Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Suspended sentence for hit-and-run driver who knocked child off bike and denied having been in crash

Court told that driver may not have faced charges had she stopped at scene since CCTV footage suggested crash was young cyclist’s fault

A hit-and-run driver who fled the scene of a crash that left a nine-year-old boy seriously injured and denied to police that she had been in a collision has been handed a suspended prison sentence.

Despite lying about her involvement in the incident, Blackburn Magistrates’ Court heard that had  Sameia Sohail Mahmood stayed at the scene she may not have faced any charges at all – since camera footage suggested that the collision was the young cyclist’s fault, reports the Lancashire Telegraph.

CCTV footage showed the child cycling out onto the main road and into the path of Mahmood’s car, with parked vehicles on each side of the road making it difficult for motorists to spot the rider.

Mahmood stopped briefly at the scene of the crash on Vincent Road and Barkerhouse Road in Nelson before driving off.

CCTV footage showed the child cycling out onto the main road and into the path of Mahmood’s car, with parked vehicles on each side of the road making it difficult for motorists to spot the rider.

Scott Parker, prosecuting, said: “He was struck by a car travelling up Barkerhouse Road and was thrown from his bike.

“He rotated in the air and landed in the road. The car pulled in briefly but then left.”

The youngster’s mother said that he had gone through an operation lasting eight and a half hours at Manchester Children’s Hospital, and remained there for three and a half weeks, and that once he returned home he was confined to bed for three and a half months.

He underwent physiotherapy to learn how to walk again, and had to stay off school for seven months and can no longer participate in sports or PE.

His mother added: “I can’t understand why the driver didn’t stop and left my child for dead lying in the road.”

Mahmood’s Audi car was discovered 150 yards away in an alley and had damage to the front as well as bicycle tyre marks on it.

CCTV footage showed Mahmood and her husband, who was a passenger in the car, getting out of the car after she parked it and inspecting the damage.

However, when she was interviewed by police, she denied having been in a crash. She also denied having wiped the steering wheel and getting out of the car to look at the damage.

Mahmood, who was insured and tested negative for excessive alcohol and drugs, was charged with failing to stop and failing to report an accident.

Defending Mahmood, Neil Howard, said that the driver maintained that she was not to blame for the collision.

“What can be said is that she fully sympathises and is upset by the level of injuries the boy suffered,” he told the court.

He insisted that had she stopped at the scene she would not have faced prosecution in the absence of any evidence of poor driving on her part.

“She was insured and there were no issues with drink or drugs which were tested for by the police,” he added.

Mahmood was handed a six month prison sentence, suspended for 12 months, and was told to pay costs of £620 as well as a £128 victim surcharge. The 28 year old was also given a 12-month driving ban.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

23 comments

Avatar
PRSboy | 2 years ago
5 likes

"Defending Mahmood, Neil Howard, said that the driver maintained that she was not to blame for the collision.

“What can be said is that she fully sympathises and is upset by the level of injuries the boy suffered,” he told the court.""

So upset and sympathetic in fact that she stopped down the road to wipe her steering wheel and inspect the car for damage before abandoning it in an alley.

Mr Howard, I appreciate you are only trying to do your job but please do not insult peoples intelligence with crass nonsense like that.

Avatar
Chilledout | 2 years ago
3 likes

These Oxford jackets look perfect for cycling

Avatar
Cycloid | 2 years ago
1 like

We all condemn the driver for her total lack of compassion. Has she claimed for damage to her car?
This type of accident is all too common.
Two stats:-
In collisions between ADULT cyclists and motorised vehicles the driver is at fault about 70% of the time.
In collisions between ALL cyclists and motorised vehicles the cyclist is at fault most of th time.
The difference is of course young cyclists, and riding onto the road is one of the common reasons for a collision.
The answer of course is better infrastructure and more training for both drivers and cyclists, but this will not change a heartless driver into a caring one. After that it comes down to decent sentancing from the courts.
The new highway code may help, but not this week.
 

Avatar
David9694 | 2 years ago
10 likes

that's one hard-assed attitude for sure - "looks like we might have hit a kid, expect someone'll find him, let's just check the car and go" " good idea, no looks fine, we've got worse things to worry about". 

How do you look at yourself in the mirror? For how long does " it wasn't/wouldn't have been my fault" hold up? 

Why is the penalty so paltry (as usual)?

Avatar
Tattoojunkie30 | 2 years ago
11 likes

Nice! More bothered about your car than you are a kid lying in the road - regardless of it being an accident she drove off and left a kid to die, and so did her husband. Both of them should be slung in prison - you are vile human beings

Avatar
wycombewheeler | 2 years ago
18 likes

time to return roads for the passage of road users and not the storge of personal property?

