Hey ho. Another paltry sentence for wrecking a cyclists life

Kieran_Burns

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/ ... ticle.html

A HIT-AND-RUN driver who left a cyclist with life-changing injuries has been jailed for six months.

Driver Richard Malia, who had earlier been drinking in Derby city centre, left Tyrone Tunnicliffe with a fractured spine and a pelvis in the accident eight months ago, Derby Crown Court heard.

Mr Tunnicliffe needed two major operations, had metal plates inserted and is still unable to walk unaided.

Malia, 21, was travelling at 80mph along Manor Road, which has a 40mph limit, when he hit 35-year-old Mr Tunnicliffe from behind, throwing the cyclist from his bike.


His Audi A3 then veered over to the opposite side of the dual carriageway and hit a parked car before speeding off in the wrong direction, said prosecutor Sherrall Pickford.

Jailing him for six months, Recorder Stephen Eyre said: "I have to sentence you for an appalling piece of driving which had serious consequences for the man you knocked off his bike.

"You drove at 80mph at night, in a 40mph limit, no doubt also having been drinking earlier in the evening, and caused serious injuries to Mr Tunnicliffe."

The court heard that Mr Tunnicliffe, a cleaner at Royal Derby Hospital, was still in a lot of pain, needed physiotherapy every day, could only walk short distances with the support of walking sticks and now used a mobility scooter to get around.

Miss Pickford said: "He has not been able to work since the incident and it will be a long time yet before he can. He says the incident has affected his whole life and his family's life because during the course of the operations his parents were told there was a risk that he might have died."

Miss Pickford said that Malia, of Larkhill Crescent, Sinfin, did not go to police until about 24 hours after the crash, which happened at about 1am on March 13.

"He said that while driving he lost control of the wheel due to a tyre blowing and went over to the other carriageway and hit a car.

"He denied colliding with a cyclist. He said he struck something before colliding with the car but did not know what. He accepted he had been drinking. He accepted his speed was grossly excessive at 80mph."

Malia admitted dangerous driving, failing to stop at the scene of an accident and failing to report it as soon as reasonable.

Stephen Cobley, in mitigation, said: "On that day he made some terrible and illegal decisions which have had some disastrous consequences for the victim. Mr Malia is sorry for his actions and the effect had on Mr Tunnicliffe."

Malia was also banned from driving for a year and will have to pass an extended test to recover his licence.

dang100

I was very nearly flattened by a van coming towards me as it pulled out to overtake a car on Saturday.

Keith47

Well that will act as a great detterent won't it. Still, at least the attempted murderer said sorry, that will make the world of difference to his victim. :evil:

Mr Dog

Makes me sick to the pit of my stomach. Six months verus a lifetime.. no justice.

Mr Plum

6 months?! You've got to love the 'justice' system...

W1

Realistically, what do people think would be fair?

Not many people mean to cause accidents - so sentencing for a deterrent effect serves little purpose. I doubt this chap will do it again, so locking him up won't protect the public. Which leaves retribution. And within the realms of the justice system, how do you punish someone for accidentally causing these injuries?

BTW I don't know what the answer is, and I don't know what I would feel were I the victim.

camerone

that judge isn't intelligent enough to do the job he is doing. another way of putting it would be that he is a stupid, idiotic, retarded old baffoon who should be rotting away in a rocking chair somewhere.

utterly ludicrous sentence.

Keith47

Yes, accidents happen but you don't "accidentally" drink before driving and you don't "accidentally" drive at 80mph in a 40 mph zone.

camerone

W1 wrote:

Realistically, what do people think would be fair?

Not many people mean to cause accidents - so sentencing for a deterrent effect serves little purpose. I doubt this chap will do it again, so locking him up won't protect the public. Which leaves retribution. And within the realms of the justice system, how do you punish someone for accidentally causing these injuries?

