Lorry driver killed cyclist, threw bike into undergrowth.

The Rookie

BentMikey wrote:

It's my opinion that it wasn't an accident. I reckon that the truck driver did it intentionally.

BentMikey wrote:

It's my opinion, nothing more. I reckon he wanted to teach the cyclist "a lesson", and got it very wrong.

Hmm those 2 statements read very differently, the first implies (does not state I agree) murder, the second does not.

Simon

yoohoo999

This thread touches a couple of nerves with me, both professionally and personally.

Firstly, my grandfather was killed by a lorry driver in an RTA. I know what it is like to lose someone under such circumstances and the frustration you feel towards the injustice of the whole situation (both in terms of the "wrong place, wrong time" aspect and also in respect of how the "cause" of the accident is dealt with).

Secondly, from reading the account of the incidents written by the victim's brother, I also can't help feeling that the sentence was rather lenient.

However, I think some people need to gain a little perspective in relation to how our judicial system works. It might help you understand how such a "short" sentence could be passed given the gravity of the incident.

YOU elect the politicians that fill the well worn seats of parliament (not the lords mind you, I'll give you that, but that's an issue for another day).

Parliament is the legislative body in the UK, NOT judges or lawyers. If you don't like the statutes, blame your MP, don't blame anyone else in the legal system. The judicial and legislative powers are distinct.

YOU (by way of your peers pulled from the community to form the jury) decide whether the defendant is guilty of the charges laid before the court. The judge can direct the jury to ensure that it knows what it is doing, but the actual decision lies with it.

This is where the problem arises. If the policiticians have enacted laws which are not particularly robust, or the police have conducted their investigation in a manner which leaves substantial holes from an evidential perspective, or that the evidence generally is not sufficient then the jury can only make its decision within the narrow constraints of the charges and the evidence before the court.

I wasn't part of that jury. I have no idea the extent of the evidence supporting the charges (and contradicting them), therefore I cannot possibly state with any proper authority that the jury reached the right or wrong decision.

Did the judge misdirect the jury? If he did then it is highly likely that the verdict will be appealed. Misdirection is unlikely (although certainly not impssible).

So the jury convicted on the basis of the facts before them. You have to accept that the jury made the right decision otherwise the entire fabric of the judicial process starts to unravel.


So what happened at sentencing? I suppose that is the key question on most people's minds.

The sentencing powers of course lie with the judge. However the judge is bound by policy and precedence. A sentence passed which smacks of judicial muscle flexing is likely to be challenged by the defendant, and probably overturned.

Judges do not have the "pick a number out of the sky" discretion that many people think they have, it would lead to loose cannon decisions if they did. Consistency is bad enough as it is!!!

The judge in this case would have had many, many sleepless nights over this. Considerable media interest, a particularly gruesome indicent and a nation already losing faith in the powers of the courts in respect of road traffic crimes.

I do believe that in circumstances such as these, if the judge felt that there was any possiblity of a lengthier sentence then she would have passed it.

But by doing so she may have fallen foul of one of the key principles in our judicial system, the fact that judges shouldn't have the power to change the law by way of their decisions......they are not elected......such duties fall on our elected parliament......your MPs.

Apoliges for the 101 in Judicial Process, however it sometimes grates when people fail to realise that the law is (for the most part) what politicians make it.

If you have an issue with the extent of the law or sentence policy, get on to your local MP....not the jury, lawyers or judges.


My thoughts are with Tony Spink's family for their loss and for the added trauma that a lengthy battle for justice can bring.

I agree with most that a radical rethink of legislation is desperately needed to protect more vulnerable road users such as cyclists. But as i've said before, it's up to US to ensure that OUR policiticans are providing us with the protection we require.

Can't expect those incapable muppets to do anything on their own.

BentMikey

Yes, I didn't make it very clear that I meant hit the cyclist when I wrote "did it", rather than intended to run him over, althuogh I wouldn't be at all surprised by that. What leads me to feel that way is the way he reacted, pretending not to see/hear/feel any of the many cues he had about the collision. Perhaps he'd read one too many of the anti-cyclist rants "run the 'kers over?" stories that have been all the rage in the papers this year?

Fair enough, PBo, and thank you. I'm not suggesting to lynch the fellow, btw.

The Rookie

Thanks Yoohoo, its worth adding that the new death by careless which would almost certainly have applied was part of the road safety act 2006 - pre-dating this unfourtunate event), but not enacted (became useable) until after the event, so the driver could not be charged with that offence, so the MP's were already fixing this 'loophole' but not in time.

