Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to news
news
Campaigning
Casualty
Collision
CTC questions why driver who killed cyclist was only sentenced to a curfew and driving banRoad-Justice-Logo.png

CTC questions why driver who killed cyclist was only sentenced to a curfew and driving ban

Charity feels that causing death by dangerous driving would have been a more appropriate charge
by Alex Bowden
Wed, Dec 09, 2015 15:48
8

CTC, the national cycling charity, has questioned the sentence handed to a driver who hit a cyclist from behind near Dorchester after failing to see him. Derek Cheney last week admitted causing the death of head teacher Paul Miller by careless driving for which he was made the subject of a six-month curfew and handed a two-year driving ban.

Writing on the CTC website, Duncan Dollimore, Road Justice campaign co-ordinator, asks why Cheney was only charged with careless driving and not the more serious charge of dangerous driving.

The police investigation found that Cheney had seven seconds of visibility of the road ahead, with no oncoming traffic, during which he should have seen Miller, who was wearing high-vis clothing and had lights on his bike. However, Cheney did not see him and appears to have given no explanation as to why he didn’t.

Dollimore asks whether driving without noticing a cyclist in front of you for seven seconds constitutes a standard far below that expected of a careful and competent driver. If the police think the standard of driving fell ‘far below’ that required – and it would have been obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would cause danger – they can charge the person with causing death by dangerous driving.

As part of its Road Justice campaign, CTC has continuously raised concerns regarding the increasing reluctance of the police and prosecution to charge drivers with 'dangerous' driving offences, and the undercharging and downgrading of offences to merely 'careless' driving.

Earlier this year, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Keir Starmer, said there was "a very strong case for change in the way that cases involving the death of cyclists are handled by the law.” The former head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) believes decisions to prosecute cases in which a cyclist has been killed in a road traffic incident should be made by the CPS and not the police.

Cheney pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving at an early opportunity and Dollimore writes:

“CTC believes downgrading offences to secure early guilty pleas to careless driving, when the standard of driving falls 'far below' the required standard, sends the wrong message regarding the gravity and consequences of driving offences. Where a cyclist has died CTC agrees with Sir Keir Starmer that the CPS should always be involved in the charging process, and the decision regarding which offence to prosecute.”

CTC suggests that in this case the Magistrates could have declined to deal with the case and transferred it to the Crown Court, which would have had the power to send Cheney to prison for up to two years.

“As the Magistrates retained the case, their maximum powers of imprisonment were limited to six months. In this case, though the option was available, a suspended prison sentence was not even imposed. In two years’ time Cheney will also be able to re-apply for his licence after taking an extended test.

“CTC presumes the Magistrates were content that Cheney would not repeat the error in concentration and awareness that led to Mr Miller's death, even though an explanation for this lapse is still forthcoming.”

Road Justice
CTC
Derek Cheney
Paul Miller
Alex Bowden

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

8 comments

Avatar
I love my bike | 8 years ago
1 like

If it happened during a driving test, would they have passed? Shouldn't/isn't that the standard?
 

Avatar
Christopher TR1 | 8 years ago
0 likes

If that was your father/husband/son how on earth could you be expected to tolerate such a lenient sentencing of the scum behind the wheel?

Still shocking, no matter how many of these stories I read.

Avatar
Eric D | 8 years ago
0 likes

Compare the 9 second 'momentary lapse in concentration' while admiring an oncoming lorry in the Peter Barraclough - Leonard Grayson case:

http://road.cc/content/news/85872-judge-drivers-lapse-concentration-kill...

Judge Peter Bowers - Teesside Crown Court - five-month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, ordered to do 250 hours of unpaid work, and banned from driving for 18 months

Although the judge did say "Your driving did, in my judgment, fall substantially below what was acceptable" - implying the charge should actually have been Dangerous Driving, not just careless !

How does the whole 'precedent' thing work ?

