Driver jailed for deliberately swerving towards cyclists

Stephan Matthiesen wrote:

Would the previous criminal record come up in court and the jury be aware of it?

No. Not unless it included something relevant to dangerous driving. Simple evidence that somebody is a wrong'un is not allowed.

Dan S wrote:

Stephan Matthiesen wrote:

Would the previous criminal record come up in court and the jury be aware of it?

No. Not unless it included something relevant to dangerous driving. Simple evidence that somebody is a wrong'un is not allowed.

All the defendants precons will only be seen by the court once he has been found guilty. Previous convictions can be brought up during interview if it points to bad character evidence - ie he denies it saying he's been a good boy with no previous driving offences, then you can bring in previous driving ofences to prove he's a liar.

Bad character evidence can only be brought in for like offences so a burglary cannot be brought up if he's being interviewed for driving offences as its not relevant.

stumps wrote:

Dan S wrote:

Stephan Matthiesen wrote:

Would the previous criminal record come up in court and the jury be aware of it?

No. Not unless it included something relevant to dangerous driving. Simple evidence that somebody is a wrong'un is not allowed.

 

All the defendants precons will only be seen by the court once he has been found guilty. Previous convictions can be brought up during interview if it points to bad character evidence - ie he denies it saying he's been a good boy with no previous driving offences, then you can bring in previous driving ofences to prove he's a liar.

Bad character evidence can only be brought in for like offences so a burglary cannot be brought up if he's being interviewed for driving offences as its not relevant.

More of the bizarre pretence that this is 'only a driving offence'. If threatening someone with a tonne of metal isn't  an indication  of 'bad character' it's  hard to imagine what is.

oldstrath wrote:

stumps wrote:

Dan S wrote:

Stephan Matthiesen wrote:

Would the previous criminal record come up in court and the jury be aware of it?

No. Not unless it included something relevant to dangerous driving. Simple evidence that somebody is a wrong'un is not allowed.

 

All the defendants precons will only be seen by the court once he has been found guilty. Previous convictions can be brought up during interview if it points to bad character evidence - ie he denies it saying he's been a good boy with no previous driving offences, then you can bring in previous driving ofences to prove he's a liar.

Bad character evidence can only be brought in for like offences so a burglary cannot be brought up if he's being interviewed for driving offences as its not relevant.

More of the bizarre pretence that this is 'only a driving offence'. If threatening someone with a tonne of metal isn't  an indication  of 'bad character' it's  hard to imagine what is.

You really need to do some more googling and some less ranting.

Bad character is a legal mechanism by which relevant previous convictions may be disclosed to the Judge (Magistrates Court) or Jury (Crown Court). If you're on trial for theft and have 20 pre cons I can guarantee you that will happen. If you're charged with dangerous driving then your theft convictions are in no way related to what you're ACCUSED of. 

Now, in your example, you're using the accusation as evidence of character to support the accusation. It is not and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how cases work. What is alleged to have happened requires evidence. In this case that evidence saw him convicted. The physical act of driving was the offence. His character is then relevant to his sentence. In this case the volume of his previous convictions saw him more heavily penalised than someone with none.

bendertherobot wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

stumps wrote:

Dan S wrote:

Stephan Matthiesen wrote:

Would the previous criminal record come up in court and the jury be aware of it?

No. Not unless it included something relevant to dangerous driving. Simple evidence that somebody is a wrong'un is not allowed.

 

All the defendants precons will only be seen by the court once he has been found guilty. Previous convictions can be brought up during interview if it points to bad character evidence - ie he denies it saying he's been a good boy with no previous driving offences, then you can bring in previous driving ofences to prove he's a liar.

Bad character evidence can only be brought in for like offences so a burglary cannot be brought up if he's being interviewed for driving offences as its not relevant.

More of the bizarre pretence that this is 'only a driving offence'. If threatening someone with a tonne of metal isn't  an indication  of 'bad character' it's  hard to imagine what is.

You really need to do some more googling and some less ranting.

Bad character is a legal mechanism by which relevant previous convictions may be disclosed to the Judge (Magistrates Court) or Jury (Crown Court). If you're on trial for theft and have 20 pre cons I can guarantee you that will happen. If you're charged with dangerous driving then your theft convictions are in no way related to what you're ACCUSED of. 

