[Closed] 3 years a fair sentence?

For the offence she was charged wit!h and convicted of, the punishment is appropriate. She was charged with the offence most likely to secure conviction. She would have done better to have pleaded guilty.

It is unlikely that more serious charges would have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Pity her newborn.

[quote=curto80 ]What I said is this should never have been treated as a driving offence. GBH is an obvious option.

I tend to agree - GBH seems the obvious option, and from my understanding of the law it's fully evidenced for that.

However:

[quote=Junkyard ]i think if i had used a disproportionately large object to ram a cyclist into a tree causing a three day stay in hospital the GBH charge would get me more than the 3 years she got

The first thing I always do with cases like this is check the sentencing guidelines. The maximum sentence for GBH appears to be 4 years, which is lower than the maximum sentence for what she was charged with which is 5 years. So looking at that it appears the CPS got this one right.

There is a more serious offence - causing GBH with intent, which is what the chap with the 10 year sentence was convicted of. Whilst I'd like to think she could have been convicted of that, it would have left the defence lawyer with some relatively straightforward ways of introducing reasonable doubt.

I agree the driving ban could and should have been longer, but I'm putting away my pitchfork regarding the prison sentence. TBH as conviction and sentencing of motorists driving their cars into cyclists go, this one isn't actually too far off the mark when compared with the likely sentence for similar actions using a different weapon - it's certainly sufficient to be a deterrent, and any longer is unlikely to make a difference to that. I'll save my anger for greater miscarriages of justice.

After the last thread on a car vs cyclist death I was trying to find out any CPS/COPFS guidelines on why they don't use some of the assault type legislation for these incidents, but without success. I suspect it's to do with what offence is the video editing more likely to get a conviction for, but would like to know definitively what the reason is. It's a question, and a good one, that comes up each time this sort of thing happens.

Glad she got a custodial, nothing else to add.

As above TGA, they appear to have made the right choice in this case and charged her with the offence with the longest maximum sentence out of those they were likely to get a conviction for. I was expecting GBH to result in a heavier sentence, but I was wrong. I reckon in this particular case there probably was a good chance of getting a conviction on a GBH charge - all the required evidence and no obvious easy "reasonable doubt" for a defence barrister. It might have been a useful precedent, but the chances are she would have got a shorter sentence if convicted of that (I'm struggling to put it into the highest category).

She probably committed GBH with intent, but given the information in the media I'd not have chanced that if I was the CPS lawyer - balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt, and that's just a fair assessment without considering a barrister without morals like Janick Fielding (re Helen Measures).

Just for once I feel fairly happy that the judicial system has at least come out with the intended result in a driver vs cyclist case (whether the intended result is correct is another argument, but one which could equally apply to a whole load of GBH cases not involving cyclists).

As always, IANAL, though I probably have a better understanding of the law than most who aren't.

Not enough but better than expected. Guidelines/standards are wrong IMHO . if you chose to do something that just might have fatal results like this then you are trying to kill. I have no respect for the principle that you were provoked or didn't think.
However in the disgusting nanny state we live in its way better than expected so I am sort of "happy" with the result. I expected the care issue to keep her out. I do expect that it softened the blow thought. Ban should be for life but so should driving using a phone or knocking up more than one 12 point ban

I'm surprised the sentence wasn't a little longer given she tried to weasel out of the allegation by blaming her 'abusive' boyfriend for 'coercing' her into chasing down the cyclist, and even claiming he grabbed the wheel to collide with him.

But hey ho, I'm sure the judge has his reasons for leniency for an unrepentant liar who almost killed a cyclist through a deliberate assault.

I suspect it's to do with what offence is the video editing more likely to get a conviction for,

Whatever the outcome I bet the cyclist wishes he'd minded his own business. It's all very very well remonstrating with strangers about their behaviour, but you never know who you're dealing with.

She's not exactly conducted herself well during the trial, but the fact that she's four months pregnant will have been taken into consideration.

Personally, I'd also have liked to see her receive a ten year driving ban, but ultimately when she does get her license back she'll be practically uninsurable.

Oh and I agree with this in principle:

Crowd funded private prosecution anyone? I'd chip in £100 for that

Given the number of times we see drivers get off with a slap on the wrist, I thought the judge's comments and custodial sentence represented some progress. Though why on earth she should ever get her licence back is beyond me.

but the fact that she's four months pregnant will have been taken into consideration.

It's remarkable that she was fortunate enough to fall pregnant shortly before a situation where she was facing serious jail time.