We as non HGV drivers can only speculate whether he should have heard or felt anything at the time of the incident, only one person knows for certain and we will never know the truth of it, his actions after the event were truly despicable, there is no escaping that, but he can only be punished for those infractions that can be proved he commited beyond reasonable doubt.

Simon

BentMikey

... the police gave evidence that the cab was modern and quiet, and it was easily possible to feel the vehicle going over cat's eyes in the road, and to hear beeping from other cars and shouting from someone nearby the cab. No speculation, fact.

yoohoo999

I understand the point you are making Mikey, but the problem still lies in the fact that although we can say with certainty that such bumps CAN be felt and the level of noise COULD be heard, it is impossible to say whether the driver actually DID feel or hear them.

When I was younger, the house across the road from me caught fire in the middle of the night. My bedroom faced it. I slept right through the whole thing (sirens, people shouting, immense heat, light, movement).

No one believed me when I said I hadn't even realised, told me that it was "impossible" for me to have slept right through it all. But I did!

We may think that it is impossible for the driver not to have noticed, or that he is quite simply lying about it, however the fact is that it is very difficult to prove that someone WAS aware. If there was witness evidence demonstrating that the driver looked distressed and was looking out of his cab for example, then that would indicate that he was aware, but from what I have read the first time he displayed such behaviour was when he threw the bike away.

The jury would have not been able to just assume that he did feel or he did hear simply because it was possible.

Eau Rouge

Whether he really did know he had done it or not, or when he realised something had happened aren't part of the court case. He wasn't charged with the fictional crime of being a callous batsered. He was charged with failing to stop, for which a defence of "I didn't know" would become relevent, but that charge was not actually considered in court or by the jury, presumably for legal efficientcy as the PtCoJ charge would involve mostly the same act and being a much more serious charge, always carry a larger sentence.

The Rookie

How loud was the stereo? Did he think he'd clipped a curb or gone through a pothole? Heavily laden lorries pulling off in first, especailly with lock on to turn sharp left will often pitch and roll a lot, the police can give that 'evidence', but contrary evidence (including the drivers testimony) may well have been sufficient to cast "reasonable doubt".

Simon

BentMikey

The Beginner wrote:

How loud was the stereo? Did he think he'd clipped a curb or gone through a pothole? Heavily laden lorries pulling off in first, especailly with lock on to turn sharp left will often pitch and roll a lot, the police can give that 'evidence', but contrary evidence (including the drivers testimony) may well have been sufficient to cast "reasonable doubt".

Simon

...except it wasn't sufficient - which is why he was convicted of perverting the course of justice.

benno68

Nice one Yoohoo999 - great post. I'm sorry that you've gone through a personal tragedy like that.

I've lost faith in politicians in general - do they really give a sh1t what the electorate think is right or do they do "just" enough to keep their sorry arses in a job?

I think our land would be a lot better with politicians who have a genuine passion for our country, it seems to me that most of the time they just talk the talk.

Maybe I'm wrong but just needed to get that off my chest.

___________________________________________

As for the accident concerned. Didn't Tony Spink grab onto the windscreen wipers of the truck? If so, it begs the question how the driver failed to see him. I guess this maybe down to evidence but some witness must have given evidence along these lines.

I just can't get my head around this one.

The Rookie

BentMikey wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

How loud was the stereo? Did he think he'd clipped a curb or gone through a pothole? Heavily laden lorries pulling off in first, especailly with lock on to turn sharp left will often pitch and roll a lot, the police can give that 'evidence', but contrary evidence (including the drivers testimony) may well have been sufficient to cast "reasonable doubt".

Simon

...except it wasn't sufficient - which is why he was convicted of perverting the course of justice.

NO, the PcJ was for covering up after the event, nothing to do with the accident or whether he knew it was happening at the instant time, if you want to pick holes in what happened, get the facts right first, otherwise you shoot down your own arguments.

Simon

BentMikey

err, no. Part of his defence was that he didn't see/hear/feel anything related to the collision, and that he never saw the bicycle on his truck in the layby since he claimed it must have fallen off. Clearly the jury didn't believe his tales, which is why he was convicted of perverting the course of justice.

The Rookie

Indeed, all of which was after the accident, so they didn't believe that tale, that does not mean they automatically disbleived it all, and from what he was found guilty of that is almost certainly the case, 2+2 does not equal 5!

