A Gloucestershire motorist who deliberately swerved towards cyclists has been jailed for two and a half years after being found guilty of two counts of dangerous driving. He was acquitted in relation to a third charge of the same offence.
Dean Goble, aged 40, had been filmed by cyclist David Jones as he drove his Peugeot 206 across the road towards the rider in Ashton Keynes, Wiltshire in April 2014.
A jury at Swindon Crown Court convicted him today of dangerous driving in connection with that incident, and another that occurred a week later between Ewen and Cirencester in Gloucestershire, with Jeremy Maiden the cyclist involved, reports BBC News.
However, he was cleared of dangerous driving in relation to a third incident in May 2014 when cyclist Amanda Adams said she had been similarly targeted in Ashton Stoke.
Goble had claimed that he was trying to avoid potholes in the incident involving Mr Jones and also told the court during his trial this week that it had been his brother driving the car during the subsequent ones.
> Dean Goble tried “to scare the living daylights” out of cyclists, says prosecution
Passing sentence on Goble, who was also banned from driving for two years, judge Tim Mousley told Goble his said his behaviour was “typical of an aggressive and bullying nature,” and that the speed he was driving was an “aggravating feature.”
He also said that it was “a matter of luck rather than any judgment on your part” that the cyclists escaped unharmed.
Sergeant Barrie Card of Wiltshire Police commented: “Dean Goble had no respect for the safety of these cyclists; his dangerous and irresponsible actions could have killed one of these innocent people or, at the very least, seriously injured one of them.
“Today’s verdict is a welcome one and sends out the message that Wiltshire Police will catch you if you endanger the lives of other road users and drive like this.”
59 thoughts on “Driver jailed for deliberately swerving towards cyclists”
What a lovely man. I
What a lovely man. I sincerely hope he becomes somebody’s bitch in jail.
mike the bike wrote:
You can research his family tree in the crime pages of his local paper.
http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/search/?search=goble
I noticed in one report he stated in his defence that he didn’t hate cyclists as he was one himself. He was certainly convicted and sent down for stealing a bike!
http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/news/13924687.Dean_Goble_jailed_for_15_months_for_two_burglaries/
Goes to show the value of
Goes to show the value of camera footage
cyclesteffer wrote:
As with the CCTV footage of a pedestrian being catapulted through the air, that was in the media just the other day, I shudder at the thought of how many people have been killed, over the deacades, as a result of criminally (or deliberately) bad driving, without anyone ever being held to account for the offence.
Without cameras or witnesses or a surviving (and compos-mentis) victim, they’d either never be identified, or if identified, there would be no way to prove anything.
Jailed for how long?
Jailed for how long?
Glad it resulted in a conviction.
P3t3 wrote:
Two and a half years, according to the first paragraph of the report.
“Today’s verdict is a welcome
“Today’s verdict is a welcome one and sends out the message that Wiltshire Police will catch you if you endanger the lives of other road users and drive like this.” That’s odd, I thought the cyclist with a camera “caught” the driver, the Police merely carried out an arrest later on. They didn’t exactly have to look hard they had the car details on screen.
Good to see a decent result. Too many of these agressive idiots get away with it for too long.
WoW. Seriously if I was
WoW. Seriously if I was wearing a Hat id take it off to that jury. Finaly a Jury ruling with their Head and not their Heart.
Can we see the video now? It
Can we see the video now? It was taken off Flickr while Police inquiries proceeded.
Edit: Ah! It’s on the Beeb report.
it’s just a verdict to
it’s just a verdict to impress the poor cycling masses; nobody will be there when he will be out for *gooooood* conduct after 6 months ; a not so bad guy finally… that’s how “justice” works nowadays. And in two years time he will be driving a two ton car again!
frogg wrote:
6 months, is he going to escape then?
bendertherobot wrote:
I’m not an expert but a quick google suggests he can be on day or overnight release after 25% of sentence, meaning 7.5 months.
vbvb wrote:
Highly unlikely for somebody with that record. He’ll be out on licence after 50% and if (when?) he reoffends he’ll have to serve the remainder of the 2.5yrs on top of any new sentence. And is at risk of being recalled to prison for any reason at any time during the licence period.
frogg wrote:
Right. The twelve people randomly selected from the electoral role for jury duty, having sworn to faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence; then having day through probably days of evidence; thought “gosh, we’d better come up with a verdict to impress the poor cycling masses”. That was their main concern.
