That's an abomination - both the sentence, and the Judge's comments
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Cyclist Injured - Craigentinny
(177 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
I'm speechless!
Posted 10 years ago # -
Sheriff James P Scott has previous form on this type of case it seems. I wonder if he's a keen motoring enthusiast?
http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2010/02/24/13908-2692/
THE 90 year-old wife of the former Governor of the Bank of Scotland has been given the all clear to continue driving after smashing her car into a cyclist. Lady Suzanne Risk sent Robert Benn, 40, flying off his bike after she failed to see him at a junction in Edinburgh. The victim, who had been wearing high-visibility clothing, was taken to hospital and treated for internal bleeding.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Lady Risk offered to pay compensation to Mr Benn, but the Sheriff refused.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Of course if she had been wearing a helmet this "accident" would never have happened, and if it did she would be none the worse for the "somersault" through the air. - Aye Right!
I dont know what angers me more - the incident, the not guilty plea, or the Sheriff's fatuous, unnecessary, and hurtful remarks.
Grrr!Posted 10 years ago # -
SICKENING.
Will we all have to stop cycling in Edinburgh in 5 years time? (Assuming he doesn't continue driving while disqualified, like many do)
Posted 10 years ago # -
Agreed. I'm not often one for internet abbreviations, but WTF? I would question the judge's integrity and objectivity.
But think about this: the more that cyclists and motorcyclists arm themselves with video cameras, the greater the likelihood that not doing so in future will be considered as contributary negligence. Mark my words, I'll give it 10 years.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Daylight visible running lights for cyclists will be the next "requirement". Failing to have an always on super-bright front and rear lights will be considered as contributory negligence with in the next 5. After all by then most cars will already have them.
Posted 10 years ago # -
In an unrelated case, appeal court judges have said "it cannot be right for a trial judge to allow an obvious 'quack' doctor to speak to a subject in a supposed expert way in relation to which he has no qualifications", so surely it cannot be right for a judge to give his opinion on a cause of death without hearing any evidence on this? I hadn't noticed any medical experts testifying in this case, so is there any for the judge's comments?
Posted 10 years ago # -
This is outrageous and appalling in equal measure. A helmet would have had little impact on her survival and the judge displays both stupidity and ignorance in linking her lack of a helmet to the outcome. I think it's appalling that this person, already having killed a cyclist, is at liberty rather than behind bars. I believe that this is a travesty of anything like justice. I don't suppose there are any relatives who can appeal this?
Posted 10 years ago # -
"A helmet would have had little impact on her survival..." To be honest, that can't be said with any more certainty than the judge saying it would have had a beneficial effect.
As mentioned above, the main issue is if there was no medical evidence lead (anyone know if there was?) then commenting with a statement that not wearing a helmet contributed to her death is entirely inappropriate.
Criminal case, not for the relatives to appeal, would be the crown if it thought the sentence was too lenient (with the possibility that on appeal the sentence could actually be reduced).
Posted 10 years ago # -
You're probably right - I just assumed that for a seventy-five year old lady, to be tossed up in the air (I think the word used was "somersaulted") would probably kill her in any event. The verdict does seem very lenient, though, given that this is a repeat offence.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Oh more than likely. Like I say, for the judge to even mention the lack of a helmet contributing to her death without any medical evidence is just plainly ridiculous, but as reported it backs up the impression that cyclists should be wearing helmets to 'save themselves'.
It does sort of hint at the sentence being a little more lenient because she may not have died if she was wearing a helmet.
Posted 10 years ago # -
It's unclear whether the comment is just an off-hand riff by the judge (who perhaps feels entitled to take advantage of his position to do a little proselytising as part of his judgement) or whether the killer's punishment was reduced because his victim was wearing ordinary clothes.
While the latter would be endlessly depressing, I don't see we can really stop judges from expressing opinion (especially when they say it's only their opinion in the same breath).
Let's not lose sight of a few encouraging things here:
- the driver was prosecuted. Very often this doesn't happen, even after a killing.
- the jury actually convicted. There are endless examples of them refusing to do this even in cases which seem far more clean cut (such as the coach driver with broken windscreen wipers who killed two people down south and was acquitted of all charges)
- 300 hours community service and a five year ban may seem like small beer for someone who has killed twice, but on the other hand lots of motorists have been convicted after a killing and merely given token points or a minor slap on the wrist.Fifer Stephen McKay was let off with a 12 month ban after killing Brian Taylor by driving around the wrong side of a bend at 150% of the speed limit. Five years is quite a step up from that given the circumstances.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"300 hours community service and a five year ban may seem like small beer for someone who has killed twice, but on the other hand lots of motorists have been convicted after a killing and merely given token points or a minor slap on the wrist"
I was thinking this, but wondering how to put it without getting pelters. I still think the comment from the judge is unecessary, and one which he shouldn't have made, but yes, there are strangely encouraging signs in amongst the depression.
