A banned driver who killed a cyclist in a hit-and-run crash then torched the car he had been driving has been jailed for four years and eight months.
Lee Beevers was also disqualified from driving for five years and three months when he was sentenced at Leeds Crown Court yesterday, reports the Yorkshire Evening Post.
The 27 year old, from Normanton, had previously pleaded guilty to charges of causing death by dangerous driving, driving whilst disqualified, failing to stop after road accident, failing to provide a specimen for analysis and using a vehicle whilst uninsured.
Beevers had been driving at 80mph – nearly three times the 30mph speed limit – on Wakefield Road, Normanton, on 13 April last year when he crashed into 33-year-old cyclist Alan Tankard, causing fatal injuries to his head, neck and chest.
The burnt-out Honda Civic Type-R car which he had borrowed from a friend for the evening was discovered close to the scene of the crash, and West Yorkshire Police arrested him the following day.
Michael Smith, prosecuting, told the court that the four passengers in the car with Beevers, one of them in tears, had urged him to slow down before the fatal crash – after which, the driver told them to “shut the f*ck up” and drove away from the scene at speed.
One of the vehicle occupants subsequently said that Beevers “did not seem to care” about what had happened, although none of them alerted police or the ambulance service to the crash, and they were subsequently urged by the driver to help him set fire to the car.
Mr Smith also said that while he was in detention in a psychiatric hospital last month, Beevers – who when interviewed by police the following day was uncommunicative, other than making obscene gestures – said in a Facebook post, “F*ck West Yorkshire Police.”
The court heard that Beevers had ten prior convictions for 20 offences, and that he had appeared in court six weeks before the fatal crash for driving without a licence.
In mitigation, Alex Menary said that Beevers had been diagnosed with ADHD, had a troubled childhood, and in 2013 suffered a brain injury that made him act impulsively without considering the consequences of what he was doing.
The defence counsel also read out a letter written by Beevers, in which he wrote: “I know what I did was wrong. I’m truly sorry for the family. I can’t change the past but I want to move forward and be a better person.”
Sentencing Beevers, Judge Ray Singh said that Beevers had failed to show remorse, noting that he had been “shaking his head in disagreement” during the hearing.
Referring to the social media post, the judge said: “Posting that on Facebook while being cared for in hospital is despicable and distasteful. It’s not impulsive behaviour. You are in essence showing disdain for the police force that brought you to justice.
“Despite your best efforts in destroying evidence [by setting fire to the vehicle], they were rational decisions to avoid being caught. It’s calculated behaviour, not impulsive.
“To save your own skin you drove away leaving Mr Tankard. You did not care at all,” the judge added.
In a victim impact statement read out in court, Mr Tankard’s family said: “He left Alan in the road, dead or dying, whilst he covered his tracks in an attempt to destroy evidence of his crime.
“He will never know the pain and suffering he has caused. How he left the scene of the crash and showed such little regard for another human’s life shows the type of person he is. He has taken Alan away from us and things will never be the same again.”
Detective Constable Simon Marshall of South Yorkshire Police’s Major Collision Enquiry Team said: “Beevers’ driving, speed and behaviour on that day was beyond comprehension.
“Despite being previously banned from driving and having no licence or insurance, he got behind the wheel of that car without regard for any other person.
“This tragic incident was completely avoidable and due to the dangerous and reckless actions of Beevers, Alan is sadly no longer here.
“My thoughts at this time remain with Alan’s family,” DC Marshall continued.
“Nothing can ever bring him back to them, but I hope that the sentence passed today will help them as they continue to process their loss.”
He added: “I would also like to say thank you to the members of the public who came forward and supported the police with their investigation.”
Petition calls for lifetime bans for dangerous drivers who kill
The sentencing of Beevers coincides with ITV News highlighting a petition calling for lifetime bans for those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving – although, of course, in this case he was driving the vehicle despite already being disqualified.
The petition, hosted on the UK Parliament’s website, was started by Angela Burke, whose 14-year-old daughter Courtney Ellis was killed in 2020 by speeding driver Brandon Turton.
The 21-year-old driver was subsequently jailed for six years and nine months after pleading guilty to causing death by dangerous driving, and banned from driving for seven years.
In the petition, Ms Bourke wrote:
I would like to change the law on ‘if you are convicted for causing death by dangerous driving then a lifetime driving ban should be imposed’, they should never be allowed to drive again.
My child was killed by a speeding driver, Who was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. My child suffered horrific instant death injuries, the driver was driving at speeds of 73-93mph when he hit her on a 30mph road, he was sentenced to 9 years minus 25% reduction for going guilty also given a 7 year driving ban to start immediately, when he’s released he will have 4 years ban left. Driving is a luxury and it should be taken away if convicted of this crime. I've lost my child forever.
At the time of writing the petition, which remains open until 4 April, has attracted more than 5,200 signatures.
Should it reach 10,000 signatures, the government will be required to provide a response, and in the event it gathers 100,000 signatures, the issue will be considered for a House of Commons debate by the Backbench Business Committee.
Add new comment
32 comments
I lifetime ban would be appropriate here: a lifetime ban from ever setting foot outside the most awful prison available!
4 years? I'd make that 40.
I hate driving and I'm desperate for my wife to drive me everywhere. I now know what I need to get a driving ban and avoid going to jail.
