A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Drunken scum launched cycle hat petition



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 18th 16, 06:14 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Alycidon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,921
Default 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  
Old April 19th 16, 01:44 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default 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  
Old April 19th 16, 06:14 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Alycidon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,921
Default 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  
Old April 19th 16, 11:15 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Nick[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,323
Default 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  
Old April 19th 16, 12:21 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default 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  
Old April 19th 16, 01:56 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Nick[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,323
Default 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  
Old April 19th 16, 02:14 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default 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  
Old April 19th 16, 02:15 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default 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  
Old April 19th 16, 06:14 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Nick[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,323
Default 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  
Old April 20th 16, 01:26 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Killer drunken scum in court Alycidon UK 9 March 15th 16 02:09 PM
London Cycling Campaign urges cyclists to sign Love London, Go Dutch petition as campaign launched Simon Mason UK 0 February 10th 12 05:03 PM
OT Drunken Cyclists Marie UK 9 January 16th 11 12:43 AM
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.