Kill two cyclists but get away with community sentence
Comments
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-e ... e-22730808
Crown office is appealing against the sentence as being 'unduly lenient'.0 -
CTC petition ended up with 6010 signatures. Hopefully such a show of support will ease the families burden slightly.http://www.strathspey.co.uk - Quality Binoculars at a Sensible Price.
Specialized Roubaix SL3 Expert 2012, Cannondale CAAD5,
Marin Mount Vision (1997), Edinburgh Country tourer, 3 cats!0 -
IanLD wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22730808
Crown office is appealing against the sentence as being 'unduly lenient'.
I've just had an email from CTC.Rhia Weston - CTC wrote:Success - Gary McCourt's sentence will be appealed!
Today CTC and the Fyfe family were notified that the Crown Counsel in Edinburgh has appealed McCourt’s sentence. The family are delighted that the Crown Counsel made the right decision and are overwhelmed by the level of support shown by the public.
Only a handful of sentences are appealed in Scotland each year. Thank you for helping make this one of them.
Your email to the Lord Advocate was one of 6010 that were sent in support of an appeal. This enormous response has never been seen before by CTC and we believe contributed significantly to the Crown Counsel’s decision. Thank you so much for your support.
The appeal has now been sent to the High Court of the Justiciary who will receive a report from Sheriff James Scott within the next 8 weeks explaining why he thought 300 hours of community service and a five year driving ban was an appropriate sentence for a double-killer driver. The High Court will make their decision whether the sentence should be changed or not in the autumn. CTC and the Fyfe family hope McCourt is given a lifetime driving ban. We will keep you updated on the High Court’s decision.
This case clearly demonstrates the need to maintain pressure on the legal system to take bad driving seriously in order to protect the lives of vulnerable road users.
Today's result coincides with preparations for the launch of a national campaign from CTC called ‘Road Justice’ to continue campaigning for a more appropriate and effective response to bad driving. Go to http://www.roadjustice.org.uk to find out more.
Once again thank you for your part in the campaign.
Yours sincerely,
Rhia Weston
CTC Road Safety Campaigner
Hopefully the report by Sheriff James Scott explaining the reasons behind his sentencing will be made public.
Best regardsBoardman CX Team0 -
Hopefully their appeal is based on a sound evaluation and does not take in to account the requests for mob justice.0
-
0
-
IanLD wrote:
+10 -
Failure to wear a helmet as mitigation was debunked ...0
-
The only positive is that the appeal judge has ruled it is wrong to use the lack of a helmet as a contributory factor.0
-
Mildly impressed the BBC have the phrase "Cyclist killer" right there in the headline... stronger words than I'd expect from them. Getting really sick of the helmet thing though. I don't see any real difference between cases like this and the surprisingly frequent cases where someone has thrown a single punch at a person who then fell over and smashed their head off something and subsequently died. First example I found, with a manslaughter conviction. Killing a cyclist like this guy did should be treated at least as seriously as that. Doesn't matter if you didn't mean it to happen!IanLD wrote:0 -
The guy clearly can't drive, or he doesn't have the mental capacity to concentrate on the road, so why can't they ban him from driving permanently?0
-
Horrible decision, thoughts go to family and friends of cyclist robbed of life in such a cruel way.
It seems killing a cyclist is only marginally worse in terms of punishment than running over someones cat.0 -
trek_dan wrote:The guy clearly can't drive, or he doesn't have the mental capacity to concentrate on the road, so why can't they ban him from driving permanently?
2 (fatal) accidents in what? 3 decades of driving - you have no idea how far he's driven in that time or how many other accidents he's had or nearly had. I'd wager there are a lot of ppl with a greater number of serious accidents than this that are still driving now.
