Pensioner convicted of assaulting cyclist gets driving licence back on appeal

FatBoyW wrote:

does the magistrate the 77 year old or anyone not consider the message to others? I would be ashamed of myself to even consider appealing such a light sentence. I would be even more so to acquiesce to such arrogant flagrance of considerate driving etc etc

a pox on our society that we are free to damage, kill or maim in our cars with little or no or consequence

What exactly did he damage, kill or maim in his car?

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Oddly enough I had to cowardly cycle away from a situation yesterday. In queueing traffic, not really opportunity to safely overtake, woman comes past hands not on wheel, messing about in handbag and then on phone. I follow her for about 1/2 mile, messing about in bag, checking phone, I shout from behind (her are windows open) for her to pay attention as the traffic is constantly moving off and she isn't. Doesn't seem to hear me, handbag is much more interesting.

Anyway, traffic finally start to move faster than me and I think at least she'll be gone. No, suddenly slam all on without indicators as she spots a space.  As I rode past I shouted she should pay some fucking attention. Lo and behold a tattooed-steroid-thug in a wife-beater then appears out of nowhere shouting at me saying I'm a fucking knobhead for talking to a 'lady' like that. I tell him to piss off, realise that although my cardio is superior, he's still twice my size and ride away annoyed that people assume the cyclist is the idiot, even though she could have just run over a family of four or simply just knocked me off.

If I lived in America I would have shot them both (joking)

Need to carry a few permanent Learner stickers

Dan S wrote:

It's another of those where we simply don't know enough to judge.

Example: if I were driving along and a cyclist cut me up and then started yelling at me, I might well yell back.  If he then started hitting my car and then came to my door and reached in, trying to take my keys then I might very well open the door forcefully a few times to get him away.  I might then get out and if he was still having a go I might try to push him away by the face.  If I started to punch him then sure, I'm in the wrong, but the chappie I'm hitting may well not deserve compensation, especially if I don't injure him.  If I was pushed over the edge by unpleasant remarks he made to or about my wife, sitting next to me etc (we don't know) then maybe that also reduces my culpability, just as any number of other things might.

You can argue either way about the driving ban - there's no criticism made of the guy's driving but the court could disqualify him for the assault.  Having heard all the facts (which we haven't), the Recorder decided not to.

Previous good character: those who are saying that a 77 year-old man who has never been in trouble before but does this must just never have been caught before, because you don't just suddenly do this - does any of you have any authority whatsoever for saying that?  Any psychological or behavioural studies?  Or have you just read something like that in the Daily Mail once?  Spend some time in the criminal justice system: this sort of thing happens.  It's not very common but if you have a sample size of the entire population then rare things happen.

Those who are saying that being of previous good character shouldn't be mitigation: would you therefore also say that the same penalty should have been imposed if the Defendant had been a violent thug with a long string of violent convictions?  Of course not - previous convictions are an aggravating factor and lack of them is a mitigating factor.

And another one where we are completely at cross purposes. Your concern is for the law as narrowly interpreted and the individual - right and proper no doubt, though I sometimes wish the law paid more attention to the effects on the victim than the rights of the doer. However, that aside, my (and probably others') concern is more for the effects on road safety. 

Driving a motor vehicle on public roads is a pretty dangerous thing, possibly one of the most dangerous (to others) that we permit without close supervision. And we allow this privilege on the basis of one short, not terribly rigorous, test, possibly taken 60 years ago in this case.

In a rational world, we would surely re-examine fitness and ability regularly and frequently, but apparently lack the will (or wit) to do this. In default of such sense, one might hope that the legal system would at least remove from the driving pool anyone who by their actions calls into question their competence or fitness (and thumping a random stranger in the street for the 'crime' of having been in your way surely does that).

oldstrath wrote:

Dan S wrote:

It's another of those where we simply don't know enough to judge.

