A driver who threatened to kill a cyclist before attacking the rider during what the victim described as a "near-death experience" has avoided an immediate jail sentence.
At Cardiff Crown Court, Edward Shane was sentenced to 18 months in prison, suspended for two years, has been ordered to complete a rehabilitation course and was banned from driving for three years for the "terrifying" road rage incident on August 9 last year in Newport.
Wales Online reports that the 69-year-old motorist overtook the cyclist, Marcus Twine, and sounded his horn as he passed, something the rider later questioned when the pair met again at a red light at the junction to a Sainsbury's supermarket shortly after.
Nik Strobl, prosecuting, explained how Shane had begun swearing at the cyclist, and told him he "will die on this road today" before a verbal altercation led to the motorist leaving his vehicle and exchanging punches with the cyclist, the two men ending up grappling on the floor.
The court heard that having got to their feet, Shane told the cyclist he had a gun and would shoot him. He went to the boot of his car and began looking for something before chasing the cyclist between stationary cars and picking up his bike, holding it over his head.
Mr Twine then kicked Shane who returned to his car while the cyclist looked over the damage to his bike. As the cyclist looked up he saw Shane revving his engine and driving towards him.
Mr Twine went behind a lamppost as Shane accelerated towards him, smashing into the street light, damaging it, his car and the rider's bike.
Describing the attack as a "near-death experience", the cyclist was able to call the police having run to a nearby petrol station and borrowed a phone.
Appearing at the scene, officers reported being able to smell alcohol on Shane's breath, the driver refusing a roadside breathalyser test. He was taken to hospital for treatment to a cut on his head, the court hearing he then asked officers for the cyclist's name so he could put a "hit" on him.
A blood test at hospital showed Shane's blood alcohol level to be 175mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood (legal limit is 80mg).
Shane pleaded guilty to making threats to kill, dangerous driving, assault by beating, criminal damage, driving with excess alcohol, and failing to provide a specimen for analysis. During an interview he said he had made the threats in the heat of the moment and had not meant them.
At sentencing, Simon Hughes, recording, said the "colourful exchange" between the cyclist and motorist, prompted by Shane's use of the horn, had turned into an "appalling piece of behaviour" and a "terrifying" experience for Mr Twine.
Shane's defence, Stuart John, said his client's life had "unravelled" post-retirement and he had been "drinking extremely heavily indeed", and accepts responsibility for the incident.
Shane had a previous conviction for drink driving, and was given a suspended sentence, told to undertake a rehabilitation course, and banned from driving for three years with a requirement to pass an extended retest before resuming driving.
Add new comment
56 comments
This is the assclown judge who's poor sentencing enables criminals to walk free.
https://www.farrarsbuilding.co.uk/barrister/simon-hughes/
You should be able to challenge the professional competence of these people.
Judge probably runs over badgers for fun...
"As the cyclist looked up he saw Shane revving his engine and driving towards him.
Mr Twine went behind a lamppost as Shane accelerated towards him, smashing into the street light, damaging it, his car and the rider's bike."
This is attempted murder. He threatened to murder someone and then tried to murder them. Only through his victim's quick thinking was he unsuccessful.
He should be in prison for decades. Someone like that shouldn't be on our streets, with or without a car.
He quite literally used his vehicle as a deadly weapon and proved that he should never be allowed behind the wheel of a car again... a three year ban doesn't really seem appropriate really does it.
If I had a gun licence and decided in a drunken state to get angry and shoot at someone, they would take the gun off me and I would never be allowed to own a gun again.
"If I had a gun licence and decided in a drunken state to get angry and shoot at someone, they would take the gun off me and I would never be allowed to own a gun again. "
.......I live in the US, and in a Republican state like Texas or Florida they'd be more likely to buy you more bullets to replace the ones used in your previous attempts.
I'm hearing a John Cleese voice, "Well yes, but apart from making threats to kill, dangerous driving, assault by beating, criminal damage, driving with excess alcohol, and failing to provide a specimen for analysis, what has he ever done to deserve going to prison?"
Unbelievable.
Yep, you can do all of that and get away with a suspended sentence.
However... smash a car with a baseball bat.... and you go to jail.
https://www.northantslive.news/news/northamptonshire-news/car-smashed-up...
I want to say this is unbelievable, but it is 100% believable. Another day, another maniac told his behaviour is fine.
From "Drivers and their problems":
yup - cars are so protected, if you so much as touch a car, you can be fined.
Two parts of that story show why he went to prison:
"When confronted by a member of the household who was in the attached garage, the defendant says 'I'm going to hit your son and kill him. Do you want some of this as well?'"
And the more serious piece of evidence:
"Witnesses said the defendant had turned up on a pushbike with a baseball bat in his possession."
Guilty as charged.
To be fair, all of those "you could be fined up to £[maximum penalty in law] for [dubiously inferred infraction, which has had no precedent ever of being sustained in a court]" articles are basically clickbait BS.
Oh, now that is just ridiculous!
How would anyone be able to write clan me in the dirt on a car owned by "someone who looks after their car". Also very difficult to scratch a window with a finger. So this is a nonsense story because to be prosecuted for damage they would have to prove actual damage
You missed the all important detail...the miscreant was riding a bike! Just as well they abolished hanging.
Oh... so when the judge gave this driver a suspended sentence...
They really really meant "suspended"
Probably locked up as he was identified as a cyclist by riding a bike to the scene of the crime, no doubt considered an aggravating factor....
Ah, but in that case there were aggravating factors : "the defendant had turned up on a pushbike"
Whereas in this case, the acts were mitigated the fact that the defendant was a raging alcoholic with a previous drink driving conviction.
Prosecutor: He was drunk as a judge
Judge: Don't you mean 'drunk as a lord'?
Prosecutor: Yes m'lord ...
"The baseball bat will be destroyed and forfeited"
apart from the fact that it should be the other way around (forfieted and destroyed) why does this not seem to happen when cars are used to intimidate victims or indeed as weapons, I know it can happen if they aren't taxed and insured properly but perhaps it should become the norm with a driving ban too
Mr baseball bat has form though, which makes a difference with sentencing.
Don't forget the previous conviction for drink driving.
Truly unbelievable.
Don't forget the threats to organise a contract killing which were witnessed by a police officer.
Indeed. His mitigation for the original threat to kill was 'heat of the moment' yet even after a cooling off in an ambulance/ A&E he was still prepared to make further threats, in the presence of the cops FFS. This is an unbelievably lenient sentence.
Not when you consider that the victim was a less-than-human cyclist. He would have received a heavier sentence if the victim was a family pet.
I would argue being a cyclist is not the reason for leniency, it is more that the perpetrator is a driver, so Judges and Juries treat that as "well it can happen to anyone". The victim of the driver could easily have been a pedestrian then a cyclist and that would still be the case.
The BBC have a report of two girls who were crossing a road and waited in a hatched area on a right-hand bend for the car to pass. Instead the driver cut the corner and ploughed directly into them. The mothers (drivers themselves I suspect) has decided that "well it was an accident" even after one of them mentioned that had to sign a consent form to potentially amputate her daughter leg and it was the worst day of her life.
It's almost like he's had some practise at this...
He has eight previous convictions for 15 offences including one for drink-driving.
So appropriate for the judge to wear the black cap when passing sentence
'shall be taken from this place to a place of execution and hung by the neck until dead. May God have mercy on his miserable soul '
(c) Charles Dickens
Pages