Does anyone drive with 100% concentration on the road? I seriously doubt it - unless you're a Rally or F1 driver during a race ... I'm not trying to excuse Mr McCourts driving - he should've noted the cyclist was there and ensured he didn't encroach on her space. I also agree that sentences should be more severe - a period of ban plus a retest should be minimum. Permanent ban? It should be an option, plenty of youths are causing havoc in cars "getting off" with minimal sentencing - they would be higher on my target list ...0 -
That's a useful euphemism - e.g. "look at my girl again and I'll encroach on your space!"Slowbike wrote:he should've noted the cyclist was there and ensured he didn't encroach on her space.0 -
Mikey23 wrote:Failure to wear a helmet as mitigation was debunked ...Pross wrote:The only positive is that the appeal judge has ruled it is wrong to use the lack of a helmet as a contributory factor.
Good. Let's hope we see a complete u-turn on this nonsense which has been creeping into precedent in recent years.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
Not defending this guy but there are a couple of hundred thousand road collisions each year in the UK. Most of them are relatively harmless but we should all be honest enough to admit that killing another road user or pedestrian because of a mistake we made could happen to any of us.
Knowing the trauma suffered by a friend of mine who injured a child with her car (life altering head injuries) in an incident in which she was blameless, I cannot imagine the pain of knowing it was your actions which led to someone losing their life.
Having said all that, community service and a 5yr driving ban does not feel like enough. I'll admit though I'm not quite sure what his punishment should have been.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
Daz555 wrote:Not defending this guy but there are a couple of hundred thousand road collisions each year in the UK. Most of them are relatively harmless but we should all be honest enough to admit that killing another road user or pedestrian because of a mistake we made could happen to any of us.
It is that knowledge that prevents the CPS pushing higher charges in many cases. They know that there will be a 'there but for the grace of God' element in some of the jury's minds and that they are less likely to convict someone of an offence that could send them to prison knowing that there may have been situations in the past where they could have done the same.0 -
Didn't see any point in jailing him but the driving ban should have been reassessed. Not a good day for justice.http://www.strathspey.co.uk - Quality Binoculars at a Sensible Price.
Specialized Roubaix SL3 Expert 2012, Cannondale CAAD5,
Marin Mount Vision (1997), Edinburgh Country tourer, 3 cats!0 -
Can't believe that some people are showing sympathy towards this guy, it was his fault he was in charge of the motor vehicle, if you take charge of any vehicle and you run down and kill somebody and it's your fault you should be made to pay, b*****ks to the wrong time wrong place get out clause, this is why we have child molesters, terrorists and murderers roaming the streets of Britain because do gooders are too willing to defend these people, manslaughter for me lifetime ban throw the book at this idiot.0
-
So in your eyes a willingness within the legal system to account for the mistakes which all human beings make has a parallel in how we deal with child molestors, rapists and terrorists? Sorry but I don't see the connection.petepete1969 wrote:Can't believe that some people are showing sympathy towards this guy, it was his fault he was in charge of the motor vehicle, if you take charge of any vehicle and you run down and kill somebody and it's your fault you should be made to pay, b*****ks to the wrong time wrong place get out clause, this is why we have child molesters, terrorists and murderers roaming the streets of Britain because do gooders are too willing to defend these people, manslaughter for me lifetime ban throw the book at this idiot.
Now this guy who has killed two cyclists might well be the sort of person (was he driving recklessly or dangerously at the time for example?) who needs a severe punishment. However this will not always be the case and the law needs the facility to take circumstances into account on a case by case basis.
There will be examples of deaths where a lifetime in jail is appropriate and times when perhaps virtually no punishment at all should be given. Seems reasonable to me.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
I'd be inclined to agree that given a first conviction leniency *may* be shown depending on facts and circumstances. I'm not going to pretend to know all the facts to this case and I doubt many people (or any) on this thread will know all of the details.
That said, this guy has killed two cyclists in two completely separate instances, no? That should really influence the verdict a little higher in my view as it's clear (unless again I'm missing some vital facts) that the driver is a) that bad and shouldn't be on the road full stop or b) just hasn't learnt his lesson from last time and has shown an complete disregard to more vulnerable road users.
