A driver who knocked a cyclist from his bike, resulting in his neck being broken, has walked free from court after a judge who described them as having had a “moment of stupidity” handed her a suspended sentence.
The defendant* had pleaded guilty at Maidstone Crown Court to causing serious injury by dangerous driving – an offence which carries a maximum penalty of five years in jail – failure to stop following an accident and drink-driving, reports Kent Online.
The court heard that CCTV captured the moment when the defendant hit cyclist David Shirley, who was wearing a hi-viz vest, on Mill Hill in Edenbridge, Kent, on 8 August 2021.
The footage showed that despite the force of the impact causing the bumper of their vehicle to become detached, they failed to stop at the scene.
People living nearby who heard the crash alerted police after finding Mr Shirley lying injured in the road.
He was given first aid by an off-duty sergeant from Kent Special Constabulary, and two off-duty Metropolitan Police Officers assisted by closing the road so he could receive treatment.
Police officers used the CCTV pictures and ANPR cameras to identify their vehicle, which they found, damaged, when they visited their home three hours after the collision.
Recorder Laurence Harris, the judge in the case, described the defendant’s decision to drive while drunk as being a “moment of stupidity.”
He sentenced them to 16 months in jail, suspended for 18 months, and ordered them to pay the victim £500 in compensation.
“You did not stop,” he told them. “You made no attempt to call for an ambulance or help Mr Shirley.”
Referring to police visiting their home after the collision, he said: “You were asked if you knew why officers were there and said no.
“You were asked to take a breath test which showed you were over the legal alcohol limit and were arrested.
“On any basis, your dangerous driving has had a serious impact on Mr Shirley, both physical and mental.
“The spinal fracture which you caused meant that he was required to wear a neck brace for 12 weeks after the accident. He also suffered a cut left ear.
“Your moment of stupidity in driving under the influence of alcohol has led to a profound impact on Mr Shirley’s life and well-being. No sentence that I pass can undo that impact.
“There was also a significant impact on his vision, causing him headaches, loss of depth perception requiring him to use a walking stick and restricting his ability to go out socially,” the judge added.
“There are inevitably concerns about the longer-term impact of this serious injury.”
The defendant was also banned from driving for 30 months, and will have to wear a tag to monitor a 90-day abstinence from alcohol imposed by the judge, as well as a six-month, three days a week curfew.
* Due to persistent requests, the defendant’s name has been omitted from the article
22 thoughts on “Drunk driver who crashed into cyclist, breaking his neck, walks free from court”
Is there any other
Is there any other circumstance in which you can break someone’s neck – and be entirely culpable for it – and not be jailed?
Steve K wrote:
And leave them for dead. No words.
Because the person who done this is a wrong un. They should have been jailed and shouldn’t have used a disabled child to get out of punishment. Shouldn’t have done it in the first place
Sure.
War.
Sure.
War.
leipreachan wrote:
That’s why the judge was so lenient; the war on drivers. [surprise]
After every article like this
After every article like this, I tell myself not to read the next one, and save myself the upset and impotent rage.
And yet… I still find myself reading these articles, I still find myself becoming upset, and I still suffer from impotent rage.
I’ve had to stop sharing this stuff on Facebook, or reading it to my wife as I cansee the time where she says “enough” and stops me going out (remember, she’s spent the last 4 years watching me suffer following the guy that drove in to me, and changing our lives forever).
What does it take for this shit to stop; for judges to stop seeing the offender as the victim?
My wife is clear that she
My wife is clear that she doesn’t want me to tell her because she would worry about my safety, but knows that no cycling would have other negative effects…
It’s clear that personal responsibility isn’t going to work. To be honest other than getting another dangerous driver off the road more custodial sentencing isn’t going to work.
What we do have is technology. It has been possible to deactivate the ignition of a vehicle until a breath sample is supplied for years. Cars increasingly have the ability to gauge the attentiveness of the driver. Regulations have mandated traction control, ABS, EABC, etc. on new cars over the years but all of these are trying to sort out a problem once the drivers’ incompetence/ inattention has caused it. Would it not be better to prevent a car from moving unless the driver proved they were in a fit state? While we are at it use GPS to set the speed limiter as well.
Prevention is obviously
Prevention is obviously better than cure but consequence is also a factor.
The consequences are so little to those behind the wheel that speeding, checking facebook, self-entitlement, inattention, not driving to conditions and victim blaming are now the norm; why would you even bother to drive well?
Just as an example, how often do you think the average person that has the required 12 points for a speeding ban actually was speeding? And thousands of them still keep their license!
