- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Ryan Willicombe (Thames Valley Police), Pierce's Hill, Tilehurst (Google Maps)Teenage driver who swerved into opposite lane to “scare” cyclists, hitting and killing one, cleared of murder – but sentenced to over a decade in young offenders’ institution and banned from driving for 12 years
An uninsured teenage motorist who swerved onto the wrong side of the road in a bid to “scare” a group of approaching cyclists, hitting one and leaving them with “catastrophic” fatal injuries, has been sentenced to over ten years in a young offenders’ institute and banned from driving for 12 and a half years for what the prosecutor described as an “exceptionally dangerous manoeuvre”.
Ryan Willicombe was driving his father’s van on Pierce’s Hill in Tilehurst, Berkshire, at around 6pm on August 4, 2022, as a group of four teenagers riding e-bikes approached in the opposite direction.
During a three-week trial, Reading Crown Court heard that Willicombe, who was 17 at the time, wanted to “scare” the group, one of whom he was in an apparent “dispute” with, by switching lanes and driving towards them, the Reading Chronicle reported.
In doing so, he struck one of the group with the van’s wing mirror, before hitting 19-year-old Sheldon Lewcock head-on, running over his bike and throwing him 30 metres through the air, causing “catastrophic” injuries. Mr Lewcock died five days later in hospital from his injuries.
Pierce's Hill, Tilehurst (Google Maps)
During Thursday’s sentencing, Judge Heather Norton told Willicombe: “Deliberately and unlawfully, you drove the van onto the opposite side of the road and onto the path of the oncoming bikes.
“Sheldon Lewcock was unable to take any avoiding action and was hit by the passenger side of your van. The force of the impact caused him to be thrown from his bike. He suffered catastrophic injuries from which he died five days later. He was 19-years-old. You yourself were only 17.
“Whatever was going between you and others was not and cannot excuse or lessen the seriousness of your actions. What is clear is that the choice that you made that day has had catastrophic consequences for two families: Sheldon Lewcock’s and your own.”
However, defending the driver, Paul Boden KC argued that Willicombe’s ADHD and “level of immaturity” meant that it was “not obvious for him at the time” that he risked causing serious injury by driving directly at the group of cyclists.
Following the collision, which involved what prosecutor Philip Evans described as “clearly an exceptionally dangerous manoeuvre”, Willicombe drove off before abandoning the clearly damaged van at a nearby Co-op and fleeing to his grandfather’s home in South Wales, where he was found by policing the next day “hiding in a cupboard”.
When questioned by his barrister, Willicombe said he thinks about the fatal collision “quite often” and that he feels “awful” about Mr Lewcock’s death.
“I think about his family and what they are going through. I think what I feel now is nothing compared with what they must feel,” he said.
However, when asked about gloating messages he sent to friends after the crash, which said that he hoped “Sheldon dies” or was “paralysed” in the crash, Willicombe claimed that he was “angry and upset. I didn’t really want him paralysed or dead”.
> Teenager arrested after hit-and-run motorist filmed ‘deliberately ramming’ cyclist
In a victim impact statement read to the court, Mr Lewcock’s mother Angela recalled the moment her son phoned her in the aftermath of the crash, saying: “The last face call I received from my beautiful boy Sheldon will haunt me for the rest of my life.
“It is every mother’s worst nightmare but to receive a call from your child who is covered in blood, calling out to you whilst you do not know where he is, is both harrowing and traumatic.
“Ryan does not think of me and my family and has not since he hit my son and left him for dead.”
In another statement delivered shortly before this week’s sentencing, Mrs Lewcock said the lengthy trial had “made me feel like my heart was being ripped out again”.
The court was also told that Mr Lewcock’s siblings have also been significantly impacted by his death, with some unable to attend school due to their grief.
Following an almost day-long deliberation, the jury acquitted Willicombe of murder and attempting to cause grievous bodily harm, but found him guilty of manslaughter.
The 19-year-old also admitted other charges of causing death by dangerous driving, along with possession of class A drugs, namely cocaine and heroin, with intent to supply.
Judge Norton told the court that Willicombe would be sentenced in accordance with his age at the time of the offence, which was 17, therefore sentencing him to 10 years and eight months in a young offenders’ institution.
Two years of this sentence relate to Willicombe’s unrelated drug offences, while he was also disqualified from driving for 12 and a half years.
While this latest sentencing in Berkshire includes the added context of an “unclear” and unrelated dispute between those involved, it isn’t the first time we’ve reported on motorists seriously injuring or killing cyclists while attempting to “scare” them on the roads.
Last June, we reported that 62-year-old Richard Caseby was left with life-changing injuries after a driver hit him during a road rage incident following a close pass in Blackheath, London.
