|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Drunken scum launched cycle hat petition
Unbelieveable.
QUOTE: "A drunk driver who killed an Oxfordshire cyclist in a hit and run incident last June, then told police her car had been stolen, subsequently launched a petition calling for it to be compulsory for people on bikes to wear cycle helmets, it has emerged. Maria Sutton from Cholsey, aged 27, was remanded in custody at Oxford Crown Court earlier this month pending sentencing after admitting causing the death through careless driving while over the legal alcohol limit of Dr Graham Ruecroft from Wallingford. Dr Ruecroft died in Oxford's John Radcliffe Hospital five days after he had been struck by a car driven by Sutton on 4 June last year while he rode home from Cholsey station. Opening and adjourning an inquest, Coroner Darren Salter said that the 55-year-old had died from brain injuries. Sutton, aged 27, fled the scene of the fatal collision, but was arrested by Thames Valley Police the following day. She initially claimed to officers that her car had been stolen but at Oxford Crown Court on 23 December last year pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice. At the same court, in February this year she admitted causing death by careless driving but denied being over the drink-drive limit. In a further appearance on 5 April, she changed her plea to guilty on the more serious charge, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. It appears that at some point between those court appearances in December and February, she posted a petition to the website Change.org under the title "Make it law for a cyclist to wear a helmet." http://road.cc/content/news/186698-d...mpulsory-cycle |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Drunken scum launched cycle hat petition
On 18/04/2016 18:14, Alycidon wrote:
Unbelieveable. QUOTE: "A drunk driver who killed an Oxfordshire cyclist in a hit and run incident last June, then told police her car had been stolen, subsequently launched a petition calling for it to be compulsory for people on bikes to wear cycle helmets, it has emerged. Maria Sutton from Cholsey, aged 27, was remanded in custody at Oxford Crown Court earlier this month pending sentencing after admitting causing the death through careless driving while over the legal alcohol limit of Dr Graham Ruecroft from Wallingford. Dr Ruecroft died in Oxford's John Radcliffe Hospital five days after he had been struck by a car driven by Sutton on 4 June last year while he rode home from Cholsey station. Opening and adjourning an inquest, Coroner Darren Salter said that the 55-year-old had died from brain injuries. Sutton, aged 27, fled the scene of the fatal collision, but was arrested by Thames Valley Police the following day. She initially claimed to officers that her car had been stolen but at Oxford Crown Court on 23 December last year pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice. At the same court, in February this year she admitted causing death by careless driving but denied being over the drink-drive limit. In a further appearance on 5 April, she changed her plea to guilty on the more serious charge, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. It appears that at some point between those court appearances in December and February, she posted a petition to the website Change.org under the title "Make it law for a cyclist to wear a helmet." http://road.cc/content/news/186698-d...mpulsory-cycle "arrested the following day"? So how was it established that she had been over the breathalyser limit at the time of the incident the day before she was arrested? She might well have been over the limit, but it's hard to see how the evidence was put before the court, given that she denied that part of the charge. Or is it just another case of faulty sub-editing? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Drunken scum launched cycle hat petition
On Monday, 18 April 2016 18:14:26 UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:
Unbelieveable. Blew DOUBLE the limit, but has pleaded not guilty. This should be a laugh. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-charges.html |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Drunken scum launched cycle hat petition
On 19/04/2016 01:44, JNugent wrote:
On 18/04/2016 18:14, Alycidon wrote: Unbelieveable. QUOTE: "A drunk driver who killed an Oxfordshire cyclist in a hit and run incident last June, then told police her car had been stolen, subsequently launched a petition calling for it to be compulsory for people on bikes to wear cycle helmets, it has emerged. Maria Sutton from Cholsey, aged 27, was remanded in custody at Oxford Crown Court earlier this month pending sentencing after admitting causing the death through careless driving while over the legal alcohol limit of Dr Graham Ruecroft from Wallingford. Dr Ruecroft died in Oxford's John Radcliffe Hospital five days after he had been struck by a car driven by Sutton on 4 June last year while he rode home from Cholsey station. Opening and adjourning an inquest, Coroner Darren Salter said that the 55-year-old had died from brain injuries. Sutton, aged 27, fled the scene of the fatal collision, but was arrested by Thames Valley Police the following day. She initially claimed to officers that her car had been stolen but at Oxford