A JUDGE warned motorists not to drive after taking drugs as he jailed a man who knocked down and killed a 58-year-old grandad.
Carl Bostock, of Stuart Avenue, Hindley, Wigan, was found to have traces of cocaine, cannabis and diazapam in his blood after the accident in St Helens Road, Leigh, which killed widower Peter Riley.
Warehouseman Bostock, 21, admitted regularly spending £400 a month on his cocaine habit. Experts could not say when he had last taken drugs or if they had impaired his driving, but he admitted taking cocaine the day before the tragedy.
Liverpool Crown Court heard that after his arrest Bostock and friends put remarks on his Facebook site which upset Mr Riley's family.
Judge David Aubrey said he disregarded the remarks but said he was concerned "whether in fact you appreciate the enormity of what you have done and its consequences on the whole family".
He jailed Bostock for three years and banned him from driving for four years.
Bostock admitted causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drugs.
The judge told him: “You have caused that family insurmountable grief.
“No term of imprisonment whatever its duration can or will reconcile the bereaved family with their loss or cure their grief.
“Those who use drugs cannot go anywhere near the wheel of a motor car."
He said that the slogan not to drink and drive should also emphasise not to drink and take drugs.
He told Bostock: “Not only were you impaired in consequence of the consumption of drugs, you were driving in excess of the speed limit. Speed can kill as you now readily appreciate.”
Graham Pickavance, prosecuting, said that Mr Riley, an agency worker, was on his way to his nearby home when he was struck by Bostock's Ford Escort.
He said: “He was thrown over the car and landed on the floor and sustained severe injuries. He was taken to Bolton Hospital and pronounced dead through multiple injuries.”
Investigations showed Bostock had been travelling through the built up area at no less than 47 mph when 40 metres before the collision. At the time of impact he had been doing between 33 - 40 mph on the road, which has a 30 mph limit.
Geoffrey Whelan, defending, said Bostock has no previous convictions and is genuinely remorseful.
He said he condemned flippant Facebook comments by his friends and he had not intended to cause hurt or anger to the victim's family.
It was a sign of his immaturity and indicated his resignation to the outcome of court proceedings.
“He has taken away a life and he is responsible for that,” he said.
He was shocked after the crash but stayed at the scene and may not know precisely whether his driving was impaired by cocaine. The cannabis and diazapam would not have contributed, said Mr Whelan.
He did not see Mr Riley and admitted driving at 35 mph when the collision took place.
Bostock, who was made redundant the month after the incident, does not accept he has a drug problem but hopefully this will be addressed while he is in prison, he added.
After the hearing Mr Riley's daughter, Sharon Ashbrook, said that while nothing could bring her dad back the family did not think the sentence reflected what he had done.
She described him as "a great, loving dad, grandad and brother" who was looking forward to retirement'.
“He was just walking to his nearby home after a night out with friends and crossed on the brow of the bridge, as always, so he could watch out for traffic.
His three grandchildren, aged 10, 11 and 14, are particularly devastated.
“They still sometimes cry themselves to sleep,” she said.
“There is a police campaign about drug driving and I intend to get involved with this. It is not well recognised - and it needs to be.” she said.
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
Seeing that his brain has been so contaminated with cocaine, cannabis and diazapam probably the best cure would be a lobotomy. I don't think he would miss something he has probably never used.
As usual I think there has been a misprint, surely it should say 30 years not 3 years, oh I forgot the courts are very leniant on the criminals
Scary thing is that there are plenty of these idiots on our roads every day and the lack of Traffic Police Officers is very concerning.
People driving under the influence be it drink or legal/illicit drugs should be caught and severely punished for their selfish and wreckless behaviour.
Kill yourself by all means but not somebody else!!!
P.S. He's not a drug addict and he doesn't have a drug problem he is what is refered to as a 'Recreational Drug User' - just a bit of fun to unwind or get stoned on ... doubt the family of the victim will see it that way and it's a shame the Government don't start dealing with this sort of thing rather than making it seem acceptable!
Do drugs make your ears stick out ?
Yet another pathectic sentence handed out to a killer by an inept justice system.
this site sucks , you're always talking about bad news.
Driving with drugs in the system is irresponsible but if he was doing 33-40mph why was the pedestrian in the road could it not partly have been his fault? Its not like the driver was doing 60 or 70 mph and came from nowhere. I was knocked down by a van and it was ruled partly to be my fault and partly the drivers when the insurance paid out. That is becuase I was stationary and stood on the white line in the middle of the road. I shouldn't have done that but the driver should have seen me. Surely as long as the driver doesn't mount the pavement then its likely to be partly the pedestrians fault unless they are driving at a ridiculous speed.
Another judical sentence by the arses that run the justice system. 3 years, out in 18 months. This country is a laughing stock...
3 years ?? for killing a decent bloke ?? what a joke. Does this send out the right signal to people that think they can do drugs or take alcohol and then drive. I dont mind if they wrap themselves round a tree that is justice for what they have done. but sadly decent people tend to come worse off. very sad !! and very wrong! make more prisons and lock em up for much longer
Actual maximum term for causing death by careless driving = 14 years
What did he actually get = 3 years
What will he actually serve = less than 18 months!
Yet again the criminal justice system under this liar government fails the public. And his driving ban will be only 4 years which means he will be out of prison conducting his worthless life and terrorising other road users in no time. However, this government will see it as no more than one less pension to fund!, that means more for the government pigs at the trough to sponge through expense claims for porn films!
Labour government = disgusting and criminal apologising socialist pigs.