Tried reading some case files at Baili you may get a better idea of what happens in courts!

Simon

bigmat

BentMikey wrote:

err, no. Part of his defence was that he didn't see/hear/feel anything related to the collision, and that he never saw the bicycle on his truck in the layby since he claimed it must have fallen off. Clearly the jury didn't believe his tales, which is why he was convicted of perverting the course of justice.

Wasn't the stuff about not seeing / hearing / feeling the crash part of the defence to the dangerous driving charge, which he got off on. The perverting the course of justice bit related to disposing of the bike I think. Hard to say for certain without reading the full transcript of the case. That's why threads such as this are so dangerous, a lot of facts are assumed and then extrapolated on and everyone gets very angry! What is clear is that it was a very tragic incident, and it appears that because of the inadequacies of the legal framework at that time sentencing was on the light side. Beyond that, I wouldn't want to comment.

BentMikey

I doubt that seeing/hearing/feeling the crash relates to dangerous driving, since it's after the collision. I think you guys are fail of logic.

bigmat

BentMikey wrote:

I doubt that seeing/hearing/feeling the crash relates to dangerous driving, since it's after the collision. I think you guys are fail of logic.

I read the other forum thread the other day so my recollection may be wrong, but wasn't it argued that it became dangerous driving when he carried on even though he must have known of the collision? Prior to that it was a basic left hook, which in the eyes of the law is careless at worst. All very sad anyway and hopefully the changes to the law will help and there will be further legislation to improve the situation further. That's perhaps what people should be focusing on? :?

Eau Rouge

MatHammond wrote:

, but wasn't it argued that it became dangerous driving when he carried on even though he must have known of the collision?

I think the idea was that driving with a bike scraping along the ground and after you've been in a collision makes the vehicle unsafe, and therefore dangerous to drive.

In this case he wasn't charged with dangerous driving, he was charged with death by dangerous driving, which can only relate to the collision, not his driving after the collision. Had he been charged with dangerous driving too, relating to the time after the collision, then it would be relevenrt if he knew about it or not. His claim of not being aware of it doesn't effect the death by dagnerous driving charge he was charged with. It's not uncommon for the CPS to not charge someone with every crime they can think off, not just in motoring offences. In this case, he was charged with 5 charges and even then only 2 were actually argued and a verdict given on.

He needed to claim he didn't know of the accident as part of a defence against PtCoJ in a "I didn't know there was a course of justice to pervert" manner, that is all.

yoohoo999

Eau Rouge wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

, but wasn't it argued that it became dangerous driving when he carried on even though he must have known of the collision?

It's not uncommon for the CPS to not charge someone with every crime they can think off, not just in motoring offences.

Indeed. Its an odd trend that has arisen due to the increase of plea bargaining in E&W courts (and Scotland too) and because quite frankly the police and CPS often get the charges so wrong at the outset that the whole case falls apart as soon as someone with half a brain has a look at the legislation (particularly in relation to RTA offences).

I don't mean that disrespectfully to anyone working at the CPS, but when you are a private practice lawyer you don't have the same pressures of time and cost so it's easier to hack things to pieces, especially charges that have been compiled by an overworked CPS unit based on weak evidence.

They always throw a basket full at the wall hoping a couple will stick. I think that is fairly evident in this case.

If it even looks like it might work, the CPS often add it on. Judges don't seem to mind, and neither do PP lawyers, because it makes them instantly look good in front of their clients when they seemingly have 50% of the charges dropped after one simple counsel negotiation. :?

The Rookie

Well for starters they had no option of death by careless, the law didn't exist.

Anyone charged with dangerous or carelss can be found guilty of the other, they are know as 'statutory alternatives' soemthing CTC hasn't grasped in its legal discourse on stop-smidsy......so the choice of charge there is irrelevant.

Simon

gabriel959

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8383701.stm

Even sheep have got better treatment - read last line of that article!

:x

ceeque

what an incredible and heart wrenching story, Stubbs is very obviously sub-human and as always, the law IS an ass .....
Strength Love and Compassion to the family of Tony Spink ...

shouldbeinbed

yoohoo999 wrote:

...snip...

quite agree - I suggested the lawmakers hang their heads in shame on p1.

It doesn't sound like there was misdirection - the postings from the Spink family in various threads linked all seem to imply the judge saw Stubbs the driver for what he is and had the privilege info that the Jury didn't that he'd been convicted of both offences before.

