Cyclist cleared of lock assault

Oxford Mail: The case was heard at Oxford Crown Court The case was heard at Oxford Crown Court

A CYCLIST studying at Oxford University who hit a researcher with a bike lock has been cleared of causing actual bodily harm.

Luke Wilmshurst, of Banbury Road, Oxford, was yesterday found not guilty of the assault and causing criminal damage during a violent argument outside Oxford University’s biochemistry department.

The 41-year-old was a masters student on June 15 last year when he struck Sapan Gandhi over the head with a metal D-lock.

But Mr Wilmshurst told a jury in Oxford Crown Court the blow was accidental, and it cleared him. He was also cleared of intentionally or recklessly breaking a windscreen wiper off Mr Gandhi’s car.

Related links

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:43am Sat 3 May 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

Another cyclist getting away with it. How the hell do you accidentally hit someone with a bike lock????
Another cyclist getting away with it. How the hell do you accidentally hit someone with a bike lock???? HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -5

12:57pm Sat 3 May 14

ElderP says...

Well done HomerSimpsonDoh. Usual Pavlovian response to the word "cyclist".
Mr Wilmshurst's defence was good enough for a jury who heard the whole case, but apparently that's not good enough for you.
Well done HomerSimpsonDoh. Usual Pavlovian response to the word "cyclist". Mr Wilmshurst's defence was good enough for a jury who heard the whole case, but apparently that's not good enough for you. ElderP
  • Score: 8

4:35pm Sat 3 May 14

Isawyoucoming says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Another cyclist getting away with it. How the hell do you accidentally hit someone with a bike lock????
A cyclist here agreeing with you.
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Another cyclist getting away with it. How the hell do you accidentally hit someone with a bike lock????[/p][/quote]A cyclist here agreeing with you. Isawyoucoming
  • Score: 0

8:17pm Sat 3 May 14

Milkbutnosugarplease says...

And how do you innocently break off a windscreen wiper?
And how do you innocently break off a windscreen wiper? Milkbutnosugarplease
  • Score: 4

5:36am Sun 4 May 14

The New Private Eye says...

In answer to the above. "During an altercation Luke Wilmshurst was in the process of deactivating the locking device on his pedal cycle when Mr Gandhi inexplicably headbutted the said locking device on Luke Wilmshurst's pedal cycle. This caused Luke Wilmshurst to reel in a backwards direction towards Mr Gandhi's motor vehicle, and in an attempt to regain his balance, my client Luke Wilmshurst, held onto the said windscreen wiping device, accidentally causing some minor damage. There rests the case for the defence". It is all to simple to lie in court these days, and unless you have CCTV to back up your case the big money defence will always beat the minimum wage Crown Prosecution. Unless you are Max Clifford of course.
In answer to the above. "During an altercation Luke Wilmshurst was in the process of deactivating the locking device on his pedal cycle when Mr Gandhi inexplicably headbutted the said locking device on Luke Wilmshurst's pedal cycle. This caused Luke Wilmshurst to reel in a backwards direction towards Mr Gandhi's motor vehicle, and in an attempt to regain his balance, my client Luke Wilmshurst, held onto the said windscreen wiping device, accidentally causing some minor damage. There rests the case for the defence". It is all to simple to lie in court these days, and unless you have CCTV to back up your case the big money defence will always beat the minimum wage Crown Prosecution. Unless you are Max Clifford of course. The New Private Eye
  • Score: 0

9:43am Sun 4 May 14

GaryOxford says...

I'd read an earlier article on the trial. The cyclist claimed that he was being crowded by the motorist, he had the lock in his hand and whilst trying to remove himself from the area he accidentally struck the motorist with the lock. As I wasn't there I couldn't comment on whether he deliberately struck the motorist or accidentally struck him.
I'd read an earlier article on the trial. The cyclist claimed that he was being crowded by the motorist, he had the lock in his hand and whilst trying to remove himself from the area he accidentally struck the motorist with the lock. As I wasn't there I couldn't comment on whether he deliberately struck the motorist or accidentally struck him. GaryOxford
  • Score: 9

7:27pm Sun 4 May 14

The New Private Eye says...

GaryOxford wrote:
I'd read an earlier article on the trial. The cyclist claimed that he was being crowded by the motorist, he had the lock in his hand and whilst trying to remove himself from the area he accidentally struck the motorist with the lock. As I wasn't there I couldn't comment on whether he deliberately struck the motorist or accidentally struck him.
Gary, had he hit Mr Gandhi anywhere below the belt then we could accept his explanation, but to have the lock at head height suggests aggression, and not self defence or retreat. The criminal damage was not explained either. My profession opens me up to complaints from the public which could lead to the loss of my licence to practice,and over the years I (and my peers) have learnt every trick in the book to cast doubt on any allegation. It is easy to get away with anything as long as you have the right story, put forward in the correct way, as Mr Wilmshurst did here.
[quote][p][bold]GaryOxford[/bold] wrote: I'd read an earlier article on the trial. The cyclist claimed that he was being crowded by the motorist, he had the lock in his hand and whilst trying to remove himself from the area he accidentally struck the motorist with the lock. As I wasn't there I couldn't comment on whether he deliberately struck the motorist or accidentally struck him.[/p][/quote]Gary, had he hit Mr Gandhi anywhere below the belt then we could accept his explanation, but to have the lock at head height suggests aggression, and not self defence or retreat. The criminal damage was not explained either. My profession opens me up to complaints from the public which could lead to the loss of my licence to practice,and over the years I (and my peers) have learnt every trick in the book to cast doubt on any allegation. It is easy to get away with anything as long as you have the right story, put forward in the correct way, as Mr Wilmshurst did here. The New Private Eye
  • Score: -5

8:24pm Sun 4 May 14

grandconjuration says...

The New Private Eye wrote:
GaryOxford wrote:
I'd read an earlier article on the trial. The cyclist claimed that he was being crowded by the motorist, he had the lock in his hand and whilst trying to remove himself from the area he accidentally struck the motorist with the lock. As I wasn't there I couldn't comment on whether he deliberately struck the motorist or accidentally struck him.
Gary, had he hit Mr Gandhi anywhere below the belt then we could accept his explanation, but to have the lock at head height suggests aggression, and not self defence or retreat. The criminal damage was not explained either. My profession opens me up to complaints from the public which could lead to the loss of my licence to practice,and over the years I (and my peers) have learnt every trick in the book to cast doubt on any allegation. It is easy to get away with anything as long as you have the right story, put forward in the correct way, as Mr Wilmshurst did here.
What is your 'profession'? Amateur lawyer, amateur detective, amateur judge or professional generator of wild conjecture?
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GaryOxford[/bold] wrote: I'd read an earlier article on the trial. The cyclist claimed that he was being crowded by the motorist, he had the lock in his hand and whilst trying to remove himself from the area he accidentally struck the motorist with the lock. As I wasn't there I couldn't comment on whether he deliberately struck the motorist or accidentally struck him.[/p][/quote]Gary, had he hit Mr Gandhi anywhere below the belt then we could accept his explanation, but to have the lock at head height suggests aggression, and not self defence or retreat. The criminal damage was not explained either. My profession opens me up to complaints from the public which could lead to the loss of my licence to practice,and over the years I (and my peers) have learnt every trick in the book to cast doubt on any allegation. It is easy to get away with anything as long as you have the right story, put forward in the correct way, as Mr Wilmshurst did here.[/p][/quote]What is your 'profession'? Amateur lawyer, amateur detective, amateur judge or professional generator of wild conjecture? grandconjuration
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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