After the near miss, Caseby, a former managing editor of the Sunday Times and he Sun, asked motorist Marios Georgiou at a set of traffic lights “to keep an eye open for cyclists as I’d had a narrow escape”, only for the driver to swear at him and tell him to “F*** off or I’ll f*** you”.
As they both set off again, the driver ran into Caseby, carrying him on his car bonnet until he hit a kerb, throwing the cyclist against a brick wall. The 62-year-old suffered serious fractures to his left leg and ankle, along with a damaged shoulder. A year on from the incident, he said he was still suffering permanent pain and forced to walk with a stick and a permanent limp, while also being diagnosed with PTSD.
Sentencing Georgiou to 18 months in a prison – which he claimed would “deter you or anyone else from behaving that way in the future” – the judge told the driver: “You used your car as the equivalent of a highly dangerous weapon, albeit you intended to scare him.”
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- Bigfoz 0 sec ago
Well, according to Endura's website, they make nothing that fits me. (which is interesting because my club skin suit, from Endura, is both too big ...
- thax1 26 min 37 sec ago
Aww, Northwave's marketing team eh? Bless 'em....
- Rendel Harris 53 min 27 sec ago
Hmm...under "Special Reasons" (Section 6/3) it says:...
- eburtthebike 1 hour 11 min ago
I thought students were supposed to be intelligent?
- whosatthewheel 1 hour 22 min ago
She will serve "no more than a half", so 3 years and 4 months and she is walking free. And with the practically non-existent road policing it's...
- hawkinspeter 2 hours 52 min ago
Just the other day, Mrs HawkinsPeter remarked that our road seemed a lot quieter without all the rat-running and there's notably more traffic...
- hawkinspeter 2 hours 24 min ago
I would assume that it's the scent of huge profits that pulls in investment that does improve treatments, but we can see the end game of...
- hawkinspeter 3 hours 7 min ago
I was wondering if other countries used some kind of anti-copying technology. One type would be to use something like an RFID chip embedded into...
- slc 4 hours 13 min ago
Doubly galling when, as has been pointed out here in the past, a binary search would efficiently reveal the time of theft. Triply galling when I...
- Rendel Harris 4 hours 23 min ago
I have the same having got fed up with losing/breaking/scratching £150+ pairs from Oakley and POC, also with constantly having to change lenses...
Add new comment
25 comments
So, he should not have been allowed a licence in the first place, then.
It would seem that the father allowed his son to drive his van, even though the son was not insured: is not the father also culpable?
I can only agree with the comments about it being made crystal clear when you get or renew a driving licence that a car is a lethal weapon. To be fair though, anyone who needs that explaining to them shouldn't ever be allowed to drive anyway.
So our lovely van driver ....
- was in an active dispute with the cyclists he drove into
- was driving a van, and had previous experience of doing so
- deliberately drove on the wrong side of the road at them
- specifically affirmed that he hoped to cause serious injury or death
And this miserable jury decided, no, we should not believe the context or the physical evidence or the words of his own mouth - it was just a terrible misjudgement.
Remorse (however genuine) is not an indicator of intent. And ADHD does not equate to lack of ability to understand what driving a van at someone can do. What a complete shambles and I hope whoever on the jury argued them down to manslaughter learns to regret their decision.
I feel sorry for the police and CPS who for once put forward the correct charges. But this absolutely shows why in so many cases they don't see reasonable likelihood of conviction.
I'm afraid we need wholesale de-programming of society of this myth that people driving 2 tonne plus vehicles don't realize that they can kill people if they hit them.
When you take your driving test, you should have to sign an acknowledgement that you understand this or else not be allowed a licence
Strictly speaking, your last premise isn't quite true. After it had happened he said he hoped at that point that those things would result, but not that that had been his intention at the time of the assault. His contention was that at the time it happened his intention was merely 'to scare' them.
Which is not to say that the former action shouldn't have made the jury doubt the latter claim.
So that makes it alright does it? I hope you don't drive as you should be surrounding your licence if you come to that conclusion.
It seems you've rather misunderstood there, MDF was just pointing out, accurately, the facts of the matter relating to what the driver claimed and specifically said that it would've been right for the jury to doubt the veracity of said claims. Nowhere does he say that it's "alright".
I never understand why they don't hand out lifetime driving bans when a vehicle has been used as a weapon.
Perhaps as they know current bans as implemented in no way stop people driving? OTOH why they bother at all is then the question.
I don't have the answer but presumably it comes back to the usual "leave potential for reform" / don't make people desperate and thus likely to ignore restrictions by leaving no hope" / ideas about being able to calibrate punishments to both offenses and personal circumstances?
It would be much better if a) there were a moderate chance of getting detected if driving illegally and b) there were some meaningful consequences to doing so...
