A hit-and-run drunk driver who crashed into three cyclists, two of whom needed surgery for their injuries, has been jailed for 25 months.
Sandra Graham had gone for a drink after she and a friend took their respective daughters ice-skating to mark the start of the school summer holidays in July 2019, reports Metro.
The 48 year old, who works as a school laboratory technician, was returning home with her daughter when she hit the three members of the Northumbria Cycling Club on North Tyneside’s A193 Links Road.
She then fled the scene and drove home, but another motorist who had witnessed the crash drove after her and took a picture of her car. Her husband then drove her back to where the crash happened.
Graham, from Blyth, failed a first breath test but when tested again at the police station, was found to be right on the legal limit.
However, she was estimated to have been one and a half times over the limit at the time of the crash.
One of the cyclists, David Tickner, was left with a fractured pelvic bone and hip socket and was hospitalised for two weeks.
Another, Terry Slater, sustained fractured ribs and also needed surgery to repair torn ligaments in his shoulder and neck.
The third, Craig Scope, needed specialist treatment after losing movement in his arm and shoulder.
Graham pleaded guilty at Newcastle Crown Court to two counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, and to driving with excess alcohol and failing to stop.
In mitigation, Christopher Knox told the court that Graham was not a “hardened drinker” and that she had probably drunk “more alcohol than she realised” on the afternoon of the crash.
“Her car wasn’t even scratched,” he continued. “It was the wing mirror which collided with the cyclists and caused the serious accident and unfortunately caused the terrible, serious injuries to them, for which she is mortified.
“She has learned a savage lesson,” he added.
Sentencing Graham, Judge Edward Bindloss told her: “At the start of the summer holidays on July 12, 2019 you and a friend took your respective daughters skating in the Whitley Bay area.
“Afterwards you went to the Fox pub at about 4.30pm and there, before leaving at 6pm, you drank alcohol, your recollection is cider and wine. You had nothing to eat while you were drinking it.
“Visibility was good, road conditions were good but you were intoxicated and your driving before, during and after the collision was dangerous.
“You drove your car into and collided with all three of them.
“Afterwards, in panic and no doubt with judgement affected by drink and in my judgement to avoid detection you drove away at speed, including through a red light and on the wrong side of the road.”
Besides handing down the custodial sentence, the judge also banned Graham for driving for four years.

53 thoughts on “Jail for hit-and-run drunk driver who crashed into three cyclists, causing serious injuries”
Better sentence than usual,
Better sentence than usual, but still not a reasonable one considering the damage she caused, the fact she was driving illegally, and the fact that she fled the scene. Lucky for the victims that at least her husband has a moral compass.
Yeah, Im guessing they wont
Yeah, Im guessing they wont be married for very long after this….
Good on the guy for driving her back though.
Maybe I’m cynical but my
Maybe I’m cynical but my immediate thought was that he drove her back to pretend he had been driving all along and then had second thoughts….
If you were really cynical
If you were really cynical you’d have thought the Husband noticed she’d been followed home and photographed and decided the game’s up and she’d get a lesser sentence by going back to the scene of the crime than waiting for the police to tun up in a couple of days
That’s what I thought – that
That’s what I thought – that he was trying to avoid a ‘fail to stop’ wouldn’t say it was cynical though.
Still don’t follow how you can take out 3 cyclists with a mirror.
After cyclist 1 is hit, the mirror is either folded back or broken off.
Did she hit one cyclist and the other 2 hit the prone cyclist ?
Perhaps there were so many scatches already, it was hard to see new ones.
First cyclist falls taking
First cyclist falls taking other cyclists down with them?
I did mention that but the
I did allude to that but the defence is reported as “It was the wing mirror which collided with the cyclists“
Bit of an assumption that the
Bit of an assumption that the mirror would be folded or broken – a fair number of car mirrors take significantly more force to fold them than it would require to cause an unsuspecting cyclist to lose control.
Have you done various
Have you done various experiments then ?
Seems fairly easy to push a mirror back when a vehicle is parked.
Nothing that’s been peer
Nothing that’s been peer-reviewed and published, but if being a passenger in various different cars who’s been assured to put the mirrors in when parking counts, then yes.
On some I’ve even had to use both hands to overcome the stiffness. And while that might not be common, they generally seem to at least require a quite deliberate push, rather than just a soft touch, that would be quite enough to destabilise a moving cyclist, particularly if they had no warning of it.
