A driver who deliberately drove at a cyclist after a “red mist” descended on him when the rider banged on his vehicle during a close pass has escaped jail and a driving ban after pleading guilty to common assault.
Judge Jonathan Bennett, sitting at Derby Crown Court, handed Curtis Stanway a three-month prison sentence, suspended for one year.
He decided not to impose a driving ban on the 30 year old because it would lead to Stanway losing his job, reports the Derby Telegraph.
Stanway, from Sinfin on the outskirts of Derby, was driving his Audi on the A6 near Belper on 31 May 2020 with his partner and their three children as passengers when he made a close pass on the cyclist.
Phillip Plant, prosecuting, said that in response the cyclist “slapped” the side of the car. Stanway gave him a V-sign, then pulled into a lay-by, with the rider following him.
“The cyclist took his phone out to take a photograph in order to make a complaint about the manner of his driving and the defendant drove his car forward striking the victim and his bike and then drove out of the lay-by,” said Mr Plant.
“The effect was to knock the victim to the ground and he suffered grazes to his shoulder, knees, arms and legs.
“[The victim] rode home and both he and the defendant contacted the police with the defendant saying it was the rider who had damaged his car.
“He was interviewed and largely said it was the cyclist who was the aggressor.”
Stanway was at first charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm but pleaded guilty at trial to the less serious charge of common assault.
Sentencing him, the judge said: “This is a road-rage incident and normally road rage people go to custody. I just don't know what came over you.
“You had your partner and three young children in the car with you, there was a close shave with a cyclist and rather than just leaving the matter you pulled into a lay-by and the red mist came down.”
Stanway was also ordered to perform 100 hours of unpaid work and to pay costs of £1,200 and a £128 victim surcharge.
The so-called “exceptional hardship” loophole allows people convicted of a motoring offence to continue driving if magistrates or a judge can be persuaded they would lose their job, among other things, if they were banned from driving.
Last month, a Parliamentary question from Labour peer and road safety campaigner Lord Berkeley found that from 2011-20, there had been 83,581 cases of motorists escaping a ban after pleading mitigating circumstances – equating to more than one in five of the total who amass 12-plus points each year being allowed by the courts to continue to drive.
> Parliament urged to close ‘exceptional hardship’ loophole that lets motorists who go on to kill keep licences
He said: “Exempting one in five drivers is wrong. It should be one in five hundred.
“At present, anyone who can afford a loophole lawyer can join the 85,000 drivers who get off.
“A better alternative would be for drivers to think of the consequences before they break the law.”
A report published by Cycling UK has highlighted cases in which vulnerable road users were killed by motorists who had earlier managed to avoid being disqualified from driving after claiming that they would face “exceptional hardship” if they were banned.
The charity’s head of campaigns, Duncan Dollimore, said: “We’ve got courts treating inconvenience as exceptional hardship and a legal loophole that costs lives is making a mockery of the supposedly automatic totting up ban.
“We’ve no assessment of risks when magistrates make these decisions to allow someone to carry on driving, but they are accepting bland assertions that losing a licence will cause them difficulties.”
He added that it is bereaved families “who really suffer exceptional hardship when the courts put the retention of someone’s licence to drive above road safety, allowing irresponsible people to carry on driving until they cause further harm or death on the roads.”
Cycling UK has created an online action enabling people to write to their MPs to “encourage them to take action to help fix our failing traffic laws.”
Add new comment
49 comments
The only Curtis Stanway I found on facebook was a youngish man from Derby who described himself as a "truck driver"
Bloke with a beard? He seems to have a penchant for APC(*) motorbikes, the Hit and Run Drift Club (a "sports" club, apparently) and Road Warrior (for iOS & Android). Likes movies such as, Why We Ride and Fast & Furious; and TV programmes such as... [it had to be]... Top Gear and The Grand Tour.
That Curtis Stanway?
(APC: Appendage-Deficiency Compensatory)
"Stanway, from Sinfin on the outskirts of Derby, was driving his Audi on the A6 near Belper on 31 May 2020 with his partner and their three children......"
Isn't having young people with you when you commit a crime an aggravating factor? Which should have cancelled out the reduction for losing his job.
Yet another dangerous driver still on our roads because the government don't give a damn about vulnerable road users, only drivers.
From the DerbyshireLive article "But he [the judge] said the law means he cannot order the defendant to pay the cyclist compensation." WTAF?
The usual warning about reading the comments applies.
At the risk of repeating myself, disqualification from driving is not a punishment, it is a public safety risk mitigation.
This individual has been shown themselves to be extraordinarily deficient in the skills and/or emotional faculties to be a safe and competent driver, and therefore poses a risk to the public. They must be disqualified until such a time they can demonstrate that they are safe to return to the driver's seat.
FFS
As far as I can tell, this was not an "exceptional hardship" case.
The exceptional hardship argument can be advanced where a defendant has reached 12 or more penalty points and would otherwise be subject to a minumum mandatory ban of at least 6 months.
In this case, if the only offence he was convicted of was common assault, there would be no automatic disqualification or endorsement. The judge may have had the discretion to impose a disqualification due to the use of the vehicle in the commission of the offence but it seems chose not to due to the mitigation advanced.
Sentencing him, the judge said: “This is a road-rage incident and normally road rage people go to custody. [but as it was only a cyclist and I find them pretty annoying too, I'll let you off]
No. Just, no.
Fair enough with avoiding custody, if the judge has accepted that it was the red mist wot done it (and of course he helped the court system by pleading guilty to a lesser charge).
But this is someone who should not be allowed the privilege of driving a two tonne metal box with an internal combustion engine (or at least, not on public roads).
If that means he loses his job, well he probably ought to have thought about that...
If his job requires him to drive, and he is not a suitable person to be driving, then he's not a suitable person to be in that job.
Losing his job isn't just an unfortunate side-effect - he shouldn't have been in that job to start with.
"normally road rage people go to custody"
Citation needed.
So if I'm really annoyed when I smash someone's brains out, that's a mitigating factor.....
Red mist because a rider alerted a driver to their presence?
Fack my old boots...
I wasn't defending him, Cap'n - I meant that the judge said he wasn't sending Stanway to custody because 'red mist'. Fine, if the judge takes that view (I disagree, but I'm not a judge). But why on earth is someone who clearly has such a short fuse (1) allowed to continue to drive their private car and (2) (presumably?) allowed to continue to drive some sort of commercial vehicle around. It is, as they say, an accident waiting to happen...
I know you weren't Brooks, was merely continuing m'Luds logic for future ref, er, I mean my general interest...
WTAF
So the fact that the cyclist could have suffered from Exceptional Death wasnt considered extenuating circumstances then?
Slightly baffled by the driving license piece. Wont he lose his job because he's a convicted criminal anyway?
Lets hope someone doxxes the tosser to his employer.
I heard about someone (friend of a friend) who is panicking at present because they got caught drunk-scootering over the Xmas period (on a rental e-scooter) and they work for a Govt department...
#standard
Pages