Avatar
EddyBerckx | 2 years ago
18 likes

She and her husband took longer ensuring their precious car wasn't damaged than they did making sure a child wasn't dead.

Thats all you can say really. 

Avatar
iandusud | 2 years ago
21 likes

“What can be said is that she fully sympathises and is upset by the level of injuries the boy suffered,” he told the court.

She was so sympathetic that she decided to drive off and leave the boy to quite possibly die of his injuries. 

Avatar
grOg replied to iandusud | 2 years ago
1 like

Her lawyer knew he was talking complete bollocks.. no wonder that profession has such a bad reputation.

Avatar
nordog | 2 years ago
8 likes

Did not expect small children running or cycling out between parked cars, we use to have a short warning film on the tv all channels years ago showing that very theme. She must have known that there are kids in that area where she lives, how fast was she going, women drivers are just as fast as any man these days. Was she tall enough to see over the bonnet, some drivers are so short they look through the steering wheel so would not see a small boy on a small bike or scooter etc. You have to anticipate accidents sometimes.

 

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to nordog | 2 years ago
5 likes

nordog wrote:

women drivers are just as fast as any man these days

Was there a time they weren't?

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Rendel Harris | 2 years ago
6 likes

Rendel Harris wrote:

.....

Was there a time they weren't?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEEWWTV8Xbg

Avatar
eburtthebike | 2 years ago
21 likes

It doesn't matter who was at fault, leaving a small child to die in the road is inexcusable, and warrants a prison sentence, loss of licence and a rigorous retest if she wants to drive again.

Avatar
RoubaixCube | 2 years ago
10 likes

Her husband who was the passenger should have been the voice of reason.

He could have asked her to stop the car or go back at any time but didnt so was every bit as complicit in the act of driving off as his wife.

Her husband should have also been punished along side her.

Judging by her name. God will hand her down an even harsher punishment when it comes to her meeting him at the pearly gates.

Avatar
brooksby replied to RoubaixCube | 2 years ago
9 likes

RoubaixCube wrote:

Judging by her name. God will hand her down an even harsher punishment when it comes to her meeting him at the pearly gates.

???

Avatar
zeeridesbikes replied to RoubaixCube | 2 years ago
4 likes

Thanks for the ignorance. 

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to RoubaixCube | 2 years ago
8 likes

If she'd been called Janet Christian would you have made assumptions about her religion, beliefs and probable treatment in the afterlife? Probably best not to go there. 

Avatar
Rome73 replied to RoubaixCube | 2 years ago
7 likes

How do you know God is a 'he'? You are making a lot of assumptions in your last sentence. 

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Rome73 | 2 years ago
5 likes

Lukas wrote:

How do you know God is a 'he'? You are making a lot of assumptions in your last sentence. 

Don't know what the almighty's preferred pronouns are...

Oh gods, we're being pulled inexorably back to "that thread"

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
19 likes

Well that's a disgustingly small sentence for callously not caring even slightly for a person's life and well-being and just leaving them for dead. Leaving the scene should definitely be a prison sentence and preferably a lifetime ban from driving.

Avatar
lonpfrb replied to hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
5 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

Well that's a disgustingly small sentence for callously not caring even slightly for a person's life and well-being and just leaving them for dead.

Absolutely, and this is why there has been a petition to make leaving the scene without reporting, and providing care until first responders arrive a significant offence. It can make the difference between life and death.

Not that I would want untrained people attempting to provide care at the scene! Just making sure that nobody else ran over me would be sufficient...

hawkinspeter wrote:

Leaving the scene should definitely be a prison sentence and preferably a lifetime ban from driving.

Sadly the government response was to argue that leaving the scene was an administrative failure and didn't prevent prosecution for assault or manslaughter so should not be made equivalent to those offences.

Willful legal stupidity missing the point that offenders leave the scene to avoid accountability for Agrevating factors such as Drug or Drink driving, never mind attempting to avoid the basic offence. So more needs to be done to correct the Auto-centric law.

Avatar
SimoninSpalding replied to lonpfrb | 2 years ago
2 likes

lonpfrb wrote:

Sadly the government response was to argue that leaving the scene was an administrative failure and didn't prevent prosecution for assault or manslaughter so should not be made equivalent to those offences.

Have you been reading my post? That sounds like the personal letter that I received from Grant Shapps!

Avatar
qwerty360 replied to hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
2 likes

s/leaving/knowingly leaving/

I can vaguely accept the argument from an HGV driver who with an empty truck who stopped and checked when returning and seeing the accident having thought at the point of collision in the dark that they had hit a bad pothole is plausible. But a car driver in daylight has no excuse whatsoever.

 

It should also be a significant factor in insurance claims. Even if you argue that the child was at fault and so the driver shouldn't be liable for the original collision, the failure to report promptly will have delayed treatment, so made injuries worse - something they should be liable for.

Latest Comments