[Disclaimer: I haven’t done any controlled trials of how much force it takes to push random cyclists off their bikes either.]
Disclaimer: I haven’t done
Disclaimer: I haven’t done any controlled trials of how much force it takes to push random cyclists off their bikes either.
Phew ! Pleased to hear it !
My sample size is about 3, so may not be representative
Monito wrote:
The speculation is largely pointless though as he could have just as likely been thinking she’s a disgusting human being and should face what she’s done. Actions matter more than the speculation. He did the right thing.
The husband’s actions led to
The husband’s actions led to her being breathalysed promptly. If they’d waited for the police to arrive, she probably wouldn’t have been over the limit any more. Let’s face it, it’s only the alcohol that resulted in a jail sentence, otherwise she could simply have claimed she didn’t see the cyclists and get off scot free, as always happens in these sorts of cases.
See it wasnt her fault, it
See it wasnt her fault, it wasn’t even her cars fault, it was the wing* mirrors fault. I know Defence Lawyers are paid to defend, however surely they also need to be pulled up on the language they use as well.
*just for swixydixy.
Quote:
Good job she isn’t a maths teacher as I count three serious injuries there. Or which one doesn’t count.
Also where is the child endangerment charge being as she was driving dangerously with a child (although they don’t have an age noted so might have been older).
This does seem to be
This does seem to be something that Social Services should be looking into when she gets out.
Depending on the age of the child, of course.
The Husband at least seems more of an upstanding person.
Or did he drive back because
Or did he drive back because he had had less to drink, to maybe look like he was driving all along? It’s not clear from the article.
Oops, didn’t see that others
Oops, didn’t see that others had been discussing the same point below.
Just how wide was this wing
Just how wide was this wing mirror ?
hirsute wrote:
It would have been a DOOR mirror – “wing” mirrors went out decades ago.
swldxer wrote:
So no modern vehicles have wing mirrors?
I have never seen one this
I have never seen one this century. I think my first car, an Austin 1300, had wing mirrors in 1969, but my 1974 Austin Allegro had door mirrors as have every car I’ve owned since then. The last car I bought in Sep 2019, even had “road fund licence” on the dealer’s sales sheet, so there are a lot of archaic terms still used.
swldxer wrote:
This will cheer you up then…
https://www.supervettura.com/Car-Details/2020-Pagani-Huayra-Roadster/126
Seen at your local Tesco!
Seen at your local Tesco!
swldxer wrote:
You haven’t paid attention then. Renault Scenics are fairly common, and in a number of models the mirror is mounted on the wing, not the door.
And yes, frequently seen at local tesco
swldxer wrote:
It would have been a DOOR mirror – “wing” mirrors went out decades ago.— hirsute
Anything about the real
Anything about the real content then or are you just very bored again ?
What do you call it when it
What do you call it when it was obviousy floating seperately as apparently it was independent to the vehicle when it collided with the cyclists.
Should be 25 years, not
Should be 25 years, not months. Absolutely disgusting.
Good
Good
Oncce gain someone who will
Oncce gain someone who will be given back thier driving licence and allowed out on the roads to potentially kill. When will this country start to treat driving as a privelege and not a basic right
Except that she’ll never get
Except that she’ll never get insurance again, so is unlikely to be back on the road. Well not legally at least…
How so? Insurers are more
How so? Insurers are more than happy to offer their wares to convicted drink/drug drivers – a quick Google search will show this. It will be (probably a lot) more expensive though…
I really hope she thinks
I really hope she thinks about what she’s done. More importantly, I hope the victims are all able to recover fully.
Until the sentencing she had
Until the sentencing she had not learned as much of a savage lesson.
And from the Metro article-“Mr Knox said Graham is not a danger to the public”
Well for those poor, unfortunate cyclists, who by definition are members of the public, she was very much a danger.
At least she pleaded guilty, though no mention of “Remorse”
Or do you have to actually have to kill the innocent cyclist to really need to express (feel deeply) that one?
Sentence seems OK, but the
Sentence seems OK, but the ban isn’t long enough. However I take the point below about her insurance- has there been much of a charge on her insurance for this incident? Will they have to pay compensation for the injuries?
wtjs wrote:
Not sure. If she’s drunk driving does insurance still apply as she’s broken the contract?
