[Closed] 2 years for trucker after cyclists death-oturaged!!!

You have to be sick to "troll" about a fatality, regardless of your personal views on the legal system. 👿

My question is still valid - serving 2 or 10 - what real difference does it make? What purpose does it serve

Well it would certainly keep him off the road for 10 years wouldn't it? & possibly save some other poor family from have their whole lives wrecked

So - retribution. Hardly any victims can become reconciled to the crime enough to ever be satisfied with any length of sentence for retribution.

Well I think that anyone killing while driving and being juged responsible of reckless driving should be ban for life full stop.
Cars and motor vehicle are weapons, like it or not they are. If you can't use one sensibly you don't deserve to use one
full stop.

TJ you're an idiot like most of us but admitting you're trolling about a death of a cyclist...grow up. Ok you're probably feeling a bit silly but you'll learn there is a time and place for it. Not here though!

If the facts are correct, he carried on driving with the victim holding on to the wiperblades?

I'm just shaking my head in dismay. I know someone who started a pub fight and received 18 months from a punch up (no excuse for it) but murder-2yrs?

How do complain about this and demand justice as it gives a feebl attitude to this offence.

Sod being all nice about this.

TJ you are a total and utter cock IMO.

TandemJeremy made a similar response to mistercruds post about the petition to have a 3foot gap between us and traffic I notice.... (See post further down pages). Strange cos if he rides a tandem then its likely to be double trouble in the event of him being in an accident! Maybe he should let his mate know about his views...

TJ whilst I generally agree with liberal sentencing views-. But on both points I think this person requires more than 2 years

Rehabilitation - Killing by car - either the person knows what they have done wrong and can be rehabilitated in a short time - or it will take a very long time indeed if it is ever possible So again a short or a long jail sentence will have little difference in effect*

You accept yourself that people require different lengths of time to rehabilitate and that is the reason why we vary the length of sentence. It is to achieve the goal of rehabilitation which takes varying lengths with different people. I mean what is a penal system for if not to reduce recidivism ?*.

Deterrence - I am not sure heavy sentencing for car crime / killing by car actually works at all - however if it does the prospect of a number of years in jail is as big a deterrent as we have. 2 yrs or 10 makes little difference.

The whole point of a deterrent is to vary the length of time to reflect the severity of the crime and deter others by making the sentence too high to risk getting caught or doing it.
So in this case
Rehabilitation
I would argue the lack of remorse shown to the family means he is going to require more time to be rehabilitated than a person who spent the whole time in the dock weeping , asking for forgiveness and apologising to the family/court for his terrible error. The fact it is his third conviction for poor driving would further suggest he will require more time to be rehabilitated and it would act to deter others from continuing to drive poorly
Deterrence
I would argue that killing someone and disposing of the evidence is FAR worse than just killing someone by accident. The later is not deliberate the former certainly is done deliberately. We need to deter others from killing people and trying to hide the evidence of this and punish it severely. So again more than two years is required to deter others.

I think it is a very lenient sentence for the crime committed and the lack of remorse shown. Whatever that sentencing cost is it will be less than the other person paid as they are dead and he is not.

* Recidivism is one of my favourite words and so hard to just drop into conversation

Similarly, like others have said, I don't like commenting on this kind of thread but, it really appears to me to be an inappropriate sentence. Surely, a detour to dispose of the bike demonstrates he had full knowledge of what happened? That combined with a former conviction for perverting the course of justice clearly shows you probably couldn't trust a thing the man said, especially a claim that "I didn't see him".

My whole family was and still is, nearly 30yrs later, effected by the death of my father- killed by a drunk driver while riding his motorbike. The driver in that instance also claimed to have "not seen him". The length of sentence was 8yrs, and in terms of retribution, no it could never be enough (only one thing could be enough, but thankfully for the sake of my humanity, we live in a society where that is unacceptable), but in terms of a deterrent it is kind of getting there. Where is the deterrent in the case of Mr Spink?

When you drive a vehicle, you have a responsibility to yourself and others not to endanger life. This kind of sentencing undermines that responsibility by removing consequences.

Ultimately, bad people do bad things because they weigh up the consequences and figure they can live with them. 12mths jail time is far too lenient.

+1 Junkyard.

You put it better while I was typing.

scaredypants - Member

as some have said, you need the full transcript to form an opinion really (every time anything gets reported that I know about, it's wrong in important details)

Exactly

this is one of my objections to threads like this - Its speculation and voyeurism and the opportunity for people to outdo each other with vitriol.

