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.

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.

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

Lemming

tombliboo83 wrote: »

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?

Having had similar conversations around the use of minimum mandatory sentencing - albeit regards different circumstances - with family & friends who are involved with the criminal justice system, and whatever else one may think about this case or the sentence handed out, you have hit the nail on the head. Judges, as I understand it, generally dislike mandatory sentences not least because it takes away their power of discretion in "their courtroom" which on the surface may seem like absurd king-of-the-castle playground mentality, but because it removes their ability to decide upon a case based on the merits (or demerits as it may be) of said case. No two cases - even where the circumstances of whatever event is under scrutiny - will ever play out identical; hence why one person gets 3 years, another gets 3 months community service sometimes. That said though, sentencing guidelines might seem to me to be a better idea rather than mandatory sentencing in an attempt to bring some level of consistency across the board.

Regardless, whatever about how out of touch the judge may be or whether they were having an off-day or whatever, if the DPP don't appeal the absurd leniency of the sentence, it will say much regards the state's view towards cyclists.

Lumen

The courts are generally very lenient unless compensating an ex minister for a passing comment on national radio.

Sticks and stones may hurt our bones but words are worth half a million.

average_runner

Lumen wrote: »

The courts are generally very lenient unless compensating an ex minister for a passing comment on national radio.

Sticks and stones may hurt our bones but words are worth half a million.

Courts also very good for giving claims to idiots

tomasrojo

There's aways a strong element of psychology in decision making, including legal judgements.

In particular, "there but for the grace of God go I" looms large in the mind of jurors and judges who drive, which is most of them.

magicbastarder

i really don't get the 'i panicked and fled' argument. is there any other context where this is tolerated?

eeeee

magicbastarder wrote: »

i really don't get the 'i panicked and fled' argument. is there any other context where this is tolerated?

Panicked, fled, was followed, but somehow didn't notice either the severity of the hit he gave the woman or the taxi following him. These severe awareness issues question his fitness to ever have a license. ffs. this case enrages me.

Wishbone Ash

tomasrojo wrote: »

There's aways a strong element of psychology in decision making, including legal judgements.

In particular, "there but for the grace of God go I" looms large in the mind of jurors and judges who drive, which is most of them.

If we were all honest, I don't think there would be too many of use who have not had a close shave while driving through our own inattention so I'd tend to agree with you. I could have killed a cyclist while driving a truck up through Drumcondra one wet Friday evening a good few years ago. I still think about it even though there was no actual collision.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i really don't get the 'i panicked and fled' argument. is there any other context where this is tolerated?

I suppose it is an instinctive action when frightened and panicked - not something someone thinks about at the time. And I say that as the victim of a hit and run while cycling. I wouldn't hold any ill will towards the young driver who struck me. She got an awful fright and simply panicked at the time. I'm not in any way excusing it just explaining it.

Wishbone Ash

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

If we were all honest, I don't think there would be too many of use who have not had a close shave while driving through our own inattention so I'd tend to agree with you. I could have killed a cyclist while driving a truck up through Drumcondra one wet Friday evening a good few years ago. I still think about it even though there was no actual collision.

I suppose it is an instinctive action when frightened and panicked - not something someone thinks about at the time. And I say that as the victim of a hit and run while cycling. I wouldn't hold any ill will towards the young driver who struck me. She got an awful fright and simply panicked at the time. I'm not in any way excusing it just explaining it.

Fair play to you there, I'd like to think I'd be as forgiving but I probably wouldn't, couldn't say really unless it happened to me.

A lot of initial response to scary/threatening situations is triggered automatically in the brain and chemical and hormone levels at any given time in an individual play a role.

Maybe if a person had a stick and a tiger came at them 99 times out of a hundred they'd whack it on the nose with the stick however no matter how brave the individual there will always be at least once where he/she turns and runs.

People are unaware that they are not always in control of their actions, no matter what they might think......

There's a bunch of glands in the brain and elsewhere that are almost primordial of which we know little about (again, despite thinking we do).

henryporter

After reading the physical and mental problems his victim has had to deal with since the accident I can only say that the Judge in this case seems to be totally removed from reality - hopefully neither her or any of her family will have to suffer such a tragic event. I can only suggest that anyone feeling aggrieved will write to their local TD and Charlie Flanagan to complain about the leniency which gives other imbeciles license to treat vulnerable road users with equal disregard

jimmycrackcorm

Wishbone Ash wrote:

I suppose it is an instinctive action when frightened and panicked - not something someone thinks about at the time. And I say that as the victim of a hit and run while cycling. I wouldn't hold any ill will towards the young driver who struck me. She got an awful fright and simply panicked at the time. I'm not in any way excusing it just explaining it.

I was also a victim of a bit and run when cycling. I would not hold any ill will against a driver who stops after but someone who hits another and leaves them injured on the road should not get any benefit from an excuse about being panicked.

Tenzor07

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I suppose it is an instinctive action when frightened and panicked - not something someone thinks about at the time..

Or like in this court case, where the driver didn't have any of the legal requirements for using a motor vehicle on the road, realised this and the fact that he's in serious 5h1t, so does a runner like a coward!

tomasrojo

My wife was a victim of a hit-and-run when she was a child. She's ok now, but maybe we need very harsh penalties to counteract the urge to flee the scene. In particular, if there are no other witnesses, there's a high chance it'll kill the victim.