If only his lawyer was Mr
If only his lawyer was Mr Loophole…
fascinating family, the
fascinating family, the Gobles!
http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/news/1537442.goble_given_new_start_in_portugal/
Metjas wrote:
If my googling is correct then Dean Goble was already in prison during this most recent trial (for burglary offences).
I’m amazed and pleased they
I’m amazed and pleased they got a guilty verdict, reading the details it had all the hall marks of a motor centric jury giving him the benefit of the doubt.
And a prison sentence to boot, I hope the Hampshire police take note.
Would the previous criminal
Would the previous criminal record come up in court and the jury be aware of it?
Stephan Matthiesen wrote:
No. Not unless it included something relevant to dangerous driving. Simple evidence that somebody is a wrong’un is not allowed.
Dan S wrote:
Would the previous criminal record come up in court and the jury be aware of it?
— Dan S No. Not unless it included something relevant to dangerous driving. Simple evidence that somebody is a wrong’un is not allowed.— Stephan Matthiesen
All the defendants precons will only be seen by the court once he has been found guilty. Previous convictions can be brought up during interview if it points to bad character evidence – ie he denies it saying he’s been a good boy with no previous driving offences, then you can bring in previous driving ofences to prove he’s a liar.
Bad character evidence can only be brought in for like offences so a burglary cannot be brought up if he’s being interviewed for driving offences as its not relevant.
stumps wrote:
More of the bizarre pretence that this is ‘only a driving offence’. If threatening someone with a tonne of metal isn’t an indication of ‘bad character’ it’s hard to imagine what is.
oldstrath wrote:
You really need to do some more googling and some less ranting.
Bad character is a legal mechanism by which relevant previous convictions may be disclosed to the Judge (Magistrates Court) or Jury (Crown Court). If you’re on trial for theft and have 20 pre cons I can guarantee you that will happen. If you’re charged with dangerous driving then your theft convictions are in no way related to what you’re ACCUSED of.
Now, in your example, you’re using the accusation as evidence of character to support the accusation. It is not and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how cases work. What is alleged to have happened requires evidence. In this case that evidence saw him convicted. The physical act of driving was the offence. His character is then relevant to his sentence. In this case the volume of his previous convictions saw him more heavily penalised than someone with none.
bendertherobot wrote:
I don’t understand why this was a ‘driving offence’. He threatened people with a deadly weapon, causing them, I suspect, significant trauma. What’s the fact he did so with a car to do with it.
The other thing I don’t understand is why it well ever be legal for him to drive again in his lifetime, but I never understand this one.
oldstrath wrote:
It occurs to me that I may have misunderstood this the first time round. The explanation immediately afterwards about the difference between bad character and the allegation at hand is entirely correct but it is worth clarifying one point: if he had had previous convictions for threatening behaviour then it is possible that the jury could be told about them. This is a “driving offence” because he was driving a car but it was also, when you look at the facts, a case of threatening somebody with a deadly weapon. It would be a question for the judge whether any previous convictions are sufficiently relevant to overcome any prejudicial effect but if he had, for example, a number of offences for threatening people with weapons (axe, sword, baseball bat etc) then I for one would certainly have been looking to make an application to tell the jury about them.
On a related note, your suggestion that this is being treated as “only a driving offence” is shaky. This sentence exceeds what I would have expected had he threatened somebody with a knife, for example.
Dan S wrote:
Really? I thought the sentence even for carrying a knife without justification exceeded this.
Ah yes, a quick check of Google reveals 4 years and £5000 fine for an adult carrying a knife without good reason. Threatening with a knife suggests a sentance towards the upper limit.
wycombewheeler wrote:
4 years and a £5000 fine is the maximum. And no, threatening with a knife does not suggest a sentence towards the upper limit. At least, not to somebody who’s spent any time in the crown court. Still, 15 years of dealing with this sort of thing on an almost daily basis (including appearing before this judge) is obviously not going to give me as much insight as a “quick check of Google”…
Yay- a win for “us”
Yay- a win for “us” 🙂
I had a similar experience
I had a similar experience recently, the guy started honking from way behind (on an empty road) and the next thing I know he’s alongside and moving in towards me within an inch or two..it was a scary moment and I was just waiting for the impact. It’s good to know he could be jailed for it although this case seems to be a rarity and the only way to catch these oddballs is with a camera.