I fully accept ( and said)that whilst not knowing the full details of this case I don't know if the sentence was too lenient or not but that perhaps it was.

Ultimately, bad people do bad things because they weigh up the consequences and figure they can live with them. 12mths jail time is far too lenient.

You really think so in cases like this? The driver thought - "I'll only get two years so I'll just kill this cyclist?" I really don't think the length of jail time beyond a year or two makes any difference to deterrence

I apologise for any offence - but I find the posting of threads like this offensive and the "hang em high" lynch mob mentality more than a little distasteful as well.

You really think so in cases like this? The driver thought - "I'll only get two years so I'll just kill this cyclist?"

No, I thought he perhaps thought, that his reckless driving and lack of regard for life wouldn't be punishable by a sentence commensurate with the damage that kind of behaviour can cause. His previous conviction, and now this one bear this out.

You should calm down, dear. Nobody said it was murder, so your exageration in the use of the word "kill" is unnecessary.

The "hang em high" attitude is distasteful, but this thread isn't full of it. I'm reading more disbelief than anything.

write to the cps and complain

i did about a lenient sentence in the media and they replied

but I find the posting of threads like this offensive and the "hang em high" lynch mob mentality more than a little distasteful as well.

Sanctimonious claptrap.

Only reporting what was said on our news, not intentionally over-embelishing.

Sorry - that just goes to show how inaccurate reporting can lead folk on the internet to reach conclusions not agreed with by those who heard the whole story first hand.

I've experienced first hand that you literally cannot believe a word the press says.

I was on the Jury for a death inquest, inmate committed suicide. We returned the suicide verdict but explicitly stated that the cause was the refusal of parol for something like the second or third time due to bad behaviour. We also explicitly stated that we felt the miscarraige of his girlfriends baby was not a factor.

The press just reported he topped himself because his girlfriend miscarried.

I never really had much respect for the press but having spent a whole week on a jury and taking it seriously (and it was quite a distressing experience) and watching the press just make up their own verdict was pretty galling...

but I find the posting of threads like this offensive and the "hang em high" lynch mob mentality more than a little distasteful as well

Sorry but I'm going to have to stick up for TJ, to say he is trolling is ridiculous.

If you read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/8245144.stm

It would appear it was the perverting the cause of justice offence that was the more serious than the careless driving offence, perverting justice would normally carry a custodial sentence.

If people are unhappy that he didn't get more for the driving offence, then you have to question why he was found not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and only guilty of careless driving. Presumably that was on the basis of the evidence that the jury heard at the trial, rather than what was reported on Look North.

Perhaps he should have been done for causing death by dangerous driving and got an extra year or two - I don't know, I wasn't on the jury. But neither was anyone else here.

Junkyard - I read your post and my comment was not aimed at you.

Thank you porterclough

TandemJeremy - Member
Ok so I was trolling

Mr Spink was seen clinging on to the windscreen wipers of Stubbs's vehicle to try and prevent being dragged under.

Again I generally agree with your points on letting the judical system run it's course and allow those who hear the evidence to make the decision then Judges pass the sentence However both the process and the sentence can lead to bad decisions. IMHO this is one of them.

EDIT: TJ It does seem strange to be arguing with you to be fair!! and I dont really want the burn em brigade as my allies

I still believe that causing a death whilst in charge of a vehicle in any circumstance other than pure accident (dangerous driving, careless driving etc.) should attract a permanent driving ban.

Junkyard - I accepted that on this specific case I don't know enough and might have got it wrong.

As regards trolling - I was trolling in so much as I knew it was a contentious point but I do believe in the general thrust of my position

Dangerous beans - I think that far better idea than massive jail time.

I simply don't believe that there is any deterrent value in sentencing for this sort of thing. No one goes out intending to kill someone with their vehicle and without intent there can be no deterrence.

Its not long ago that it was very rare for anyone to get jail time for killing by car. Changes in the law have made conviction more likely and serious jail time more common. This is only a good thing. I simply believe that beyond a few years jail time is of little value in this sort of case.

This report [url= http://www.farsleytoday.co.uk/39/Family-slam-jailed-trucker-who.5780942.jp ]here[/url] includes the following quotations from the Judge (who I assume DID hear all of the evidence).

Judge Penelope Belcher said his behaviour after the accident had been "callous" and he had shown total disregard for Mr Spink and his family.

"You sought to prevent any proper investigation into the circumstances of Mr Spink's death," she said. "You pulled the bike out from under the lorry. It was plainly damaged.