Crown Court on 23 December last year pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice. At the same court, in February this year she admitted causing death by careless driving but denied being over the drink-drive limit. In a further appearance on 5 April, she changed her plea to guilty on the more serious charge, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. It appears that at some point between those court appearances in December and February, she posted a petition to the website Change.org under the title "Make it law for a cyclist to wear a helmet." http://road.cc/content/news/186698-d...mpulsory-cycle "arrested the following day"? So how was it established that she had been over the breathalyser limit at the time of the incident the day before she was arrested? She might well have been over the limit, but it's hard to see how the evidence was put before the court, given that she denied that part of the charge. Or is it just another case of faulty sub-editing? "she changed her plea to guilty on the more serious charge" Presumably she did so because the police had evidence of her drinking. It is not uncommon for criminals to deny the offences they are accused of. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Drunken scum launched cycle hat petition
On 19/04/2016 11:15, Nick wrote:
On 19/04/2016 01:44, JNugent wrote: On 18/04/2016 18:14, Alycidon wrote: Unbelieveable. QUOTE: "A drunk driver who killed an Oxfordshire cyclist in a hit and run incident last June, then told police her car had been stolen, subsequently launched a petition calling for it to be compulsory for people on bikes to wear cycle helmets, it has emerged. Maria Sutton from Cholsey, aged 27, was remanded in custody at Oxford Crown Court earlier this month pending sentencing after admitting causing the death through careless driving while over the legal alcohol limit of Dr Graham Ruecroft from Wallingford. Dr Ruecroft died in Oxford's John Radcliffe Hospital five days after he had been struck by a car driven by Sutton on 4 June last year while he rode home from Cholsey station. Opening and adjourning an inquest, Coroner Darren Salter said that the 55-year-old had died from brain injuries. Sutton, aged 27, fled the scene of the fatal collision, but was arrested by Thames Valley Police the following day. She initially claimed to officers that her car had been stolen but at Oxford Crown Court on 23 December last year pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice. At the same court, in February this year she admitted causing death by careless driving but denied being over the drink-drive limit. In a further appearance on 5 April, she changed her plea to guilty on the more serious charge, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. It appears that at some point between those court appearances in December and February, she posted a petition to the website Change.org under the title "Make it law for a cyclist to wear a helmet." http://road.cc/content/news/186698-d...mpulsory-cycle "arrested the following day"? So how was it established that she had been over the breathalyser limit at the time of the incident the day before she was arrested? She might well have been over the limit, but it's hard to see how the evidence was put before the court, given that she denied that part of the charge. Or is it just another case of faulty sub-editing? "she changed her plea to guilty on the more serious charge" That begs the question, though. The report (verbatim) says: "she admitted causing death by careless driving but denied being over the drink-drive limit". I assume that you (and the reporter mean that the more serious charge is CDBCD. That still leaves her pleading NG to the alcohol charge. Presumably she did so because the police had evidence of her drinking. What sort of "evidence" if it isn't a proper scientific reading (which it cannot be)? "I saw her at the pub yesterday, yer honour; she had three double JDs and half of Magners"? Is that enough to secure a breathalyser-type automatic conviction? And anyway, it only applies if you regard the excess alcohol charge as being "the more serious charge" (ie, the one on which she pleaded guilty). Do you? I don't. In some ways (from the perspective of the driver), it might be, because it's much harder to be acquitted of a properly-evidenced excess alcohol charge and easier to be acquitted of a CDBCD or CDBDD charge. But most people would regard the "death by careless" or "death by dangerous" as the more serious charge, and that's how I'm interpreting it. So we are left, in the absence of better information, with her pleading guilty to CDBCD and NG to excess alcohol. And if she really was not in contact with the police until the following day (explicitly stated in the report), then it is not at all clear that the police have acceptable evidence of her blood alcohol level at the time of the incident. It is not uncommon for criminals to deny the offences they are accused of. Indeed. And even more common for accused persons to deny charges of which there is no lawful proof. If she really was not arrested or breathalysed until the following day, then even a country-town conveyancing solicitor's clerk would immediately advise her that whatever she wished to do about the CDBCD, she should go NG on the alcohol because there was no chance of a breathalyser-type conviction in a case where the breathalyser had not been used at the relevant time. It's all very odd. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Drunken scum launched cycle hat petition