Now, in your example, you're using the accusation as evidence of character to support the accusation. It is not and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how cases work. What is alleged to have happened requires evidence. In this case that evidence saw him convicted. The physical act of driving was the offence. His character is then relevant to his sentence. In this case the volume of his previous convictions saw him more heavily penalised than someone with none.

I don't  understand  why this was a 'driving offence'. He threatened people with a deadly weapon, causing  them, I suspect, significant  trauma. What's  the fact he did so with a car to do with it.

The other thing I  don't  understand  is why it well ever be legal for him to drive again  in his lifetime, but I  never understand  this one.

oldstrath wrote:

stumps wrote:

Dan S wrote:

Stephan Matthiesen wrote:

Would the previous criminal record come up in court and the jury be aware of it?

No. Not unless it included something relevant to dangerous driving. Simple evidence that somebody is a wrong'un is not allowed.

 

All the defendants precons will only be seen by the court once he has been found guilty. Previous convictions can be brought up during interview if it points to bad character evidence - ie he denies it saying he's been a good boy with no previous driving offences, then you can bring in previous driving ofences to prove he's a liar.

Bad character evidence can only be brought in for like offences so a burglary cannot be brought up if he's being interviewed for driving offences as its not relevant.

More of the bizarre pretence that this is 'only a driving offence'. If threatening someone with a tonne of metal isn't  an indication  of 'bad character' it's  hard to imagine what is.

It occurs to me that I may have misunderstood this the first time round.  The explanation immediately afterwards about the difference between bad character and the allegation at hand is entirely correct but it is worth clarifying one point: if he had had previous convictions for threatening behaviour then it is possible that the jury could be told about them.  This is a "driving offence" because he was driving a car but it was also, when you look at the facts, a case of threatening somebody with a deadly weapon.  It would be a question for the judge whether any previous convictions are sufficiently relevant to overcome any prejudicial effect but if he had, for example, a number of offences for threatening people with weapons (axe, sword, baseball bat etc) then I for one would certainly have been looking to make an application to tell the jury about them.

On a related note, your suggestion that this is being treated as "only a driving offence" is shaky.  This sentence exceeds what I would have expected had he threatened somebody with a knife, for example.
 

Dan S wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

stumps wrote:

Dan S wrote:

Stephan Matthiesen wrote:

Would the previous criminal record come up in court and the jury be aware of it?

No. Not unless it included something relevant to dangerous driving. Simple evidence that somebody is a wrong'un is not allowed.

 

All the defendants precons will only be seen by the court once he has been found guilty. Previous convictions can be brought up during interview if it points to bad character evidence - ie he denies it saying he's been a good boy with no previous driving offences, then you can bring in previous driving ofences to prove he's a liar.

Bad character evidence can only be brought in for like offences so a burglary cannot be brought up if he's being interviewed for driving offences as its not relevant.

More of the bizarre pretence that this is 'only a driving offence'. If threatening someone with a tonne of metal isn't  an indication  of 'bad character' it's  hard to imagine what is.

It occurs to me that I may have misunderstood this the first time round.  The explanation immediately afterwards about the difference between bad character and the allegation at hand is entirely correct but it is worth clarifying one point: if he had had previous convictions for threatening behaviour then it is possible that the jury could be told about them.  This is a "driving offence" because he was driving a car but it was also, when you look at the facts, a case of threatening somebody with a deadly weapon.  It would be a question for the judge whether any previous convictions are sufficiently relevant to overcome any prejudicial effect but if he had, for example, a number of offences for threatening people with weapons (axe, sword, baseball bat etc) then I for one would certainly have been looking to make an application to tell the jury about them.

On a related note, your suggestion that this is being treated as "only a driving offence" is shaky.  This sentence exceeds what I would have expected had he threatened somebody with a knife, for example.
 

Really? I thought the sentence even for carrying a knife without justification exceeded this.

Ah yes, a quick check of Google reveals 4 years and £5000 fine for an adult carrying a knife without good reason. Threatening with a knife suggests a sentance towards the upper limit.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Dan S wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

stumps wrote:

Dan S wrote:

Stephan Matthiesen wrote:

Would the previous criminal record come up in court and the jury be aware of it?

