Uninsured driver hit cyclist in Dublin, fled scene gets community service

ED E

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-who-drove-off-after-hitting-cyclist-given-community-service-1.3377946#.WnSqMYie8_I.twitter

Judge O’Connor:

CramCycle

She said it was at the “lower end” of the range of seriousness for such offences, because although Rattigan should have observed the cyclist, “he simply didn’t see her”.

Says it all really. I would consider no motor tax, or running a red after stopping to observe there was no one else around at the lower end. Funny how we differ, I would have thought a hit and run was at the more serious end of the spectrum.

No mention of a ban or points in that either.

tomasrojo

"He simply didn't see her"

FFS.

eeeee

ED E wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-who-drove-off-after-hitting-cyclist-given-community-service-1.3377946#.WnSqMYie8_I.twitter

Judge O’Connor:

This is absolutely enraging. I sincerely hope the leniency of the sentence is appealed, and that person is never allowed a license again. I don't think jail will make any difference to his attitude on the road, he shouldn't be let drive again after such a serious accident, and wilful abdication of responsibility and humanity. That's absolutely disgraceful. He almost killed someone, and drove off despite being made aware of what he did. I'm really shocked.

buffalo

tomasrojo wrote: »

"He simply didn't see her"

FFS.

I wonder if this aspect had this anything to do with the fact that he was not a fully qualified driver, yet took it on himself to drive around without an accompanying fully qualified driver who might've spotted the danger or helped him with his observing.

So while one might have some sympathy for a momentary lapse, or a panicked reaction, in this case the driver seems to have made a conscious, deliberate decision to behave in an unsafe manner, and all without ****ing insurance too.

RacoonQueen

ED E wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-who-drove-off-after-hitting-cyclist-given-community-service-1.3377946#.WnSqMYie8_I.twitter

Judge O’Connor:

Just saw this on twitter and fu*king enraging. There is no hope for cyclist safety as long as this sort of sh*t is coming out of courts.

magicbastarder

worth contrasting that to a (non-cycling related) case mentioned in an irish times 'day in the courts' article - which has a lot more shades of grey:

The family law cases are not all heard together. In between, there are other cases. There is a case of drunk-in-charge, which takes a long time to hear. A young man was discovered by a garda at 2.30am in a parked car, drunk, and in the driver’s seat, with the engine and lights off, but keys in the ignition.

The man’s solicitor argues for a long time that his client had parked for the night, with no intention of driving anywhere. He says that call records show he was calling and texting his then girlfriend, looking for her to come collect him, and these are produced.

The defendant takes the stand, and talks about how the night in question is “a blur” but that he had told the garda he was waiting for lift. “You don’t go against a guard,” is what he says. “The two phonecalls and text message you sent at 2.30am, were they answered?” asks the judge. “No,” the man says.

“So effectively, you had no way home,” the judge says. He goes on to address the court, saying, “It’s quite clear from the defendant’s evidence that he has very little recollection of the night in question, and he didn’t know he had made the calls until the next day.” He also mentions the alcohol levels found in the test. The judge’s sentence is a fine of €1,500 and disqualification for three years.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/irish-life-laid-bare-one-court-case-at-a-time-1.3375035

spucey2

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/uninsured-driver-who-fled-scene-after-hitting-cyclist-in-dublin-and-leaving-her-with-serious-injuries-avoids-jail-36561405.html

in essence, gets away scott free for having no car insurance, seriously injuring someone & driving away from the scene of a crime.

FFS.

A 18-year-old driver who fled the scene after his car hit a cyclist has been sentenced to community service in lieu of going to prison.

Rattigan was an inexperienced driver at the time and did not have a full driving licence or insurance.

As well as a hairline fracture to her skull requiring stitches, her wrist was fractured which had left her with 50 per cent less grip, unable to use a camera at work and in need of ongoing physical therapy.

He said he had “absolutely panicked” and driven off. He said he did not hear a taxi driver who had followed him to tell him to go back to the scene.

Keithmurf1

The judge has sent out the wrong message here basically saying it is ok to drive uninsured with no license cause an accident drive away and nothing will happen to you, again no consideration for cyclists

Eamonnator

The judge said it was at the lower end of the range of seriousness because "he simply didn't see her"

It beggars belief.

Driving uninsured.
Dangerous driving causing serious injury.
Learner driver, driving unaccompanied.
Leaving the scene of a collision.
Failing to give appropriate information.

Lower end of the range of seriousness. f***ing incredible.

And he gets credit for not being drunk or under the influence of illicit drugs.

average_runner

I would like to know the previous criminal history of the driver. If he is clean, then sending to jail could be the wrong thing to do as could destroy his life and achieves nothing. But I doubt he is clean.