Passing these joke sentences is not a deterrent at all,he'll get a nice open prison 3 good meals a day,worlout in the gym...then he'll get early release,probably be lucky if he does more than 2 yrs. My heart goes out to the victim and his family who have been totally let down here,as is the norm.
One day lets hope we get a goverment that is serious about sorting out this menace, inbreed in our society.Labour or Tory wont do it thats for sure.
"He was shocked after the crash but stayed at the scene and may not know precisely whether his driving was impaired by cocaine. The cannabis and diazapam would not have contributed, said Mr Whelan."
Defence Geff Whelan
Is this guy off his rocker? The cocaine may not have impaired his driving, in fact it tends to have the effect of sharpening the senses, not dulling and slowing them down. Cannabis wouldn't noticeably dull his senses either, unless he had just had several bongs, but the diazapam??!?!?? Whacked out on Diazy and you would be hard pushed to open a jam jar. Where do they find these people????
Three years jail? Is it fair enough for some1 who killed a granddad?
I completely disagree with this kind of judgment. I think the law need to be more strict to prevent such kind of thing and other sort of crimes.
Should of been given life...especially because of the unsightly resemblence to Wayne Rooney ???
P.S. He's not a drug addict and he doesn't have a drug problem he is what is refered to as a 'Recreational Drug User' - just a bit of fun to unwind or get stoned on ... doubt the family of the victim will see it that way and it's a shame the Government don't start dealing with this sort of thing rather than making it seem acceptable!
Of Denton, Tameside
I don't want to take away from the seriousness of the story but how exactly does this, or any, govt make drug taking seem acceptable? This one just ignored advice on drug policy from one of the top scientists in the field!!
A very sad story, my heart goes out to this man and his family.
It's written rather sensationally however, would a story saying "Man who had a drink the night before kills behind the wheel" run do we think?
The majority of drug drivers are those who are on prescription drugs. I am not condoning the fact this bloke had traces of these substances in his system, but this needs to be made clearer. Poor sentence again...just his speed should have led to a conviction of causing death by dangerous driving, If the drugs had affected his driving, this hould have been in ddition.
And yet the list goes on and on and on. Police have enough problem removing drunken idiots all year from wrecked cars and wrecked lives. Now more frozen monkey brain laddo's here strung out on happy drugs. Why didn't the judge let this wastrel go around this poor family house and urinate on them. Because that is what the effect is.
Blue purgatory.... Brilliant!
funny, I see how you used irony be spelling pathectic sentence the way you did to highlight your pathetic sentence
So he does not have a drug problem as he only spends £400 a month on the stuff. Another smackhead who does not realise the truth. As for prison addressing his drug problem, thats a joke.
cris wrote "this site sucks , you're always talking about bad news"
Unfortunately cris, living in "Great" Britain today it's nothing but doom and gloom...
"P.S. He's not a drug addict and he doesn't have a drug problem he is what is refered to as a 'Recreational Drug User' - just a bit of fun to unwind or get stoned on ... doubt the family of the victim will see it that way and it's a shame the Government don't start dealing with this sort of thing rather than making it seem acceptable! Of Denton, Tameside
I don't want to take away from the seriousness of the story but how exactly does this, or any, govt make drug taking seem acceptable? This one just ignored advice on drug policy from one of the top scientists in the field!!"
This Government has refused to pursue and lock up individuals for dealing and possession. That is how a Government makes drugs acceptable. I should know i've been a victim of their policy. Also when i was growing up we didn't have fluffy phrases like 'recreational drug user' you were a drug user or not a drug user - this is another way that the Government has made drugs acceptable by trying to differentiate addicts and 'recreational users' In my experiance i have no problem with addicts the rubbish i was subjected to came from recreational users.
The Earth is a big planet and if you think that Professor Nutt is anything other than a very small part of that then you are mistaken. Professor Nutt isn't arguing that drugs are harmless he said only recently that they are. What he is saying is that if cigarettes and alcohol are legal then the current list of illicit drugs should be too. He is also saying that people have a right to harm themselves and that of course people will become addicts and drive under the influence but they drive under the influence of drink and so should be able to drug drive and just get punished if they get caught or injure somebody.
The fact that cigarettes and alcohol are legal is the most childish and unprofessional argument i have ever heard!! Should people be able to harm themselves - NO or else why bother treating depression and suicide victims??
'Recreational Drug Users' have 'issues' be it bad parenting, extreme selfishness, hedonism, or they hate themselves, their lives and their job. They are self-destructing regardless of what professor Nutt thinks and they need help, and they certainly don't have the right to endanger other peoples lives!!
All drugs were once legal, they were made illegal because it was accepted that they shortened peoples lives and were destructive to society - i urge caution on re-legalising them.
Scoobysnacks,
Why have you turned the issue into 'fault'?
He was doing 47mph leading up to the collision, his speed immediately before the collision was between 33-40mph- presumably as he attempted to brake. Unfortunately because he was doing 47 mph in this 30 limit, his stopping distance was greatly reduced. The fact remains that if he has been sticking to the speed limit he may have had a chance of stopping in time or hitting the pedestrian at 20-25mph.
There is a lesson here for every speeder as well as every drug driver.
cris wrote "this site sucks , you're always talking about bad news"
Unfortunately cris, living in "Great" Britain today it's nothing but doom and gloom...
NWmancCUB
Only if you're a terrible pessimist and believe every word printed in so called newspapers today.
cris_,
30/11/2009 at 18:11
Welcome to the real world.