CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
Sentence for killer of Audrey Fyfe will be appealed
(37 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-24240127
The Crown Office has lost its appeal against the sentencing of a man whose driving has caused the deaths of two cyclists.
Gary McCourt was banned from driving for five years and ordered to carry out 300 hours of community service after being convicted over the second death.
Prosecutors said his sentence for causing the death of Audrey Fyfe, 75, in Edinburgh in 2011 was too lenient.
However, the appeal was rejected by appeal court judges in Edinburgh.
Posted 12 years ago # -
That is a complete outrage.
This is not only a further slap in the face for Audrey Fyffe's relatives, it also compounds and reinforces a travesty of justice which sees the lives of cyclists as expendable, and the protection of drivers' privileges as sacrosanct.
Utterly, utterly ashamed of the Scottish legal system today.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Perhaps the Crown should appeal this judgement on the grounds of no confidence.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Yebbut, he only clipped her back wheel y'see.
(discussion on this in the 'Cyclist Injured' Thread).
Posted 12 years ago # -
EEN report ends on this note which is very revealing of the "remorse" felt by the man convicted and the attitude of his solicitor.
'Speaking after the case, McCourt’s solicitor Robert Fairbairn said his client was remorseful for causing the death of Mrs Fyfe. He said McCourt had expressed his condolences to her family.
However, Mr Fairbairn said he felt Sheriff Scott’s decision had been correct and that the Crown had brought the appeal to court because of political reasons. Mr Fairbairn added: “Mr McCourt has continually expressed remorse for causing the death of Mrs Fyfe. He expressed remorse at the accident scene, during his police interview and during his trial. I think the Crown succumbed to external pressure from the cycling lobby in order to bring this appeal to court.” '
There's defiance for you. Apparently it's "political" to protest when a cyclist is killed by a driver and the driver gets off lightly.
For me, the relatives of Audrey Fyffe have it right.
'[...] Mr Fyfe, of Joppa, said he felt “disgusted” by what had happened. He added: “I can’t believe it. It sends out the wrong message to other drivers. The judiciary is not fit for purpose. With these attitudes, I can see why people don’t feel encouraged to take up cycling. I don’t think he should have been jailed - after all, that would just a waste of taxpayers money. But I felt that he should have definitely have been banned from driving for the rest of his life - after all that’s only the second person that he has killed. I’m disgusted, absolutely disgusted.”
His grieving daughter Aileen Brown also said she was upset at the Appeal Court’s decision. She added: “I am lost for words. The decision to allow Gary McCourt and drivers like him to drive again suggests that the judiciary are frightened to grasp the nettle and make decisions which would make our country a safer place to live.” '
Posted 12 years ago # -
"I think the Crown succumbed to external pressure from the cycling lobby in order to bring this appeal to court"
That possibly looks more like the solicitor was straying into his own personal thoughts (all the comments beforehand were Mr McCourt this and that). The thing is, I don't think there's any reason to suggest he hasn't shown remorse, and doesn't feel awful about it (thoguh the not guilty plea possibly runs counter to that); but I also don't think it matters one jot. I don't think that remorse should be a mitigating factor in reducing a sentence (conversely I do think that someone who shows absolutely no remorse should possibly receive a higher sentence than would be the standard tariff).
Posted 12 years ago # -
I can't believe they're letting comments on the story
"An excellent decision by the Court of Appeal. The original sentance of Sheriff Scott was also correct. The Crown should never have appealed this case on the strength of the cycling lobby. It serves them right for pursuing the appeal and they deserved to lose. Also a warning shot against the cycling lobby."
Posted 12 years ago # -
To be fair, a number of EEN writers have expressed their own personal shock/dismay at today's rulings.
Posted 12 years ago # -
WC - with regards the showing of remorse, I think actions speak louder than words here. By choosing to plead not guilty he put a grieving family through a further ordeal.
I really, really doubt the Crown Office was influenced by the "cycling lobby". I would be intrigued to know why some people seem to think cyclists have huge influence on the powers that be - when everything would appear to indicate the opposite (see miniscule budgets, increasing cyclist deaths etc.)
Posted 12 years ago # -
The all powerful bike lobby is on twitter
Posted 12 years ago # -
"To be fair, a number of EEN writers have expressed their own personal shock/dismay at today's rulings."
Absolutely, but someone suggesting the cycling lobby have got their 'comeuppance' and the like, even if it's only 2 or 3 nasty comments, is completely and utterly innappropriate. EEN should not be allowing comments on that story. It's a matter of respect for the families.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"The Scottish Legal System"
Posted 12 years ago # -
Excellent graphic Kaputnik.
Call Kaye (on now) has Audrey's daughter on explaining why the decision was wrong.
Despite her plea the majority of callers have used the programme to demonise cyclists.
Sports cyclists 'blocking' rural roads seems to be a popular gripe.
As we know the NWC has had no effect on attitudes and much ignorance on display about cyclists knowing their place. 'Why don't they use the paths'. 'Cyclists want it all' etc etc
The attitudes on display are beyond parody....Posted 12 years ago # -
Strong comment in EEN today
Posted 12 years ago # -
The EEN has form on this; they've previously left the comments open on stories about Audrey Fyffe's death, whereas they have NEVER allowed comments on stories involving any other death.
They seem to think cyclists are fair game for online abuse & insensitivity, regardless of the feelings of their families.