I would suggest that the 'leniency' would seem to have come out of the usual horse trading over the actual indictments the defendant will face that goes on pre-trial between the lawyers to secure a convition (CPS) and minimise that conviction (defence).

sadly thats the way the practitioners of the law work the people in the middle are comodeties.

number9

This was a retrial, the first jury couldn't reach a decision.

I think this case deserves broader attention than just postings on cycling threads. The original link with Frank Stubb's contributions got a lot of internet attention, as did the photos of the lorry driver grinning outside the court.

Maybe a campaign. Maybe we club together and pay for an advert saying "Want to kill someone and get away with it?" Then list some of the worst cases, including this one, maybe leave the names out.

There is something dreadfully wrong, so far twelve talented, intelligent women have been killed on the streets of London by neanderthal thugs driving large vehicles. One lorry driver didn't even stop after killing a young Polish woman.

The thought that Stubbs gets his licence back in 2012 is chilling.

Eau Rouge

number9 wrote:

This was a retrial, the first jury couldn't reach a decision.

I think this case deserves broader attention than just postings on cycling threads. The original link with Frank Stubb's contributions got a lot of internet attention, as did the photos of the lorry driver grinning outside the court.

Maybe a campaign. Maybe we club together and pay for an advert saying "Want to kill someone and get away with it?" Then list some of the worst cases, including this one, maybe leave the names out.

There is something dreadfully wrong, so far twelve talented, intelligent women have been killed on the streets of London by neanderthal thugs driving large vehicles. One lorry driver didn't even stop after killing a young Polish woman.

The thought that Stubbs gets his licence back in 2012 is chilling.

Isn't this back to the "unfair on cyclists" train of thought again. The same lenient sentencing applies when anyone is killed by someone driving a vehicle, there are no special cases for cyclists.
Or are you actually on the "ban all lorries" bandwagon again?

number9

Nobody's said "Ban all lorries", but congratulations for introducing the straw man.


My ultimate aim would be the introduction of presumed liability, protection for ALL vulnerable road users.

yoohoo999

number9 wrote:

My ultimate aim would be the introduction of presumed liability

wow! screw progression eh, let's just turn the system on it's head!!!

I had an interesting presentation at my firm very recently from an eminent commercial QC.

It took the form of a "how judges are feeling about specific issues". This was in respect of commercial issues (not criminal), but it is still quite relevant.

Basically, we have briefings on a regular basis from advocates who have their finger on the pulse of how the courts are viewing particular things (in my case it's financial security documents and project agreements). So if the word from the upper courts is that they are not looking favourably at a specific type of warranty in a project agreement, we get to know about it asap so that we can avoid falling down the same pitfalls as other firms. Most of the time these aren't actual decisions, just whispers from the bench. But it keeps us aware of how a judge MIGHT view a certain provision if the shit ever hit the fan.

One of the key things that always comes out of these briefings, is that judges in England are FAR less likely to deviate from the status quo than judges in other jurisdictions. I also work on US matters and the judgments there are far more hit and miss.

The reasoning behind this is because our legal system (and I'm referring to the civil system, not criminal) is immensely profitable to the UK. An astonishing number of deals are based on English law simply because it's views as SAFE law. Clients have more certainty with English law than any other jurisdiction. This in turn makes our legal system very attractive and lucrative.

For this reason, judges are very cautious about "breaking from the norm" in commercial decisions because they worry of the ramifications on a wider scale.

Cross border transactions based on English law makes this country billions, and it's very finely balanced, so it's understandable that judges are cautious.


Obviously, this isn't directly applicable to criminal courts, however I have always wondered how much attention is paid to our legal system as a whole, ie both civil and criminal litigation. From a lawyers perspective the two are unrelated, however clients vary in terms of their level of understanding of the law and criminal cases obviously attract a heck of a lot of media attention. If English criminal courts are being slammed in the media on a daily basis for being "uncertain", I wonder how much that would affect an outsider's perspective on our courts overall?

If the top law bodies thought that there may be an impact, I wonder how much pressure criminal judges are also put under to try to maintain a sufficient degree of visible certainty in our courts, to maintain to overall commercial image to foreign companies.

I would like to think that the income generated by our civil courts has absolutely no bearing on criminal judges minds, however I do wonder sometimes.

number9

yoohoo999 wrote:

number9 wrote:

My ultimate aim would be the introduction of presumed liability

wow! screw progression eh, let's just turn the system on it's head!!!

"The system" imposed a ludicous sentence on a lorry driver who killed someone.