"You must have realised you had collided with a pedal cyclist and that the cyclist must have suffered serious injury, and given the circumstances of the bike being lodged under the lorry, you must have realised that the cyclist might have been killed.

"You plainly knew, or ought to have known, he was there.

"The exact circumstances are a matter of some dispute...(but] Mr Spink and his bike ended up beneath your lorry."

She said Stubbs' attempts to "undermine the proper investigation" of the case had added to Mr Spink's family's pain and the two years since the event in July 2007 had been "worse and more distressing than the actual funeral" for them.

"All involved in this case have conducted themselves with dignity," she told Stubbs. "Instead you continue, despite the weight of the evidence against you, (to claim] no knowledge of how the bike came to be in the undergrowth.

"You have shown no remorse at all.

"In the witness box not once did you express any concern for the deceased and his family.

"Your attitude was 'it was all the cyclist's fault'.

"You showed callous indifference to Mr Spink's death and that was reflected in how you disposed of the bike and other items in the layby.

"It was plain you put concern for yourself above any concern for the cyclist."

How on earth can anyone say all that and then give a sentence of two years? Not only beggars but fully buggers belief..

But of course TJ et al. we shouldn't be to harsh on the poor chap eh?

His pain and anguish is obviously just too deep to be actually *&%£'in visible to human eyes.

On reading comments from judge, are we to inferr that he actually failed to stop at all immediately after the accident?
I know people are not known to behave rationally immediately after an accident, but to show no remorse after the event takes a cold heart indeed, regardless if it was his or the cyclists fault, it doesnt appear to openly trouble the lorry driver.

No-one wins from this sort of incident. Very sad for the cyclist and his family.

But of course TJ et al. we shouldn't be to harsh on the poor chap eh?

His pain and anguish is obviously just too deep to be actually *&%£'in visible to human eyes.

and where did I say that? I merely said that I don't think decades in jail for this sort of offence serves any purpose. Of course it is far easier to snipe than to actually attempt to engage with the points made by me and others.

@Eat the pudding;
Exactly my point. What sort of message does it send to the other motorists who view us as a hinderance and an obstacle on the road rather than legitimate road users with rights (over and above the usual human rights not to be harassed or killed while going about our business)?
If that sort of attitude is still prevalent in a substantial section of the non-cycling population (pretty much everyone who owns a vehicle, then...) it can't be that remarkable that a jury of this man's peers might also contain people with that same callous disregard for the safey of cyclists or at the very least harbouring a belief that their right to the road was secondary to that of the motorist.

If this sort of arrogant, negligent and inhumane disrespect were to be made publicly unacceptable and held up for the poulation at large to see as disgraceful and criminal, might we not stand a better chance of securing convictions in this sort of case from juries in the future?

Goan - not quite sure it could be classed as murder, even less have evidence to prove it. It's not like he drove 6 miles with the body on teh front of the wagon, he knocked him down possibly by mistake/poor concentration but not on purpose. The guy may have been hanging there for a fews seconds and it appear to a witness as though the driver MUST have seen him and be trying to kill him. Far too lenient a sentence though. 2 years maybe if he stopped on the spot and called the emergency services and pointed out it was all his fault or some really unfortunate accident, but to pick up the bike and drive off - doesnt really change much in the outcome but does prove his attitude.

Sorry, I was under the impression that thinking that that (to paraphrase) 'a long jail term wouldn't serve any purpose' was equivalent to not wanting to be too harsh/punitive/excessive on the driver.

My point is that, on reading the comments from the Judge, it appears that this particular mammal should be kept away from society as long as possible, and that the reasons for that should be pretty clear from the facts of the case, and the attitude of the accused.

You claim that you don't see the point.
I do.
Ahh well, ho hum, etc etc.

What is the point then? the judge who made the summing up and is in the best position of all to decide thought 2 yrs enough.

So what is the actual point of banging him up for 10 rather than 2? What does it achieve?

In this case i feel that he should be banned from the road for life and if he then drives that should face a custodial sentance as it would be a deterent.
This is a tragic set of advents right up untill this

You sought to prevent any proper investigation into the circumstances of Mr Spink's death," she said. "You pulled the bike out from under the lorry. It was plainly damaged.

"You must have realised you had collided with a pedal cyclist and that the cyclist must have suffered serious injury, and given the circumstances of the bike being lodged under the lorry, you must have realised that the cyclist might have been killed.

2 years in prison is the maximum for careless driving, but then what punishment for impeding the course of justice.

Still maintain that a lifelong driving ban would be the best outcome to protect the rest of us from a careless and/or dangerous driver.