I'd very much support lifetime driving bans for these kind of cases. But what is the point? If driving offences so heinous with multiple aggravating factors as described here are not being punished with anywhere near the maximum available sentencing, especially with regard to the length of driving ban imposed, then what are the chances that a more draconian penalty, even if available, would ever be applied?
Agree - also I think the individuals would be less inclined to comply with a lifetime ban. I know that sounds ridiculous!
perhaps wouldn't work with a lifetime ban, but I think driving while disqualified should automatically incur a prison sentence of the duration of the original ban (not the remainder). The (safe ?) assumption being that they have been driving since they were disqualified and the public are entitled to that number of years without them being on the road
A lifetime ban would be suitable for someone like this. But as others have commented, would he just carry on driving anyway?
Indeed - but would something like that at least mean that when he next gets caught driving - inevitably it seems - removal from the streets could happen more directly?
Albeit for a limited period. Not a lawyer so I don't know if that's even possible currently?
It's about time they introduce finger print scanners to steering wheels, how much longer will 'the party of law and order' continue to allow banned and unlicenced drivers on the roads?
Also what's happening to the friend that allowed a banned driver to borrow their car?
Is the 'friend' who lent them the vehicle likely to have an insurance payout on the loss? Clearly they didn't give a toss about the consequences for others of giving the keys to someone banned with a list of convictions, the 4 passengers didn't seem to be that concerned about their own welfare either by getting in the vehicle - what a nihilistic existence to live by.
In Canada it's the owner's responsibility to check that anyone to whom they lend their vehicle has the proper licence and insurance to drive it, if they don't and an incident occurs they face pretty severe sanctions and licence endorsements along with the actual perpetrator. Pretty good idea.
Fairly sure it is illegal in the UK to permit a vehicle to be used without a licence.
At least I am reasonably confident that an insurer will refuse to pay out (your friend burning the vehicle you leant them isn't significantly different to you burning it yourself so paying out in cases like this would be open to insurance fraud). Plausibly friend could also discover they have a massive bill (insurer may be entitled to recover any payment to the 3rd party from them as well as driver as loaning the car to someone not qualified is negligent)
Yep, and permit use withiut insurance as well. Both are 6 point offence.
How many times does it have to be said that refusing to provide a specimen should be treated, as it is in many states of the USA, as equivalent to an admission of guilt that the driver was over the limit for a drink or drugs? If that was applied here then the court would be able to draw on a maximum sentence of fourteen years instead of five.
That's odd given the fifth amendment.
I would just make the punishment for not providing a sample greater than the punishment for failing the test.
It's been tested in the Supreme Court, which ruled that the fifth only applies to oral and written testimony, not physical evidence such as blood samples or fingerprints. Which makes sense otherwise every suspected offender could simply refuse to be printed or provide DNA on the grounds that it might show they were guilty
I have been thinking that a lot of the actions of hit and run drivers, and particulalry in this case when the car used was torched is perverting the course of justice. In any other situation deliberately destroying evidence of a crime would be treated as such.
But cars and driving are different as we all know.
It seems to me that cases like this demonstrate that driving bans should have a 1 strike rule. If you drive badly enough to get banned from driving (something that takes a staggering amount of recklessness in the first place) and then are caught driving again you should serve the rest of your original driving ban and the additional extended ban in prison as you clearly don't have any respect for the ban.
Unfortunately, one of the many failings in obtaining justice in road crime is securing a dangerous driving conviction in the first place... how many cases have there been were deliberate
action that was unquestionably dangerous were prosecuted under careless?
I agree with the sentiment of the petition but unfortunately I don't see it having the desired impact at the moment. In the worst case scenario it could have the opposite impact as police and prosectors push even more cases towards a careless conviction.
No mention of any punishment for the people who were with him when it happened?
I had similar thoughs, though there is always the possibility that they will appear seperatly
My other thought though is once again the sentence is around 1/3 of the maximum for death by dangerous driving, now I get a reduction for the early plea, but this waste of space no only killed, he made no attempt to see to the injuries he had caused, and indeed made efforts to defeat justice and treeated previous court rulings (the driving ban) with utter conempt, the judge even said he shows no remorse yet still gives a light sentence
I'm guessing there is some "diminished responsibility" thrown in there as well. But I still would have expected more, especially as he also seemed to be domineering of his friends (assuming the statements made by the passenger is true).
petition signed. Now at 5287.
Signed. At 5351.
5,354, thoughts and prayers seems somewhat inadequate.
5374 now. And posted to fb.
1. Four years? Just four years??!
2. If he has a brain injury that 'makes him act impulsively without considering the consequences of what he was doing', then as a matter of public safety he (demonstrably!) should never be allowed behind the wheel of a car ever again. Problem is, as he has also demonstrated, there's no way of stopping anyone getting behind the wheel. Consequences only happen if and when that person is stopped by the police.
Are there any reliable stats on how many cars are actually being driven around by people who either have been banned or who just never bothered with a driving test in the first place?
Playing the adhd card means he should not have been allowed to drive in the first place.
I was thinking of commenting and then thought "what's the point?". I couldn't say anything that hasn't been said a million times already, just another person dead.
"The court heard that Beevers had ten prior convictions for 20 offences, and that he had appeared in court six weeks before the fatal crash for driving without a licence."
There is something seriously wrong with our laughably named "Justice System." It just isn't working to protect the public, which is its only function.
Pages