Her whole approach to the trial was to game the system as cynically as possible.

To be fair to the judge, actually putting her behind bars for the entire pregnancy/postnatal period probably shows she was pretty unsuccessful in that ploy.

Interesting comment from someone who knows what they are talking about:

http://defencebrief.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/charging-decisions-cyclist-mown-down-by.html?m=1

^That is interesting, thanks. It felt like it was more like GBH than anything else, which carries a much longer sentence.

Guidelines/standards are wrong IMHO . if you chose to do something that just might have fatal results like this then you are trying to kill. I have no respect for the principle that you were provoked or didn't think.

1) Career criminal plans and carries out a brutal execution of someone who crossed them, e.g. gave evidence against them.

2) Woman who's been battered by her husband for years one day has enough and, after he's fallen asleep, hits him over the head with a hammer and kills him.

If you don't have guidelines that allow the court to take into account all the circumstances of each incident then these two scenarios would be treated exactly the same as they're both murder. When they aren't (in my opinion at least).

Good link mudshark, that answers my questions over it.

http://defencebrief.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/charging-decisions-cyclist-mown-down-by.html?m=1

I guess that if the defence can somehow muddy the water over intent with regard to Section 18 GBH, the whole case could fall down. 'I only intended to scare him' etc.

You can see the logic in the blog arguments, but in the end it has to be put before a potentially credulous jury, who, as we have seen in previous cases, might also be willing to be more favour drivers over cyclists to some degree, even if the evidence seems to be clear cut. If it is pointed out to the jury that the maximum sentence for a guilty verdict is much higher, that could compound the problem, especially regarding a woman driver etc etc.

On the whole I don't think three years is a bad result here.

What will happen after she gives birth in November? Will she be released? Will the baby stay in prison with her?

Holloway has a mother and baby unit.

I think the sentence was pretty reasonable.

What worries me is that she may and up serving minimal/no time due to the sprog.

Agree with that solicitor, the charge was wrong.

Dangerous driving charges should be for incidents caused by people just trying to drive, but doing it dangerously.

This clearly crosses the line to a GBH charge, she's stopped her driving and is using her vehicle as a weapon after the red mist came down.

With the charge being a motoring offence, she as the driver has primary responsibility for driving the vehicle. Perhaps a GBH charge might bring the boyfriends alleged actions more into play, muddying the waters to such an extent a conviction might not have happened. It was GBH though IMHO and I reckon she got lucky 🙁

Yep, what I've been saying for the last two pages of this thread. We have to get away from automatically seeing all harm done in the act of driving as a driving offence. You can argue in this particular case it hasn't made much difference to the sentence, but there are many other similar cases where people have been very leniently dealt with by the courts because they have been convicted of a driving offence circumstances where the car was used as a weapon. Once you cross that line that's where the applicability of driving offences, which are designed very narrowly to deal with standards of driving, should cease.

PJM1974 - Member

Personally, I'd also have liked to see her receive a ten year driving ban, but ultimately when she does get her license back she'll be practically uninsurable.

Doesn't seem like the kind of person who will worry about having insurance.

And wrt to charging these situations as GBH as opposed to driving offences - that will require a lot of realigning of jurors beliefs. There's a massive social norm that driving offences/crimes committed behind the wheel of a car are different to say stabbing someone. It's the idea that they could happen to anyone. Either the media need to be encouraged to treat these things differently, or the laws need changing the make it impossible to apply a charge of dangerous driving to a situation where there was clear intent.

Re driving ban lengths I was wondering what the situation on the continent might be and whether the relatively short (in our minds) bans might be a wider phenomenon. We have a principle of proportionate penalties in both English law and I assume under EHCR. It's possible that v long bans might be overturned on appeal under some claim of onerous punishment.

In France bans for serious injury through dangerous driving appear to be 3 yrs. (5 for death)

https://www.french-property.com/guides/france/driving-in-france/driving-offences/

In Germany it appears that the top end is 5yr ban too.

And wrt to charging these situations as GBH as opposed to driving offences - that will require a lot of realigning of jurors beliefs. There's a massive social norm that driving offences/crimes committed behind the wheel of a car are different to say stabbing someone.

Exactly, and while GBH with intent is theoretically the right charging decision here (certainly fits the circumstances best), the CPS may well have taken a real world view that they would be risking an acquittal if they put that before an average jury.

It's a bit like the 'death by careless' vs 'death by dangerous' driving. CPS has to overcome the ingrained thought among the averagely shit drivers on the jury that it's just an accident, could happen to anyone, not something that 'falls significantly below the expected standard' of driving.