Good points from eat the pudding and belgium bob as regards the fact that the victim was a cyclist possibly reducing the severity in the minds of the jury 'not of his peers'.

People I work with pretty much all of the opinion that cyclists should not be on the roads as they expose themselves to too much risk.

My dad, if he were on the jury, would find the driver not guilty as the cyclist would not have been dead if he'd used a car - he would feel it was totally the cyclists fault for being there.

A jury of such 'peers' would not look kindly on a cyclist, especially as this guy was genuinely a cyclist weirdo who biked around the world not an ordinary bloke who happened to be on a bike at the time of the accident.

I think it's only 2 years because he was found guilty of "Causing Death by Careless Driving". Only a handful of people a year are handed a custodial sentence for that offence. It indicates how seriously the judge viewed the case. It also carries a 12mth ban.

It appears he got the maximum he could have got under that charge.

What's so sorry about it is they couldn't prove "Causing Death by Dangerous Driving". That is probably what hurts the family the most. That and the other aggravating features- Perverting the course, his unrepentant attitude in court, etc.

Very, very sad.

So what is the actual point of banging him up for 10 rather than 2? What does it achieve?

What Junkyard said ++

You need to look up what murder means.

Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 you could be prosecuted for [i]causing death by dangerous driving[/i] (up to 14 years), or [i]careless driving[/i] (and get 3-9 points, up to £2500 fine, and maybe disqualified), or [i]causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs[/i] (also up to 14 years).

Because death by dangerous driving is much harder to prove than careless driving, there are very few prosecutions and convictions for it, and in turn a lot of convictions for careless driving as there is far greater prospect of proving it in court.

As a result of numerous cases where people were only given points/fines/disqualifications by courts (the most they could be given) after being been convicted of careless driving, despite causing a someone's death, the Road Safety Act 2006 introduced the new offence of [i]causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving[/i] - not as hard to prove/not as easy to get acquitted - for which a sentence of 5 years and unlimited fine can be given. This has only just come into force which is why this man could not be prosecuted for it, the incident having occured in 2007.

TandemJeremy - Member
So what is the actual point of banging him up for 10 rather than 2? What does it achieve?

So if jail is too inhumane for someone who has been found guilty of commiting a crime, what do you suggest as a suitable consequence?

I think the main issue that is causing people's concern is not the fact he was convicted of careless driving (for the second time I believe?) and not that he was convicted of perverting justice (again for the second time), it's that his attitude is completely unrepentant and he attempted to cover up his 'accident'.

I cannot see this person being 'rehabilitated' in 2 years or even 10, he appears to have little regard for other humans (specifically cyclists). I would not be surprised if we hear about this chap again in another 5 years or so, I hope it won't be another death.

Lock him up for public safety, he has a screw loose if he is not showing any remorse or compassion for what he has done (accidental or otherwise)

5thElefant - Member
You need to look up what murder means.

"So what is the actual point of banging him up for 10 rather than 2? What does it achieve? "

I feel that this man is a danger to society. Many people have left the seen of a fatality, at that moment there actions have been effected by the shock of what they have witnessed. But there is more to this than that. He set out to conseal his offence and has continued to do so.
A longer sentence would -
Keep him away from the general public.
Allow some chance of rehabilitation.
It would also act to show other drivers that causing death when driving is a serious offence. Not just a bit worse than shop lifting.

I would bet that he will be driving again in a year. He clearly has no regard for the law so a ban won't stop him.

I hope the family take civil action against him. Getting the money isn't the issue, it won't bring their son/father/brother back, but if civil courts can screw this man for everything he has and everything he'll ever have then that might be something he can understand.

I am sure if some muppet truck drivwer for Homebase ran over and killed Tandem Jeremey,then drove his bike on for another 29 miles and dumped it, despite being seen by witnesses,then showed no responce or apology to us Tandem Jeremeys supporters or his freinds and family,when in court.
Would 2 years in prison,be enough,or perhaps just ban him from posting on the forum for a while.

