Author Topic: John Radford  (Read 46421 times)

Re: John Radford
« Reply #300 on: January 09, 2015, 06:57:26 pm »
Surely  this trial is to judge whether he is guilty of causing John's death and if found not guilty the previous conviction would still stand ?

Torslanda

  • Professional Gobshite
  • Just a tart for retro kit . . .
    • John's Bikes
Re: John Radford
« Reply #301 on: January 10, 2015, 12:18:20 am »
AIUI He's already been convicted of the 'lesser' offence and should the prosecution not come up to proof and he is acquitted he's still going away for the first.

I noted he's been granted 'unconditional bail' until his next court appearance, I take it he's already had to surrender his passport.
VELOMANCER

Well that's the more blunt way of putting it but as usual he's dead right.

Re: John Radford
« Reply #302 on: January 23, 2015, 10:28:55 pm »
You're only as successful as your last 1200...

Re: John Radford
« Reply #303 on: October 23, 2015, 01:48:37 pm »
"A trial date was provisionally set for November 9 with an estimate of five days."

Does anyone have an update on this?
You're only as successful as your last 1200...

Re: John Radford
« Reply #304 on: October 23, 2015, 08:28:01 pm »
Fingers crossed for a long sentence and lots of publicity to make a few others consider their behaviour on the road.

Re: John Radford
« Reply #305 on: October 23, 2015, 09:28:03 pm »
I'd simply like the trial/verdict/sentence to be over. I this delay makes it harder for John's family. Closure and all that.
You're only as successful as your last 1200...

Re: John Radford
« Reply #306 on: October 24, 2015, 12:27:20 pm »
"A trial date was provisionally set for November 9 with an estimate of five days."

Does anyone have an update on this?

The driver was convicted - while Mr Radford was still alive - of the relatively new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.

This has a maximum of five years.

Mr Radford later died - 16 months after the crash.

The 'year and a day' rule no longer exists, so the driver could be held responsible for the death.

That puts him in line for death by dangerous driving, which has a maximum of 14 years.

Prosecutors are looking at trying the driver for death by dangerous driving.

Given what's happened already, the jury would be asked to decide if the crash caused the death.

Not as simple as it sounds, given the time delay.

So there would be lots of complex and competing medical evidence - the trial would have very little to do with the crash, because the legal responsibility for that has already been decided.

The likely sentence for death by dangerous in this case is not going to be more than a few years, which the driver could conceivably get for the offence for which he has already been convicted.

Thus prosecutors have to seriously weigh up the public interest in pursuing a second trial for which, of course, there is no guaranteed outcome.

It is likely the views of Mr Radford's family will be sought as part of that decision making process.

 

wilkyboy

  • "nick" by any other name
    • 16-inch wheels
Re: John Radford
« Reply #307 on: November 12, 2015, 01:30:44 pm »
Driver admits causing John's death, to be sentenced in January:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-34798621
RRTY #7 done.  Need something else to do ... ah, welcome #8 8)

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: John Radford
« Reply #308 on: November 12, 2015, 02:10:33 pm »

mcshroom

  • Mushroom
Re: John Radford
« Reply #309 on: November 12, 2015, 02:21:47 pm »
Well at least there isn't another trial. I'm not sure how much credit pleading guilty to the charge should carry considering the earlier not-guilty plea that led to the previous trial.
Climbs like a sprinter, sprints like a climber!

Re: John Radford
« Reply #310 on: November 12, 2015, 02:25:55 pm »
It would be nice to think Gledhill admitted driving in to John out of a sense of remorse but I think being told that the starting point for a prison sentence would start at six years if it went to trial and he was found guilty had more to do with it  :-[ I still find it incredible that someone can lose their life just because they might of held someone up for 5-10 seconds and would like to think that the full weight of the law would be brought to bear .

Re: John Radford
« Reply #311 on: November 12, 2015, 03:20:03 pm »
Quite by chance, I was talking of John only yesterday, when I dropped off some of my old bikes at Street Bikes, a local charity which "does up" old bikes to be donated back into the community.  The remember him well as a keen supporter and in fact I first got to hear of their work at his funeral celebration.

