South Oxhey hit and run victim, Katy Gilbert, disallowed from court case

12:50pm Thursday 10th January 2013 in News Photograph of the Author By Ben Endley, Senior reporter

Katy Gilbert (right) had her hip shattered in four places Katy Gilbert (right) had her hip shattered in four places

A South Oxhey woman who spent Christmas in a wheelchair after being struck by a teenage driver in a stolen car will not be allowed to see the boy sentenced, a court has ruled.

Katy Gilbert, 27, had her hip shattered in four places and spent two weeks in hospital following the crash at the junction of Sandy Lane and Hayling Road on December 2.

She is likely to be reliant on crutches and a wheelchair for the next six months.

The 16-year-old - who cannot be named for legal reasons - fled the scene but was arrested and pleaded guilty to aggravated vehicle taking, failing to stop after an accident, driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence and driving without insurance.

Katy was at West and Central Hertfordshire Youth Court on Wednesday to view the case but an application for her to be allowed inside the usually closed courtroom was denied by magistrates.

The defendant will be sentenced at a later date.

Comments(15)

MarsLander says...
1:27pm Thu 10 Jan 13

She should be allowed in, to see justice done.

Whatever reason can there be to keep the victim out? The defendant does not deserve protecting, he did the crime.

Report this post »

abbotshornet says...
3:07pm Thu 10 Jan 13

They were kept out because of the defendant's age.

Report this post »

Mohandas says...
3:28pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Far too often the rights, needs and justice for the victim comes last and they are left to live with the trauma. Injustice stalks us all and it leaves a very bitter taste especially if the perpetrators are protected. The system seems to be designed to protect the unruly who learn quickly that they are untouchable at a young age and far too often this continues into adulthood and the bullies infect clubs and workplaces learning to live under different disguises.

Report this post »

MarsLander says...
4:32pm Thu 10 Jan 13

abbotshornet wrote:
They were kept out because of the defendant's age.
which is wrong.

He was old enough to do the crime. I have no sympathy for him.

Report this post »

Katy1985 says...
7:42pm Thu 10 Jan 13

I think it's disgusting. He's adult enough to smash into us and leave me and my friend for dead for all he knew. I had my university course, a job and a plan.
Adult enough to do the crime but play on child protection laws cos he's a "child"

Report this post »

Ethan230 says...
8:34pm Thu 10 Jan 13

This is SICK...He is old enough to break into & steal a car, and nearly kill people yet HE gets protected....The laws of this country are SO SCREWED UP!

Report this post »

MarsLander says...
11:57pm Thu 10 Jan 13

He has no respect for the law, good laws too, not the daft ones we get from time to time.

Why on earth is he being protected?

There is something very wrong when people can get away with this sort of crime by pleading youth. I hope the WO report on his sentencing. Sadly, it is unlikely to fit the crime.

Report this post »

garston tony says...
11:12am Fri 11 Jan 13

If she agrees to not divulge the oiks name etc to others she should be allowed in.

She's the victim not the scroat and this isnt justice no matter how well intentioned.

Report this post »

MarsLander says...
11:38am Fri 11 Jan 13

This crime in my opinion renders the offender a criminal who deserves no protection from the law, even at 16.

He deserves the ire of the law for what he has done. He should be made an example of.

Report this post »

LSC says...
1:14pm Fri 11 Jan 13

While I sympathise and feel it is wrong, I'm far more concerned about the sentence itself rather than who witnesses it.

Report this post »

Roy Stockdill says...
4:39pm Fri 11 Jan 13

I agree with all of the above comments. It is a miscarriage of justice that victims of crime are not allowed to see justice being done. We are seeing too much of secret justice in this country.

If I had any power I would alter the law so that offenders of 16 can be named and shamed, perhaps depending on the nature and seriousness of the crime. 16-year-olds are NOT children! They are perfectly capable of understanding what is right and what is wrong.

It would be interesting to see an alternative comment here from a magistrate, lawyer, probation officer or namby pamby social worker who thinks 16-year-old criminals ought to be protected, but I'm not holding my breath!

Report this post »

TRT says...
5:29pm Fri 11 Jan 13

MarsLander wrote:
He has no respect for the law, good laws too, not the daft ones we get from time to time.

Why on earth is he being protected?

There is something very wrong when people can get away with this sort of crime by pleading youth. I hope the WO report on his sentencing. Sadly, it is unlikely to fit the crime.
How has he got away with the crime? How do you know that what he pleaded other than "guilty"? Please, enlighten us as to the reasons the magistrates rejected the request for the victim to attend the sentencing hearing. I don't know, but I know enough that they usually give well reasoned responses to such things.

Report this post »

MarsLander says...
6:53pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Fair point, he has not got away with it although I doubt he will be sufficiently punished for the damage his criminal stupidity has caused.

If you can do a crime like this then you should be expected to be treated like an adult criminal and feel the full force of the law.

Because he is young and has not been caught or charged before (assuming) he may well be treated more leniently than an adult. If that comes to pass then he has to some extent got away with it.

It was a horrible crime and he has caused a lot of damage to the victims. He deserves a hefty punishment if for no other reason than as an example to others stupid enough to want to follow his example.

Report this post »

LSC says...
8:16pm Fri 11 Jan 13

I think anyone convicted of a crime serious enough to require a court case should be named, but only AFTER conviction, adult or child.
There is a worrying trend of innocent people being publicly accused before trial (like the landlord in that Xmas murder trial) and the totally unfair situation in some rape cases where a man will be named, but even if it is proven the woman made the whole thing up, she isn't.

Report this post »

garston tony says...
9:15am Mon 14 Jan 13

LSC wrote:
I think anyone convicted of a crime serious enough to require a court case should be named, but only AFTER conviction, adult or child. There is a worrying trend of innocent people being publicly accused before trial (like the landlord in that Xmas murder trial) and the totally unfair situation in some rape cases where a man will be named, but even if it is proven the woman made the whole thing up, she isn't.
Agree LSC

Report this post »

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