No. Not unless it included something relevant to dangerous driving. Simple evidence that somebody is a wrong'un is not allowed.

 

All the defendants precons will only be seen by the court once he has been found guilty. Previous convictions can be brought up during interview if it points to bad character evidence - ie he denies it saying he's been a good boy with no previous driving offences, then you can bring in previous driving ofences to prove he's a liar.

Bad character evidence can only be brought in for like offences so a burglary cannot be brought up if he's being interviewed for driving offences as its not relevant.

More of the bizarre pretence that this is 'only a driving offence'. If threatening someone with a tonne of metal isn't  an indication  of 'bad character' it's  hard to imagine what is.

It occurs to me that I may have misunderstood this the first time round.  The explanation immediately afterwards about the difference between bad character and the allegation at hand is entirely correct but it is worth clarifying one point: if he had had previous convictions for threatening behaviour then it is possible that the jury could be told about them.  This is a "driving offence" because he was driving a car but it was also, when you look at the facts, a case of threatening somebody with a deadly weapon.  It would be a question for the judge whether any previous convictions are sufficiently relevant to overcome any prejudicial effect but if he had, for example, a number of offences for threatening people with weapons (axe, sword, baseball bat etc) then I for one would certainly have been looking to make an application to tell the jury about them.

On a related note, your suggestion that this is being treated as "only a driving offence" is shaky.  This sentence exceeds what I would have expected had he threatened somebody with a knife, for example.
 

Really? I thought the sentence even for carrying a knife without justification exceeded this.

Ah yes, a quick check of Google reveals 4 years and £5000 fine for an adult carrying a knife without good reason. Threatening with a knife suggests a sentance towards the upper limit.

4 years and a £5000 fine is the maximum. And no, threatening with a knife does not suggest a sentence towards the upper limit. At least, not to somebody who's spent any time in the crown court. Still, 15 years of dealing with this sort of thing on an almost daily basis (including appearing before this judge) is obviously not going to give me as much insight as a "quick check of Google"...

Metjas wrote:

fascinating family, the Gobles!

http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/news/1537442.goble_given_new_start_in...

 

If my googling is correct then Dean Goble was already in prison during this most recent trial (for burglary offences). 

frogg wrote:

it's just a verdict to impress the poor cycling masses; nobody will be there when he will be out for *gooooood* conduct after 6 months ; a not so bad guy finally... that's how "justice" works nowadays.  And in two years time he will be driving a two ton car again!

6 months, is he going to escape then?

bendertherobot wrote:

6 months, is he going to escape then?

I'm not an expert but a quick google suggests he can be on day or overnight release after 25% of sentence, meaning 7.5 months.

vbvb wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

6 months, is he going to escape then?

I'm not an expert but a quick google suggests he can be on day or overnight release after 25% of sentence, meaning 7.5 months.

Highly unlikely for somebody with that record. He'll be out on licence after 50% and if (when?) he reoffends he'll have to serve the remainder of the 2.5yrs on top of any new sentence. And is at risk of being recalled to prison for any reason at any time during the licence period.

frogg wrote:

it's just a verdict to impress the poor cycling masses

Right. The twelve people randomly selected from the electoral role for jury duty, having sworn to faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence; then having day through probably days of evidence; thought "gosh, we'd better come up with a verdict to impress the poor cycling masses". That was their main concern.

P3t3 wrote:

Jailed for how long?

Glad it resulted in a conviction.

Two and a half years, according to the first paragraph of the report.

cyclesteffer wrote:

Goes to show the value of camera footage

As with the CCTV footage of a pedestrian being catapulted through the air, that was in the media just the other day, I shudder at the thought of how many people have been killed, over the deacades, as a result of criminally (or deliberately) bad driving, without anyone ever being held to account for the offence.

Without cameras or witnesses or a surviving (and compos-mentis) victim, they'd either never be identified, or if identified, there would be no way to prove anything.

mike the bike wrote:

What a lovely man.  I sincerely hope he becomes somebody's bitch in jail.

You can research his family tree in the crime pages of his local paper.

http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/search/?search=goble

I noticed in one report he stated in his defence that he didn't hate cyclists as he was one himself. He was certainly convicted and sent down for stealing a bike!

http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/news/13924687.Dean_Goble_jailed_for_15_months_for_two_burglaries/