There seems to be no end to
There seems to be no end to these joke penalties for very serious motoring offences, and leaving the scene after inflicting devastating injuries on cyclists now seems to be accepted as ‘normal behaviour’. We know that she will break this ’90 day abstinence’ and we know that they’ll do nothing about it other than warn her ‘do this several more times and there will really be trouble’
This is exactly the kind of
This is exactly the kind of sociopathic driver that needs to be removed from the roads. That judge is clearly not fit for purpose and should be immediately removed from judging any further driving related cases.
I don’t understand the ‘moment of stupidity’ line of thinking. Does it mean that only pre-meditated crimes should be treated seriously? Also, being drunk in control of a vehicle shows some clear pre-meditation in having the vehicle available to you whilst getting inebriated. Also, continuing to drive whilst inebriated would entail several more ‘moments of stupidity’ and after hitting someone, another ‘moment of stupidity’ in not stopping to render assistance.
Follow that logic – and the
Follow that logic – and the only fully culpable decision was to take the first drink. (After that, you’re increasingly drunk so “your judgement was impaired… in a moment of panic you left the scene… wrong but we can understand…”)
…which is also the most normal and reasonable thing they did!
TBH I’m having a bit of a moment at this one. I thought drink-driving was the one part – of all the problematic aspects of driving – that society (and the law) mostly condemned. And now this.
Should we just be grateful that “but what about the children” wasn’t used as an escape from any driving ban?
Sentencing guidelines for
Sentencing guidelines for causing serious injury by dangerous driving.
Judge has been INCREDIBLY lenient.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/causing-serious-injury-by-dangerous-driving-for-consultation-only/
(I’m assuming these guidelines became the real ones.)
They are still awaiting
They are still awaiting confirmation but using those, it should have been a range of 1 to 3 years with a starting point of 2 years in custody and then account for 2 possibly 3 of the listed aggravating factors (drinking, failure to stop and possibly driving uninsured since technically drink driving invalidates most insurance cover) and 1 mitigating factor (family responsibilities) and then reduce the resulting sentence in recognition of a guilty plea. I would say the sentence was very lenient or even unduly lenient based on that.
Ahh another sentence that
Ahh another sentence that basically says “you don’t have to pay attention when you are driving a 2 tonne lump of death at speed”.
Thats what all these sentences boil down to. How could anyone be expected to pay attention when driving. Its clearly just unreasonable.
I was in the passenger seat the other day as we drove for a few hours and the number of people driving erratically only for us to go past them and see that they were on their phone or not looking at the road was mind boggling. On a motorway. Going about 70.
People don’t give a shit about it because the law says they don’t have to give a shit about it. No, harsher punishments won’t bring loved ones back or fix bad driving but if we made driving a priviledge rather than a right, that would be a good start. Start banning people. Properly. This woman should be banned for 5 years for this. If people started losing their jobs, their freedom and their cars when they put other peoples lives at risk they might take it a bit more seriously.
There does exist a mechanism
There does exist a mechanism for questioning the objectivity of judges, but I’m jiggered if I can remember it.
I recall the National Secular Society complained about Cherie Blair once when she made some comments in the Chair that they thought indicated a religious bias.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/secular-society-upset-by-judge-cherie-decision-1889792.html
Found it.
It’s called the Office for (or of) Judicial Complaints. (Ahem.)
One needs to be creative in writing the complaint, just like planning objections:
——————————————————————-
We are an independent office which supports the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice in considering complaints about the personal conduct of judicial office holders.
mattw wrote:
What the fudge are grounds for complaint then? Presumably only unprofessional conduct?
oh well, the cyclist got 500
oh well, the cyclist got 500 quid. So that’s all fair then.
I hope the figure he gets
I hope the figure he gets from her insurance provider has that starting figure plus 3 maybe even 4 0’s after it.
Given that I once got stung
Given that I once got stung for £30k for hospitalising a pedestrian, I hope the cyclist got considerably more.
(I being my house insurance company – I didn’t want to settle with the ambulance chasing f*ckwads. But I had no choice in the matter.)
Interesting background the
Interesting background the Part-time judge has. No experience in criminal law as far as I can see the vast majority of his work is Corporate litigation.
Part-time judge (a recorder) for 2 years.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/laurenceharris1/?originalSubdomain=uk
Watch “PLEASE don’t
Watch “PLEASE don’t breathalyse me!” | REAL drink drivers CAUGHT on bodycam.
From the extremist group Durham Constabulary
My favourite there is
My favourite there is definitely
“You’ve hit a road sign”
“No I haven’t”
“Your car is on top of a road sign”