Watching the video, I reckon she was trying to kill him. Very disturbing that there is ANYONE out there prepared to use their car in such a way. I feel quite shaken after watching the video. But yeah, he smashed her wing mirror after she pulled out on him because she wasn't paying attention to what she was doing, so what did he expect?

And wrt to charging these situations as GBH as opposed to driving offences - that will require a lot of realigning of jurors beliefs. There's a massive social norm that driving offences/crimes committed behind the wheel of a car are different to say stabbing someone.

Couldn't disagree more.

Charging the offence as GBH frames it to the jury as assault, rather than just bad driving or bad luck.

The "there but for the grace of god go I" effect doesn't really apply when someone snaps and chases a cyclist, ramming him with their car, IMO.

The issue here is with the charging and sentencing anyway, not the jury.

[quote=ransos ]^That is interesting, thanks. It felt like it was more like GBH than anything else, which carries a much longer sentence.

Once again for those who haven't read my comments - no GBH doesn't carry a much longer sentence. GBH with intent does (which is what that blog is suggesting she should have been charged with), but as the blog mentions you're then into a completely different ball game regarding intent.

Whilst I tend to agree that charging her with plain GBH would have set a useful precedent, it would likely have resulted in a lighter sentence. I don't think there would have been much difficulty getting a conviction on a normal GBH charge, it appears to be fully evidenced.

GBH with intent however you have to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" the intent to cause serious injury. IANAL, but I'm not sure I need to be to work out a plausible defence involving introducing reasonable doubt over her intentions (the likely result of doing that might have been serious injury, but the defence lawyer simply has to suggest that she wasn't thinking straight and hadn't actually intended serious injury). Sure I agree she probably did have the intent, but if I'm being honest even sitting on a jury with the required standard of proof in mind I'm not sure I could find her guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Sometimes we just have to be pragmatic and accept that the system has done the best it can. In this case the young lady's life is going to be pretty screwed up and such a sentence is perfectly sufficient to act as a deterrent to anybody who might be deterred by such convictions happening. A longer sentence probably wouldn't make any real difference to anything apart from for those after vengeance. I'm not sure she should ever be allowed to drive again mind.

That's an outrageously lenient sentence. Appalling.

zanelad>>>
I bet the cyclist wishes he'd minded his own business.

The court heard how the pair nearly collided on Stoke Newington High Street on 10 February 2016, when [b]Henshaw-Bryan pulled out in front of the cycle courier while using her mobile[/b].

GBH with intent however you have to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" the intent to cause serious injury.

Sure, but from the judge's comments:

"This was a calculated attempt to run him over and use your car as a weapon," the judge said.

"It would have been obvious that to do so would have carried significant risk of injury."

Mr Doughty confronted the driver over her use of the phone, at which point she shouted at him, the court heard.
Angered by the exchange, he kicked her wing mirror when they met at the next set of lights.

Both idiots imo. Her escalation of violence won is the main difference.

There's a massive social norm that driving offences/crimes committed behind the wheel of a car are different to say stabbing someone. It's the idea that they could happen to anyone.

Of course. But there's a world of difference between a moment's inattention causing tragic results, and deliberately swerving to try and run someone over. The grade of your gods would apply to the former but not the latter, surely? I'd sincerely hope that there's no-one on the jury watching that video and thinking "wow, that could easily have been me doing that."

Sure, but from the judge's comments:

"This was a calculated attempt to run him over and use your car as a weapon," the judge said.

"It would have been obvious that to do so would have carried significant risk of injury."

Thing is though, that's a statement after the fact. You wouldn't know that it was provable "beyond reasonable doubt" back when you were presenting the charges, so you've got to charge what you think you're likely to win.

Thing is though, that's a statement after the fact. You wouldn't know that it was provable "beyond reasonable doubt" back when you were presenting the charges, so you've got to charge what you think you're likely to win.

I understand that, but until the CPS start prosecuting appropriately, we guarantee that nothing will change.

Both idiots imo. Her escalation of violence won is the main difference.

patriotpro -
Mr Doughty confronted the driver over her use of the phone, at which point she shouted at him, the court heard.

You can't quote that without the context : "The court heard how the pair nearly collided on Stoke Newington High Street on 10 February 2016, when Henshaw-Bryan pulled out in front of the cycle courier while using her mobile."

So wouldn't you confront someone who did that if you had the chance? Nothing idiotic about it at all. Completely normal. Hitting a wing mirror is nothing.