Driving his father's van uninsured... was that a TWOC or was he routinely allowed to do this?
From the photo that's clearly a 30, if not 20, zone, he must have been driving considerably in excess of that to throw someone 30m.
Sad cases of motonormativity by the Jury to decide that driving in excess of the speed limit at a group of vulnerable road users has "reasonable doubt" of GBH or murder and by the Judge in sentencing the other case.
What a c**t.
So using a multi tonne vehicle as a weapon which will clearly seriously injure/kill leads to this pitifull sentence.
If it had been a hammer/knife or gun, I wonder what sentence it would have recieved.
Another case where I advocate the loss of libido and taste buds as the usual deterrents clearly mean nothing.
(And clearly "Sentencing Georgiou to 18 months in a prison – which he claimed would “deter you or anyone else from behaving that way in the future” – the judge..." this deterrent didn't work either.)
The judge in the Georgiou case actually said "You used your car as the equivalent of a highly dangerous weapon..." - there's no "as the equivalent of", it either is or isn't a weapon, and, like any other object, the instant you use it as a weapon, it becomes a weapon. I mean it's pretty basic stuff. A shotgun isn't a weapon, but if some used one to threaten someone and end up seriously injuring them, I'd expect the sentence to be more than 18 months.
Another data point - guilty of causing serious injury by driving dangerously, while unfit through drugs. Driver hit another car while speeding (100+), on drugs, videod his own speed, didn't plead guilty (and continued to maintain he wasn't the driver). Only difference is they didn't kill someone (chance - victim was permanently paralysed and the other passenger also injured). Jailed for 3 years, banned from driving for 4 years.
Also a data point on the court system - this happened in 2021, proceedings now just finished.
Will be driving on the roads when 29 years old. Added to this, 10 years without any experience. The Law is a total joke when it comes to drivers murdering people.
B0ll0cks!
For those calling out the lawyer's "defence", it is worth pointing out that he was charged with murder, and so his intentions and mindset are far more relevant than they would be in a typical "death by dangerous driving" case.
I was recently hit by a driver whose defense was that she was stressed due to having a bad day, got confused between drive and reverse, and further got confused between brake and accelerator. I.e., it wasn't intentional, don't blame me, nothing to see here.
Sorry, but that's not a defense, it's an admission that you are totally unsuited to be trusted with control over a 2,000kg killing machine and you ought to be treated accordingly.
Likewise, if it is not obvious to you that you risk causing serious injury by driving directly at a group of cyclists, your supposed lack of intent to harm means fuck all, and your lawyer should be sanctioned if he actually made the argument as portrayed in this article.
This should be one of the reasons to have him PERMANENTLY BANNED from driving or banned for a significant lengthly period of time.
If he becomes a threat to the public every time he's behind the wheel of a motorised vehicle. He shouldnt be allowed to be in the driving seat of one.
If this is even partly true, how is he allowed to ever get a licence to drive a motor vehicle again?
I never understand how these self-incriminating "mitigations" ever fly.
...and in one foul swoop, this muppet of a lawyer adds to the misinformation about and discrimination of genuine ADHD sufferers.
They should be pulled to account when they come up with this crap, at least they should need to pull in some respected specialists in the field to back them up, which would prevent this kind of BS defense.
A doctor would have their medical license revoked for such disinformation, the lawyer should be disbarred.
But the advocate is acting on his instructions. The ADHD comments would have been lifted from a Court obtained medical report. Presumably if you were in trouble you'd expect your representatives to act on your instructions and in your interests.
If his supposed ADHD (or whatever the real reason) is that bad then he shouldn't have been allowed to drive a car in the first place.
It's also a very good reason for him to only ever walk or ride a bicycle*. Perhaps he'll then see what it's like to be a vulnerable road user.
* and maybe ride on public transport provided he can avoid resorting to violence or aggression.
It's the usual Incompetence Paradox - evidence that you really shouldn't be driving at all is used in defenses. Clearly lawyers still feel this is a good tactic, gaining sympathy or at least working to mitigate sentences. (Note as OnYerBike says thought the unusual charges e.g. murder also influence this here).
I don't know the specifics of the ADHD part in this case nor indeed the general considerations around ADHD at various levels and driving. I wonder if this crystalising into another "we can't entirely fault people on their bad driving (they can't help it) but neither will we stop them in general"? Another "too big to take on - it can't be fair to be 'discriminating' against 3 - 4% of the adult UK population"?
The government says (this is a wonderfully UK solution):
This is better than a jury of one's (driving) peers - it's self-assessed, until something terrible happens. A splendid way of not being seen to impinging personal "freedom" and also absolving our systems of the need to get involved in the costly and no doubt extremely vexed (and rightly contentious) business of "regulating / interfering in people's lives".