Presumed Liability would make the roads safer. Accidents, and insurance premiums would fall. Drivers would take more care, and cycling would be encouraged, thereby making the roads even safer (more cyclists= fewer accidents).

This Virtuous Cycle would be a tremendous boost to cycling, encourage drivers to take care and make things more pleasant for every road user.

Yes, I think that would be progress.

Tonymufc

This is Britain, we don't do justice for victims. Especially if they were killed while riding a bike. R.I.P. Tony Spinks.

shouldbeinbed

number9 wrote:

"The system" imposed a ludicous sentence on a lorry driver who killed someone.

.

No, the 'system' imposed the available sentance on this man within very strict limits based on the laws passed by Parliament.

This was a retrial? So the people that have seen and heard all the evidence first hand were implaccably split on the decision, do you know if this second trial was a split verdict. its easy for us to pontificate on the basis of newspapers, forums and heart rending stories from the family but the Jury has had both sides and experts examining the lorry talking to them in far more detail than we can hope for but couldn't come to a decision. Sadly thats very telling.



If Stubbs were tried for Murder or Manslaughter or a different driving tarriff the level of proof that he'd breached 'higher tarrif' offences would be comensurately higher, he would undoubtedly have walked completely free from court and the bitter feelings about lack of justice would be tenfold what they are.

I know that in many many cases judges are as frustrated and angry at the pitiful sentances that they can pass as we are but they've only limited discretion to impose sentances to suit Justice rather than Statute. In this case the charge appiled would be equally applicable to someone with an exemplary driving record (maybe even a regular cyclist themself) who did have a genuine moment of distraction but stopped, did the right thing, waited to be arrested, pleaded guilty and was devastated by the consequence of their actions, Would you have them liable to the same level of sentance that this bloke seems to deserve as a repeat offender and on the face of it a far more heinous act?

Doesn't make it right but railing against 'the system' is misguided at best, campaign to your MP they're your most direct contact to the lawmaking process.

And as a sideline issue, its not just talented inteligent women that go under the wheels of neanderthal truckers. This thread is about the death of a man. local to me, (Edit - Christopher Maclure) the PCSO that died in 2007 was male, Harry Wilmers who died practically in front of my wife in August was male. We're all vulnerable to 40 odd tons of metal when on a bike. lets not get sidetracked into sexist diatribes about issues that affect everyone on a bike eh.

number9

I'm not sure how mentioning the sex of the victims of HGVs in London is sexist. Had I ascribed blame to the victims based on their sex then the "sexist" tag would have more merit. And I didn't say the only victims were women.

I did not. Kindly argue with what I've said, not your strange inventions.

I am not railing against "The system", I am lobbying for a raised awareness of the senseless, wasteful carnage on our roads and making the point that there is an economic point to these pointless, avoidable deaths.

The Spink case shows us that if a driver simply says "I didn't see the cyclist" then it is accepted in mitigation. To my mind, a driver who claims "I didn't see the cyclist" has admitted Careless Driving. In at least two cases, a driver offering this plea has no action taken against him. Nothing at all. Yes, I killed a cyclist, but I didn't see them. Case closed.

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1428

The police investigated the noise levels in the cab. The lorry did not have a bonnet, the front of the cab is very close to the driver. It is simply not possible for a driver to fail to notice someone flailing at the front of the cab, beating the metal, hanging onto the windscreen wipers and shouting "Whoah!".

This is no ordinary left hook.

The driver's version was that he stopped in the layby (30 miles off his route), the bike fell out from under the lorry, and he drove off unawares. Someone else, Stubbs said, must have come across the bike, personal belongings, passport etc and thrown them over the layby barrier. Stubbs saw nothing, heard nothing, despite witnesses chasing him, a poor woman witness screaming at him, drivers honking.

My version, based on the character of the driver in court and his father on the forum in the OP, is that the driver killed a cyclis, knew perfectly well what he had done, dumped the evidence and carried on with his job. The police asked Stubbs FIVE TIMES how the bike ended up in the exact same layby Stubbs had parked in. He offered no explanation. At the point at which he killed Mr Spink, Mr Stubbs was already illegally on the roads, having exceeded the hours at the wheel already that day with no break taken.


Stubbs defence was to rely on the leniency shown toward driver and a legal system that colludes in a lack of justice for RTA victims. The single most important thing that would prevent further deaths is Presumed Liability, and a mandatory life ban for killer drivers.