not the same level of intent as murder / manslaughter. What’s that? The same “did they really mean to” has migrated to these new ones? And we don’t have an objective test (or even commonly – or ever? – bring in experts e.g. driving test examiners)?
I wouldn’t bother trying to understand.
Seemingly losing contol &
Seemingly losing contol & then crashing into a wall on a bend isn’t dangerous driving!
But, 300hrs helping Police with with close-pass operations should be appropriate alternative to prison? Maybe having a couple of beers for dutch courage before each session?
it beggars belief. can these
it beggars belief. can these sentences be appealed. was the judge paid off?
Regardless of the discussion
Regardless of the discussion on prison time and so on it should be a life ban for all at fault killer drivers with no chance whatsoever of appeal. Would still be a billion times lesser punishment than being killed or having a family member / friend killed.
Lets say 10 or 15 years ban for at fault drivers who seriously injure too.
But that would be a war on the motorist too far obviously…
Quote:
Erm…
brooksby wrote:
I’m struggling to think of the standard that the prosecutor believes would be dangerous driving.
hawkinspeter wrote:
The same, but he kills a driver instead of a cyclist.
Quote:
I don’t understand how the law justifies a legal limit on illegal substances
ROOTminus1 wrote:
I don’t understand how the law justifies a legal limit on illegal substances
It’s not a legal limit as such, it is a minimum threshold of detectability. I.e. if you test above that limit, it is beyond reasonable doubt that you took those drugs willingly. If below, then it has a higher probability of being down to sampling problems or similar.
ROOTminus1 wrote:
I don’t understand how the law justifies a legal limit on illegal substances
I would suggest that there has to be a lower threshold for certain substances, for example, you would likely fail a urine test for opiates (if there was zero tolerance) the day after eating a sandwich or roll with poppy seeds on/in it.
We have automatic drug tests
We have automatic drug tests at work whenever there is an accident or incident (even as minor as cutting your finger on a pallet!) with zero tolerance for drugs or alcohol. Any positive test results in suspension until more detailed tests are done and poppy seeds or co codamol regularly gets someone a week off with pay.
If driving incidents were
If driving incidents were treated like workplace incidents, half the country would have been removed from driving duties years ago.
Thank the car industry for the normalisation of forgiveness of dangerous driving and deliberately making large, aggressive, over powered cars sexy and appealing to less experienced drivers.
mark1a wrote:
But, in this case the defendant admitted taking ketamine, so any doubt is removed, surely?
belugabob wrote:
I would suggest that there has to be a lower threshold for certain substances, for example, you would likely fail a urine test for opiates (if there was zero tolerance) the day after eating a sandwich or roll with poppy seeds on/in it.
— ROOTminus1 But, in this case the defendant admitted taking ketamine, so any doubt is removed, surely?
I was answering the specific question regarding how and why the law justifies a legal limit on illegal substances (as asked by ROOTminus1), rather than whether it should or shouldn’t be applied in this specific case.
ROOTminus1 wrote:
The tests aren’t perfect and I think they test for the metabolites (if that’s the right term) of consuming drugs which can provide a false positive (e.g. poppy seeds). There’s also the possibility that someone innocently encounters illegal substances from the environment such as cocaine on bank notes or cannabis in Bristol air.
That seems like a PhD thesis
That seems like a PhD thesis to volunteer for; Quantifying innocuous contact of illicit substances. Research tasks include licking stacks of tested £20 notes to see how much cash is required to give a traceable blood result.
He was at 23 wotsits per
He was at 23 wotsits per thing, whilst the UK limit is 35.
I think that is over the limit in every other European country except Malta.
If the offence was “just
If the offence was “just below” the threshold for death by dangerous driving that must mean it was at the absolute top of the category of death by driving without due care, the maximum sentence for which is five years’ imprisonment, so the logic of giving him a sentence less than a third of that and then suspending it beggars belief.
No doubt Matthew Briggs
No doubt Matthew Briggs welcomes this judgement. One less scumbag cyclist on the road.
#Waronmotorists
Mr Ashworth described the
Mr Ashworth described the motorist’s standard of driving as “just below” the threshold for the more serious offence of dangerous driving.
Someone died: it was dangerous.
I hope someone has sent this to Matthew Briggs and asked him how the all powerful cycling lobby not only allow the slaughter of cyclists, but allow the drivers who kill them to escape prison, unlike Alliston, who was arguably less culpable.