On 19/04/2016 12:21, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2016 11:15, Nick wrote: On 19/04/2016 01:44, JNugent wrote: On 18/04/2016 18:14, Alycidon wrote: Unbelieveable. QUOTE: "A drunk driver who killed an Oxfordshire cyclist in a hit and run incident last June, then told police her car had been stolen, subsequently launched a petition calling for it to be compulsory for people on bikes to wear cycle helmets, it has emerged. Maria Sutton from Cholsey, aged 27, was remanded in custody at Oxford Crown Court earlier this month pending sentencing after admitting causing the death through careless driving while over the legal alcohol limit of Dr Graham Ruecroft from Wallingford. Dr Ruecroft died in Oxford's John Radcliffe Hospital five days after he had been struck by a car driven by Sutton on 4 June last year while he rode home from Cholsey station. Opening and adjourning an inquest, Coroner Darren Salter said that the 55-year-old had died from brain injuries. Sutton, aged 27, fled the scene of the fatal collision, but was arrested by Thames Valley Police the following day. She initially claimed to officers that her car had been stolen but at Oxford Crown Court on 23 December last year pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice. At the same court, in February this year she admitted causing death by careless driving but denied being over the drink-drive limit. In a further appearance on 5 April, she changed her plea to guilty on the more serious charge, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. It appears that at some point between those court appearances in December and February, she posted a petition to the website Change.org under the title "Make it law for a cyclist to wear a helmet." http://road.cc/content/news/186698-d...mpulsory-cycle "arrested the following day"? So how was it established that she had been over the breathalyser limit at the time of the incident the day before she was arrested? She might well have been over the limit, but it's hard to see how the evidence was put before the court, given that she denied that part of the charge. Or is it just another case of faulty sub-editing? "she changed her plea to guilty on the more serious charge" That begs the question, though. The report (verbatim) says: "she admitted causing death by careless driving but denied being over the drink-drive limit". And after that she changed her plea. I assume that you (and the reporter mean that the more serious charge is CDBCD. That still leaves her pleading NG to the alcohol charge. She pleaded guilty to "causing death by driving without due care and attention whilst over being over the prescribed alcohol limit" Presumably she did so because the police had evidence of her drinking. What sort of "evidence" if it isn't a proper scientific reading (which it cannot be)? "I saw her at the pub yesterday, yer honour; she had three double JDs and half of Magners"? I would think that enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt in circumstances where the person deliberately failed to make themselves available for a breathalyser. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Drunken scum launched cycle hat petition
On 19/04/2016 13:56, Nick wrote:
On 19/04/2016 12:21, JNugent wrote: On 19/04/2016 11:15, Nick wrote: On 19/04/2016 01:44, JNugent wrote: On 18/04/2016 18:14, Alycidon wrote: Unbelieveable. QUOTE: "A drunk driver who killed an Oxfordshire cyclist in a hit and run incident last June, then told police her car had been stolen, subsequently launched a petition calling for it to be compulsory for people on bikes to wear cycle helmets, it has emerged. Maria Sutton from Cholsey, aged 27, was remanded in custody at Oxford Crown Court earlier this month pending sentencing after admitting causing the death through careless driving while over the legal alcohol limit of Dr Graham Ruecroft from Wallingford. Dr Ruecroft died in Oxford's John Radcliffe Hospital five days after he had been struck by a car driven by Sutton on 4 June last year while he rode home from Cholsey station. Opening and adjourning an inquest, Coroner Darren Salter said that the 55-year-old had died from brain injuries. Sutton, aged 27, fled the scene of the fatal collision, but was arrested by Thames Valley Police the following day. She initially claimed to officers that her car had been stolen but at Oxford Crown Court on 23 December last year pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice. At the same court, in February this year she admitted causing death by careless driving but denied being over the drink-drive limit. In a further appearance on 5 April, she changed her plea to guilty on the more serious charge, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. It appears that at some point between those court appearances in December and February, she posted a petition to the website Change.org under the title "Make it law for a cyclist to wear a helmet." http://road.cc/content/news/186698-d...mpulsory-cycle "arrested the following day"? So how was it established that she had been over the breathalyser limit at the time of the incident the day before