"Wholly and morally wrong": wife of cyclist killed by speeding driversays family are "traumatised" by lenient suspended sentence

QUOTE:
After a judge handed David McSkimming a six month suspended sentence for hitting and killing Anthony Satterthwaite while speeding, Mr Satterthwaite's wife has now spoke of her fury at the leniency of the sentence.

As we reported on Saturday, McSkimming was driving his Porsche Boxter (SIC) at 59mph in a 40mph zone when he hit the 51-year-old on the opposite side of the road after “rebounding� off a tree. The incident happened on Eastcote Lane, Solihull on 22nd December 2018, and McSkimming was sentenced on 4th September 2020 at Birmingham Crown Court. He was given a suspended six-month prison sentence and 250 hours community service after admitting causing death by careless driving.

Wendy Satherwaite commented: “The family had very justifiable expectations of a fair and honest sentencing decision in respect of a much loved and irreplaceable member of our family who was killed on 22 December, 2018..

"This did not happen. The judge handed out a totally inadequate sentence - six months, suspended for two years and 250 hours community service to a driver who killed a totally innocent cyclist in a most violent and cruel way.

“Anthony suffered horrendous injuries. All of this was deemed less important than the psychological effects on the Defendant’s son and his career. This decision has left the family totally traumatised and is one we cannot come to terms with.

“The sentence in our case was far too lenient and has left us feeling it was an insult to Anthony and all he had achieved in life and has totally destroyed our faith in the justice system. What kind of message does this paltry sentence send to others about death on the road? A flawed justice system has allowed McSkimming to walk free.�

She also added: "We feel that the justice system has failed Anthony and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.

“The sentence that was passed was wholly and morally wrong and the sad fact is, Anthony’s passing will be just another statistic of death on the road.

“The guidelines seem so inflexible for the victims. We had to read edited versions of our original Victim Personal Impact Statements with little justification.�

A spokesperson for Leigh Day Solicitors (link is external), who represented Mrs Satterthwaite and specialise in serious injuries caused to cyclists by motorists, said: “Our hearts truly go out to the family of Anthony Satterthwaite who lost his life whilst cycling.

“The family are understandably angered that our criminal justice system allows for such patently unjust sentencing where road traffic offences occur, particularly in cases like this where it is apparent to most people that the offence was so much more than any momentary lapse in concentration.

“Sadly, we see this all too often and it not hard to understand why families often feel that the justice system only compounds the devastation of losing a loved one, instead of offering some sort of comfort by handing down a punishment that at least attempts to reflect the seriousness of the offence. A serious re-consideration as to how such cases are prosecuted by the courts is long overdue.�

https://road.cc/content/news/wife-tr...entence-277085

On 08/09/2020 14:16, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE:
After a judge handed David McSkimming a six month suspended sentence for hitting and killing Anthony Satterthwaite while speeding, Mr Satterthwaite's wife has now spoke of her fury at the leniency of the sentence.

As we reported on Saturday, McSkimming was driving his Porsche Boxter (SIC) at 59mph in a 40mph zone when he hit the 51-year-old on the opposite side of the road after “rebounding� off a tree. The incident happened on Eastcote Lane, Solihull on 22nd December 2018, and McSkimming was sentenced on 4th September 2020 at Birmingham Crown Court. He was given a suspended six-month prison sentence and 250 hours community service after admitting causing death by careless driving.

There must have been a licence endorsement (and possibly a driving
disqualification) as well? Even ordinary "..without due care and
attention" attracts an endorsement.

Wendy Satherwaite commented: “The family had very justifiable expectations of a fair and honest sentencing decision in respect of a much loved and irreplaceable member of our family who was killed on 22 December, 2018.

"This did not happen. The judge handed out a totally inadequate sentence - six months, suspended for two years and 250 hours community service to a driver who killed a totally innocent cyclist in a most violent and cruel way.

She is very understandable upset and exercised about the outcome. Most
people in her circumstances are or would be.

But attributing (active) "cruelty" to someone who has - according to the
evidence - badly lost control of a vehicle - is a bit OTT. The situation
and circumstances were cruel. Fate sometimes is. It doesn't mean that
the defendant was cruel in the more common sense of that word.

