Driver Jailed for Killing Cyclist Badly Brain Damaged After Being Bashed in Jail

[DavidS]

Here is an opinion piece which criticises the custodial sentence as being too harsh, but also has a lot of information about the circumstances Robin Irvine found himself in during his 9 days in prison.
The Saturday Paper.

That piece is crap, barely mentions the fact that Jill Bryant is dead, not disabled, not injured, no longer exists.

The author is a criminal lawyer, it is the system of criminal law in this country that uses prisons as the penalty for crime, a system he is part of. If he actually questioned the criminal justice system, rather than make platitudes about how it could be run better, he might be saying something worth reading. There are, and always have been, serious problems with prisons as a form of "justice" for those who break laws, but if prison is society's remedy than what is the magistrate to do?

DS

[ColinOldnCranky]

I fear that the hating turds that post in the daily on-line rags every time there is a story about cyclists have infiltrated this forum.

I make no apology Turds. Much of what is said in this particular thread is not any different than the tripe that cycle haters post elsewhere.

And no, I am not a troll. I have posted here over 5,000 times sensibly and moderately as mostly we do. But this thread is beyond the pale and some should have a look in the mirror before they rant about cycle haters posting their bile in future.

Wow, attack the message, not the man. Where in this thread is there anything anti cyclist?

Actually I thought I WAS attacking the message. Not the original post but what follows.

The first paragraph may have misled you. Sorry. My point is the gross assumptions made, especially that before BJ Bikers second post. If you were to reverse the cyclist/motorist context then you would be hard pressed to differentiate between both tribes. So much here is just self serving tribal hate. It sounds no different to the unreasoned hate directed against ourselves that we justifiably criticise.

(The same can be said of many of the general smell of this whole thread.)

Not to say that this on eis the worst, but it serves to illustrate:

Given he was refused bail, you would wonder about his previous history.

Hmm. In that case every time a motorist gets off lightly are we to wonder about the cyclists culpability? We get this from our attackers along the line of "The cyclist probably barrelled thorough the red light (and by impliction deserved his fate).

I don't know the circumstances surrounding his conviction but nine months in prison in exchange for a life is a pretty lean sentence don't you think?

The post would have been better stopped at "I don't know the circumstances". Or simply left out as it does not fit with the rest of the post. Besides, how did redsonics comment turn anything around on us? It was a perfectly legit statement that we should reflect on from time to time.

Thanks redsonic, at least you were above the fray with your comment. I would have thought that yours is undeniable but it seems that you and I are alone.

We should remember when we call for custodial sentences that prison can be life altering

[Derny Driver]

I'll have a bite. Cos I dont mind being called a hating turd by a person I dont even know.

Its hardly "hate" to have no sympathy for a person who killed another person with their car. I think thats perfectly reasonable. I dont care what the guys excuse was, he killed a lady, someones mother, wife, friend ...he deserves to go to gaol. Its not my problem what happens in gaol. And that has nothing to do with cycling whatsoever, if a person kills a pedestrian, goes through a red light and kills another motorist, then they should suffer the consequences.
Someone said earlier that gaol is not a deterrent for reckless drivers. Well actually it is. When I was younger I was pretty reckless in my hotted up car. I stood in front of a magistrate charged with 'driving at a speed dangerous' and I was threatened with gaol. I remember what that magistrate said to me every time I get in my car and that was 30 years ago. If I f#@k up, I know the consequences. Everyone who drives a car should understand the consequences of poor decisions behind the wheel.
Driving tired is a very poor decision.

[ColinOldnCranky]

I'll have a bite. Cos I dont mind being called a hating turd by a person I dont even know.

...Its not my problem what happens in gaol.

So it's not your problem. Then why comment at all.

The comments being made here are NOT about "it's not my problem". It's about finding an opportunity to unload our grievances on whoever happens to be in front of us. Just as do the cycle haters in other tribes.