BTW I don't know what the answer is, and I don't know what I would feel were I the victim.

he accidentally drank alcohol (clearly lots hence the delay in handing himself in) and accidentally did double the speed limit. i am sure he didn't intend to hit a cyclist but he did enough wrong to make it anything but an accident

Zachariah

Driver, 21-yr-old with an Audi A3 = parents with deep pockets for defence. Victim - cleaner and, snap judgement from the name, not white.

The gentry have always been allowed to run down peasants. It's a kind of perk, if you will. Tally ho!

PresumingEd

In this case, I think you've got it wrong W1; you make a valid point in respect of accidents involving a small measure of careless driving but in this instance the driver put the lives of countless people at severe risk.

I really cannot believe that he will be allwed to drive again in a years time; surely anyone convicted a dangerous driving should be banned for life

Mr Plum

Keith47 wrote:

Yes, accidents happen but you don't "accidentally" drink before driving and you don't "accidentally" drive at 80mph in a 40 mph zone.

+1

People get jail sentences for speeding, let alone speeding + drink driving + hit & run...

6 months seems like some sort of sick joke.

Mr Plum

Zachariah wrote:

Driver, 21-yr-old with an Audi A3 = parents with deep pockets for defence. Victim - cleaner and, snap judgement from the name, not white.

The gentry have always been allowed to run down peasants. It's a kind of perk, if you will. Tally ho!

I can't agree with this. You're making some massive assumptions. Take it on the face value of what happened and it's bad enough...

SamWise72

What would be appropriate would be not a huge jail sentence, but a colossal fine, and a lifetime driving ban. That way some redress can be made to the victim, the dangerous driver is taken off the road, and if such a fine ruins him for a long time into the future, no problem.

W1

OK, to make it clearer replace "accident" with "reckless actions". I don't think anyone is suggesting that he hit the cyclist on purpose (unless we are suggesting that recklessness in this case can be akin to intent if it is serious enough).

What would be the right/fair outcome?

Keith47

IMO a massive fine and lifetime ban from driving is perfectly justifiable. Punishment for the crime and a reasonable (though not guaranteed) attempt to prevent the criminal from committing the same type of offence again.

gbsahne001

Given that the judge found him guilty, surely the victim in this case should be able to find redress in the civil courts.

Kieran_Burns

For reference, This is where the incident occured.

It's a dual carriageway with a 40 limit but it is known for people treating it like a NSL (70mph) on just that stretch.

The part of all this that sticks in my craw is that he will be able to get back to a normal life within a few years (once his licence is clean and insurance catches up) but the poor guy on the bike will suffer for ever.

In these cases I really can see a lifetime ban being an option.

Sc00bs

This guy lied, perverted the course of justice, failed to accept any sort of responsibility and says sorry - for potentially runining someone's life. So that's OK then.

Yes a 6 months sentence (serving 3) is about right (for a ludicrous legal system).

"I doubt he'll do it again" - W1. That'll mean SO much to the poor sod recovering from his injuries.

W1

Sc00bs wrote:

"I doubt he'll do it again" - W1. That'll mean SO much to the poor sod recovering from his injuries.

Please read what I said properly, before taking a statement out of context and adding your own presumption.

What I was raising is the generally considered reasons for locking someone up. One of those is preventing the same person doing the same thing (a completely justified reason for a long prison sentence). I was highlighting that it's not likely to be relevant here. As you will have noted, I then go on to talk about retribution - which is (in reality) where "the poor sod" feels that justice has been done (or not).

Every time a thread like this comes up everyone jumps up and down due to it's leniency. Very few suggest what would be "fair". I for one don't have the answer because short of inflicting the same injuries on the accused (which no doubt some of the more mental on here would consider perfectly reasonable no doubt) it's difficult to equate injury to prison/a fine/a driving ban.

spen666

gbsahne wrote:

Given that the judge found him guilty, surely the victim in this case should be able to find redress in the civil courts.

Point of order

The driver PLEADED guilty - he was not found guilty.