Anyone working for the EEN or the Scotsman should be hanging their heads in shame. I sincerely hope that Mrs Fyffe's family don't see some of the stuff posted there.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Whoah! Did you see that? The EEN appear to have removed yesterday's report on this, and now at the same link have a very different angle, published today, expressing revulsion at the appeal. Wow.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I have written to the Justice Minister to express my disgust with this pathetic sentence.
If you'd like to do the same, his email address is:-
Kenny.MacAskill.msp Kenny.MacAskill.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
Colin
Posted 12 years ago # -
Some of the latest comments on the story are truly pathetic. Quite a few along the lines of, "the roads are dangerous places, cyclists are taking their own risks" - so basically we should just accept possibly being killed every time we ride on the roads, it's our own fault.
In what other facet of life would we respond to something being dangerous and killing people by saying "well don't go near it" rather than "let's stop it being dangerous"?
The only one I can think of is effectively blaming rape victims for putting themselves in a position where, well, y'know, you were basically asking the man to rape you.
Posted 12 years ago # -
People would say that in all sorts of circumstances. When people have died in canoeing or diving accidents I've seen similar comments about it being their own fault for participating in activities with an element of danger.
Two things are different. First, that cycling on the road is a legitimate form of transport not an extreme sport. The fact that has some of the features of an extreme sport is an indicator that something is wrong. Second, cyclists tend not to die because of their own misjudgements about the weather or by over-estimating their abilities. They die because someone else used what should be a safe and benign alternative mode (their car) in a way that is dangerous. It's the acceptance of careless and dangerous driving that makes cycling an extreme sport. That's the problem that needs to be solved.
Posted 12 years ago # -
The whole "but roads are dangerous, it's their own fault" argument is a load of nonsense.
Flying in a commercial airliner is (potentially) very dangerous, if something goes wrong, you're going to fall very far and very fast and hit something very hard.
But it's not dangerous at all, because safety is taken extremelly seriously by the industry, manufacturers and the authorities and is rigorously enforced with the legal and financial penalties to back it up.
If something does go wrong, we don't blame the passengers for having the temerity to get from A to B by taking a plane. We don't have the newsrags screaming "how many more innocent air crash victims and grieving families will it take before people stop flying on their holidays?"
Instead, blame is rightly put on the responsible parties and the authorities by and large come down on them very severly if the airlines, manufacturers, controllers etc. are found lacking.
Cycling is exactly the same. It's a very safe thing to do. It becomes increasingly more dangerous when cyclists are obliged to go into an environment where they are the vulnerable party and where there isn't the safety-by-design backed up by proper regulation, enforcement and judicial punishments when people are found guilty of acting dangerously or carelessly.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I have written to the Justice Minister to express my disgust with this pathetic sentence.
If you'd like to do the same, his email address is:-
I shall be. Think I'll go as far as paper and stamp letter.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Why can't why all be nice to each other and get along ? Because our legal system frees killers like McCourt to kill again and again, that's why.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Another pathetic sentence. This time for mowing someone down on a zebra crossing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-24300631
Warning - this report may cause you to swear loudly in the workplace.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"In 2009, Anish Patel's wife, Catriona, 39, was killed by a serial offender while cycling to work. She was crushed under the wheels of his lorry outside Oval tube station in south London. The driver had three previous drink-driving convictions, had been disqualified 20 times and had three previous convictions for reckless driving."
An old story, but somehow those facts didn't change anything - was it somehow thought to be an isolated incident?
Posted 12 years ago # -
And not just cycling bikers;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-24303256
A man who has previous convictions for drink driving and driving without a licence has been jailed for 12 months for killing a biker.
Phillip Hogg's Alfa Romeo hit 53-year-old James Burns' motorbike head-on on the A70 Kilmarnock to Edinburgh road, near Carnwath, on 7 September 2011.
Hogg, 43, who had been drinking but was under the legal limit, claimed he had swerved to avoid hitting a deer.
Driver was overtaking a car in the rain and poor visibility, after (at least) a glass of wine, hit the oncoming motorcyclist and ended up with his car off the road and on it's roof.
Posted 12 years ago # -
@kaputnik at least that guy went to jail but only 3 year ban! Why can't the courts take these dangerous people off of the road permanently?
Posted 12 years ago # -
Well I assume in this case the Sherriff wasn't trying to blame the victim for not wearing a magic plastic hat. Also he didn't kill his victim "gently". Got to remember that according to the court, Gary Mccourt was only a "gentle" killer.
Courts also (in my opinion) like to be seen to be tougher if drink is involved.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"Warning - this report may cause you to swear loudly in the workplace."
You're not wrong! I love how there's an attempt to paint her as a 'careful' driver, because she was paying attention to the large group that (apparently) she thought posed a danger. Apparently it's just 'carelessness' to look to the left, but not the right, while driving, and it's tragic because she was 'driving within the speed limit'. Good god...
As has been said, though, in most of these circumstances (save some obvious examples) imprisonment is perhaps secondary to the need to remove people from the roads altogether. Certainly if you've killed twice.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Read the earlier story on the drink-driver motorbike crash http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-23928241
Surely overtaking dangerously is dangerous driving not careless?
They must have cast a huge amount of doubt on the witnesses' story? and you gotta love the girlfriend was 'looking at clouds'.
unbelievable.
Posted 12 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