He should be banned for life and forced to do proper community service, ie clean the toilets for our emergency services and maybe attend a few crash scenes to show what idiots like him can cause.

Staplor

snip

jelutong

Surely the DPP will appeal this.

ted1

jelutong wrote: »

Surely the DPP will appeal this.

<snip> The DPP will do nothing.

She may have refused the 3k so as to get more from the mibi.

Weepsie

Lifetime driving ban, some form of custodial sentence, a hefty amount of community service and a hefty amount of compensation for the victim are a minimum that should have been given.

Our Judiciary are inconsistent and seemingly unfit to do the jobs expected of them

doozerie

tomasrojo wrote: »

"He simply didn't see her"

FFS.

I really want to believe that the judgement in this case is informed by further information not revealed in that news article, and that the judge has weighed up all of the relevant info and decided that the best longer term outcome for society as a whole is for the driver not to go to prison (where any form of rehabilitation might not happen) but to serve a punishment which might shape him into a "better" member of society. To believe otherwise would be depressing.

But I utterly struggle to believe that, based on the information there. Instead it seems to describe yet another instance of a fcuked up perspective on cyclists on the part of both the driver and the judge. Taken at face value it seems to suggest that:

* The onus was on the cyclist to be seen, that there was somehow little or no obligation on the driver to see and recognise the cyclist as a valid road user with right of way. This seems to fit with the screwed up and very vocal calls for cyclists to be obliged to wear hi-viz and helmets, the most ignorant supporters of that approach essentially seem to believe that not wearing both of those things somehow makes you responsible for any harm you might come to should you be hit by a car.

How did we get here, where motorists are able to abdicate responsibility for both their obligations (be observant and aware of fellow road users) and their actions (hitting someone in circumstances where the driver is completely and utterly in the wrong)?

* People who never experience motorised vehicles other than from inside seem unwilling to acknowledge the danger posed by them in a collision. Punch someone hard in the face and walk away and it's hard to imagine anyone really believing that you truly believed "they were fine", but hit someone with a car and drive away on the basis that "sure, they're grand" and apparently that's lesser than aggravated assault and you can be excused for assuming they're fine.

The scale seems to be: if the victim dies, that's bad, maybe, but if it's anything less than that then basically no harm done - so, if they "get back up", they're not dead, so they are fine. Christ.

* And of course phrases from the judge like "lower end [of the range of seriousness]" and "he simply didn't see her" seem utterly dismissive of the fact that someone's life has been suddenly and dramatically changed and perhaps forever ("ongoing difficulties from her injuries and suffered from depression"). Not to mention the brutality of being walloped by a tonne of metal. As a society we continue to trivialise the dangers posed by bad and/or reckless driving.

* I thought that driving without a driving license and insurance was a serious matter in itself, that there were serious penalties awaiting anyone caught doing so. Throw a collision into the mix, plus fleeing the scene, and I'd dread the penalties I'd be facing if I were the driver. I thought these things were simply facts, clearly I thought wrong. If I were so inclined (I'm not), I'd wonder why I'm so concerned to renew my insurance before it expires each year, etc., since when push comes to shove such things seem to matter little.


...so, maybe there is more context to this story, maybe it's not the appalling failure of the justice system that it seems. Or maybe it's yet another example of how we elevate car use to some kind of automatic right which supercedes the basic right of others not to be subjected to our behaviour when driving, no matter how bad that behaviour.

doozerie

Weepsie wrote: »

Our Judiciary are inconsistent and seemingly unfit to do the jobs expected of them

I've questioned the judgements from lots of cases too but I suspect that at least in some cases we (the public) lack context due to restrictions on reporting.

More generally though I think it is a huge leap to describe judges as unfit to do their jobs. Who is more fit than people very experienced in the Irish legal system? In the wider context, are there people better equipped to evaluate evidence dispassionately and draw conclusions within the confines of the laws we have? I suspect not.

Do we need different laws though? Perhaps. Do we need different penalties for certain crimes? I would say yes. Do we need the laws to treat behaviour on the roads more seriously? I would say definitely.

Mercian Pro

average_runner wrote: »

I would like to know the previous criminal history of the driver.

No previous conviction according to the Irish Times report.

jelutong wrote: »

Surely the DPP will appeal this.

You would certainly hope so particularly as there was no mention of a driving ban or even penalty points.

ted1 wrote: »

She may have refused the 3k so as to get more from the mibi.

Rather harsh - she asked that it be given to St Francis Hospice and a youth charity.

Weepsie

Yes I've perhaps jumped to hyperbole there, the judges are hamstrung by laws and the sentences they can impose.