Example: if I were driving along and a cyclist cut me up and then started yelling at me, I might well yell back.  If he then started hitting my car and then came to my door and reached in, trying to take my keys then I might very well open the door forcefully a few times to get him away.  I might then get out and if he was still having a go I might try to push him away by the face.  If I started to punch him then sure, I'm in the wrong, but the chappie I'm hitting may well not deserve compensation, especially if I don't injure him.  If I was pushed over the edge by unpleasant remarks he made to or about my wife, sitting next to me etc (we don't know) then maybe that also reduces my culpability, just as any number of other things might.

You can argue either way about the driving ban - there's no criticism made of the guy's driving but the court could disqualify him for the assault.  Having heard all the facts (which we haven't), the Recorder decided not to.

Previous good character: those who are saying that a 77 year-old man who has never been in trouble before but does this must just never have been caught before, because you don't just suddenly do this - does any of you have any authority whatsoever for saying that?  Any psychological or behavioural studies?  Or have you just read something like that in the Daily Mail once?  Spend some time in the criminal justice system: this sort of thing happens.  It's not very common but if you have a sample size of the entire population then rare things happen.

Those who are saying that being of previous good character shouldn't be mitigation: would you therefore also say that the same penalty should have been imposed if the Defendant had been a violent thug with a long string of violent convictions?  Of course not - previous convictions are an aggravating factor and lack of them is a mitigating factor.

 

And another one where we are completely at cross purposes. Your concern is for the law as narrowly interpreted and the individual - right and proper no doubt, though I sometimes wish the law paid more attention to the effects on the victim than the rights of the doer. However, that aside, my (and probably others') concern is more for the effects on road safety. 

Driving a motor vehicle on public roads is a pretty dangerous thing, possibly one of the most dangerous (to others) that we permit without close supervision. And we allow this privilege on the basis of one short, not terribly rigorous, test, possibly taken 60 years ago in this case.

In a rational world, we would surely re-examine fitness and ability regularly and frequently, but apparently lack the will (or wit) to do this. In default of such sense, one might hope that the legal system would at least remove from the driving pool anyone who by their actions calls into question their competence or fitness (and thumping a random stranger in the street for the 'crime' of having been in your way surely does that).

First, I agree entirely that we should have regular retests of drivers.  Absolutely.

Second, the courts have the power to remove people who are incompetent or unfit from the driving pool, as you put it.  This particular court chose not to do so.  There are a number of possible reasons for this:

1. Bad judgment.  This happens.  Nobody is perfect and mistakes are made in all walks of life, including mistakes of judgment.  Courts have to make dozens of judgments calls every day and some will be wrong.  

2. Bad reporting.  Note that every time the article tells us what happened, it does so in the words of the prosecutor.  That's not necessaily the same as the findings of the court and it is very common for journalists to watch the opening speech and then leave.  They might then not return until the sentencing.  That's what I mean by not enough information - the evidence might not have reflected what was said in opening (it vary often doesn't) and the court may well have found some factual basis that was not in the opening.  This happens.  I've seen my own words quoted in the newspapers in circumstances where the actual finding was different.

3. Linked to 2 - the court sentences only for the conviction.  Here there is no driving conviction, not even for careless driving.  There does not appear to be any indication either that driving into the bike was part of the assault.  This leads me to doubt whether that part of the allegation was pursued and/or found proved.  

If there is nothing wrong with the way he used his car then the starting point is that a ban is not needed.  That's not to say that it can't or shouldn't be imposed.  I've had people banned from driving for all sorts of things.  But there needs to be some good reason.

The obvious reason would be road rage.  But is this actually a road rage assault?  If we leave the specific allegations of the reporting aside (for the reasons in 2 above) then it is entirely possible that the court found the following:

- following the near collision, the defendant stopped his car and both parties shouted at each other and the cyclist banged on the bonnet (this appears to be correct).  Shouting is hardly road rage enough to justify a ban.

- The cyclist then tried to steal the defendant's keys (this also appears to be correct, albeit using the admittedly emotive word "steal" rather than "take"...).

- At that point the driver became enraged, not by the cyclist's manner of cycling but by his abusive behaviour and attempt to take the car keys.  The driver retaliated as described.