I'm feeling a bit like the guy that calls out a racist. No racist ever thinks he is a racist.

I thought that this forum was better than most. But at the moment it's looking like every other phobic tribal forum on the internet. I'm outa this thread.

[DavidS]

Colin, I understand where you're coming from.

To me there are 2 problems here, and they aren't really related:

1) like most cyclists, I am sick and tired of the sentences given to those who drive dangerously. Jill Bryant is dead because of the driver's actions. Whether they were on purpose or not matters not one bit to her family and friends. If you accidentally kill someone with no intent they are still dead. The history is of a distinct lack of enforcement. Drivers are licenced for a very good reason, cars can, and regularly do, kill human beings. It is a highly responsible activity to be in control of a motor vehicle and the scant disregard for the impact of not paying attention while driving (texting, tired, drunk etc) not only by those in control of said vehicles, but also by the authorities responsible for setting and enforcing the rules, drives a lot of us to distraction.

2) the prison system is dangerous. I am not a fan of prisons as a remedy for crime but it is the remedy we have and it doesn't look likely to change soon. But, just because someone is being penalised for committing a crime does not mean they should be sent off to a dangerous environment - if we choose to use prisons to deal with crime then they should be safe places offering some possibility of rehabilitation and the chance to return to society with opportunities to live a fulfilling life.

The reason for Robin Irvine's imprisonment is irrelevant to his treatment in gaol, there is just no connection. Also, his treatment does not detract from the fact that there seems relatively little penalty given the impact of the actions of the person imprisoned.

DS

[brokenbus]

The first paragraph may have misled you. Sorry. My point is the gross assumptions made, especially that before BJ Bikers second post. If you were to reverse the cyclist/motorist context then you would be hard pressed to differentiate between both tribes. So much here is just self serving tribal hate. It sounds no different to the unreasoned hate directed against ourselves that we justifiably criticise.

(The same can be said of many of the general smell of this whole thread.)

Not to say that this on eis the worst, but it serves to illustrate:

Given he was refused bail, you would wonder about his previous history.
Hmm. In that case every time a motorist gets off lightly are we to wonder about the cyclists culpability? We get this from our attackers along the line of "The cyclist probably barrelled thorough the red light (and by impliction deserved his fate).

So Colin Man Monis was a good guy and he should of been on bail for being an Accessory to Murder when he went on to carry out 2 murders of his own at the Lindt Café. Sorry Colin I don't have a lot of time for those who continually break the law and end up killing someone and that doesn't just include those killed on a bike. (The point is that you have to be an A grade Ahole to be refused bail and perhaps it is your turn for some bad treatment)
And no need to point out as FindBruce has already indicated that my point may have been misguided in that bail was refused after he was sentenced and I would not have made the point had I realised this.

[BJL]

I don't know the circumstances surrounding his conviction but nine months in prison in exchange for a life is a pretty lean sentence don't you think?

The post would have been better stopped at "I don't know the circumstances". Or simply left out as it does not fit with the rest of the post. Besides, how did redsonics comment turn anything around on us? It was a perfectly legit statement that we should reflect on from time to time.

I wrote that so I'll bite. Regardless of the circumstances, if you kill someone, you need to be punished. The circumstances surrounding the incident may be used to determine the sentence, but justice needs to be done regardless. And I have since searched for and read the initial media reports. As stated by others, he was negligent in driving while fatigued. Doesn't matter what made him fatigued. He should have rested wherever he was instead of getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. Completely irresponsible behaviour.

We should remember when we call for custodial sentences that prison can be life altering

So if we call for a custodial sentence and that person subsequently suffers as a result, it's our fault? That's how this was turned onto us.

He fact he was in jail is his own doing. No one else is to blame for that.

[redsonic]

There is a difference between punishment and vengeance. The role of a civil society is to suppress tit for tat revenge cycles and move the responsibility for punishment to a higher authority (government). This is what stops the kind of historical grievances you see in the Balkans and tribal societies.