Posted 10 years ago # -
This may be overly morbid, but I was reading:-
http://www.forbessolicitors.co.uk/blog/2012/08/cycling-helmets-and-contributory-negligence/
And I was struck by the passge "Expert evidence at the hearing showed that cycle helmets are only designed to withstand an impact of up to 12mph, so that if the injured person hits the floor at a greater speed the helmet is unlikely to have had any effect."
I know it's been 30 years since I studied physics, but I put the numbers in the SUVAT formula, and 12mph would be exceeded in a static drop of about 1.54meters. Surely almost any fall from a bike would involve a drop of further than that, and therefore, on the argument presented by Forbes, any reference to helmet protection is specious? NAL, obviously.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Let's not do the helmet debate again, eh?
Posted 10 years ago # -
This has be discussed before. The helmet is designed to protect the wearer from a vertical drop of about 1.5m any horizontal velocity you have is your own problem! Its efficacy of course remains open to debate.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Will all young men out for a drink tonight who are unlucky enough to be stabbed in a fight be criticised by the judge for not wearing stab proof vests?
Posted 10 years ago # -
No, because people who get stabbed are not a minority out-group...
Whether or not helmets work is a complete distraction from the argument that someone convicted of negligent manslaughter should be treated leniently if their victim was wearing ordinary clothes and not PPE.
As far as I'm concerned, it is similar to stab vests in that respect.
"The deceased should have known that as there had been numerous stabbings in the park, a stab vest was prudent and not wearing one certainly contributed to their death," the judge said. He passed down a short community sentence, saying that the killer was "clearly showing remorse at having their liberty put in jeopardy" and were, of course, "otherwise law-abiding"...
etc.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I thought I'd read somewhere that her family had said they didn't want a custodial sentence. Sure enough...
And although widower John Fyfe has suggested that jail for McCourt for the death of his wife Audrey would be a waste of taxpayers’ money and a lifetime ban from driving would suffice ...
But the family of the man he previously killed had urged a long custodial sentence.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Dave
That argument could only work if the perp was claiming to have accidentally stabbed someone while carelessly sharpening a pencil.Posted 10 years ago # -
@Dave, Wilmington's Cow, good points, and I recalled that Mrs Fyfe's family had said that about custodial sentences, but I still thought he might get one. Doesn't the 2nd offence thing have a bearing? Does the fact that his first offence was a longish time ago come in to it?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Exactly right fimm, offences are 'spent' within a certain period - essentially after which time an offender is deemed 'rehabilitated'. There would be exceptional circumstances in which past convictions could be brought up, but I don't think this situation would fit any of that.
When my other half was a fiscal she used to have to tear up pages of previous convictions (usually neds nicking stuff or drug offences or assaults) that had been spent and so couldn't go before court.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Related topic now here -
Posted 10 years ago # -
We really must put a stop to this victim blaming, it should be totally unacceptable.
Posted 10 years ago # -
a lot of folk signing up to POp today. this has really hit people hard.
statement here from POp: http://pedalonparliament.org/mrs-fyfe-a-response/
Posted 10 years ago # -
Cyclist killer Gary McCourt sentence "scandalous'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22397918
Posted 10 years ago # -
Also an interesting discussion here:
In particular this comment:
"He was found guilty both times at court so it's clearly not bad luck but rather poor driving. When on the road there is no such thing as luck. Every collision has a cause and overwhelmingly its human error. Chris Gilbert, former driver trainer for the Met police has a wonderful phrase. "When at an RTC the one word you always hear from drivers is suddenly. Suddenly this happened or the vehicle was there. Yet nothing in driving happens suddenly, the clues are all there if only we look for them." I think it very aptly covers this incident. As the Sheriff said, momentary lapse of concentration. To my mind such lapses are not acceptable. When one drives a motor vehicle on the public road safety is of the utmost importance and the only way that can be achieved is through exercising due diligence at all times. I therefore think that such incidents need to have much harsher consequences. I'm also uncomfortable with the comment that she was not wearing a helmet. There is no legal requirement to do so whilst riding a bicycle and is smacks of victim blaming. What's next for two wheeled vehicle users? Well if he was only wearing a high visibility jacket then the driver might have seen him so he's partly bought it on himself? That doesn't sit right."
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Our understanding of the legal position is that the most effective way to get the sentence reviewed, and to get an authoritative criticism of the Sheriff’s judgement and comments, is for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to appeal against the sentence. They have 28 days to do this and, according to the above press report, are considering whether to do so. If you wish them to do this, please a.s.a.p. email ps_copfs@scotland.gsi.gov.uk. Give your views on what has happened and urge that the Crown Office appeals the sentence.
"
http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2013/05/astounding-comments-by-sheriff
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