Avatar
Housecathst | 8 years ago
4 likes

I'm sorry to say it, but I have some sympathy with the police/cps. They don't charge people with dangerous driving because its next to impossible to get a guilty verdict out of a jury of fellow motorists. in less there is an aggravating factor, like drink driving (in fact drink driving is the only example I can think off ) there even happy to give the benefit of the doubt even in cases of massively excessive mobile phone use leading up to a crash. 

The definition of dangerous driving is laughable (bad choose of words I know) a standard of driving that fall "far below" what is expected. Everyone thinks of there bad habits and thinks, this could be me in dock, I would want to go to prison for "just a little mistake" 

 

Avatar
harrybav replied to Housecathst | 8 years ago
1 like

Housecathst wrote:

They don't charge people with dangerous driving because its next to impossible to get a guilty verdict

The CPS should still charge with dd - let the politicians and public worry about fixing the law if it isn't achieving convictions. 

Avatar
rliu replied to harrybav | 8 years ago
1 like

vbvb wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

They don't charge people with dangerous driving because its next to impossible to get a guilty verdict

The CPS should still charge with dd - let the politicians and public worry about fixing the law if it isn't achieving convictions. 

 

We live in a stats and targets driven age, if the ratio of convictions secured is too low then certain police managers or CPS managers will get the heat or the sack. Everyone is geared towards thinking about numbers and ratios rather than what each individual case merits.

Avatar
Mark By replied to Housecathst | 8 years ago
2 likes

Housecathst wrote:

I'm sorry to say it, but I have some sympathy with the police/cps. They don't charge people with dangerous driving because its next to impossible to get a guilty verdict out of a jury of fellow motorists. in less there is an aggravating factor, like drink driving (in fact drink driving is the only example I can think off ) there even happy to give the benefit of the doubt even in cases of massively excessive mobile phone use leading up to a crash.

The definition of dangerous driving is laughable (bad choose of words I know) a standard of driving that fall "far below" what is expected. Everyone thinks of there bad habits and thinks, this could be me in dock, I would want to go to prison for "just a little mistake"

 

My understanding is that the presiding judge can set criteria for jurors to be excluded from the panel, the key being the reduction in any bias, i.e. a fair trial.  Also the CPS can challenge the makeup of any jury. You cannot exclude anybody with a driving licence. However it should be possible to exclude jurors who have been convicted of, or even received penalty points, fines or the equivalent,  for driving offences related to the charges.

Avatar
oozaveared replied to Mark By | 8 years ago
1 like

Mark By wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

I'm sorry to say it, but I have some sympathy with the police/cps. They don't charge people with dangerous driving because its next to impossible to get a guilty verdict out of a jury of fellow motorists. in less there is an aggravating factor, like drink driving (in fact drink driving is the only example I can think off ) there even happy to give the benefit of the doubt even in cases of massively excessive mobile phone use leading up to a crash.

The definition of dangerous driving is laughable (bad choose of words I know) a standard of driving that fall "far below" what is expected. Everyone thinks of there bad habits and thinks, this could be me in dock, I would want to go to prison for "just a little mistake"

 

My understanding is that the presiding judge can set criteria for jurors to be excluded from the panel, the key being the reduction in any bias, i.e. a fair trial.  Also the CPS can challenge the makeup of any jury. You cannot exclude anybody with a driving licence. However it should be possible to exclude jurors who have been convicted of, or even received penalty points, fines or the equivalent,  for driving offences related to the charges.

 

Indeed and a judge can direct a jury on certain findings of fact.  If they then ignore the judges direction he can hold them in contempt.  As a juror you swear an oath or affirm.

"I swear by almighty God that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence."

or

"I solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence."

if they wilfully ignore the evidence or act in bad faith then they too can be subject to prosecution.  They may need reminding sometimes.

And Prosecutors may need to be more persuasive.  How about a reconstruction by CGI or by ordinary video of the drivers view for the last 7 seconds?

This is more about prosecutors being a bit lazy.  

Latest Comments