she was arrested? She might well have been over the limit, but it's hard to see how the evidence was put before the court, given that she denied that part of the charge. Or is it just another case of faulty sub-editing? "she changed her plea to guilty on the more serious charge" That begs the question, though. The report (verbatim) says: "she admitted causing death by careless driving but denied being over the drink-drive limit". And after that she changed her plea. I assume that you (and the reporter mean that the more serious charge is CDBCD. That still leaves her pleading NG to the alcohol charge. She pleaded guilty to "causing death by driving without due care and attention whilst over being over the prescribed alcohol limit" Presumably she did so because the police had evidence of her drinking. What sort of "evidence" if it isn't a proper scientific reading (which it cannot be)? "I saw her at the pub yesterday, yer honour; she had three double JDs and half of Magners"? I would think that enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt in circumstances where the person deliberately failed to make themselves available for a breathalyser. Whatever "failed to make themselves available for a breathalyser" means, she sounds to have been badly advised. Perhaps her resilience had been ground down by previous outcomes of the same incident and her later actions. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Drunken scum launched cycle hat petition
Incidentally, the term "drunken scum" could be thought apply to a lot of
people, in a lot of situations. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Drunken scum launched cycle hat petition
On 19/04/2016 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2016 13:56, Nick wrote: On 19/04/2016 12:21, JNugent wrote: On 19/04/2016 11:15, Nick wrote: On 19/04/2016 01:44, JNugent wrote: On 18/04/2016 18:14, Alycidon wrote: Unbelieveable. QUOTE: "A drunk driver who killed an Oxfordshire cyclist in a hit and run incident last June, then told police her car had been stolen, subsequently launched a petition calling for it to be compulsory for people on bikes to wear cycle helmets, it has emerged. Maria Sutton from Cholsey, aged 27, was remanded in custody at Oxford Crown Court earlier this month pending sentencing after admitting causing the death through careless driving while over the legal alcohol limit of Dr Graham Ruecroft from Wallingford. Dr Ruecroft died in Oxford's John Radcliffe Hospital five days after he had been struck by a car driven by Sutton on 4 June last year while he rode home from Cholsey station. Opening and adjourning an inquest, Coroner Darren Salter said that the 55-year-old had died from brain injuries. Sutton, aged 27, fled the scene of the fatal collision, but was arrested by Thames Valley Police the following day. She initially claimed to officers that her car had been stolen but at Oxford Crown Court on 23 December last year pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice. At the same court, in February this year she admitted causing death by careless driving but denied being over the drink-drive limit. In a further appearance on 5 April, she changed her plea to guilty on the more serious charge, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. It appears that at some point between those court appearances in December and February, she posted a petition to the website Change.org under the title "Make it law for a cyclist to wear a helmet." http://road.cc/content/news/186698-d...mpulsory-cycle "arrested the following day"? So how was it established that she had been over the breathalyser limit at the time of the incident the day before she was arrested? She might well have been over the limit, but it's hard to see how the evidence was put before the court, given that she denied that part of the charge. Or is it just another case of faulty sub-editing? "she changed her plea to guilty on the more serious charge" That begs the question, though. The report (verbatim) says: "she admitted causing death by careless driving but denied being over the drink-drive limit". And after that she changed her plea. I assume that you (and the reporter mean that the more serious charge is CDBCD. That still leaves her pleading NG to the alcohol charge. She pleaded guilty to "causing death by driving without due care and attention whilst over being over the prescribed alcohol limit" Presumably she did so because the police had evidence of her drinking. What sort of "evidence" if it isn't a proper scientific reading (which it cannot be)? "I saw her at the pub yesterday, yer honour; she had three double JDs and half of Magners"? I would think that enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt in circumstances where the person deliberately failed to make themselves available for a breathalyser. Whatever "failed to make themselves available for a breathalyser" means, she sounds to have been badly advised. Failing to stop after the collision. If she had stopped she would have been breathalysed. Perhaps her resilience had been ground down by previous outcomes of the same incident and her later actions. I suspect that she did not contest the charge because she believed she would have been found guilty anyway. The only requirement for conviction is beyond reasonable doubt. Given the extremely thin amount of evidence that commonly ensures criminal convictions I do not see why you consider her special. Remember reasonable doubt is a fluid quantity, there is no reason that an already confirmed criminal such as Sutton should be entitled to the extraordinarily high level of evidence required for motoring offence convictions where the accused is of previous good character. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Drunken scum launched cycle hat petition