I am compelled to write to all of you, who have commented on this incident. I am the sister of the victim Tony Spink. The truth is that this man should be serving a life sentence for the manslaughter of my brother. He has got away with this dispicable crime. My brother was horrifically killed by a man, who used his lorry to kill him. My brother was heard by witnesses shouting "whow, whow whow" while desperately banging of the front of this cold blooded killers lorry for him to stop..he then made a last ditch attempt to fight for his life and tried to grab the windscreen wipers, before he was dragged underneath his lorry....witnesses where frantically beeping there horns for this man to stop and he simply drove on...ignored a poor, poor womans screams as she saw my brother being dragged under the lorry....
When he gave his own evidence, he simply said with so much anger inside him, he saw nothing and heard nothing...there was no remorse and is contempt for our Tony's life and the courts itself, beggered belief.
His Barraster even asked if it was Ok if Mr Stubbs didn't attend or turn up late to the judges summing up, because he had his son to take back to his X wifes. He acted as if he didn't know what all the fuss was about! It was a though he had killed a hedgehog and nothing more!...His family also did everything they could to make out as though it was my brothers fault!.
So as for the comments "10 years or 2 years" man!!.Would you be so lenient if it had been someone so precious to you?.Prison is a punsihment,killers have to be punished, otherwise,why have laws! This mans actions have devestated our family and also devestated the lives of his friends. This killer thought he could get away with killing a cyclist and ironically, he has got away with it.
This man also continued to drive his big lorry for over two years after my brother was killed,the same agency who employed him on that fateful day, continued to employ him, until he had is liscence taken off him.They also said

"depending on the outcome of this trial, we will continue to employ him".I can only hope that the laws in this country will change and protect cyclists against these killers!
May I take this opportunity to thank you all for your comments..It is nice to know, that others are also appalled by this mans actions!!

 

Hi JLS

Don't really know what to say except that my thoughts, and those of my wife, are with you.

As a rider myself I would prefer that this man was never allowed to drive a vehicle ever again, as for the length of imprisonment I know I would feel the same as you in your circumstances.

It seems from what I have read that the judge applied the law as it is set out, perhaps we need different laws to protect us cyclists better, and a better attitude from the driving public in general.

Jane Spink, thanks so very much for putting your side of the story,and a very sad read it is, and me and so many other readers are so sympathetic of your feelings, over the death of your brother.

The killer driver should have been imediately sacked, and banned, as a deterent against killer drivers,his attitude in court was and is deploreable.

For two years youve waited for justice, and sadly been let down,while the driver will get only 2 years jail.

ABSOLUTELY BLOODY DISGUSTING.

Hello Dangerousbean
Thank you for your kind words! they are received with great warmth!
I have to say the judge was fantastic in this trial. She saw through this killer and that was most comforting for us. The police where also fantastic in there hard work in trying to get this evil man brought to justice. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough evidence to charge him with manslaughter...However, we are for want of a better word,relieved that this man as been exposed for his true self, which is a murderer. It is the justice system that is at fault! this man (I believe) would have been found guilty of Death by Dangerous Driving, if the jury got to hear all the forensic evidence against this man! but as quoted by his Barrister,"it would be an injustice to my client if this got out".....So he was protected by the law, but that isn't the Judges fault! she summed him up to perfection and thathad made a difference to us. I do believe she gave him the maximum sentence possible....the most frightening thing for us and the rest of society, was this man continued to drive his big lorries until Sept 09, when he finally was stripped of his licence. I have major concerns for all cyclists....I have no doubt that this man didn't see him as a human being, but as a cylcist! a big difference to drivers who believe that cyclist's are a irritant on the roads...Cyclists have as much rights as anyone on the roads, they are not in charge of killing machines, like car users. They have just got to hope that they make it to their destination,without some arrogant car or lorry driver, driving to close to them and not giving the cyclist the courtesey the deserve!
My last conversation I had with our Tony, he was telling me how he was getting ready to cycle to Hollyhead to catch the ferry to Ireland...I had this awful,awful feeling inside and I said to him "oh Tony, why do you do it, why to you cylce everywhere" to which he simply replied "because I love it Jane" and they were his last words to me.... I only hope that all cyclists don't let these car drivers and lorry drivers deter them from what they also ,simply love. The laws need to protect cylcists! Just like they protect pedestrians from cylcist on the paths..Hence the reason it is ilegal for cylclist to use Paths...
Many thanks again for all your kind words

I was the one who argued the other side. I accepted early on that this might have been the wrong case to make that particular argument.

For any offence or hurt I have caused you I am truly sorry. It was never my intention to offend. Nothing can recompense you for your loss.

Nothing I can say says it better than

dangerousbeans - Member

Hi JLS

Don't really know what to say except that my thoughts, and those of my wife, are with you.

As a rider myself I would prefer that this man was never allowed to drive a vehicle ever again, as for the length of imprisonment I know I would feel the same as you in your circumstances.

It seems from what I have read that the judge applied the law as it is set out, perhaps we need different laws to protect us cyclists better, and a better attitude from the driving public in general.

Truly - I am sorry if my argumentative ways caused you hurt.