The significance of this is that offender is entitled to 1/3 off sentence for an early guilty plea. The MAXIMUM sentence for this offence is 2 years imprisonment. Therefore, the maximum sentence that could be imposed (and remember it is maximum- not obligatory sentence) would be 16 months - ie 2/3rds of 24 months.

Lets now put that in context. The maximum sentence for stealing a sweet( value <1p for example) from the pick and mix counter of tesco is SEVEN years. You don't expect all thieves to get 7 years, so why expect all motorists to get maximum sentences.



now lets turn to what in my view is a more pressing point- if cyclist had died in this accident driver could get 14 years imprisonment, for death by dangerous driving, but as cyclist lived the driver can only get a maximum of 2 years. Thus your sentence depends on luck of the cyclist / skill of medical team rather than how bad your driving was.

IMHO we should be sentencing for the "badness" of the driving not the result of luck

Sc00bs

A 6month stretch means this tit will be free to rejoin normal polite society in 3 months. So he enjoys his life again in no time at all. Note our poor sod is still suffering 8 months after the event - fair? I don't think so.

Our boy racing friend should at the very least have to be re-educated as a driver - this isn't mentioned in the report, but perhaps this will be part of the conditions to receive his license again.

My idea of retribution? The victim should receive hefty compensation from the driver, the driver should face a longer stretch and a longer ban.

Oh and he should have to wear a nice pink boiler suit with the words DRUNK DRIVER emblazoned on the back - whilst he does his 250+ hours community service.

W1

spen666 wrote:

IMHO we should be sentencing for the "badness" of the driving not the result of luck

I.e. that if you make a small driving error that leads to a death you are only sentenced on the basis of the error and not the consequences?

Even if it is "luck" whether someone is hit/injured/killed etc the sentence still needs to reflect the consequences and not just the action. That's the only way for the "scales of justice" to be rebalanced towards the victim.

spen666

W1 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

IMHO we should be sentencing for the "badness" of the driving not the result of luck

I.e. that if you make a small driving error that leads to a death you are only sentenced on the basis of the error and not the consequences?

Even if it is "luck" whether someone is hit/injured/killed etc the sentence still needs to reflect the consequences and not just the action. That's the only way for the "scales of justice" to be rebalanced towards the victim.

I could not disagree with you more on this.

CRIMINAL Sanctions are to punish for the wrong doing. The wrong doing is the badness of the driving.

Why should you get 14 years for doing exactly what I did yet I only get 2 years. The difference being. My accident occurred outside a hospital A&E whereas yours occurred near a hospital whose A&E had been closed down.

What justifies/ benefits anyone by you getting 7 times the sentence for the same act.

That only seeks to bering the law into contempt


The civil courts and compensation is where the difference in consequences is dealt with or should be

spen666

As for "rebalancing the scales of justice" - this is Tony blair's short hand for mob justice and ignoring things like need to prove guilt etc

W1

spen666 wrote:

W1 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

IMHO we should be sentencing for the "badness" of the driving not the result of luck

I.e. that if you make a small driving error that leads to a death you are only sentenced on the basis of the error and not the consequences?

Even if it is "luck" whether someone is hit/injured/killed etc the sentence still needs to reflect the consequences and not just the action. That's the only way for the "scales of justice" to be rebalanced towards the victim.

I could not disagree with you more on this.

CRIMINAL Sanctions are to punish for the wrong doing. The wrong doing is the badness of the driving.

Why should you get 14 years for doing exactly what I did yet I only get 2 years. The difference being. My accident occurred outside a hospital A&E whereas yours occurred near a hospital whose A&E had been closed down.

What justifies/ benefits anyone by you getting 7 times the sentence for the same act.

That only seeks to bering the law into contempt


The civil courts and compensation is where the difference in consequences is dealt with or should be

I don't agree, because receiving justice isn't just about money (if at all). It needs to reflect not just the action, but the consequences too. Why shouldn't you be liable for the consequences of your actions?

Fortunately in practice the law tends to er towards my view rather than yours.

rjsterry

Gah! It's happened again! Only this time, I'm agreeing with Spen as well.