It does seem all too often that far too much leniency is given and there is a massive inconsistency in the treatment of of people depending on their background and means.

It's 5 points and/or a minimum 2 year ban isn't it for no insurance

Judge has a say on which is applied but not if they are applied as far as I'm aware.

magicbastarder

posts regarding this case in the journalism thread have been moved here

Tenzor07

Indo also carrying this story: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/uninsured-driver-who-fled-scene-after-hitting-cyclist-in-dublin-and-leaving-her-with-serious-injuries-avoids-jail-36561405.html

Sends a message to vulnerable road users that your life isn't worth more than a slap on the wrist to the "Justice" system, who let this Criminal break multiple laws and who left for all he knew, a dying woman on the side of the road, if this had happened on a country road then the victim may have succumb to her injuries..now he's free to do what he likes again.. drive around most likely with no tax, insurance, licence or Nct on his vehicle...

ted1

Mercian Pro wrote: »

average_runner wrote: »

I would like to know the previous criminal history of the driver.

No previous conviction according to the Irish Times report.

jelutong wrote: »

Surely the DPP will appeal this.

You would certainly hope so particularly as there was no mention of a driving ban or even penalty points.

ted1 wrote: »

She may have refused the 3k so as to get more from the mibi.

Rather harsh - she asked that it be given to St Francis Hospice and a youth charity.

Not harsh , she’s out 6k out of pocket and has limited movement in her wrist. Taking the 3k stops her from getting anything further

VonZan

Eamonnator wrote: »

The judge said it was at the lower end of the range of seriousness because "he simply didn't see her"

It beggars belief.

Driving uninsured.
Dangerous driving causing serious injury.
Learner driver, driving unaccompanied.
Leaving the scene of a collision.
Failing to give appropriate information.

Lower end of the range of seriousness. f***ing incredible.

And he gets credit for not being drunk or under the influence of illicit drugs.

You should receive a minimum 5 year prison sentence for leaving the scene of a collision involving another person. Our criminal justice system is a joke.

tombliboo83

VonZan wrote: »

You should receive a minimum 5 year prison sentence for leaving the scene of a collision involving another person. Our criminal justice system is a joke.

I believe this gets to the crux of the matter of our mistrust of the judicial system. Should a range of mandatory minimum sentences be brought in across the board, thus taking away discretion and mitigation that always comes into play in a judgement?
IMO, any of those offenses like no insurance, leaving scene of accident should carry a minimum 1 year ban. I won’t hold my breath though as Ireland has a disgusting attitude to cycling.

CramCycle

What this also tells you is that it is worth running if you cause an accident. Looking at it from a selfish rather than societal point of view. People who do the right thing (after making a mistake) seem to get bent over but those who run, lie, exaggerate seem to get away with barely a slap on the wrist. I have seen people make minor errors in work where the punishment (fired, no bonus, demotion etc.) would to me, on the surface, seem harsher.

RacoonQueen

Ms Briggs had previously read her victim impact statement out in court, outlining that she had ongoing difficulties from her injuries and suffered from depression.

As well as a hairline fracture to her skull requiring stitches, her wrist was fractured which had left her with 50 per cent less grip, unable to use a camera at work and in need of ongoing physical therapy.

This should have been enough for the judge to see this was a serious offence which had serious, long term consequences for the cyclist.

Rattigan told gardaí that he thought Ms Briggs had got back up and was OK after the collision.

This is absurd. Doesn't matter if she got straight back up and had no injuries. You always stop to make sure they are ok. Because that is what a normal, decent person does.

She asked the court to take into account the serious effects the offence had had on the victim but to have regard to this young man and leave him in the community.

The court heard that Rattigan is a member of the travelling community and has two young children. His wife was undergoing difficulties during pregnancy at the time of the offence.

Ah sure, that's alright then.

This sh*t makes me so f*cking angry.

Take our vested interests out of this as cyclists, you read the paper on any given day and this skutter goes on all day every day in court. Someone without a bloody TV license could get hit harder than someone with 100+ convictions :mad:

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Take our vested interests out of this as cyclists, you read the paper on any given day and this skutter goes on all day every day in court. Someone without a bloody TV license could get hit harder than someone with 100+ convictions :mad:

I try to make a habit of not reading the paper on any given day....

I have heard that they do not like to print the good news, or so it is rumored...:D

eeeee

Staplor wrote: »

How could they possibly throw the book at someone who is part of an ethnic minority?

ted1 wrote: »

He’s a member of our indegnous nomadic tribe. The DPP will do nothing.

She may have refused the 3k so as to get more from the mibi.

Warning - Leave the ethnicity of the perpetrator out of this please. Any questions PM me do not respond in thread