“Anthony suffered horrendous injuries. All of this was deemed less important than the psychological effects on the Defendant’s son and his career. This decision has left the family totally traumatised and is one we cannot come to terms with.

“The sentence in our case was far too lenient and has left us feeling it was an insult to Anthony and all he had achieved in life and has totally destroyed our faith in the justice system. What kind of message does this paltry sentence send to others about death on the road? A flawed justice system has allowed McSkimming to walk free.�

She also added: "We feel that the justice system has failed Anthony and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.

“The sentence that was passed was wholly and morally wrong and the sad fact is, Anthony’s passing will be just another statistic of death on the road.

“The guidelines seem so inflexible for the victims. We had to read edited versions of our original Victim Personal Impact Statements with little justification.�

A spokesperson for Leigh Day Solicitors (link is external), who represented Mrs Satterthwaite and specialise in serious injuries caused to cyclists by motorists, said: “Our hearts truly go out to the family of Anthony Satterthwaite who lost his life whilst cycling.

“The family are understandably angered that our criminal justice system allows for such patently unjust sentencing where road traffic offences occur, particularly in cases like this where it is apparent to most people that the offence was so much more than any momentary lapse in concentration.

“Sadly, we see this all too often and it not hard to understand why families often feel that the justice system only compounds the devastation of losing a loved one, instead of offering some sort of comfort by handing down a punishment that at least attempts to reflect the seriousness of the offence. A serious re-consideration as to how such cases are prosecuted by the courts is long overdue.�

https://road.cc/content/news/wife-tr...entence-277085

It sounds as though the family and its representaives are concerned that
a careless driving charge was brought rather than a dangerous driving
charge. That's a CPS decision, in conjunction with the police.

On 08/09/2020 14:16, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE: After a judge handed David McSkimming a six month suspended
sentence for hitting and killing Anthony Satterthwaite while
speeding, Mr Satterthwaite's wife has now spoke of her fury at the
leniency of the sentence.

As we reported on Saturday, McSkimming was driving his Porsche Boxter
(SIC) at 59mph in a 40mph zone when he hit the 51-year-old on the
opposite side of the road after “rebounding� off a tree. The incident
happened on Eastcote Lane, Solihull on 22nd December 2018, and
McSkimming was sentenced on 4th September 2020 at Birmingham Crown
Court. He was given a suspended six-month prison sentence and 250
hours community service after admitting causing death by careless
driving.

Looking at Google Earth, at the Hamton in Arden end of the road there is
a 30 limit, at the other end a 40 limit and in between it's 50. A few
years ago the 50 section would have been NSL. It says the driver lost
control on the 40 section.

The picture in the Mirror suggests the crash happened here. The driver
destroyed the speed limit post, painted green. The trees are the same
shape and we see a triangular sign in the distance:
https://goo.gl/maps/t37kYjzvdVt7cpbk8

Even the bend on the 40 section doesn't look particularly severe for
60mph, gripwise, even if the sightline is short and there is a junction.
It's necessary to wonder what he was really doing to lose it like that.

It doesn't look like "just an accident" or being careless. Perhaps
bonkers speeding ought to be treated as a deliberate action, just like a
cyclist deliberately using a bike without a front brake. The sentence
really does look lenient.

On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 8:55:36 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

It doesn't look like "just an accident" or being careless. Perhaps
bonkers speeding ought to be treated as a deliberate action, just like a
cyclist deliberately using a bike without a front brake. The sentence
really does look lenient.

The moron driver even had his toddler son in the car when he crashed into the tree.

On 08/09/2020 21:05, Simon Mason wrote:
On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 8:55:36 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

It doesn't look like "just an accident" or being careless. Perhaps
bonkers speeding ought to be treated as a deliberate action, just like a
cyclist deliberately using a bike without a front brake. The sentence
really does look lenient.

The moron driver even had his toddler son in the car when he crashed into the tree.

Does that not indicate a lack of intent to crash into anything?

Only a very stupid person would say "No" in answer to that.