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I was also a victim of a bit and run when cycling. I would not hold any ill will against a driver who stops after but someone who hits another and leaves them injured on the road should not get any benefit from an excuse about being panicked.

I've only ever been hit with a mirror on the hand (bit sore but nothing more) but honestly there will be a least one person who is decent, caring, benevolent, kind, helpful person etc. etc. etc. who WILL flee at some stage or at some time.

Such a persons normal brain activity has shut down and they are then doing something which is anathema to them and without free will or rational thought, it happens although albeit rarely.

I don't know this case and haven't read about it so I am not saying that this occurred here, I'm just saying if you get my meaning.....

Rezident

It's things like this that convinced me that there is really only one rule of the road for a cyclist: get home safely. Everything else is subjective.

CramCycle

doozerie wrote: »

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.

I understand the reasoning of some judges of giving less than the wanted or needed punishment so that appeals will fail. This to me shows graver issues where they cannot stand by the courage of their convictions. This said you hear legal eagles in Ireland who wouldn't touch being a judge with a barge pole, it is almost as if it is not the height of the sector as some would have you believe. Over the years, the statements from some judges have been so far beyond the way in which they are meant to function is unbelievable. John Neilan in Longford is a prime example of a judge who is not only fit to be sitting but also should have faced some time in the defendants seat.

Deleted User wrote: »

Such a persons normal brain activity has shut down and they are then doing something which is anathema to them and without free will or rational thought, it happens although albeit rarely.

I don't know this case and haven't read about it so I am not saying that this occurred here, I'm just saying if you get my meaning.....

Happened in a local petrol station where a person forgot their wallet, they shut down, locked themselves in the car and refused to respond or get out for 45 minutes. The gardai came down to explain to the driver that they were not going to get arrested. Same on the canal one day, car T boned a cyclist and drove off but parked up the road and walked back, apologising, saying they were not even sure why they went on. They never went out of sight but for the first 100m, they were going to leave. Then they obviously realised and stopped. I can forgive anyone who comes back. It is the ones who have to be chased down that need a longer mandatory sentence.

CramCycle

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Or like in this court case, where the driver didn't have any of the legal requirements for using a motor vehicle on the road, realised this and the fact that he's in serious 5h1t, so does a runner like a coward!

And got less of a punishment than a driver who has done similar but was insured, did have a full license and did not run. This really is a great advert for, run, it will all work out for you. It really does feed into the worst of our behavioral instincts, the ones that modern society is meant to help us overcome.

tomasrojo wrote: »

My wife was a victim of a hit-and-run when she was a child. She's ok now, but maybe we need very harsh penalties to counteract the urge to flee the scene. In particular, if there are no other witnesses, there's a high chance it'll kill the victim.

100%, the only mitigating factor in any of these cases should be the behaviour after the fact. if a driver, as described in the article, jumps out of there car and runs over to help the victim, calls the ambulance and confesses to everything, then a judges opinion should come into play. If on the other hand, if they run, never come back or simply show no signs of decency, then the mandatory sentence must come into play, it may be the difference between a vehicular assault charge or manslaughter if there are no witnesses.

Wishbone Ash

Deleted User wrote: »

I've only ever been hit with a mirror on the hand (bit sore but nothing more) but honestly there will be a least one person who is decent, caring, benevolent, kind, helpful person etc. etc. etc. who WILL flee at some stage or at some time.

Such a persons normal brain activity has shut down and they are then doing something which is anathema to them and without free will or rational thought, it happens although albeit rarely.

I don't know this case and haven't read about it so I am not saying that this occurred here, I'm just saying if you get my meaning.....

That's the point I was making but you phrased it much better.

(I should have said earlier that the Gardai informed me that the hit and run driver in my accident returned to the scene about 30 mins later. I was in the back of an ambulance at the time so didn't see her. The Gardai said she was in shock and very frightened.)

Mercian Pro

Some more details of the original case back last June here: http://www.beat102103.com/news/young-driver-panicked-collided-cyclist-drove-off/

A few new bits of information - while Mr Rattigan claimed to have seen the injured cyclist stand up before he drove off, other witnesses who looked after her stated that she was lying on the ground. A panic induced illusion perhaps? I had wondered if Mr Rattigan had handed himself in at a Garda Station after feeling some remorse but he seems to have only done so after being contacted by a Garda.

At least there are no reports of high-viz or helmets being used in his defence!

jaxxx

What the f is wrong with judges in this country... and the so-called 'justice' system as a whole for that matter.

mrcheez

Curious, what have previous convictions been like for fleeing a scene after hitting a pedestrian crossing the road, for example?

Links to previous cases if you have them please, thanks.

Lumen

mrcheez wrote: »

Curious, what have previous convictions been like for fleeing a scene after hitting a pedestrian crossing the road, for example?

Links to previous cases if you have them please, thanks.

Do your own research please, thanks!

plodder

It just shows the disgusting state of lawlessness this country is in, that something like this would be considered at the low end of the scale. Whatever about "not seeing" a cyclist and colliding with them, but to leave the scene with no regard or effort to take any responsibility for it is such a terrible message to send out. But, it's no surprise, I've seen similar accidents between cars, where the party at fault just drives off. Fake number plates make them untraceable. Fair play to the taxi driver who pursued this guy though. They aren't all bad clearly.