That is a perfectly possible set of findings, reading between the lines of the report.  Now, you could argue that assaulting somebody shows that you do not have the temperament to drive but in that case we should ban everybody who gets an assault conviction.  In this case the court appear to have decided that the assault was sufficiently separate from his driving to justify not disqualifying.  You may not agree, but it's not an irrational decision.

Two further factors: mitigation and proportionality.  We don't know what mitigation was put forward, particularly regarding disqualification.  You'd be amazed how many people suddenly need a car in order for the entire world not to end tomorrow, as soon as they are facing a ban.  Personally, I'm pretty cynical about it but there may have been some genuine reason.  More importantly, driving bans in such cases have to be proportionate to the actual offence and punishment.  Any ban imposed here would have had to be very short.

Dan S wrote:

It's another of those where we simply don't know enough to judge.

Example: if I were driving along and a cyclist cut me up and then started yelling at me, I might well yell back.  If he then started hitting my car and then came to my door and reached in, trying to take my keys then I might very well open the door forcefully a few times to get him away.  

But you wouldnt run him over... and that is why the driver could possibly have to pay compensation (and committed a driving offence therefore meaning he should lose his license)
If someone runs over a bike wheel with their car, that wheel is probably gonna get pretzeled and so you might want to be compensated for the damage to your bike so you can get a new wheel? Plus compensation for all the bus journeys to work because you couldn't commute by bike?

Personally I believe that there are a lot of mental health patients out there who are not getting treatment, from the most mild bouts of depression to complete psychopaths, and tackling these should be high on the governments priority. 

LegalFun wrote:

But you wouldnt run him over... and that is why the driver could possibly have to pay compensation (and committed a driving offence therefore meaning he should lose his license)
If someone runs over a bike wheel with their car, that wheel is probably gonna get pretzeled and so you might want to be compensated for the damage to your bike so you can get a new wheel? Plus compensation for all the bus journeys to work because you couldn't commute by bike?

True.  And were there the slightest evidence that the bike had been damaged then I daresay compensation would have been ordered.  Is there any such evidence?

Dan S wrote:

Previous good character: those who are saying that a 77 year-old man who has never been in trouble before but does this must just never have been caught before, because you don't just suddenly do this - does any of you have any authority whatsoever for saying that?  Any psychological or behavioural studies?  Or have you just read something like that in the Daily Mail once?  Spend some time in the criminal justice system: this sort of thing happens.  It's not very common but if you have a sample size of the entire population then rare things happen.

 

No - we're saying that a RECORDER shouldn't be saying daft shit like "This 77-year-old man has never been in the slightest bother in his life", with no authority whatsoever for making that statement (I assume he's not watched CCTV footage of every waking minute of his life?), as it suggests some sort of bias.

Maybe you should read the linked article before spouting about the letter of the law and accusing people who might be able to think beyond that of being Mail readers.

davel wrote:

No - we're saying that a RECORDER shouldn't be saying daft shit like "This 77-year-old man has never been in the slightest bother in his life", with no authority whatsoever for making that statement (I assume he's not watched CCTV footage of every waking minute of his life?), as it suggests some sort of bias.

No it doesn't.  It merely suggests that the Recorder has some passing familiarity with the criminal law.  

The defence are entitledo to put forward previous good character as mitigation.  This can stop at the fact that he has no convictions, cautions etc but it need not do so.  It can go on to a lack of arrests, for example.  Or it can go further and the defence can put forward that he has never been in a physical fight, never been in an argument, never once failed to help a granny across the street etc.  This may come only from the defendant or it may be supported by character witnesses who say thing like that they have never known him to lose his temper; he is usually a peacemaker when there looks like being trouble etc.  In the case of a publican, I would expect regulars at the pub, maybe staff, maybe even licencing officers.