Thing is though, that's a statement after the fact. You wouldn't know that it was provable "beyond reasonable doubt" back when you were presenting the charges, so you've got to charge what you think you're likely to win.

the reality is a judge felt it was an intentional act that would obviously result in serious injury

I see no reason to conclude a jury would not think this as well

Is there really someone out there* who thinks that ramming a cyclist into a tree wont result in a serious risk of harm?

* its the internet of course there is but you get the point

[quote=ransos ]I understand that, but until the CPS start prosecuting appropriately, we guarantee that nothing will change.

All things considered I reckon the CPS did an excellent job here - I've already explained why I don't think GBH with intent would have stuck. I note that even if those judges comments were provable, that's still not sufficient - using the car as a weapon, it being obvious it carried [b]significant risk[/b] of injury aren't good enough for that. You'd have to prove she used it with the intention of causing serious injury and I don't think it's a coincidence that the judges words stopped short of suggesting that.

Also as mentioned above, I doubt that a longer prison sentence would make any difference to anything - the chance of her reoffending or the deterrent effect to others. Maybe if she was considered a danger to the public, but it appears protecting the public from her could have been achieved with a longer driving ban (which I would have approved of).

BTW it seems strange to be arguing this side, I'm normally one with a pitchfork in my hand. I looked up the Helen Measures thread and I was being an arse to crankboy on that!

[quote=Junkyard ]the reality is a judge felt it was an intentional act that would obviously result in serious injury
I see no reason to conclude a jury would not think this as well
Is there really someone out there* who thinks that ramming a cyclist into a tree wont result in a serious risk of harm?

Crossposting with you, so I've kind of said it already, but "felt" != proven beyond reasonable doubt; "serious risk" != intention to cause serious injury.

What the judge can say after the verdict is very different to what he can say before it.

i am genuinely not sure how you can ram a bike, you are chasing, into a tree that requires the rider to have three days in intensive care and then actually argue you never intended to do real harm to them- well not convincingly anyway. If there intention was not to cause harm then you chase them and try to block them or stop them you dont ram them into a tree.

Its like arguing i smacked you in the head with a hammer but i never meant to cause you serious injury...if that is the case WTF are you doing using a weapon then ?

[quote=thegreatape ]What the judge can say after the verdict is very different to what he can say before it.

True however i think most folk will consider ramming with a car - given its use in terrorist incidents- as clearly only done to cause serious harm.

A jury would most likely have seen this IMHO

[quote=Junkyard ]i am genuinely not sure how you can ram a bike, you are chasing, into a tree that requires the rider to have three days in intensive care and then actually argue you never intended to do real harm to them- well not convincingly anyway.

Don't shoot the messenger - I'm not arguing that, but a defence barrister would - even one with a better moral compass than Janick Fielding. He would also only be arguing that there was reasonable doubt of the intention. I don't think the tree is at all relevant either, I'm not convinced even on balance of probabilities that she deliberately rammed him into the tree, that would require levels of conscious thought and planning I doubt she had.

You know I'm not an apologist for bad drivers or the failings of the legal system, but in this case we're not talking about failings of the driving laws, but that it wouldn't be realistic to get a prosecution for a non-driving law. I don't think it would be different if using a different weapon (though I'm failing to come up with an analogy which is equivalent). Remember that she has been convicted of a serious offence here, and isn't going to be having an easy time.

I agree they would try but i am not sure it would be effective
...like hitting someone with a hammer the consequences are so self evidently bad that you had to want to really hurt them hence you use a massive weapon to do it

Not trying to shoot you at all just trying to debate so sorry if it appears differently
i know your views on these issues and we rarely disagree and i think you are usually firmer than i am[ again no offence meant]

I'm glad that she received a sentence and a ban. I also see and agree with what Junkyard and Aracer are saying. It would have been good if she could have been charged under section 18, but the CPS clearly went for an option that would have a likely positive outcome for the cyclist. Until there is a fundamental change in how the general populous view the rights and actions of drivers, this was probably the best possible outcome.

It's a sad state of affairs, but one we seem to be stuck with.

not sure how you can ram a bike, you are chasing, into a tree that requires the rider to have three days in intensive care and then actually argue you never intended to do real harm to them- well not convincingly anyway.

Yeah, obviously she was wriggling in court to attempt to get off or encourage some leniency. That little lunge just before the impact - she really had lost it and was definitely not thinking straight 'cause she almost hit the bloody tree!

🙂

Sorry, not funny really.