Looking at the problem in a mathematical way (bear with me), how about sentence = 'badness of driving' x severity of consequence. That way, very bad driving, but with minor consequences attracts a small sentence, as does a minor error that has catastrophic results, which feels about right.

This particular case seems to score quite highly on 'badness of driving' and severity of consequences, but the judge can only work with the sentencing limits and guidelines he's given.

I'm not convinced by the sentencing 'to set an example' arguments.

flicksta

rjsterry wrote:

Gah! It's happened again! Only this time, I'm agreeing with Spen as well.

Looking at the problem in a mathematical way (bear with me), how about sentence = 'badness of driving' x severity of consequence. That way, very bad driving, but with minor consequences attracts a small sentence, as does a minor error that has catastrophic results, which feels about right.

This particular case seems to score quite highly on 'badness of driving' and severity of consequences, but the judge can only work with the sentencing limits and guidelines he's given.

I'm not convinced by the sentencing 'to set an example' arguments.

Very very bad driving is very very bad driving regardless of the consequences. Drivers continue to text whilst driving precisely because they perceive and see no consequences. Yet when they occur, they are catastrophic. A potential sentence must carry some sort of deterrent value.

Mr Plum

I agree with the ideology of Spen's POV but it's totally impractical to implement. You can receive a 6 month jail term and a 1 year ban for driving over 120mph in a 30mph zone without any consequence/'accidents'.

There's little justice in this case IMO.

spen666

W1 wrote:

....

I don't agree, because receiving justice isn't just about money (if at all). It needs to reflect not just the action, but the consequences too. Why shouldn't you be liable for the consequences of your actions?

Fortunately in practice the law tends to er towards my view rather than yours.

Really?

Think you will find that for every example you can quote I can quote one the orther way


Lets confine ourselves to driving offences.

There have been numerous authorities from the CA and HofL (RIP) to the effect that in careless driving cases you must sentence on the basis of the "badness" not the consequences and then to contradict this position we create specific offence where we sentence for the consequences of driving, more than for the "badness" - eg death by dangerous cf dangerous

What good does it do society or anyone to have a lynch mob mentality because of a fluke of luck rather than the wrong doing.


The very essence of the criminal law should beto punish for wrongdoing, not to punish for consequences.

Take the example I gave in my previous post re the 2 accidents- why should you get 14 years and I get 2 years for the same act?

W1

spen666 wrote:

W1 wrote:

....

I don't agree, because receiving justice isn't just about money (if at all). It needs to reflect not just the action, but the consequences too. Why shouldn't you be liable for the consequences of your actions?

Fortunately in practice the law tends to er towards my view rather than yours.

Really?

Think you will find that for every example you can quote I can quote one the orther way


Lets confine ourselves to driving offences.

There have been numerous authorities from the CA and HofL (RIP) to the effect that in careless driving cases you must sentence on the basis of the "badness" not the consequences and then to contradict this position we create specific offence where we sentence for the consequences of driving, more than for the "badness" - eg death by dangerous cf dangerous

What good does it do society or anyone to have a lynch mob mentality because of a fluke of luck rather than the wrong doing.


The very essence of the criminal law should beto punish for wrongdoing, not to punish for consequences.

Take the example I gave in my previous post re the 2 accidents- why should you get 14 years and I get 2 years for the same act?

In the vast majority of cases the court takes the consequence into consideration.

The reason you should get a harsher penalyy is because of the consequences. They are still your fault, and are due to your actions. You haven't really attended to my question - why shoudln't you be liable for the consequcences of your actions?

Should a murderer only get sentenced on the basis of the single stab wound which - by luck rather than judgement - hit a major artery?

Should the mugger only get sentenced for the robbery when the old lady falls and dies?

Do you advocate going "above" the current sentences or "below" them? In other words do you think stabbing someone should get you 12 years or the coupele of years you'd get for GBH? Becase on the basis that all the actions are the same (and ignoring the consequences) you'd need to go one way or the other.