The court accepts as much of this as seems right, having heard all the evidence.  The court then refers to good character in making sentencing remarks.  Judges and Recorders are not robots and do not give their judgments with an eye to somebody on a web forum picking up on every phrase.  They speak to those who have the heard the case and know what is going on.  Phrases such as "never been in slightest  bother in his life" are commonplace as a way of saying that the defendant is a man of good charater with no history of violence who has never been in trouble with the police before.  Anybody with the slightest understanding of the criminal law would understand it as such.  So, I would have thought, would any vaguely intelligent and unbiased person who is not just looking for any excuse to attack a court that failed punish somebody for an offence against a cyclist.

bendertherobot wrote:

Tricky one. Really tricky. Still not enough to really go on but, it's not clear waht has been quashed and in relation to what.

It appears to imply that the driving ban was given in relation to the assault there being no actual driving offence. 

If that's correct then the ban was incorrect and that's why the appeal succeeded. 

The word Licence says it all, it can be withdrawn at anytime if deemed necessary. You're probably right though. No motoring offence, just a technicality in getting his licence back. The old thug!

bendertherobot wrote:

It appears to imply that the driving ban was given in relation to the assault there being no actual driving offence.
If that's correct then the ban was incorrect and that's why the appeal succeeded.

But why quash the compensation order? Surely if the unquashed conviction is for the assault, then wouldn't you expect the compensation order to go hand-in-hand with that?

(I can see your point about driving ban for basically an assault, but wasn't this assault-while-driving (especially when you consider the use of the car door as a weapon...)).

brooksby wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

It appears to imply that the driving ban was given in relation to the assault there being no actual driving offence.
If that's correct then the ban was incorrect and that's why the appeal succeeded.

But why quash the compensation order? Surely if the unquashed conviction is for the assault, then wouldn't you expect the compensation order to go hand-in-hand with that?

(I can see your point about driving ban for basically an assault, but wasn't this assault-while-driving (especially when you consider the use of the car door as a weapon...)).

It's not a mandatory order. It's discretionary. It's not clear whether they thought to quash it on the basis of the stressful incident (which is frankly a load of bull) or whether they thought the vicitim did not deserve it. I note that both parties were initially arrested but only one charged. 

Additionally the order is to compensate for loss or damage. It's not clear what they are. 

bendertherobot wrote:

brooksby wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

It appears to imply that the driving ban was given in relation to the assault there being no actual driving offence.
If that's correct then the ban was incorrect and that's why the appeal succeeded.

But why quash the compensation order? Surely if the unquashed conviction is for the assault, then wouldn't you expect the compensation order to go hand-in-hand with that?

(I can see your point about driving ban for basically an assault, but wasn't this assault-while-driving (especially when you consider the use of the car door as a weapon...)).

It's not a mandatory order. It's discretionary. It's not clear whether they thought to quash it on the basis of the stressful incident (which is frankly a load of bull) or whether they thought the vicitim did not deserve it. I note that both parties were initially arrested but only one charged. 

Additionally the order is to compensate for loss or damage. It's not clear what they are. 

Really? Problem with that is, it skates rather close to some victims being more worthy than others, doesn't it?

Assuming no other information, what we have is an old bloke who sees red (original story said the cyclist went the wrong way around a traffic island, latest story says they collided on a four-way junction whilst both going in the same direction), intentionally runs his car into a cyclist, hits said cyclist with his car door several times, grabs the cyclist by the face, starts punching him, and only stops because bystanders stopped standing by and intervened.

So, from where I'm sitting, the cyclist would deserve victim compensation even if they were in all other circumstances some sort cheap lousy maggot, IMO.

brooksby wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

brooksby wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

It appears to imply that the driving ban was given in relation to the assault there being no actual driving offence.
If that's correct then the ban was incorrect and that's why the appeal succeeded.

But why quash the compensation order? Surely if the unquashed conviction is for the assault, then wouldn't you expect the compensation order to go hand-in-hand with that?

(I can see your point about driving ban for basically an assault, but wasn't this assault-while-driving (especially when you consider the use of the car door as a weapon...)).

It's not a mandatory order. It's discretionary. It's not clear whether they thought to quash it on the basis of the stressful incident (which is frankly a load of bull) or whether they thought the vicitim did not deserve it. I note that both parties were initially arrested but only one charged. 