I think that the vitriol expressed in this thread is due to the failure time and again of our justice system to properly punish drivers who maim and kill vulnerable road users. This occurs for several reasons, chiefly being that the judge/jury is likely to remember more than one situation where they could easily have hurt/killed someone when they had a micro sleep (etc) behind the wheel. They sympathise with the driver, and can't identify with the cyclist. We cyclists on this forum see this injustice and it triggers our vengeance urges.

I agree with most here that sentences against motorists are a joke and that we need a significant penalty when someone kills with their car. I would however have thought that home detention or a low security prison would be more appropriate than the prison that Robin Irvine found himself in. He was hardly a danger to society as long as he was kept from driving again.

[outnabike]

I do not hate that fellow now injured. But I hate that he obliterated a persons life, due to poor driving.
I can't help but put him into the same league of MMs that buzz me with impunity, and are protected by a moto-centric police force. I hate that they do this to me but not necessarily the individual.
All I see is a mum crying over a son and a family crying over a mum who was killed in a careless act. Nobody wins.

As a forum, for us to accept responsibility for not feeling sorry for him, is the same as accepting responsibility for poor cyclists annoying a or abusing motorists. I mean we will never control an others destiny.

Would it be wrong now to take away our freedom to not care with out animosity? If I don't care about wales beaching is that bad? (not saying that is me).
So to what degree of pain do we have to endure before it will be acceptable to say I don't give a s%#t. If I am lying in bed busted up is that ok, then to say too bad. Or does my child have to be skittled before I am allowed that luxury to say bad luck mate?

I reckon the post here have been understand able and moderate with out beg tiraid's of hatred.

[Top_Bhoy]

Asking for more than a 9 month sentence for someone who kills a person as a direct result of their gross negligence and recklessness is not being vengeful. What happens to the person as a direct consequence of their prison sentence I don't really care nor does it appear do others on here. This is not being vengeful either because not caring is aloofness. Vengeful would be wanting the perpetrator being treated more harshly. Hence, many people posting in this thread are aloof from the prisoners situation rather than vengeful.

[Aushiker]

Here is an opinion piece which criticises the custodial sentence as being too harsh, but also has a lot of information about the circumstances Robin Irvine found himself in during his 9 days in prison.
The Saturday Paper.

That piece is crap, barely mentions the fact that Jill Bryant is dead, not disabled, not injured, no longer exists.

+1 I was very disappointed when I read it. Way below the standards one normally gets from the Saturday Paper.

[fat and old]

There is a difference between punishment and vengeance.

This

Did he deserve prison? Yes

Did he deserve what happened in prison? Wasn't there, so don't know.

Does he deserve people gloating over what happened? No.

If you want vengeance, take it. Don't live out your fantasies vicariously through something like this.

[Top_Bhoy]

There is a difference between punishment and vengeance.

This

Did he deserve prison? Yes

Did he deserve what happened in prison? Wasn't there, so don't know.

Does he deserve people gloating over what happened? No.

If you want vengeance, take it. Don't live out your fantasies vicariously through something like this.

Tread your self-acclaimed path of morality if you wish but I don't see too many gloating over what happened to this guy. The reason for this is that most just don't care. They would rather save their energy for his victim who sadly lost all rights to her opinion the day he made the conscious decision to drive fatigued. In your world, is this the same as seeking vengeance? Not in mine.

[fat and old]

Yeah ok, I must have been wrong. Like those times when posters on this forum have wished a sexual assault on people who end up in gaol, I imagined it all.

[trailgumby]

Wow, the pitchfork brigade is well and truly out...

The bloke appears to have made an error and killed the poor woman, whilst he was fatigued from working.

The error was either getting into the car in the first place, or continuing to drive despite the obvious signs of fatigue. The errors that followed after that were predictable. No different to DUI. And as we have seen, no different in consequences. I'm not sure what it is you are not understanding about that.