It is an amazing difference
It is an amazing difference in sentences, isn’t it? Motonormativity in action.
I usually stand up for
I usually stand up for Prosecutors. While I can only assume that the Crown’s observations were based upon published guidance I am both astonished and appalled.
Send this to Matthew Briggs
Send this to Matthew Briggs
How on earth can any
How on earth can any threshold for dangerous driving not be outcome based. I mean, fair enough if a driver is stopped before harm is caused, I understand that the law requires some threshold, but in this case a person was killed by the driver as a result of their impairment and lack of judged.
How on earth can that not meet a threshold for dangerous driving.
That’s assenine. An absolute travesty that cyclists continue to be treated as inanimate statistics by the law rather than people with lives.
I think every cyclist will
I think every cyclist will condemn this outcome, and will be thinking of the relatives and friends who must feel totaly let down by the justice system.
BUT —
Road CC bloggers have more or less consigned the HiViz and Helmet debate to the filing cabinet. When they feature on the blog there a “here we go again” groan goes up.
Should we be doing the same with derisory sentencing? We know this is going to happen again, and again. Discussing it on an introverted blog will not change the situation. Is any group actively campaigning on this topic?
Cycloid wrote:
Road CC bloggers have more or less consigned the HiViz and Helmet debate to the filing cabinet. When they feature on the blog there a “here we go again” groan goes up.
Should we be doing the same with derisory sentencing? We know this is going to happen again, and again. Discussing it on an introverted blog will not change the situation. Is any group actively campaigning on this topic?— Cycloid
What irks me is that they continue to bang on fruitlessly about riding bicycles on the roads, whereas everyone has decided it’s way better just to drive.
Surely they should just stick to talking about cyclocross, mtb and gear?
I think road.cc is a news / reviews and comment website and not a campaigning organisation.
Your go-to campaigners would be RoadPeace (effective sentencing but much more), Cycling UK (asking about specific issues but also pushing on the wider issue of road law) and many more (e.g. probably Living Streets although I know less about them and don’t see a specific entry under their campaigns).
“I think road.cc is a news / reviews and comment website and not a campaigning organisation.”
That was implicit in my comment . “Driver avoids jail for killing cyclist” is no longer news. Similarly HiViz and Helmets are no longer newsworthy, but ****s like Nick Freeman, Sycophantic Politicians and Motoring Organisations like to keep them on the agenda.
I will check out Road Peace, but I have not been impressed with the performance Cyclng UK in this area.
I don’t blame anyone …
I don’t blame anyone … except the current and previous governments (kicking the review of road law into the long grass), our former selves and ancestors (for going down the path towards a transport monoculture and motor dependence) and certain politicians in the past (for conspiring with the motor industry and very particular interests and pushing it on the public to the exclusion of other solutions to our transport wants).
Another arsehole in a car
Another arsehole in a car gets away with it yet again.
Absolutely tragic.
The law is an ass.
Everyone from the judge through to the CPS should hang their heads in shame.
Utter wankers!
C’mon…you drink and drive..
C’mon…you drink and drive…you use cocaine…you are the best customer for today’s system…you can’t be jailed…you are a money maker…for them….God bless cocaine and alcohol
Just appalling for what
Just appalling for what happened and the light sentence the driver received….
Coincidentally, the Scots
Coincidentally, the Scots have just issued new guidance about Causing death by dangerous driving. https://www.scottishsentencingcouncil.org.uk/media/2405/statutory-offences-of-causing-death-by-driving-sentencing-guideline.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2tzAxDR03-oefheXiDtPXSEHmHct-g97DSpePdZf3GSg8JKg6pDvsw4a4
Including:
“8. The seriousness of an offence is determined by two things: the culpability of the offender and the harm caused…….
I’m sure Westminster will catch up in oooooooh, probably less than 50 years.
That’s been the basic
That’s been the basic approach since I started reading sentencing guidelines.
I think the Scotties are behind on death by driving offences.
Perhaps they’ve been spending too much time on naked rambling !
mattw wrote:
I beg to differ: there are innumerable cases of drivers causing death where that death is not considered relevant in sentencing.
The journalist seems to have
The journalist seems to have mixed up his milligrams and his micrograms. The limit in England and Wales is 35 micrograms per 100 millilitres of breath not 35mg.
JN35000 wrote:
Happens frequently here.