Additionally the order is to compensate for loss or damage. It's not clear what they are. 

Really? Problem with that is, it skates rather close to some victims being more worthy than others, doesn't it?

Assuming no other information, what we have is an old bloke who sees red (original story said the cyclist went the wrong way around a traffic island, latest story says they collided on a four-way junction whilst both going in the same direction), intentionally runs his car into a cyclist, hits said cyclist with his car door several times, grabs the cyclist by the face, starts punching him, and only stops because bystanders stopped standing by and intervened.

So, from where I'm sitting, the cyclist would deserve victim compensation even if they were in all other circumstances some sort cheap lousy maggot, IMO.

 

It doesn't skate close to it. It DOES do that. So in circumstances where the Judge feels the other party has some blame that's open to it. 

But you're missing the point of compensation. It's not clear why it was removed and what loss or damage there was, if any.

It does very much sound like a case where the original Judge erred in both handing out a ban and compensation order where there was no basis.

HoldTheWheel wrote:

As HarrogateSpa has said, it's not clear what has happened. However, the pensioner has clearly showed he suffers from road rage and has anger management issues, which cause him to be violent, so why have the courts let him have his license back? As a minimum, he should be referred to anger management and road rage courses, as well as having to take a driving test again. Instead, he's allowed to be in control of a huge metal box so that the same thing can happen again.

+1

pockstone wrote:

...

Read more: http://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/news/local/road-rage-pensioner-who-p...

For those who don't want to generate clickbait traffic:

"Prosecutor Michael Rawlinson said the incident occurred at about midday on March 11, when there was a near-collision between Mr Macdonald’s Hyundai and the bicycle, which were travelling in the same direction. Both parties blamed each other for swerving into their path and a war of words ensued.

Mr Macdonald, whose wife was in the passenger seat, is said to have driven towards the cyclist, making contact with his bike, while the victim banged on his bonnet.

The cyclist tried but failed to grab hold of Mr Macdonald’s car keys by reaching through the driver’s window.

“That further agitated (Mr Macdonald), who promptly hit (the cyclist) three times with the (driver’s) door,” said Mr Rawlinson.

“He (Mr Macdonald) got out of the car and gripped (the cyclist) on the face with an open hand and splayed fingers. He started punching him with his free hand (but) one of his fingers went into the (cyclist’s) mouth, and his finger was apparently bitten down on.”

Witnesses called police and initially both parties were arrested, but the cyclist was not charged.

Defence barrister Nicholas Rooke said the cyclist did not suffer any injuries and Mr Macdonald, a former publican who suffers from a number of medical conditions and claims disability living allowance, had never been in trouble in his life.

Mr Macdonald, of Castle Well, Conisbrough, near Doncaster, wept during the short appeal hearing.

Recorder Mr Duff said the pensioner had lashed out due to the stress of the situation, adding: “This 77-year-old man has never been in the slightest bother in his life.”

He quashed both the driving ban and compensation order, but allowed the fine and prosecution costs to stand."

So "the pensioner had lashed out due to the stress of the situation" - AKA road-rage, surely? 

Got to say that "hit the cyclist three times with the driver's door" is pretty bad, too.

Sometimes, you wonder about the legal system.  "Never having been in the slightest bother before" doesn't somehow mitigate the bother you are now in, or it shouldn't.

brooksby wrote:

Sometimes, you wonder about the legal system.  

You do indeed... especially when a recorder is coming out with borderline delusional shit. As has been said, there's loads that doesn't make sense here.

Show me anyone who's "never been in the slightest bother in his life" - had he spent the previous 76 years in Trumpton and then accidentally driven through the portal to 2016 Scarborough?

Regardless, driving a car at someone on a bike, hitting them with your door, facepalming them then hitting them with your free hand tends to scream 'hasn't been charged/convicted before' rather than 'never been in the slightest bother' to me.

If he's qualified to make that assumption on the basis of balls-all, I'm qualified to assume that Mr Duff saw a bit of himself in an ancient angry driver and wasn't the model of impartiality that he should have been.