That said, in my younger days I have done the same thing, scaring my car full of passengers on two occasions I can remember.

I think the employer needs to bear a share of the responsibility for the fatal outcome that resulted in the the accused being convicted - putting unreasonable pressure on an employee with their shift arrangements. This was a factor in one of my two incidents, driving back to work after 2 hours sleep because I had an arrogant tyrant boss who was a failure as a manager who expected everyone to front at 9am regardless of finish time.

Nevertheless, had I been involved in a similar collision I would have been culpable.

My sympathies go to the victim and their family, and the mother who now has to deal with the consequences.

[uart]

I think the employer needs to bear a share of the responsibility for the fatal outcome that resulted in the the accused being convicted - putting unreasonable pressure on an employee with their shift arrangements.

Yes, the 12 hr shifts are the norm in most of the mines these days. The mine owners like it because two shifts per day, as opposed to three, reduces production loss due shift hand overs. The employees (supposedly) like it because many commute relatively long distances, and having fewer but longer shifts reduces the number of trips to/from work for a given number of working hours.

Personally I've always thought that the combination of a really long working shift and a long commute was a recipe for tragedy on the roads.

[diggler]

We spend billions of dollars housing thousands of inmates. It brutalises people and leads to recidivism. Gaol is the last resort. It should be reserved for violent people or people who abuse other punishments. We have the technology. Home detention should be the default for non violent custodial sentences.

[BJL]

We spend billions of dollars housing thousands of inmates. It brutalises people and leads to recidivism. Gaol is the last resort. It should be reserved for violent people or people who abuse other punishments. We have the technology. Home detention should be the default for non violent custodial sentences.

News headline:

'Man serving 12 months home detention killed in house fire'

[madmacca]

Here is an opinion piece which criticises the custodial sentence as being too harsh, but also has a lot of information about the circumstances Robin Irvine found himself in during his 9 days in prison.
The Saturday Paper.

That piece is crap, barely mentions the fact that Jill Bryant is dead, not disabled, not injured, no longer exists.

+1 I was very disappointed when I read it. Way below the standards one normally gets from the Saturday Paper.

It seems to me the major mistake in all of this was the corrections system assigning a non-violent, remorseful, 1st time offender to a high security prison.

But the author, being a criminal lawyer, barely mentions this, instead going after the judge for shock, horror! giving a custodial sentence for killing someone. A decent editor would have insisted on re-drafting of the article to cover these other issues.

[AUbicycles]

For cycling interest groups and individuals, I hope that it is fair to say that fairer and just penalties are sought which intend to firstly deter and secondly to punish. A casual observation is that the severity of the punishment for cycling related injury / death can appear inconsistent when compared with other crimes with similar fault and outcomes.

In this instance, there is no indication that there is any relationship or connection between the original crime and the bashing. However if readers, particularly cycling advocates feel that the punishment for the crime is insufficient then emotionally it can be hard or impossible to sympathise with the following and unrelated bashing of the perpetrator.

From a cycling individual or cycling group perspective pushing advocacy, part of this is pushing objectives for appropriate penalties and the scope is probably limited to recommendations while the politicians can then define fines (to some extent) and the judges can then interpret and enforce.

[mikesbytes]

What happened to him in prison had nothing to do with the death of the cyclist. He was in prison as punishment for falling outside of the law.

What happened inside the prison was another crime. The 2 are not related .

[RonK]

For cycling interest groups and individuals, I hope that it is fair to say that fairer and just penalties are sought which intend to firstly deter and secondly to punish. A casual observation is that the severity of the punishment for cycling related injury / death can appear inconsistent when compared with other crimes with similar fault and outcomes.

It is worth noting that if you unintentionally killed somebody by almost any other means, you would be charged with manslaughter.