Sentencing now deferred until January.  This is a story without a happy ending, but it seems to have no ending at all.

Redlight

  • Enjoying life in the slow lane
Re: John Radford
« Reply #312 on: January 12, 2016, 03:52:51 pm »
Sentence now given - 4yrs, 8 months

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-35291159

Between the Disney abattoir and the chemical refinery

Re: John Radford
« Reply #313 on: January 12, 2016, 05:55:12 pm »
About bloody time.
You're only as successful as your last 1200...

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: John Radford
« Reply #314 on: January 12, 2016, 06:01:24 pm »
Not enough time but yes, about bloody time.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

Re: John Radford
« Reply #315 on: January 12, 2016, 06:19:29 pm »
My wife's reaction when I told her, "Four years? You're kidding. Is that all?".

RIP, John :(
You're only as successful as your last 1200...

Re: John Radford
« Reply #316 on: January 12, 2016, 06:43:21 pm »
My reaction too.
But a longer sentence wouldn't change anything.
OTH Gledhill will likely be out on parole in 2-1/2 years and when you compare that with 'life-sentence' that John's family will endure it's all a bit  :sick:

There was never going to be a right answer to this one I'm afraid.

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: John Radford
« Reply #317 on: January 12, 2016, 07:09:48 pm »
A longer sentence would keep a demonstrably deadly driver from behind a steering wheel for longer.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

mcshroom

  • Mushroom
Re: John Radford
« Reply #318 on: January 12, 2016, 07:16:28 pm »
I don't understand why someone who has been proven to have used his vehicle as a weapon should ever be allowed behind the wheel of a car again.
Climbs like a sprinter, sprints like a climber!

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: John Radford
« Reply #319 on: January 12, 2016, 07:48:08 pm »
Cos it's his Human RIght!!!

(and this stupid country wouldnt let him have a gun)
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Bianchi Boy

  • Cycling is my doctor
  • Is it possible for a ride to be too long?
    • Reading Cycling Club
Re: John Radford
« Reply #320 on: January 12, 2016, 08:29:20 pm »
How long would he have got if he had used a gun?

It amazes me that you can drive 1 ton of metal into someone and it is not as serious as shooting someone.  ???

BB
Set a fire for a man and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.

Re: John Radford
« Reply #321 on: January 12, 2016, 08:44:29 pm »
I had to explain to my wife that 4 years 8 months is actually a pretty long sentence compared to the sometimes appallingly lenient punishments handed out to some drivers who kill cyclists.

Their Road Justice campaign is reason enough to join the CTC IMO.
You're only as successful as your last 1200...

Re: John Radford
« Reply #322 on: January 12, 2016, 09:36:14 pm »
How long would he have got if he had used a gun?

It amazes me that you can drive 1 ton of metal into someone and it is not as serious as shooting someone.  ???

BB

Maybe not if a gun were involved, but if someone gets into a rage and lashes out with the nearest implement at hand with fatal consequences, they would probably be convicted of manslaughter with a sentence on a par with this one. However, that would probably also include a large degree of remorse, which appears to be lacking in this case.
Quote from: tiermat
that's not science, it's semantics.

Re: John Radford
« Reply #323 on: January 12, 2016, 09:58:34 pm »
Very sad  so glad I was able to make journey for funeral to pay my respects

Re: John Radford
« Reply #324 on: January 12, 2016, 11:04:15 pm »
Gledhill claimed that he was suffering from some form of PTSD after serving in Afghanistan.
Still at least the police investigation uncovered the truth and justice has been done. We must be grateful that witnesses came forward and forensics investigation also helped to trap Gledhill. Some police  forces could learn a few lessons from this.

Also good to see BBC Look North from Leeds gave the story prominence , with Martyn Bolt speaking and Chris Crossland in shot as well.
I hope the family know that there was/is  a lot of support for JR and for them today.
RIP John.