ST PAUL'S CRAY: Five guilty of cyclist Graham Thwaites manslaughter

ST PAUL'S CRAY: Five guilty of cyclist Graham Thwaites manslaughter

Graham Thwaites

Left to right, top to bottom: Andrew Carlisle, William Dennard, Shane Webb, George Webb, David Cook

The Shogun, driven by Andrew Carlisle, knocked Graham Thwaites off his bike.

William Dennard, Shane Webb, George Webb and David Cook were chasing Andrew Carlisle in a Vauxhall Vectra.

First published in News by

FIVE men have been found guilty of manslaughter following the death of a cyclist in St Paul's Cray.

Andrew Carlisle, aged 35, of Horning Close, Mottingham, 24-year-old William Dennard, of Ridgeway, Darenth, and George Webb, aged 26, of Montbretia Close, St Paul's Cray, were found guilty by a jury today (June 16) after a trial at the Old Bailey.

David Cook, aged 24, of Lamberhurst Close, Orpington, and 23-year-old Shane Webb, of Osbourne Road, Dartford, were also found guilty of the manslaughter of 51-year-old Graham Thwaites, of Petersham Drive, St Paul's Cray.

News Shopper: ST PAUL'S CRAY: Five guilty of cyclist Graham Thwaites manslaughter

Left to right, top to bottom: Andrew Carlisle, William Dennard, Shane Webb, George Webb, David Cook

The trial heard how father-of-two Mr Thwaites was knocked off his bicycle by a car in Leesons Hill, St Paul's Cray, on September 18, 2008, following a car chase involving the five defendants.

Carlisle was driving a Shogun while the other four were in a Vauxhall Vectra.

Dennard, Cook and the Webbs were trying to find Carlisle following a dispute over the sale of a Rottweiler puppy.

The court heard both cars were speeding at between 50 and 60mph in Leesons Hill, a two-lane road with a 30mph limit.

Mr Thwaites was in the centre of the road about to turn right into Highfield Road but did not make it across as he was hit by the Shogun.

He died in hospital later that night.

Detective Inspector Mark Cam, from the Met Police's road death investigation unit, said: "Mr Thwaites lost his life because Carlisle, Dennard, Cook and the Webbs were intent on airing their personal grievances out on a public road.

"They all drove dangerously, recklessly, above the speed limit and without any consideration for members of the public.

"This wasn't simply a case of bad driving, it was manslaughter and I am pleased with today's verdict. I hope it goes some small way to providing comfort to Mr Thwaites' family who have acted with great dignity throughout this investigation."

Hazel Thwaites, the widow of Mr Thwaites, said: "This senseless act of driving cost Graham his life, he is missed by all of his family and friends."

The men were all remanded in custody and to be sentenced on July 15.

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:15pm Wed 16 Jun 10

ripnetuk says...

Its sad that someone died, but im confused - how can 5 people be guilty of a manslaughter-by-car?
?? surely there was only one driver?
Its sad that someone died, but im confused - how can 5 people be guilty of a manslaughter-by-car? ?? surely there was only one driver? ripnetuk
  • Score: 0

2:23pm Wed 16 Jun 10

It's Me again ! says...

ripnetuk wrote:
Its sad that someone died, but im confused - how can 5 people be guilty of a manslaughter-by-car? ?? surely there was only one driver?
I think there were 2 cars involved actually
but yes it still doesn't make sense
[quote][p][bold]ripnetuk[/bold] wrote: Its sad that someone died, but im confused - how can 5 people be guilty of a manslaughter-by-car? ?? surely there was only one driver?[/p][/quote]I think there were 2 cars involved actually but yes it still doesn't make sense It's Me again !
  • Score: 0

2:29pm Wed 16 Jun 10

DrDBexley says...

Perhaps no one stopped and so all are guilty by association???
Perhaps no one stopped and so all are guilty by association??? DrDBexley
  • Score: 0

4:18pm Wed 16 Jun 10

Simon Bull says...

We now have more details on this, and as you can see from above the men were in two cars chasing each other down the road. Awful behaviour and it's good to see a manslaughter charge applied in this case.
We now have more details on this, and as you can see from above the men were in two cars chasing each other down the road. Awful behaviour and it's good to see a manslaughter charge applied in this case. Simon Bull
  • Score: 0

9:14am Thu 17 Jun 10

Slonik says...

Yes, as both cars and their occupants were involved in a highly dangerous chase on public roads I assume it was deemed by the courts that they were all guilty of contributing to Mr Carlisle's death. No doubt the actual sentences handed out will reflect the varying degrees of culpability of the individuals involved.
Yes, as both cars and their occupants were involved in a highly dangerous chase on public roads I assume it was deemed by the courts that they were all guilty of contributing to Mr Carlisle's death. No doubt the actual sentences handed out will reflect the varying degrees of culpability of the individuals involved. Slonik
  • Score: 0

10:34am Thu 17 Jun 10

ripnetuk says...