Sentencing does seem a little all over the place for various of crimes and very inconsistent. That said, I'd also rather not go to the other extreme where people are excessively punished where they're not at fault.0 -
The average concentration span for domestic motorists is 20mins in every hour of driving, according to the AA and RoSPA. (As I learned on a speed awareness course :oops: )Now that is an average which means there are some drivers not paying any attention at all. I wonder if a similar study has been done with cyclists?Slowbike wrote:Does anyone drive with 100% concentration on the road? I seriously doubt it.0 -
This man has proved that he can concentrate long enough to pass the competence test in the past. In 5 years time he will be given the chance to prove that again. Let's hope he fails as the test has developed in those thirty years.
What he has proved though is that he cannot concentrate long or hard enough within the timespan and length of journeys he takes. Given this, is the CTC going to diarise a petition directly to him to not drive again out of his own free will and show some respect to cyclists?0 -
As said earlier - 2 accidents in 3 decades ... no mention of other accidents. How many other drivers have had more frequent accidents than that ...patrickf wrote:That said, this guy has killed two cyclists in two completely separate instances, no? That should really influence the verdict a little higher in my view as it's clear (unless again I'm missing some vital facts) that the driver is a) that bad and shouldn't be on the road full stop or b) just hasn't learnt his lesson from last time and has shown an complete disregard to more vulnerable road users.
Average accident rate is once every 18 years http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2011/07/27/how-many-times-will-you-crash-your-car/ although that doesn't average fatalities.
So if the driver is within statistical averages for accidents then is he really significantly worse than other average drivers? He's been unfortunate that 2 accidents have resulted in the death of cyclists. We don't know how many accidents he has had or how many miles driven or what sort of roads those were on. Neither do we know if he's got any speeding convictions (surely they would've been brought up?) - So where's the evidence that he has shown a complete disregard to more vulnerable road users ?0 -
Slowbike wrote:So where's the evidence that he has shown a complete disregard to more vulnerable road users ?
I can sort of understand both sides of the argument here. However this is the banker (for me). About 30 years ago on a poorly lit road two people stepped out in dark clothing onto a zebra crossing in front of me. I wasn't speeding and I managed to stop but only left about 1 foot between me and them which really put the willies up me. Even now I am still much more aware and cautious in similar scenarios. Imagine if I had actually hit them.
If you had hit and killed a cyclist before, wouldn't you be unbelievably cautious when you saw one in front of you. It's inate human nature, surely (well for some, anyway).0 -
That's twice now you've said this while downplaying or ignoring the word "fatal" - I don't doubt many drivers have had 2 or more accidents in 30 years, but the number who have caused 2 fatal accidents is going to be much much smaller. For all we know this guy has had a dozen accidents, he just hasn't killed anyone in the others...Slowbike wrote:As said earlier - 2 accidents in 3 decades ... no mention of other accidents. How many other drivers have had more frequent accidents than that ...0 -
This guy deserves a custodial sentence and a life driving ban at the very least. What that custodial sentence should be is the debatable part but as he has previous convictions for killing someone, I'd suggest a minimum of 4 years with the possibility of early release after 3. I can't be the only one to find his sentence to be overly lenient which disregards the impact upon the victims family.
Perhaps someone could inform me if it is stated anywhere on whether the original trial judge based his lenient sentence on his erroneous judgement on the lack of a helmet. Until wearing a helmet is mandatory, the role of a helmet (or the lack of one) is irrelevant in any trial sentencing. The judge screwed up and the cabal on the judiciary didn't want to be seen overruling one of their own.0 -
adr82 wrote:
That's twice now you've said this while downplaying or ignoring the word "fatal" - I don't doubt many drivers have had 2 or more accidents in 30 years, but the number who have caused 2 fatal accidents is going to be much much smaller. For all we know this guy has had a dozen accidents, he just hasn't killed anyone in the others...Slowbike wrote:As said earlier - 2 accidents in 3 decades ... no mention of other accidents. How many other drivers have had more frequent accidents than that ...
So what's the difference between a fatal and non-fatal accident - he could've clipped 100's of cyclists in the intervening years and not killed a single one until this one. Perhaps they were all wearing helmets or were fit & agile enough to prevent serious injury. What's the difference between causing an accident and one that eventually leads to a fatality?
IIRC the woman he hit fell and hit her head on the road/pavement/curb - so why is that different to hitting the cyclist and they fell into a hedge causing no more than superficial cuts and bruises? His actions were still the same.
Are we suggesting that it's better to knock a rider off where there is something soft to land on?
Shouldn't we punish the crime and not the consequence?0 -
Yes. And the crime is driving into a cyclist: something that is highly likely to cause death, so should be taken seriously. The only logical way for your argument to go is that non-fatal accidents should be punished more severely, not that fatal accidents should be let off because "he didn't really mean it".Slowbike wrote:Shouldn't we punish the crime and not the consequence?0 -
bompington wrote:
Yes. And the crime is driving into a cyclist: something that is highly likely to cause death, so should be taken seriously. The only logical way for your argument to go is that non-fatal accidents should be punished more severely, not that fatal accidents should be let off because "he didn't really mean it".Slowbike wrote:Shouldn't we punish the crime and not the consequence?
I don't disagree - but ppl are up in arms because he has got off lightly having killed two cyclists ...
A conviction is more likely to stick where a victim sustains injuries - so a knock and go accident is likely to be unreported and therefore unpunished - then we get a fine line between that and knock and severely punished.
Should we have a "no harm, no foul" - but then that opens the argument that it didn't hurt much so didn't deserve harsh punishment ...
There is a lot of bad driving on the roads - both intentional and unintentional - we (the society) needs a mechanism to reduce it. The intentional ones are simpler to resolve - just remove their privilege to drive. The unintentional ones are harder - a ban on driving may remove the problem for a time, but they're not going to get any better by not driving - so a provision to take lessons and be periodically tested* may be a sensible approach.
* say - allowed to take lessons with recognised school for up to 1 year prior to ban being served, followed by a successful test pass before the ban is lifted, then tested 1 year after and then say 2 years after that or variant depending on result of test. (all at the banned drivers expense)
I'd suggest that that approach would be more likely to result in better drivers than a simple ban or even imprisonment.0 -
What's the difference? The clue is in the name... the point I was making is that fatal accidents are much rarer than non-fatal accidents, so when you come across someone who's had 2 or more you have to wonder what's going on. Maybe this guy is just spectacularly unlucky and has only ever had these two accidents in 30 years of driving, but you'd have to admit the chances of that being true are rather small. I'd imagine he's had many close calls over the years, and/or the sort of less serious incidents you're talking about that tend to go unreported or at least unprosecuted. Someone else made the point that after the first incident you'd think he'd have been super-careful around cyclists for the rest of his life, yet that doesn't appear to be the case. I think he's demonstrated that he's not capable of being trusted with control of a vehicle by this stage, albeit through incompetence rather than maliciousness.Slowbike wrote:So what's the difference between a fatal and non-fatal accident - he could've clipped 100's of cyclists in the intervening years and not killed a single one until this one. Perhaps they were all wearing helmets or were fit & agile enough to prevent serious injury. What's the difference between causing an accident and one that eventually leads to a fatality?
Not sure what you're suggesting, but I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I agree with bompington.Slowbike wrote:IIRC the woman he hit fell and hit her head on the road/pavement/curb - so why is that different to hitting the cyclist and they fell into a hedge causing no more than superficial cuts and bruises? His actions were still the same.
Are we suggesting that it's better to knock a rider off where there is something soft to land on?0