Under Queensland law for example, Section 303 of the Queensland Criminal Code creates the offence of Manslaughter and, quite simply, provides that:

“A person who unlawfully kills another under such circumstances as not to constitute murder is guilty of manslaughter.”

Pursuant to section 310 of the Code, manslaughter is punishable by life imprisonment though this is not a mandatory sentence and there are a range of other penalties which can be applied to the offence.

In most instances a conviction for manslaughter will result in imprisonment but in some limited circumstances a non-custodial sentence might be imposed, or a sentence of imprisonment might be wholly suspended.

However for the charge of Dangerous driving occasioning death, the maximum penalty for the offence of dangerous driving causing death is 10 years imprisonment. If the offence is aggravated the maximum penalty is 14 years goal.

This matter is strictly indictable and can only be dealt with in the District Court before a judge. (An indictable offence is a serious offence which is usually tried before a judge and jury)

Or for the charge of Aggravated dangerous driving causing death

A person is guilty of the offence of aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death if the person commits the offence of dangerous driving occasioning death in circumstances of aggravation. A person convicted of an offence under this subsection is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.

Why should the offence and the penalty for killing somebody with a car be different?

[jules21]

What happened to him in prison had nothing to do with the death of the cyclist. He was in prison as punishment for falling outside of the law.

What happened inside the prison was another crime. The 2 are not related .

^^ this

the lack of care taken by authorities in protecting prisoners from violence is not entirely different from the lack of care shown towards protecting cyclists on our roads, either. we shouldn't celebrate this type of negligence and injustice - in any form.

[jindydiver]

For cycling interest groups and individuals, I hope that it is fair to say that fairer and just penalties are sought which intend to firstly deter and secondly to punish. A casual observation is that the severity of the punishment for cycling related injury / death can appear inconsistent when compared with other crimes with similar fault and outcomes.

It is worth noting that if you unintentionally killed somebody by almost any other means, you would be charged with manslaughter.

Under Queensland law for example, Section 303 of the Queensland Criminal Code creates the offence of Manslaughter and, quite simply, provides that:

“A person who unlawfully kills another under such circumstances as not to constitute murder is guilty of manslaughter.”

Pursuant to section 310 of the Code, manslaughter is punishable by life imprisonment though this is not a mandatory sentence and there are a range of other penalties which can be applied to the offence.

In most instances a conviction for manslaughter will result in imprisonment but in some limited circumstances a non-custodial sentence might be imposed, or a sentence of imprisonment might be wholly suspended.

However for the charge of Dangerous driving occasioning death, the maximum penalty for the offence of dangerous driving causing death is 10 years imprisonment. If the offence is aggravated the maximum penalty is 14 years goal.

This matter is strictly indictable and can only be dealt with in the District Court before a judge. (An indictable offence is a serious offence which is usually tried before a judge and jury)

Or for the charge of Aggravated dangerous driving causing death

A person is guilty of the offence of aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death if the person commits the offence of dangerous driving occasioning death in circumstances of aggravation. A person convicted of an offence under this subsection is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.

Why should the offence and the penalty for killing somebody with a car be different?

Don't know about QLD but in NSW there is no manslaughter in a motor vehicle accident (if there is no intent). This page explains it...
https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publicati ... ghter.html

[find_bruce]

Don't know about QLD but in NSW there is no manslaughter in a motor vehicle accident (if there is no intent). This page explains it...
https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publicati ... ghter.html

Manslaughter is a complex offence, but your comment is wrong & not supported by the benchbook you linked to. First intent is not a requirement of manslaughter - the difference between murder & manslaughter is intent (specifically to cause death or GBH). The reference to the road rules was to one specific type of manslaughter (manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act)

Manslaughter by criminal negligence can be applicable to the operation of a motor vehicle - the conviction & jailing of Ben Smith for manslaughter of cyclist Steve Jarvie is a recent example.

That said juries are notoriously reluctant to convict motorists for manslaughter.