On Thursday, 10 September 2020 00:50:48 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2020 21:05, Simon Mason wrote:
On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 8:55:36 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

It doesn't look like "just an accident" or being careless. Perhaps
bonkers speeding ought to be treated as a deliberate action, just like a
cyclist deliberately using a bike without a front brake. The sentence
really does look lenient.

The moron driver even had his toddler son in the car when he crashed into the tree.

Does that not indicate a lack of intent to crash into anything?

Only a very stupid person would say "No" in answer to that.

So you are saying motor vehicles are so dangerous they kill people even if the licensed operator has no malicious intent?
Why do we let fallible human beings to operate such unpredictable dangerous machinery on public roads?

On 10/09/2020 03:13, Mike Collins wrote:
On Thursday, 10 September 2020 00:50:48 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2020 21:05, Simon Mason wrote:
On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 8:55:36 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

It doesn't look like "just an accident" or being careless. Perhaps
bonkers speeding ought to be treated as a deliberate action, just like a
cyclist deliberately using a bike without a front brake. The sentence
really does look lenient.

The moron driver even had his toddler son in the car when he crashed into the tree.

Does that not indicate a lack of intent to crash into anything?

Only a very stupid person would say "No" in answer to that.

So you are saying motor vehicles are so dangerous they kill people even if the licensed operator has no malicious intent?

Yet again, you appear to have tremendous difficulty with English.

I didn't say that or anything even remotely like it.

I *asked* whether the reported fact that the driver of a car which
crashed had his "toddler son" aboard (at the time of the crash) didn't
indicate that he had no intention of crashing the vehicle and that none
of it was deliberate (as suggested - exceptionally stupidly, even for
this place - by a previous poster).

The only possible answer, from a sane respondent, has to be "Yes, it
does indicate a lack of intention and deliberateness".

Why do we let fallible human beings to operate such unpredictable dangerous machinery on public roads?

That's a different question entirely and rather more cosmic in its
scope. You could ask the same question in respect of sharp kitchen
knives and bottles of aspirin. And the answers for all three (as for
many other things) would probably be quite similar.

On 10/09/2020 00:52, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2020 21:05, Simon Mason wrote:
On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 8:55:36 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

It doesn't look like "just an accident" or being careless.
Perhaps bonkers speeding ought to be treated as a deliberate
action, just like a cyclist deliberately using a bike without a
front brake. The sentence really does look lenient.

The moron driver even had his toddler son in the car when he
crashed into the tree.

Does that not indicate a lack of intent to crash into anything?

Only a very stupid person would say "No" in answer to that.

Only an incredidibly stupid person could add that last sentence.

On 10/09/2020 08:12, TMS320 wrote:

On 10/09/2020 00:52, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2020 21:05, Simon Mason wrote:
On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 8:55:36 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

It doesn't look like "just an accident" or being careless.
Perhaps bonkers speeding ought to be treated as a deliberate
action, just like a cyclist deliberately using a bike without a
front brake. The sentence really does look lenient.

The moron driver even had his toddler son in the car when he
crashed into the tree.

Does that not indicate a lack of intent to crash into anything?

Only a very stupid person would say "No" in answer to that.

Only an incredidibly stupid person could add that last sentence.

Hardly.

You are the person who claimed that the crash had either been deliberate
or should be treated as though it had been deliberate, aren't you?

The best that can be said for you is that when you made that
astoundingly stupid claim (even by your standards), you didn't know
about the "toddler son" reportedly in the car at the time of the accident.

Some of us didn't need such extra evidence to seriously doubt any
(stupid) assertion that the crash happened as a wilful act on the part
of the driver.

On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 2:16:13 PM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE:
RobD | 926 posts | 1 day ago
9 likes

So at what point does breaking the law whilst driving, in this case speeding go from careless to dangerous? If you're not speeding and not doing anything illegal and it happens I can kind of understand it being careless, you weren't taking appropriate care, but as soon as you're speeding that should be dangerous driving shouldn't it?

It would seem harsh if they were doing 42mph in a 40, a few mph can be a momentary slip, but 60 in a 40 is not in that territory.