Jailed for 2.5 years and
Jailed for 2.5 years and banned from driving for 2 years. Isn’t that a bit pointless, or does the driving ban start after his release from prison?
Scum from a family of scum. Just a shame he’ll be back on the streets at all.
Fuck the loser.
Fuck the loser.
Bloody hell 122 stories in
Bloody hell 122 stories in the local rag. This guy/family are more notorious than” insert favourite hoodlum”
There are actually some real
There are actually some real positives here. The first is the finding of guilt.
The second is the length of the sentence, it’s in excess of the maximum of 2 years. How? Because he’s been sentenced consecutively for 2 offences. IF they’ve given the same for both then he’s got 1yr 3 months x 2.
There are some negatives, whilst there aren’t too many aggravating factors (as definied in the sentencing handbook) present, I can’t see much mitigation to take 9 months off for each offence. That said, it’s quite rare, where there’s no damage/contact to see the max. And, where there’s injury we’re into a different offence.
bendertherobot wrote:
There aren’t any relevant sentencing guidelines here. To get the maximum you’re going to need it to be as bad as it could be. With no contact, no injury and each course of driving being relatively short, maximum was never going to happen. And its only a different offence if there’s serious injury. Some less serious injury is still dangerous driving.
The problem is that 2 years is far too low a maximum. We need Parliament to raise it. In the meantime this judge (who is no softie) has given about as much he can.
As an aside, the driving ban is not lifted until he passes an extended driving test.
bendertherobot wrote:
There aren’t any relevant sentencing guidelines here. To get the maximum you’re going to need it to be as bad as it could be. With no contact, no injury and each course of driving being relatively short, maximum was never going to happen. And its only a different offence if there’s serious injury. Some less serious injury is still dangerous driving.
The problem is that 2 years is far too low a maximum. We need Parliament to raise it. In the meantime this judge (who is no softie) has given about as much he can.
As an aside, the driving ban is not lifted until he passes an extended driving test.
Dan S wrote:
— Dan S There aren’t any relevant sentencing guidelines here. To get the maximum you’re going to need it to be as bad as it could be. With no contact, no injury and each course of driving being relatively short, maximum was never going to happen. And its only a different offence if there’s serious injury. Some less serious injury is still dangerous driving. The problem is that 2 years is far too low a maximum. We need Parliament to raise it. In the meantime this judge (who is no softie) has given about as much he can. As an aside, the driving ban is not lifted until he passes an extended driving test.— bendertherobot
CPS sentencing handbook, not guidelines. We know that they will be argued, accepted, or rejected, so they’re a good indication of what to expect. So we have to fill in the blanks in the absence of the media explanation of why the Judge did what he did. What’s quite notable, in relation to the handbook, is that none of the factors really fit this type of offence at all.
In relation to your 2 years point, I completely agree.
bendertherobot wrote:
I would love to be in court when somebody raised the CPS Sentencing handbook in front of this judge! Good chap but can be very biting…
Dan S wrote:
— Dan S There aren’t any relevant sentencing guidelines here. To get the maximum you’re going to need it to be as bad as it could.
As an aside, the driving ban is not lifted until he passes an extended driving test.— bendertherobot
An extended driving test might be relevant if the danger were posed by incompetence. But fairly clearly (maybe even to lawyers), this was not a ‘lack of skill’ event. So unless he really is too stupid to dissemble for a couple of hours, I fail to see what conceivable comfort should be drawn from this.
oldstrath wrote:
I wonder if, in the US, when someone shoots at someone in the street they have taken a dislike to, they are sent on a ‘gun handling’ course?
oldstrath wrote:
Not trying to comfort you. Just inform.
News like this brings a
News like this brings a little tear to my eye. It’s almost enough to make me want to start using my camera…
A question to the more
A question to the more knowledgeable masses: Does the two year driving ban come into effect when he is released from prison, or does it start immediately at sentencing (i.e. while he is in prison)?
ofathens wrote:
Starts after he is released thanks to recent law update.