If a compensation claim is made she’ll only be able to quibble about the value. She can’t really fight the claim, conviction is a slam-dunk for liability.
Not sure. If she’s drunk
Under the Road Traffic Act insurers still have to pay any legitimate compensation claims of third parties resulting from drink driving by the insured, though unlike a normal accident claim the insurer does then have the right to claim the amounts paid back from the offender.
Cheers for that info.
Cheers for that info.
Does it apply to all claims resulting for driving offences?
ktache wrote:
I’m afraid I’m not sure, I know they won’t pay out for claims by the insured driver for personal injury or vehicle damage if they can show they were speeding, careless or negligent.
So “don’t drive home with
So “don’t drive home with your kids in the car after a couple of hours drinking in the pub with your friends, when you’re supposedly not a hardened drinker” was a lesson she had to learn (taking the practical, no less!) rather than it being simple common sense? Alrighty then…
this was not an unfortunate
this was not an unfortunate incident. She went drinking, then she went driving. The entire responsibility for her actions and the outcomes rest squarely on her shoulders. Hardened drinker or not, she made a serious error , and in my view the sentence is not severe enough. Mitigating factors my arse. She went drinking. She drove a dangerous piece of machinery on public roads. She caused severe damage and could eaisly have killed someone. Justice system isn’t hard or tough enough. It’s all very well to be sorry after the event.
Seagull2 wrote:
I agree with pretty much everything that said but for one thing. The use of the word error.
This was no error, it was a fully conscious decision made in spite of being in possession of all relevant facts. She put her desire for alcohol above the safety of those sharing the road, and indeed her own daughter. She followed this up by fleeing the scene, leaving three innocent members of the public for dead.
In terms of the behaviour that inevitably lead to the collison, this was deliberate, premeditated, and criminally negligent.
In terms of her following behaviour, had any of the victims paid the ultimate price this would be clearly manslaughter, and in my opinion (I stress the word) there would have been a fag paper between that and cold-blooded murder.
Captain Badger wrote:
“Error of judgement”, perhaps? After all, we know what excellent judges of consequence and probability people are after a few pints…
brooksby wrote:
You are far too charitable. She knew that drinking would impair her judgement – she was sober when she ordered her first drink, when she knew she was going to drive. Being under the influence is not a mitigating factor in drink driving.
Sorry, I may not have been
Sorry, I may not have been clear what I was saying. Was in no way defending her.
Seagull said she made an error, you said it was no error, and I was just trying to use correct language that you could refer to it as an error of judgement.
I’ll get my coat…
brooksby wrote:
LOL, dude don’t worry I know!
I’m not feeling particularly inclined to be generous on this one. I in no way intended to imply that you were trying to defend.
“Her car wasn’t even
“Her car wasn’t even scratched.” Just let that sink in for a while…
I can’t fathom why that was
I can’t fathom why that was mentioned in mitigation. It really has no bearing on anything other than her own costs of repair, which itself is irrelevant to this case.
Had she been sober and not done a runner, one wonders whether she’d have been found not guilty or perhaps received an incredibly lenient sentence.
I expect the mitigation was
I expect the mitigation was to state she barely caught them rather then ramming them all onto her bonnet. I wonder if the same defence lawyer states how the murderer didn’t get any blood on his own clothes or the rapist was nice enough to use a condom when arguing in mitigation for those crimes as well?
“Afterwards, in panic and no
“Afterwards, in panic and no doubt with judgement affected by drink and in my judgement to avoid detection you drove away at speed, including through a red light and on the wrong side of the road.”
Wow, no pulling the wool over that judge’s eyes.
>> on the limit down at the
>> on the limit down at the station.
i don’t think she was used to alcohol, or else maybe the alcohol reacted badly with some other medication. all a long time ago now, but when i failed a breath test ( pulled over due to faulty indicator ) i blew just under twice the limit on the second test down at the station. i had been drinking steadily all day. during the ride back to the station, i quizzed the officers what sort of alcohol levels other drivers they pulled over had. they said they regularly pulled over folk blowing 4x and 6x over the limit. i wonder if she had not driven off then she may have ( narrowly ) avoided a sentence.
Then the police would have
Then the police would have been there sooner so the reading would have been higher. Not sure where you are going with this one.