cyclist jailed for two years for hit-and-run killing of pedestrian

HWC5982168169 wrote:

b) typically, death by dangerous driving leads to a custodial conviction of seven years and very rarely less than 5.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-Death-by-d...

 But cyclists always have to be right, don't they?

The problem is that 99% (it seems) of deaths caused by motorists get downgraded to 'careless driving', which has a far, far lesser penalty. In fact even if the police do charge someone with dangerous driving (which they dont do that often due to the difficulty of getting a conviction) then almost always it ends up being downgraded to careless driving by the killers solicitors if they think they will lose - the courts accept this as it saves time and a lot of money. The juries are heavily biased towards drivers in these cases also unless there are other charges e.g. they were drunk/on drugs/etc.

As a result the cyclist in question, while getting a proper sentence, was given a far, far harsher punishment than 99% of killer drivers...and thats where the anger comes from.

And the amount of cut and dry cases of cyclists being killed or seriously injured by obviously dangerous driving that don't result in a prosecution...yeah, that adds to the anger too.

Forgive what seems like an aggressive statement, but I'm afraid you don't understand the law.

The police do not prosecute, they investigate, compile evidence, and supply this to the Crown Prosecution Service. If that meets the CPS threshold for the charge, then it is taken to court. The evidence is tested, if proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is found guilty (either by a judge or jury). The mitigating circumstances then have an impact on the sentence. There are instances where a reduced sentence is imposed, such as an early guilt plea which enables a faster and cheaper court hearing. Without this incentive, nobody would plea guilty and the effect on justice would be catastrophic: huge delays (Crown Court is currently running around 3 years from date of offence to trial), huge costs of trials and indeed higher cost from longer periods of incarceration. Oh, and the mental and emotional stress for victims when giving evidence is something nobody should have to go through.

The defence do not bargain or downgrade a crime - whatever it is - from a high level to a lesser one. We do not have the US "plea bargain" system to accelerate the legal process - thankfully, as a huge number of Americans have to take a guilty plea as they cannot afford a defence lawyer, and a plea bargain is the only way they can avoid very, very long jail terms.

The idea that "99% of drivers get away with something lesser" is a proposterous suggestion: every case is taken on the circumstances of that unique case. If a driver killed someone while drunk or on drugs, then that separate offence of DUI is also brought to court and tried on its merits; it does not make another offence more serious.

Juries are not used in every case. They are not biased one way or the other. They are directed by the judge about points of law and advised to make a decision based on the evidence, usually focussing on what he has summed up.

May I politely recommend you stop reading The Daily Mail.

Wow, someone has swallowed a law book. 

Driving is something most adults do. (75% of Adults). According to DFT figures. 53% of drivers drove above 30mph speed limits in 2019 alone with some higher figures released during lockdown when the roads were "quieter".
So, when so many drivers make up juries, and they are presented with the evidence that Jo bloggs was doing 40mph in a 30, and the "sun was in his eyes" so he didn't see the cyclist ahead or the kid crossing, they don't think "wow, I was driving into court and might have driven 40 in a 30, and I know what happens when the sun sometimes is in the wrong place. I didn't think I was driving dangerously though as I'm a good driver and don't want to admit what I didn was dangerous. So not guilty on dangerous driving". 

Very few other crimes have that stigma of "it could have been me in the dock on another day". So I do believe there is sometimes a bias when the "crime" is based on something that pretty much everyone in the court could be guilty of sometimes on a minor level. 

And yes, we don;t have a plea bargain system like in America, but the CPS does charge lots of cases with higher and lower options, it is up the Judge to accept the plea of Not Guilty on the higher one and Guilty on the other one. (not just driving incidents as Manslaughter and Murder charges are another version). And as Eddy rightly points out, lots of drivers are urged to plead guilty for the lesser by defence lawyers as they also know the courts are backed up so will probably accept an easy conviction. And the CPS, Judges will as they know it is slim to get Dangerous Driving convictions, although, on a rare case of agreeing with Nige, red light deaths is one of the few that does get Guilty verdicts from Juries. 

Exactly - we're not suggesting juries are overtly biased or corrupt, but they have a degree of unconscious bias because most will be drivers themselves - "there, but for the grace of god, go I". For that reason, many defendants will (when possible) elect for jury trial. And the CPS has to factor this in when deciding the charge - do we have reasonable propects of securing a dangerous conviction, or shall we go for careless?   

HWC5982168169 wrote:

Forgive what seems like an aggressive statement, but I'm afraid you don't understand the law.

The police do not prosecute, they investigate, compile evidence, and supply this to the Crown Prosecution Service. If that meets the CPS threshold for the charge, then it is taken to court. The evidence is tested, if proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is found guilty (either by a judge or jury). The mitigating circumstances then have an impact on the sentence. There are instances where a reduced sentence is imposed, such as an early guilt plea which enables a faster and cheaper court hearing. Without this incentive, nobody would plea guilty and the effect on justice would be catastrophic: huge delays (Crown Court is currently running around 3 years from date of offence to trial), huge costs of trials and indeed higher cost from longer periods of incarceration. Oh, and the mental and emotional stress for victims when giving evidence is something nobody should have to go through.

The defence do not bargain or downgrade a crime - whatever it is - from a high level to a lesser one. We do not have the US "plea bargain" system to accelerate the legal process - thankfully, as a huge number of Americans have to take a guilty plea as they cannot afford a defence lawyer, and a plea bargain is the only way they can avoid very, very long jail terms.

The idea that "99% of drivers get away with something lesser" is a proposterous suggestion: every case is taken on the circumstances of that unique case. If a driver killed someone while drunk or on drugs, then that separate offence of DUI is also brought to court and tried on its merits; it does not make another offence more serious.

Juries are not used in every case. They are not biased one way or the other. They are directed by the judge about points of law and advised to make a decision based on the evidence, usually focussing on what he has summed up.

May I politely recommend you stop reading The Daily Mail.

Thanks for the detailled reply. It's good to know that the system isn't as bad as I believe but...there seems to be a constant stream of cases on here and elsewhere that simply don't fit with your explanation above - and technically, there shouldn't really be any.

But the UKs sentencing guidelines are very clear that in death by careless or dangerous driving cases, driving whilst impaired by consumption of drugs and alcohol (DUI to use your term) is an aggravating factor that is taken into consideration and impacts the level of seriousness of the charge, which absolutely changes the starting point and range of custody options available.

But go tell the family of Sze-Ming Cheung that drunk driving charges are brought to court separately when cyclists are killed on the road by a drunk driver.

Go tell the family of Denisa Perinova that juries arent biased towards motorists when they acquit a driver who was driving on the wrong side of the road and killed her in a collision.

Or John Drury's family

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/romney-marsh/news/driver-avoids-jail-after-...

45 seconds on the wrong side of the road - not jailed and only 'careless'