20 MAR 15
“We have also changed the law to make sure that driving bans are extended so they continue to apply after an offender has come out of prison.”
swldxer wrote:
So has this change actually been implemented now or not? First it was, then it wasn’t (due to some technicality) and now, it is? Is this definitive this time?
Worryingly he got away with
Worryingly he got away with the third offence 🙁 In all probability he committed that as well.
maldin wrote:
Thankfully we don’t do probability in criminal law. We do certainty.
There’s another minus I forgot to add. Although he got a consecutive sentence he got some of it for free as he’s already inside for other offences. It would be good to see his next sentence start after he’s finished his current one. Still, it will mean he’s inside for a good while yet.
maldin wrote:
I was wondering what the key difference in that case was. Obviously the video’d one was certain. But the two other cases seemed very similar from the reports.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Worryingly he got away with the third offence 🙁 In all probability he committed that as well.
— wycombewheeler I was wondering what the key difference in that case was. Obviously the video’d one was certain. But the two other cases seemed very similar from the reports.— maldin
It would be just perfect if they could now charge the brother with that one on the sworn evidence of his brother. Or charge DG with perjury if he withdraws his statement.
As has been pointed out, the
As has been pointed out, the long record would not have been pointed out to the jury. It would have been known by the judge when deciding the sentence though and I would imagine it was a large part in deciding the sentence. i.e. not quite such a change of heart by courts in favour of cyclists.
or maybe the judge just took the advice of Goble.
He did not tell police that his brother, who had been “in bother” before, had been driving on those occasions since he did not want to get him into further trouble.
“He admitted it to me yesterday,” Goble told the court. “But my brother has been in bother and I spoke to him on the phone yesterday and I said I could get two or three years and he said it’s not fair and he said ‘Tell them it was me’.
“I just didn’t want to get my brother into bother. It’s not a lie.”
The other thing I don’t
The other thing I don’t understand is why it well ever be legal for him to drive again in his lifetime, but I never understand this one.
particularly where he can’t claim he needs his car for his work. His income is from drug dealing and house burgularies.
His facebook profile shows under work:
Worked at: (Opportunity Knocks But Once) Snatch and Grab It
Can darwin’s theory of
Can darwin’s theory of evolution speed up for this family, don’t let them breed anymore.
Two points:
Two points:
This or similar “teach em a lesson” actions happens quite frequently, most cyclists could recount eaxmples.
Also I can’t help wondering how much of this sentance was due to this characters well known history and less to do enforcing road safety and so not likely to become common place.
Have had this happen to me
Have had this happen to me twice, once a transit van driver and once a guy in a mondeo. Pretty terrifying to say the least. Makes me think of getting a helmet cam though in future to protect myself. Although not sure I could handle the faff of having it on/recording for every single ride.
whatleytom wrote:
A camera will not protect you, well not yet. Best it will do is secure a conviction. In the future when just about everyone has cameras then hopefully driving and general courtesy will be normal
CXR94Di2 wrote:
whatleytom wrote:
Off to the local Plod shop in the morning to report simialr to this case. Won’t go into too much detail but driver changed from a clear lane 2 into my lane and used the horn to intimidate me then passed me closely. Luckily I had the camera on the back of the bike that night and the lane change is clear to see.
So is his brother being
So is his brother being prosecuted for the 3rd incident? I suspect not even given that Dean grassed him up, to use the vernacular of my youth.
1961BikiE wrote:
Almost certainly not, for two linked reasons.
First, to convict somebody you need enough evidence to make the jury sure. It’s not enough to have some evidence, nor even string evidence. They have to be sure. Does Dean’s word sound like it’d make you sure?
Second, what Dean says in his trial is not admissible evidence in his brother’s trial. The jury hearing the brother’s case wouldn’t have heard it and had the chance to assess it. It is a perennial problem that people can blame anybody they like when giving evidence in their own defence and it is very hard to do anything about it.
I actually saw the footage on
I actually saw the footage on the BBC site. Even given the small image the carriage way looks in impressive condition. He swerved far enough across the road to avoid a chasm let alone a pot hole.