On 19/04/2016 18:14, Nick wrote:
On 19/04/2016 14:14, JNugent wrote: On 19/04/2016 13:56, Nick wrote: On 19/04/2016 12:21, JNugent wrote: On 19/04/2016 11:15, Nick wrote: On 19/04/2016 01:44, JNugent wrote: On 18/04/2016 18:14, Alycidon wrote: Unbelieveable. QUOTE: "A drunk driver who killed an Oxfordshire cyclist in a hit and run incident last June, then told police her car had been stolen, subsequently launched a petition calling for it to be compulsory for people on bikes to wear cycle helmets, it has emerged. Maria Sutton from Cholsey, aged 27, was remanded in custody at Oxford Crown Court earlier this month pending sentencing after admitting causing the death through careless driving while over the legal alcohol limit of Dr Graham Ruecroft from Wallingford. Dr Ruecroft died in Oxford's John Radcliffe Hospital five days after he had been struck by a car driven by Sutton on 4 June last year while he rode home from Cholsey station. Opening and adjourning an inquest, Coroner Darren Salter said that the 55-year-old had died from brain injuries. Sutton, aged 27, fled the scene of the fatal collision, but was arrested by Thames Valley Police the following day. She initially claimed to officers that her car had been stolen but at Oxford Crown Court on 23 December last year pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice. At the same court, in February this year she admitted causing death by careless driving but denied being over the drink-drive limit. In a further appearance on 5 April, she changed her plea to guilty on the more serious charge, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. It appears that at some point between those court appearances in December and February, she posted a petition to the website Change.org under the title "Make it law for a cyclist to wear a helmet." http://road.cc/content/news/186698-d...mpulsory-cycle "arrested the following day"? So how was it established that she had been over the breathalyser limit at the time of the incident the day before she was arrested? She might well have been over the limit, but it's hard to see how the evidence was put before the court, given that she denied that part of the charge. Or is it just another case of faulty sub-editing? "she changed her plea to guilty on the more serious charge" That begs the question, though. The report (verbatim) says: "she admitted causing death by careless driving but denied being over the drink-drive limit". And after that she changed her plea. I assume that you (and the reporter mean that the more serious charge is CDBCD. That still leaves her pleading NG to the alcohol charge. She pleaded guilty to "causing death by driving without due care and attention whilst over being over the prescribed alcohol limit" Presumably she did so because the police had evidence of her drinking. What sort of "evidence" if it isn't a proper scientific reading (which it cannot be)? "I saw her at the pub yesterday, yer honour; she had three double JDs and half of Magners"? I would think that enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt in circumstances where the person deliberately failed to make themselves available for a breathalyser. Whatever "failed to make themselves available for a breathalyser" means, she sounds to have been badly advised. Failing to stop after the collision. If she had stopped she would have been breathalysed. Why wasn't she prosecuted for failing to stop (which is a specific offence, whereas "failing to make oneself available for a breath-test" is not)? Perhaps her resilience had been ground down by previous outcomes of the same incident and her later actions. I suspect that she did not contest the charge because she believed she would have been found guilty anyway. The only requirement for conviction is beyond reasonable doubt. Given the extremely thin amount of evidence that commonly ensures criminal convictions I do not see why you consider her special. Remember reasonable doubt is a fluid quantity, there is no reason that an already confirmed criminal such as Sutton should be entitled to the extraordinarily high level of evidence required for motoring offence convictions where the accused is of previous good character. If third party testimony is sufficient evidence for a drink/drive conviction, one does wonder what the whole panoply of the breathalyser (with its labyrinthine procedures) is for. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Killer drunken scum in court | Alycidon | UK | 9 | March 15th 16 01:09 PM |
London Cycling Campaign urges cyclists to sign Love London, Go Dutch petition as campaign launched | Simon Mason | UK | 0 | February 10th 12 04:03 PM |
OT Drunken Cyclists | Marie | UK | 9 | January 15th 11 11:43 PM |
London cycle maps launched | spindrift | UK | 31 | August 28th 07 04:30 PM |
Petition against proposed bus and cycle lanes | adrian30uk | UK | 32 | August 23rd 04 03:26 AM |