I agree that manslaughter is appropriate for the one driver that hit the poor cyclist, or at most both drivers, so 2 of them can be guilty, but how the f can 5 people all be guilty of manslaughter??? the way a car works is that one person is in control, and the others are passengers. Unless its been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the passengers were actively encouraging the 'race', it seems to be that the other passengers have been unfairly convicted... i guess they were all represented in court, so it seems i am misunderstanding the law...
I agree that manslaughter is appropriate for the one driver that hit the poor cyclist, or at most both drivers, so 2 of them can be guilty, but how the f can 5 people all be guilty of manslaughter??? the way a car works is that one person is in control, and the others are passengers. Unless its been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the passengers were actively encouraging the 'race', it seems to be that the other passengers have been unfairly convicted... i guess they were all represented in court, so it seems i am misunderstanding the law... ripnetuk
  • Score: 0

11:13am Thu 17 Jun 10

jca111 says...

ripnetuk wrote:
I agree that manslaughter is appropriate for the one driver that hit the poor cyclist, or at most both drivers, so 2 of them can be guilty, but how the f can 5 people all be guilty of manslaughter??? the way a car works is that one person is in control, and the others are passengers. Unless its been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the passengers were actively encouraging the 'race', it seems to be that the other passengers have been unfairly convicted... i guess they were all represented in court, so it seems i am misunderstanding the law...
We have covered this before with the Angel Delight case, but read http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Common_purp
ose

Its called Common Purpose, and in a nut-shell, as they were all taking part in the chase, and all did little, if anything to stop it, so they are all guilty of the crime in question.

This law has been around for a very long time, and is a good thing. As it would be very easy to load the blame on one individual, a scapegoat, when really they were all just a guilty in causing the situation that caused the crime, in this case an innocent cyclist being killed. Its not just about the one person who run him down.
[quote][p][bold]ripnetuk[/bold] wrote: I agree that manslaughter is appropriate for the one driver that hit the poor cyclist, or at most both drivers, so 2 of them can be guilty, but how the f can 5 people all be guilty of manslaughter??? the way a car works is that one person is in control, and the others are passengers. Unless its been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the passengers were actively encouraging the 'race', it seems to be that the other passengers have been unfairly convicted... i guess they were all represented in court, so it seems i am misunderstanding the law...[/p][/quote]We have covered this before with the Angel Delight case, but read http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Common_purp ose Its called Common Purpose, and in a nut-shell, as they were all taking part in the chase, and all did little, if anything to stop it, so they are all guilty of the crime in question. This law has been around for a very long time, and is a good thing. As it would be very easy to load the blame on one individual, a scapegoat, when really they were all just a guilty in causing the situation that caused the crime, in this case an innocent cyclist being killed. Its not just about the one person who run him down. jca111
  • Score: 0

11:33am Thu 17 Jun 10

mum2kids says...

Although it won't bring the poor man back, it may have been easier for the family to deal with their grief, if any one of these individuals had come forward sooner or stopped to help the man at the scene instead of running away and leaving a man that was obviously severely injured.


How many lives have been shattered because of their stupidity? I know they didn't set out to kill the man but what were they thinking, driving like maniacs on that road, chasing someone over a dog of all things.


Poor Mr Thwaites' family will never be free and will serve their sentence their whole lives. His children have been robbed of their dad. So sad.
Although it won't bring the poor man back, it may have been easier for the family to deal with their grief, if any one of these individuals had come forward sooner or stopped to help the man at the scene instead of running away and leaving a man that was obviously severely injured. How many lives have been shattered because of their stupidity? I know they didn't set out to kill the man but what were they thinking, driving like maniacs on that road, chasing someone over a dog of all things. Poor Mr Thwaites' family will never be free and will serve their sentence their whole lives. His children have been robbed of their dad. So sad. mum2kids
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Thu 17 Jun 10

ripnetuk says...

@jca111 - thanks for the wiki citation - very interesting :) g
@jca111 - thanks for the wiki citation - very interesting :) g ripnetuk
  • Score: 0

12:25pm Thu 17 Jun 10

MB says...

These idiots should not have been behind the wheel in the first place. Their complete lack of judgement shows that they are not sufficiently in control of their actions to be allowed to do something potentially as dangerous as driving a car.

The proposed lowering of the drink drinve limit is a very welcome step towards getting irresponsible people off our roads before they cause this kind of harm to others. The same princiuple should be applied to reckless driving to prevent more of these tragic accidents.
These idiots should not have been behind the wheel in the first place. Their complete lack of judgement shows that they are not sufficiently in control of their actions to be allowed to do something potentially as dangerous as driving a car. The proposed lowering of the drink drinve limit is a very welcome step towards getting irresponsible people off our roads before they cause this kind of harm to others. The same princiuple should be applied to reckless driving to prevent more of these tragic accidents. MB
  • Score: 0

12:31pm Thu 17 Jun 10

jca111 says...

MB wrote:
These idiots should not have been behind the wheel in the first place. Their complete lack of judgement shows that they are not sufficiently in control of their actions to be allowed to do something potentially as dangerous as driving a car.

The proposed lowering of the drink drinve limit is a very welcome step towards getting irresponsible people off our roads before they cause this kind of harm to others. The same princiuple should be applied to reckless driving to prevent more of these tragic accidents.
I agree! Harsher penalties for people on mobiles, speeding, reckless driving the lot.

Too many people speed thinking they will never have an accident. To many people on mobiles thinking the same. Its always someone else! Wrong - It could be you!
[quote][p][bold]MB[/bold] wrote: These idiots should not have been behind the wheel in the first place. Their complete lack of judgement shows that they are not sufficiently in control of their actions to be allowed to do something potentially as dangerous as driving a car. The proposed lowering of the drink drinve limit is a very welcome step towards getting irresponsible people off our roads before they cause this kind of harm to others. The same princiuple should be applied to reckless driving to prevent more of these tragic accidents.[/p][/quote]I agree! Harsher penalties for people on mobiles, speeding, reckless driving the lot. Too many people speed thinking they will never have an accident. To many people on mobiles thinking the same. Its always someone else! Wrong - It could be you! jca111
  • Score: 0

7:09pm Fri 18 Jun 10

HA HA HA HA HA HA says...

LETS HOPE THEY ALL GET A NICE LONG PRISON TERM!!
LETS HOPE THEY ALL GET A NICE LONG PRISON TERM!! HA HA HA HA HA HA
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree